Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[monkey5]

Lol..When Rome collapsted & was NO MORE .. an ounce of Gold with Ceasers face on it was still an ounce of Gold! Lol..Same ounce with Ceasers face on it now is worth much more now as a rare coin!!! Lol.. monkey5

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

DB are you saying there's not enough gold for a gold standard?

There's enough for some type of fraction reserve, We have roughly $1 in gold for every ~$4500 in GDP backed notes.

Every year, we grow. Our GDP increases as we generate commerce. The money pool can grow at the rate of GDP w/o generating (monetary) inflation. If we have to print more than we grow, monetary inflation may occur. Rather than print fiat money, we sell bonds which become revenue.

dag calls it debt but dag doesn't reflect that we bought a war. If you look at a accounting ledger, loans become revenue until revenue is dis-positioned. If revenue is dis-positioned as investment, we make money. If revenue is dis-positioned as expenditure, we spend it.

What Ron Paul doesn't tell you is the whole investment side of the monetary system. If we remove the vehicle that generates monetary inflation, we lose the vehicle that allows us to gain from investment.

Too many compare the dollar to gold w/o realizing that interest is your friend. You just have to invest and Ron doesn't like that angle. In fact all his planning bets against the solvency of the United States. I want a president capable of managing GDP, not their retirement fund. Shorting collateralize debt obligations almost wrecked our country. Not so sure I want to short the whole show.

 

[ShroomDr]

DB are you saying there's not enough gold for a gold standard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_reserve

It has been estimated that all the gold mined by the end of 2009 totaled 165,000 tonnes.[2] At a price of US$1900/oz., reached in September 2011, one ton of gold has a value of approximately US$60.8 million. The total value of all gold ever mined would exceed US$9.2 trillion at that valuation.

I just googled "World GDP"

$63.12 Trillion US dollars at current prices - 2010

Return to the gold standard would serious fuck every American except the very rich. This is what ive been trying to illustrate the last 250 posts.

Ron Pauls fiscal policy is based of off Patrick Henry, who died in 1799, and whos faction, the Anti-Federalist, LOST.

 

[ShroomDr]

Lol..When Rome collapsted & was NO MORE .. an ounce of Gold with Ceasers face on it was still an ounce of Gold! Lol..Same ounce with Ceasers face on it now is worth much more now as a rare coin!!! Lol.. monkey5

I would love to know your thoughts on what Louis XIV and Nicholas II wealth consolidation bought them?


@Itisme, do you see or ever draw parallels between the US and the fall of Rome?

The fall of Rome being ~1550years ago, and the fall of the French and Russian Monarchs being 197 and 95 years ago respectively...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_reserve



I just googled "World GDP"

$63.12 Trillion US dollars at current prices - 2010

Return to the gold standard would serious fuck every American except the very rich. This is what ive been trying to illustrate the last 250 posts.

total US economy - for perspective


Total Assets of the U.S. Economy $188 Trillion, 13.4xGDP


http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/05/24/total-assets-of-the-us-economy-188-trillion-134xgdp/



It might come as a surprise to some that the national debt pales to other national figures. In 2010, David Broder reported that US private assets totaled $74.3 trillion before the housing bust. Contraction in 2007 and 2009 shrunk net private worth 25%, the equivalent of one year's GDP.

It's not enough to fix our financial problems. Our key asset is the strength of the economy. The wrong move to stem the debt could be the move that strangles GDP.

 

[Avenger]

The question that is most difficult to answer about the transition to a new gold standard is how long it should take. The transition plan envisioned by Mises called for a period of time in which the free market in gold discovered the new parity rate that would produce neither inflation nor deflation.

It is probable that the price of gold established after some oscillations on the American market will be higher than $35 per ounce … maybe somewhere between $36 and $38, perhaps even somewhat higher. Once the market price has attained some stability, the time has come to decree this market rate as the new legal parity of the dollar and to secure its unconditional convertibility at this parity.

Mises did not discuss how long this transition period should last before fixing the new par value for the dollar, but it would have to last as long as it might take to build a political majority. This is almost a truism, because Congress would have to enact legislation to fix the gold weight of the US dollar.

The choice for advocates of a gold-coin monetary system, therefore, is straightforward: either we move ahead with a program for US gold coins denominated by weight, with no face value in terms of dollars — thereby starting the transition period immediately — or we sit on our hands, perhaps for decades, debating the fine points of banking theory, until the paper money system collapses around us. Even then, it is not obvious that the collapse of the paper money system would bring about the political pressure necessary to restore a gold standard. We might end up with controls on wages, prices, credit, and exchange controls instead of a gold-coin standard.

