Ron Paul - Will Americans Support Him?

[feel the light]

"He is not going to make the money out of gold, but you can trade in your dollar if you wish for a fixed amount of gold. The money will still be transacted in paper form, but you can go to a government building and demand that your money be changed into gold. This stops the government from printing money (for if the value of the dollar goes down, people will demand their gold), and adds stability to the currency." - Danni

So we set an exchange rate for the dollar, when we now are trillions in the red, and back this plan with the few billion in gold the gov owns now ? Is it not obvious that the gold will be gone in a few hours ? What would your next move be Danni ? You have cut some expenses from the budget, so what......you still have several trillion dollars in dollars and debt to convert to gold you don't have.

Next plan?

[Borges]

Originally Posted by GILD

It may not limit but it does inhibit.
Especially fast-growing economies.
The central bank will not be able to get additional money supply into a growing economy fast enough if they have to back it with gold first.
It's quicker and more immediate if they can 'just' print it. (Obviously with proper inflation-targets in place, blah-blah-blah)

This is one of the main arguments against the gold standard.
From a (hopefully even faster) developing country's point of view anyway.

You guys own the gold mines, you should be lobbying for this.

If you speed up the economy by printing more money than you have assets (gold or something else) and for some reason that money isn't turned into assets, then you end up with a problem. It adds a risk of instability, and that kills long term investments.

[GILD]

Originally Posted by Borges

You guys own the gold mines, you should be lobbying for this.

If you speed up the economy by printing more money than you have assets (gold or something else) and for some reason that money isn't turned into assets, then you end up with a problem. It adds a risk of instability, and that kills long term investments.

We suspect the mines are just about reaching the end of their lives anyway...

The instability risk is one that can be mitigated with good inflation controls. It doesn't have to kill long term investments.
No risk - no profit.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by feel_the_light

So we set an exchange rate for the dollar, when we now are trillions in the red, and back this plan with the few billion in gold the gov owns now ? Is it not obvious that the gold will be gone in a few hours ? What would your next move be Danni ? You have cut some expenses from the budget, so what......you still have several trillion dollars in dollars and debt to convert to gold you don't have.


Next plan?

Not all of our assets are in cash right now. I'm still not 100% convinced of the gold standard's validity, but this point seems obvious. If everyone tried to turn their assets into cash right now, there would be a problem. "But", you say, "that would never happen!"

Then why would it happen with the gold standard? People like their shiny, but they won't all rush to the bank to sell their car for some chunks of gold the minute we change to the gold standard.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by feel the light

So the gov abolishes the IRS and the Fed. We declare our dollar wealth no longer legal tender. Legal transactions will be expressed in fixed amounts of gold and silver, copper. Only hard currency will be issued.

The paper money wouldn't be declared worthless. You'd just allow competition to the dollar and make gold and silver legal tender again at the free market rate.

1. Our gov just lost it's job of collecting taxes. We can't tax barter. And we just declared our paper currency worthless. Plus we are 5 or 6 trillion dollars in debt. Can we just totally default and say STFU to everyone in the world who is owed money by the USA. ? Maybe, we have lot's of Nuke's, and are good at telling other countries to STFU. Let's say Paul says, "Go for it, we must be free of paper money" !

What happens when a borrower defaults on a loan? Their property is repossed or liquidated. In my opinion, the US should not own any land outside of the 10 mile square of DC. Sell all the property they hold, which I believe is about 1/3 of the land in the US, and repay the debt.

The US does have the power to tax imports, which is the main source of revenue for the fedeal government that the constituion allows. If they do a good job, they can keep this rate low.

2. Where do we get all the metal to make all these coins? We will need the equivalent of half a trillion dollars worth of metal, at least. Who can we buy it from? Our gov has no income, and we just declared that we will no longer print anymore money. Why would the world sell us gold when our money is worthless, we just lost our income, we just defaulted on 6 trillion dollars in debt? I bet the world will say to us, "no way you get any gold or credit from us dudes, cause you a broke crazy guy."

