Ron Paul On The Record

[vroom]

[quote]orion wrote:
Why create false dichotomies, we aren’t talking about managing the markets. We are talking about exerting forces on the market… there is a HUGE difference.

Sure this is not the same thing.

Building a market that is transparent as possible and where the rules are enforced is a good thing.

Exerting forces on the market creates a market distortion with stolen money.

Get it?
[/quote]

Such hyperbole. Stolen money? Howabout you take one step at a time before leaping all the way to the fanatical end point?

The issue at hand here, if you recall, is whether exerting forces on the market can have a good impact, as well as having a bad impact.

Let me ask you a question. If, during the great depression, deficit spending had been used to create a system of highways, helping to alleviate public suffering, would it have been a positive exertion?

Alternately, what if governments in the western world had created a tax to support fighting the Nazi’s? Would that have been a command economy or a poor policy decision and an improper market distortion?

You may feel that there are no instances in which a national public effort is appropriate, but then again, many people do. This has nothing to do with creating a socialistic or a fascist state – it has to do with having tools available to achieve goals.

Like it or don’t, but you’ll have to come across a lot more rational if you don’t want to sound bat-shit crazy.

I call a spade a spade.

Solcialised medicine, education and government subsidies whenever you think “force should be excerted”.

Exerting forces is not the same thing as subsidies. As for the other policies you mention, they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand… except perhaps that they are funded by deficits.

You do recall my stance on the government running a deficit don’t you?

So what you are saying is, if you do not understand it it is regurgitated from somwhere sinister and could not possibly be right.

That is obviously idiotic and a strawman.

No at all. I understand you, but you make up ridiculous stances for your opponents and jump all over the spectrum in trying to caste my statements into places that are easy to knock down, which really shows the quality of your thinking on these matters.

Oh, I’m sorry, I hit reply before I saw you say you were going to run off and sulk. That’s a loser tactic too by the way, to throw a barrage then make it a flaw on my behalf if I bother to respond.

Nice.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[center]The Gold Standard: An Austrian Perspective[/center]

Gold versus Discretion: Ron Paul Debates Charles Partee | Ron Paul

I would love to hear a real debate on economics and foreign policy between Paul and any other candidate.

BTW, this was talk was given back in the 80’s.

[vroom]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Okay, this has gone on long enough. You guys drove out all the Ron Paul fanatics. We had a fun thread going too.

Nommy? Nommy come back…
[/quote]

Sorry, but he’s busy flooding YouTube with questions for the upcoming debate.

[Headhunter]

Great thread, gentlemen. I’m learning a lot. Thank you.

[orion]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[center]The Gold Standard: An Austrian Perspective[/center]

Gold versus Discretion: Ron Paul Debates Charles Partee | Ron Paul

I would love to hear a real debate on economics and foreign policy between Paul and any other candidate.

BTW, this was talk was given back in the 80’s.[/quote]

He is obviously regurgitating fringe lunatic financial website nonsense.

Excuse me, he is obviously anticipating fringe lunatic websites and he is obviously wrong because he challenges the status quo and he uses words like money supply.

Central banks tell us they are good for us, why would they lie?

[orion]

[quote]vroom wrote:

Such hyperbole. Stolen money? Howabout you take one step at a time before leaping all the way to the fanatical end point?
[/quote]

Fanatical endpoint? If a farmer dilutes his milk it is a crime.

If central banks dilutes money and suddenly all the peoples money is worth less, that is theft.

If I break into your house and take away 2% of your money or misteriously transfer it to me by other means the end result is the same.

The issue at hand here, if you recall, is whether exerting forces on the market can have a good impact, as well as having a bad impact.

You could argue with me if we could afford a little socialism.

Obviously yes.

That would make the system less efficient but maybe more stable, who knows. YOu could call that “better” if you wantto.

As long as you are aware that you are using other peoples money that you stole with the help of government to build your socialist endevours…

In reality though most people would probably be willing to share.

I think a state ratio of 20-25% would be bearable, even the Nazis could do with 30%.

This is however a moral issue. Once it is established that the state can redistribute money it practically owns you.

Whatever you produce belongs to the government and you only get to keep what the government lets you keep.

In Europe it is never discussed this way, it is allway social responsibility here, social conscience there and of course solidarity,

No, the words are theft and slavery.

Do I get to keep my own hands work or do I get the crumbs my Master throws me?

Do I work for myself and the government is there to protect my property or do I work for the state grand masterplan?

Let me ask you a question. If, during the great depression, deficit spending had been used to create a system of highways, helping to alleviate public suffering, would it have been a positive exertion?

Alternately, what if governments in the western world had created a tax to support fighting the Nazi’s? Would that have been a command economy or a poor policy decision and an improper market distortion?

You may feel that there are no instances in which a national public effort is appropriate, but then again, many people do. This has nothing to do with creating a socialistic or a fascist state – it has to do with having tools available to achieve goals.