...
http://mises.org/daily/2826
I like to read.

I want a president capable of managing GDP

I love it when you say things like this.

Restoring a gold coinage is also the highest duty we now face, as citizens of this country. We no longer live in a world where the free market is taken for granted. On the contrary, most people assume government must control and guide the economic system for the benefit of all. Ludwig von Mises suffered during most of his career because he understood too well the stakes of this ideological conflict:

"Cynics dispose of the advocacy of the restitution of the gold standard by calling it Utopian. Yet we have only the choice between two Utopias: the Utopia of a market economy, not paralysed by government sabotage, on the one hand, and the Utopia of totalitarian all-round planning on the other hand. The choice of the first alternative implies the decision in favour of the gold standard."

I believe the goal of a market economy, not paralyzed by government sabotage on behalf of vested interests and pressure groups is an ideal worth fighting for. This is why I first ran for Congress, and it is the only reason I believe justifies political action.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Monetary standard doesn't doesn't have anything to do with how much we spend. The legal authority to run deficits is what allows us to spend more than we collect and or generate.

How would a gold standard, even if theoretically possible, manage to regulate spending? It's limited supply.

Corporations are able to borrow money from the banks. Banks are able to borrow money from the fed. If and when we run out of capital to loan, we don't grow. Population grows so we have to grow with it. When the supply of gold coming out of the ground is overwhelmed by the commerce generated around it, gold is no longer the practical standard to back monetary systems. It still has worth and you're free to buy all you can get your hands on.

So if we're already free to buy all the gold we can get our hands on, why the push to make the country go gold standard?

A strengthening dollar depletes the value of gold. Getting rid of GDP based currency means a strong dollar would never push gold down. A strong GDP and a long-term, low-risk portfolio with ZERO gold will run circles around gold fluctuations.

 

[draztik]

China has become the biggest buyer of gold, if a strengthening dollar depletes the value of gold then China must know something we don't wouldn't you say?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

We know it, China just makes all the products that use it. I'm not saying that gold isn't worth having. There's just not enough to back monetary systems unless you consider fractional backing. You'd still need monetary backing for whatever amount of currency isn't backed by gold. So the best we could do is some sort of GDP and gold backing.

Gold isn't manipulation free. One reason many folks have little or no gold in their investments is that gold doesn't increase in value like compounded interest.

 

[draztik]

And they lends us the money to buy these products. From my understanding if gold was monetized it would have to be revalued against the current money supply. Who really knows how many federal reserve notes actually exist. You also have to take into account the dollar reserves held by all foreign nations to engage in trade with each other. So I wouldn't be surprised if gold had to be valued to $100,000/oz. The 1 OZ gold American Eagle has a face value of $50. That $50 will have the buying power of $100,000 if gold was valued at $100,000 an OZ. Now who is going to carry that amount of wealth around in one coin? That's why silver will be used also. Historically the silver to gold ratio has been around 16 to 1 I think in the early 1900's it was something like 20 to 1. 20 ounces of silver equaled an ounce of gold. Now the ratio is something like 50 to 1. So hypothetically speaking with gold at $100,000/OZ silver would be $2000/OZ with the silver American eagles face value of $1.

 

[Avenger]

With out an inflationary monetary policy the only way the government can spend more is by collecting more from the public, up front and in the open. This is how we control the spending of an out of control government. By refusing to give it more and more, and allowing it to print more and more at a whim, or when they run out of whats already printed.

By inflating the money supply you devalue all the money that is already in the market.

We want a sound money supply. Gold is just the historical market choice for money.

I agree, we should be buying all the gold and silver we can.

A strengthening dollar depletes the value of gold.

only if you are valueing it in "dollars"

what happens if you value it in corn, or oil, or any other commodity?

 

[MadBuddhaAbuser]

because they're making outrageous claims about the world we live in. if a bearded man says we get virgins and rivers of honey in paradise if we wage jihad and kill some infidels, then he'd better have some compelling evidence for that. i don't want to kill innocent people, lose my life, and then find out there are no virgins waiting for me. that would really suck.

If I was killing people for some pussy, id want some porn stars, not virgins. But I digress.....

You speak of the beliefs of wahhabism, an extreme sect of islam. Since ron paul is not a wahhabi, your kind of reaching, but I get your point.

we are basing policy, our lives, on these kinds of silly claims.