Exchanges of one asset of real value for another of equal and real value.

3 What if Kris wants to sell 1000 KH's in Europe. Does he have the right to demand they pay him in gold ? What does he do when they say no ? What if they still use fiat currency ? If we must continue to except their paper Euro in order to do business, what have we gained dumping the paper dollar ?

KH is from Canada, but let's assume this is a US transaction. He can work out the payment with his customers. He is free to accept euros and then convert them to whatever assets he wants to store his savings in. You are not required to accept their euro, it's up to you on what you want to accept and what you want to store your wealth in. What we gain is a legal system that doesn't force any paper currency on us. Today, if you owe me a dollar, the government forces us to accept the Federal Reserve notes instead of the real thing. A dollar is defined as a specific amount/weight of silver, about 0.72 ounces, but the government is allowing you to use something that is worth much less to pay me back. Greshem's law says that you will pay me with the paper. The gov is impairing the obligation of contracts (a violation of the constitution).

4 The gov's choice will be to back the dollars in circulation now, at some fixed exchange rate to the new gold dollar (metal from where ?), or abandon it. If we say we will exchange 2000 $ in paper dollars, for an oz of gold, we must continue to pay this gold for more then 30 years (as already issued bonds mature). What if we run out of gold ? We are trillions in debt now, and there is perhaps a few hundred billion in gold in the USA now at these prices. What if the world price of gold rises a great deal ?

After selling other liquidable assets, the government can then choose to sell it's gold and silver. You'd take the total gold and silver reserves and divide it by the debt to get how much it can be redeemed for in these bills of credit. This essentially is selling the gold and silver.

5 What if the rest of the world doesn't elect hard coin Paulites ? They think he's crazy and act all Euro socialist on us, and go their own way. What if their fiat money economies continue the same path of exponential growth they have enjoyed for the last decades ? Yet we end up with a 3rd world rate of economic activity shared by other hard currency-barter economies ? Won't that make us their bitch ?

With freedom would come great economic prosperity here. Their fiat money, as long as it's not forced on us by our government at some fixed rate, would not be a danger to us. Their imperialism in which they try to force their fiat currency on us may be a problem, just like what we did to other countries with our US dollar to prop it up.

Transferring from our present paper money system to the gold dollar will pose more then a few problems. I think Paul is taking a page from the great Reagan's play book. Ron was big on the gold based dollar, and projecting a sense of old fashion common money logic. But once in office, he never mentioned it again.

Was Reagan a sound money gold bug? I know it was during his Presidency that Ron Paul headed the committee that pushed a return to gold and silver. The banking interests won then.

The main purpose of using a commodity for the currency is that it can't be manipulated easily by government. It's value is because of what it can be used for, not because of the government forcing it's use on us. As individuals, we can choose what we keep our savings and investments in and we can choose what our contracts are in.

[Borges]

Originally Posted by feel the light

5 What if the rest of the world doesn't elect hard coin Paulites ? They think he's crazy and act all Euro socialist on us, and go their own way. What if their fiat money economies continue the same path of exponential growth they have enjoyed for the last decades ? Yet we end up with a 3rd world rate of economic activity shared by other hard currency-barter economies ? Won't that make us their bitch ?

Not Europe, China. And as it is, they're getting closer with the collar and leash.

[feel the light]

I noted today that my country is 9 trillion $ in debt. Congress voted today to allow the ceiling to be raised to about 10 trillion $. We were only 5.6 trillion in the red when GWB was put in office. Wow! The USA will have 10 trillion $ of debt obligations before any new hope arrives in 2009.

Since there is only 8 trillion dollars in gold, on earth, at it's current price, someone please explain how we could move to the gold dollar now, without defaulting on our treasury bonds ? I'm not trying to convince anyone that it is not a bat shit crazy plan, I am curious if anyone will try to explain how it is even possible.