Since the great depression was brought on by the exact conditions we are talking about AND prolongued by basically fascist measures I would say that it was an excellent example of how not to do it.

AND the US adopted fascist policies along the way.

That does not make the US a fascist state, but every step in that direction makes it less free, using the money of people which are then brought under a yoke with the helop of their own resources!

[vroom]

[quote]orion wrote:
Fanatical endpoint? If a farmer dilutes his milk it is a crime.

If central banks dilutes money and suddenly all the peoples money is worth less, that is theft.

If I break into your house and take away 2% of your money or misteriously transfer it to me by other means the end result is the same.[/quote]

It is not a crime if a farmer dilutes his milk, it’s called skim milk…

Yes, I know, that isn’t diluting it per se, but the point is important. It’s a crime when there is a misrepresentation about what is being provided.

Again, you ignore the fact that everybody knows about the system and that anybody can buy gold or other tangible assets if they so wish. In fact, many people do just that because of inflation concerns.

Yes, you sound fanatical because you totally discount the fact that everybody is aware of it, it’s a system that was put in place by government action, and that people can take steps to not put their money at risk if they wish.

Real estate is another commonly purchased item that is a tangible asset.

If you could refrain from using such hyperbole you would be taken a lot more seriously than you are… maybe.

[quote]You could argue with me if we could afford a little socialism.

Obviously yes.[/quote]

No, the issue is whether you believe that there are ever appropriate national priorities. Most people do. Most libertarians do.

As long as you are aware that you are using other peoples money that you stole with the help of government to build your socialist endevours…

Fuck buddy, it’s got nothing to do with endeavors that I particularly want. Maybe you could avoid personalizing the issue as it makes it a lot more likely that you’ll provide insult by attaching inappropriate terminology or desires to people.

Have you not stated that you think a national military is an appropriate function of the government?

This is however a moral issue. Once it is established that the state can redistribute money it practically owns you.

Whatever you produce belongs to the government and you only get to keep what the government lets you keep.

In Europe it is never discussed this way, it is allway social responsibility here, social conscience there and of course solidarity,

No, the words are theft and slavery.

Perhaps you missed it when I referred to income tax as percentage slavery?

In any case, whether we serfs like it or not, the monarchy, the country, has always exerted authority over us and our lands. The fact that you don’t like a monetary system has nothing to do with the control that government has over us vassals.

Do I get to keep my own hands work or do I get the crumbs my Master throws me?

Do I work for myself and the government is there to protect my property or do I work for the state grand masterplan?

Who do you think you are arguing with here? The issue at hand is supposed to be the monetary system not particularly the fact that government spends too much and taxes too much. That is a given.

[Jack_Dempsey]

The more I read about old Ron Paul the more I realize how cheerfully oblivious he is to scary modern society. The gold standard is less flexible, less exact and less democratic, but hey – at least it curbs inflation! Unfortunately, inflation, the number one economic concern twenty-five years ago, has largely vanished from the list of the world’s financial concerns.

Inflation is also always popular with debtors because it allows them to repay their debts in cheaper money. And in economically strapped areas, a monetary system based on the gold standard means continued depression, whereas “easy money” would have helped with recovery.

The Fed’s decision to put a higher priority on remaining on the gold standard than on stimulating the economy was the major blunder of the Great Depression.

The countries that had abandoned the gold standard in favor of a floating exchange rate (England, Sweden) or which had never been on the gold standard (China, Spain) were able to increase their money supply and recover much quicker than the US.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
The more I read about old Ron Paul the more I realize how cheerfully oblivious he is to scary modern society. The gold standard is less flexible, less exact and less democractic, but hey – at least it curbs inflation! Unfortunately, inflation, the number one economic concern twenty-five years ago, has largely vanished from the list of the world’s financial concerns.
[/quote]
He does not favor a gold/silver standard, specifically. He merely uses it as an example of a hard commodity that money should be based on instead of the debt-laden currency we are using today. In other words, he is making a generalization and has stated numerous times that it doesn’t matter what commodity is chosen so long as it remains unhampered by central planning and can fluctuate freely in the market. We could use oranges and it would be a better option than a debt-backed currency.

Unfortunately, inflation is the biggest dilemma we are facing as a country–both economically and morally–and it can correctly be attributed to central planning. Please note that the value of the dollar only started slipping since around the 1920’s–about the time that the Fed started messing with interest rates. Oh yeah, the 1929 stock market crash was caused by the Fed too!!

In the last 8 decades the value of the dollar has slipped a whopping 1100%–the majority of that slippage happened after we quit using the a hard commodity backed currency in the 70’s.

Do a some more research on the subject and you’ll understand a little better why it is important to not mess with money. We live in a country that abhors socialism (little do they know) yet has no problem with a government monopoly controlling and inflating the money supply. To say the least, it is absurd.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Jack_Dempsey wrote:
The more I read about old Ron Paul the more I realize how cheerfully oblivious he is to scary modern society. The gold standard is less flexible, less exact and less democractic, but hey – at least it curbs inflation! Unfortunately, inflation, the number one economic concern twenty-five years ago, has largely vanished from the list of the world’s financial concerns.