Rons not, he bases his on personal freedom, he just happens to newer a christian. some of the others most certainly are Basing it on religion and should be avoided.

no. by misquoting, misrepresenting. like you just did with me. you say you understand what's written, but argue, or imply, something else. this is either a tactic or a comprehension issue (re: too stoned), or, in my case, perhaps i'm just not communicating effectively. but if you say it's not deliberate, i believe you. and for my part i'll try and communicate more effectively.

Show me where. DIRECT Quotes are, by definition not misquotes. I don't have to mis represemt anything, you guys dig your own holes.

And as a current casualty of the drug war, I haven't got to enjoy so much as a bowl pack in over a month...maybe you need a couple days off to clear things up.

Moving on.......

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

With out an inflationary monetary policy the only way the government can spend more is by collecting more from the public, up front and in the open.

Here's what's up front and in the open -we have a dollar of gold for every $4350 in GDP dollars

This is how we control the spending of an out of control government. By refusing to give it more and more, and allowing it to print more and more at a whim, or when they run out of whats already printed.

We can also control spending with legislation. The fed doesn't print on whims. The fed prints when nobody lends money to each other. We learned in the 19th century that the United States could only exercise whatever options private banks allowed. When they stopped lending, everything but the top ceased to function.

On January 20, 2001, we projected debt recovery at 11 years. We reversed course, gave back hundreds of billions in surpluss and strangled revenues for an entire decade. We're still under that temporary revision of the tax code and we won;t see recovery until we forget we ever tried supply side.

By inflating the money supply you devalue all the money that is already in the market.

Now that's only part of it, i.e. the sound bite. The other part that renders the soundbite reality is we don't print indiscriminately. We have to back it with corresponding commerce. If the rate of GDP exceeds the rate of new money printed, no devaluation takes place, other than non-monetary related inflation.

We trade oil 40 times before we pump gas in our tank. Gold can be traded 40 times and manipulated the exact same way. Folks don't have to take delivery of commodities to speculate. Gold is no different. In fact, gold is one of the easier commodities to manipulate because of it's value and the relative lack of it.

We want a sound money supply. Gold is just the historical market choice for money.

Key word - historical. The world outgrew the gold supply.

I agree, we should be buying all the gold and silver we can.

Are you speculating that China buys gold for reserves. China uses gold in manufacturing. Last time I checked, they're the world's largest manufacturer. Might suggest the need for raw material.

only if you are valueing it in "dollars"

That's just it. You'd have to wax the GDP dollar to make gold king. Otherwise it waxes and wanes like every other commodity.

what happens if you value it in corn, or oil, or any other commodity?

I guess it depends on how much we allow speculators to make a buck at our expense.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson just coughed another hunk o' chunk to Newt. That'll get him at least through Super Tuesday.

Crazy bastard said he might cough 100 million.

 

[whodare]

Monetary standard doesn't doesn't have anything to do with how much we spend. The legal authority to run deficits is what allows us to spend more than we collect and or generate.

How would a gold standard, even if theoretically possible, manage to regulate spending? It's limited supply.

Yea and when congress wants to run a deficit to fund wars, entitlements etc they would have to ask the people to fund it without the huge artificial(fiat) liquidity injections (inflationary)

Corporations are able to borrow money from the banks. Banks are able to borrow money from the fed. If and when we run out of capital to loan, we don't grow. Population grows so we have to grow with it. When the supply of gold coming out of the ground is overwhelmed by the commerce generated around it, gold is no longer the practical standard to back monetary systems. It still has worth and you're free to buy all you can get your hands on.

That's assuming we use only gold and that something else isn't going to slow or halt our growth before we exhaust all the precious metal we can mine.

So if we're already free to buy all the gold we can get our hands on, why the push to make the country go gold standard?

To end the FEDs monopoly on "legal" Currency creation

And

That classical liberals believe both that government should get out of the money-regulation business and stick to defending the territory of the United States from attack, rather than intervening in the domestic affairs of other nations, often strikes proponents of the “conventional wisdom” as odd. This sort of reaction has greeted Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, which has argued for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and for the gold standard. Most conservatives, of course, deride the former position, while the left (and some on the right) do the same to the latter. What few if any seem to realize is that these two positions have a deep and important historical connection: If you want to make it harder for the U.S. government to act like an imperial power, you need to find ways to reduce the resources available for it to do so. Preventing the state from creating money would eliminate its ability to manipulate the monetary system to raise funds surreptitiously for foreign adventurism.