Please note that if we default on our debt, it is not just the poor old people dependent on social security that will starve. All private pensions will go tits up as well.

Many have expressed the delusion that if the gov must make coin to produce money, this will stop us from going into debt. The delusion is that the gov has been printing dollars all this time to cover the debt. It has not. The actual amount of printed wallet dollars in existence (called M1 by economists) is about a trillion dollars or so.

When the gov deficit spends, it sells a piece of paper with a promise on it that the Federal Reserve of the USA will redeem this note in 20 years for 100,000 USD (not gold). These notes are sold at auction for way less then 100,000 $. The catch is they can't be cashed in for 20 years.

Because the entire world trusts we won't go all wing nut, and abolish the Fed and destroy our credit, these Fed bonds are counted as real money. The economist types can this M2 (the money supply that includes currency and bonded debt). This is a simplified explanation of M2. I hope it serves to explain how Ron Paul could take office with the USA 10 trillion dollars in debt, while there is only 1 ish trillion dollars of printed USD on earth.

To stop congress from deficit spending, we need a constitution amendment to prohibit that practice. They could otherwise go just as far in the red in a hard money system. As long as people buy the bonds, they will sell.

[Spoonthumb]

the fact that anyone would say that september 11 is the us governments fault makes me angry

[feel the light]

He is very good at explaining 911 in the correct way. Focusing on our own anger, as a nation, is common. Bush and Gulliani wish to exploit this for personal political gain, and to shovel trillions to the military industry.

But the reasons Paul says Bin Laden did 911 look wise to me.

If you are content to be a part of the problem of war, focus on your anger. But to be part of the solution of peace, we must focus on the anger of our enemies.

We really can't buy and kill our way out of terrorism. It is very true that US policy has greatly angered many foreigners. Bombing people has a way of doing that. Paul has been brave enough to say we should listen to our enemies and learn from them. He is not excusing Bin Laden's behavior, but rather showing how we can avoid making more people like him.
Bush- Cheny is in fact a front for the war industry. They will not kill Bin Laden if they get the chance because they need him. If he dies, how much trouble it will be for them to find-make another.

[Spoonthumb]

but appeasment wont work either...i wish that there was some middle ground beetween the 2

[TrialsUni]

Not to disrupt the major line of conversation here, or to deviate from that. But, I would vote for Ron Paul. Americans like underdog stories. Face it people, the major two parties, the corporate parties have failed us time and time again. I'd like to see the people try something new.

I think the American people could be easily convinced to let go of the good ole standard corporate parties with their smoke and mirrors and super-funded gimmickry, if only the major media would let the fuck go.

And Paul, though he's running under the rep. ticket isn't one himself is very third party in his views even though he's not a part of a third party. In a sense this is goof for him, because lots of people compaign that the third parties just fuck the vote up.

If America is really all about change as much as campaign slogans suggest, then we should really rethink electoral politics...

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Spoonthumb

but appeasment wont work either...i wish that there was some middle ground beetween the 2

This is one, big, steaming pile of bullshit. Have you even read the 9/11 Report? Do you know anything about our foreign policy?

Here's an excerpt from that (much shorter than the full report) executive summary.

Originally Posted by Page 7

In February 1998, Osama Bin Laden and four others issued a self-styled fatwa [(legal opinion relating to Islamic law)], publicly claiming that it was God's decree that every Muslim should try his utmost to kill any American...because of American "occupation" of Islam's holy places and aggression against Muslims

Are you familiar with America's foreign policy about oil? We regard any action that prevents us from getting oil as a threat to our national health, and we will take military action against that nation. Does that not seem a little wrong to you? That our government, supposedly the champion of freedom, infringes on the sovereignty of other countries because we can't get what we want?

Think about that, and then try to tell me that our government didn't indirectly cause 9/11. With the knowledge that Osama Bin Laden said that it was God's will to strike us down because of our imperialistic foreign policy, I don't know how you can honestly say that you believe that our government had no effect on 9/11.