He does not favor a gold/silver standard, specifically. He merely uses it as an example of a hard commodity that money should be based on instead of the debt-laden currency we are using today. In other words, he is making a generalization and has stated numerous times that it doesn’t matter what commodity is chosen so long as it remains unhampered by central planning and can fluctuate freely in the market. We could use oranges and it would be a better option than a debt-backed currency.

Unfortunately, inflation is the biggest dilemma we are facing as a country–both economically and morally–and it can correctly be attributed to central planning. Please note that the value of the dollar only started slipping since around the 1920’s–about the time that the Fed started messing with interest rates. Oh yeah, the 1929 stock market crash was caused by the Fed too!!

In the last 8 decades the value of the dollar has slipped a whopping 1100%–the majority of that slippage happened after we quit using the a hard commodity backed currency in the 70’s.

Do a some more research on the subject and you’ll understand a little better why it is important to not mess with money. We live in a country that abhors socialism (little do they know) yet has no problem with a government monopoly controlling and inflating the money supply. To say the least, it is absurd.[/quote]

And yet somehow, some way in that same time period we have changed from just another country to the worlds lone superpower with an embarrassment of riches. It is quite the paradox.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Jack_Dempsey wrote:
The more I read about old Ron Paul the more I realize how cheerfully oblivious he is to scary modern society. The gold standard is less flexible, less exact and less democractic, but hey – at least it curbs inflation! Unfortunately, inflation, the number one economic concern twenty-five years ago, has largely vanished from the list of the world’s financial concerns.

He does not favor a gold/silver standard, specifically. He merely uses it as an example of a hard commodity that money should be based on instead of the debt-laden currency we are using today. In other words, he is making a generalization and has stated numerous times that it doesn’t matter what commodity is chosen so long as it remains unhampered by central planning and can fluctuate freely in the market. We could use oranges and it would be a better option than a debt-backed currency.

Unfortunately, inflation is the biggest dilemma we are facing as a country–both economically and morally–and it can correctly be attributed to central planning. Please note that the value of the dollar only started slipping since around the 1920’s–about the time that the Fed started messing with interest rates. Oh yeah, the 1929 stock market crash was caused by the Fed too!!

In the last 8 decades the value of the dollar has slipped a whopping 1100%–the majority of that slippage happened after we quit using a hard commodity backed currency in the 70’s.

Do some more research on the subject and you’ll understand a little better why it is important to not mess with money. We live in a country that abhors socialism (little do they know) yet has no problem with a government monopoly controlling and inflating the money supply. To say the least, it is absurd.[/quote]

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
The more I read about old Ron Paul the more I realize how cheerfully oblivious he is to scary modern society. …[/quote]

Well said!

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
And yet somehow, some way in that same time period we have changed from just another country to the worlds lone superpower with an embarrassment of riches. It is quite the paradox.[/quote]

There is nothing paradoxical about stealing through inflationary spending. We are only “rich” because foreigners still lend money to us–i.e., we don’t even own our property or labor outright–thank you foreign banks for allowing me to get a home loan.

[orion]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

And yet somehow, some way in that same time period we have changed from just another country to the worlds lone superpower with an embarrassment of riches. It is quite the paradox.[/quote]

Why is that a paradox?

Of all the Western nations you embraced socialism the least.

Or were you the last nation to embrace socialism?

Anyway, the dollars position as a leading currency allowed you to get away with things other countries could not but that cannot work forever because the cup runneth over…

Bottom line is, in a world of the blind the one eyed is king.

[vroom]

If you chicken littles are so damned sure the sky is falling I really hope you are buying gold or other tangibles right now…

Otherwise, you are full of bullshit.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[center]Ron Paul on The Korelin Economics Report
Part 1 of 3
[/center]

Part 1 Congressman Ron Paul on The Korelin Economics Report

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]vroom wrote:
If you chicken littles are so damned sure the sky is falling I really hope you are buying gold or other tangibles right now…

Otherwise, you are full of bullshit.[/quote]

Any hard asset is acceptable as long as it has “value”–that, of course, cannot be determined by economic theory. It is completely subjective.

[orion]

[quote]vroom wrote:
If you chicken littles are so damned sure the sky is falling I really hope you are buying gold or other tangibles right now…

Otherwise, you are full of bullshit.[/quote]

Real estate at fixed interest rates.

That way, if my government wants to get rid of its debts via inflation it will get rid of my debt too.

Gold could get tricky because historically governments tend to forbid the private possession of gold if it starts a hyperinflation which does make it very hard to sell it/ or borrow against it as long as such laws are in place.

Granted, that problem is neglible in Austria but in Canada gold could get tricky.