Furthermore

Thus the need to finance the Vietnam War led to increased government control over money, which led to macroeconomic disorder (much as we saw in the late nineteenth-century banking panics), which in turn led to calls for more government intervention. Aside from the direct problems of financing the warfare state, increased control of money by the state often sets off what Ludwig von Mises called the “interventionist dynamic,” in which one state intervention has negative unintended consequences that create the perceived need for more intervention. The business cycle is one example of this process.

One can tell similar histories about the creation of central banks and other forms of government monetary intervention in other countries across the globe. The need to fund war and empire has been behind the creation of many a central bank. It’s easier to pay for bombs and bullets if you have the equivalent of a printing press at your fingertips.

Because inflation’s costs are normally dispersed, subtle, and longer term, politicians find it a politically more palatable way to raise revenues, especially for unpopular causes. This point is even more important because politicians play up the very short-term benefits of inflation as if they were a panacea for a stalled economy. Persuading the public to accept those ephemeral and small short-term gains without an understanding of the long-term costs is part of the general deception often used to promote empire-building wars.

strengthening dollar depletes the value of gold. Getting rid of GDP based currency means a strong dollar would never push gold down. A strong GDP and a long-term, low-risk portfolio with ZERO gold will run circles around gold fluctuations.

That's assuming people choose to continue to use a fiat currency in the presence of commodity backed alternatives.

The fiat dollar would have a real hard time against a strong gold backed bill.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

.

When you develop practical application, come see me.

 

[dagnabit]

The same guys telling us RP would ruin our country remind us frequently how the president is a powerless figurehead.
Funny how their position changes depending on party...

Again ill ask.

Why is electing Goldman a 6th term better than RP?

 

[itisme]

Right now you want gold to stuff in your mattress. There's just not enough of it. This ain't theory, there's not enough gold.

Did Ron Paul call for bimetallism?

by Tyler Cowen on September 8, 2011 at 2:29 am in Economics, Uncategorized | Permalink

I didn’t watch the debate, but I see talk of Paul and bimetallism on my Twitter feed. Note that bimetallism is better than a pure gold standard, as it is less likely to bring dangerous deflation. Under bimetallism, you fix a gold-silver parity. Eventually the equilibrium price for gold and silver, vis-a-vis each other, will deviate from that parity. People will hoard the legally undervalued money, and the legally overvalued money will circulate as a medium of exchange (“bad money drives out good,” as they used to say). Think of it as randomizing your medium of account: you get whichever medium of account is more inflationary (less deflationary), gold or silver.

Here is Milton Friedman defending bimetallism.

Every now and then some joker comes along and wants to legally fix the price of forty different commodities and use that as money, etc. Think of it as another path to stimulus and maybe quite a credible one!

In economics, bimetallism is a monetary standard in which the value of the monetary unit is defined as equivalent both[1] to a certain quantity of gold and to a certain quantity of silver; such a system establishes a fixed rate of exchange between the two metals.

Which is why he don't want only gold backed money....WHY CAN'T THAT SINK THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL???If you watch that EPIC video Betom187 posts is states that at the peak of the Roman Christian empire they had well over a 1 trillion metallic money, by their fall the money changers had lowered the money in ciruclation to about only 2 million $ of metallic money. It sounds like how we balied the banks out and now they don't lend. Just like what happened and was caused by the FED during the Great Depression.

I am telling you all to watch that 3.5 hour video.

The same guys telling us RP would ruin our country remind us frequently how the president is a powerless figurehead.
Funny how their position changes depending on party...

Again ill ask.

Why is electing Goldman a 6th term better than RP?

Good point and question.

 

[monkey5]

You are correct!!

You are correct!!

And they lends us the money to buy these products. From my understanding if gold was monetized it would have to be revalued against the current money supply. Who really knows how many federal reserve notes actually exist. You also have to take into account the dollar reserves held by all foreign nations to engage in trade with each other. So I wouldn't be surprised if gold had to be valued to $100,000/oz. The 1 OZ gold American Eagle has a face value of $50. That $50 will have the buying power of $100,000 if gold was valued at $100,000 an OZ. Now who is going to carry that amount of wealth around in one coin? That's why silver will be used also. Historically the silver to gold ratio has been around 16 to 1 I think in the early 1900's it was something like 20 to 1. 20 ounces of silver equaled an ounce of gold. Now the ratio is something like 50 to 1. So hypothetically speaking with gold at $100,000/OZ silver would be $2000/OZ with the silver American eagles face value of $1.

~~~You are correct!! The man is 100% right on here! Thank you! They have been manipulating..read holding down the price of both Gold & Silver for decades now! It is about to blast FREE! Lol...monkey5

 

[whodare]

When you develop practical application, come see me.

wheres the obfuscation?

wheres the sophism?

your whole argument rests on a serious misconception and
hypothetical problems...



Dr Paul likes the gold standard but it you look at the bill he has introduced it has nothing to do with the gold standard.

its all about monopoly and the fed controlling all the "legal" currency.

here read up


http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/9014-ron-paul-would-restore-sound-money-by-legalizing-competing-currencies

On September 13, 2011, Ron Paul chaired a hearing before his Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology subcommittee entitled "Road Map to Sound Money: A Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1098 and Restoring the Dollar." This hearing was held in support of H.R. 1098, the "Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011," a bill that Paul had introduced on March 15, 2011.

This bill has three purposes. According to Rep. Paul: "This bill eliminates three of the major obstacles to the circulation of sound money: federal legal tender laws that force acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes; "counterfeiting" laws that serve no purpose other than to ban the creation of private commodity currencies; and tax laws that penalize the use of gold and silver coins as money." For additional background on H.R. 1098, view Ron Paul's 5-minute video explanation of the same bill in the last Congress, "Competing Currencies."

For this hearing Paul had two impressive expert witnesses: (1) Dr. Lawrence M. Parks, Ph.D. (pictured above left), Executive Director, Foundation for the Advancement of Monetary Education; and (2) Dr. Lawrence H. White, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, George Mason University. (You can view a one-hour video of this hearing online.)

If you'd like to know in-depth about the arguments in favor of competing currencies, then you're in for a treat. Click here to read Dr. Parks' full written testimony consisting of a 63-page PDF with 58 graphics. He was only able to scratch the surface of his written testimony during the one hour hearing. In contrast, Dr. White only submitted a three-page PDF statement with no graphics.

Nonetheless, both witnesses provided interesting and compelling testimony during the hearing, so the one hour video is well worth viewing.

To give you an idea of just how urgently we need Congress to pass this competing currencies bill, Dr. Parks said our monetary situation is so bad that the dollar could even collapse during the hearing.

Contact your Representative and Senators and urge them to study, cosponsor, and pass H.R. 1098 to help restore sound money by enabling Americans to use competing currencies.

Without competing currencies the collapse of the Federal Reserve's fiat currency is not a matter of if, but rather when.

ill admit the dollar collapsing during the hearing is a bit sensationalist but the last sentence rings true.









to address the hypothetical problem, particularly gold reserve/gdp ratio and the limit to the amount of gold available...


your splitting hairs(like what i did there )

your focus is only on gold when in reality silver, platinum, copper, nickel, palladium, ivory, diamonds, rice, corn, oil, etc etc could be used to back multiple different currencies under this bill, with technology today it certainly is possible...

We can also control spending with legislation. The fed doesn't print on whims. The fed prints when nobody lends money to each other. We learned in the 19th century that the United States could only exercise whatever options private banks allowed. When they stopped lending, everything but the top ceased to function.

lol yea legislation, after a few years of squabbling, should hold spending back.

does it?

come on DB you cant seriously be telling me that a vicious out of control pit bull(fed gov) can really be trusted to walk it self safely down the street...


there is a reason the founders wanted a republic(rule by law)

and again heres too more arguments against federal monopoly on currency creation.

Aside from the direct problems of financing the warfare state, increased control of money by the state often sets off what Ludwig von Mises called the “interventionist dynamic,” in which one state intervention has negative unintended consequences that create the perceived need for more intervention. The business cycle is one example of this process.

What few if any seem to realize is that these two positions have a deep and important historical connection: If you want to make it harder for the U.S. government to act like an imperial power, you need to find ways to reduce the resources available for it to do so. Preventing the state from creating money would eliminate its ability to manipulate the monetary system to raise funds surreptitiously for foreign adventurism.

And lastly from a very wise man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

Plato, therefore, sees democracy as detrimental and perhaps even outright vigilant against the philosopher. Plato, in his allegory, is making an allusion to the masses of democracy as prisoners who refuse to pursue real knowledge. This is not to say that they are aware of a higher knowledge and refuse to pursue it, but rather because there are "puppet-masters" (in a democracy, the political power structure) that construct perceptions and bind the masses in such a way that the source of true knowledge is obscured. The philosopher (for one reason or another) is suddenly compelled by an outside force to break free from this bondage, and thus becomes a potential medium through which all prisoners can be freed. The tragedy of the story, as one may interpret it, is that the prisoners don't recognize themselves as prisoners and don't want to be freed. Of course, not all are even capable of breaking free from bondage, and Plato recognizes that a true philosopher is rare indeed.