[GILD]

Does the name Madeleine Albright mean anything to you Spoon?

Imagine another country killing 500 000 american kids and tell me your trigger finger doesn't get just a little bit twitchy.

[idiorythmic]

In my travels last week I noticed there's a lot of support for Ron Paul in Michigan.

Judging by the number of yard signs and billboards Paul is popular in Michigan's rural areas, particularly in the eastern lower peninsula and all through the northern parts of the state.

I don't have statistics, poll results or studies to back me, but from what I've seen he's pretty well-known out in the farm districts. Does anyone else here have any observations to report?

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by feel the light

Since there is only 8 trillion dollars in gold, on earth, at it's current price, someone please explain how we could move to the gold dollar now, without defaulting on our treasury bonds ? I'm not trying to convince anyone that it is not a bat shit crazy plan, I am curious if anyone will try to explain how it is even possible.

You're still failing to see that you do not need the same amount of gold as there are other assets. Gold is a medium of exchange and it may circulate many times to pay off debts. I pay you a dollar to pay a dollar in debt I owe you, you pay someone else that dollar that you owe them, they pay me the dollar they owed me, and round we go until we are all paid off.

Like I said earlier, I think the federal government should sell most of it's land, and probably most of it's other property. It doesn't need to own any land in any of the states. They currently hold 1/3 of the land in the US. Let the States buy it, let organizations buy it (such as environmental groups!), and let citizens buy it. When the government sells something and gets the bills of credit, they use those bills to pay off their debt to the fed, and the dollar bills are then removed from circulation.

Originally Posted by feel the light

Please note that if we default on our debt, it is not just the poor old people dependent on social security that will starve. All private pensions will go tits up as well.

There is no need to default. What is the market value of a dollar? The dollar is like a share of stock in a company, it totals the value of all assets they hold and all expected future revenue (taxes, military plunder).

Originally Posted by feel the light

Many have expressed the delusion that if the gov must make coin to produce money, this will stop us from going into debt. The delusion is that the gov has been printing dollars all this time to cover the debt. It has not. The actual amount of printed wallet dollars in existence (called M1 by economists) is about a trillion dollars or so.

Government only has the power to coin money. They indirectly cause the issuance of more money and this is what is referred to as them printing money. No days, it's just an entry in a database. They have the power to borrow money as well. Lawful money is coins, fixed to standard weights and measures. In other words, they do not have the constitutional power to borrow bills of credit, or give an organization the power to counterfeit.

Originally Posted by feel the light

When the gov deficit spends, it sells a piece of paper with a promise on it that the Federal Reserve of the USA will redeem this note in 20 years for 100,000 USD (not gold). These notes are sold at auction for way less then 100,000 $. The catch is they can't be cashed in for 20 years.

No, the federal reserve will not redeem it, the US Treasury will redeem it, probably by getting another loan.

Originally Posted by feel the light

Because the entire world trusts we won't go all wing nut, and abolish the Fed and destroy our credit, these Fed bonds are counted as real money. The economist types can this M2 (the money supply that includes currency and bonded debt). This is a simplified explanation of M2. I hope it serves to explain how Ron Paul could take office with the USA 10 trillion dollars in debt, while there is only 1 ish trillion dollars of printed USD on earth.

Money Supply figures:

• M0: The total of all physical currency, plus accounts at the central bank that can be exchanged for physical currency.
• M1: M0 - those portions of M0 held as reserves or vault cash + the amount in demand accounts ("checking" or "current" accounts).
• M2: M1 + most savings accounts, money market accounts, and small denomination time deposits (certificates of deposit of under $100,000).
• M3: M2 + all other CDs, deposits of eurodollars and repurchase agreements.

The M3 is the total dollars in circulation. The fed stopped reporting this figure in March 2006. 3rd parties have been calculating it and the money supply is currently about $12 trillion, and the current growth rate is 14%.

Originally Posted by feel the light

To stop congress from deficit spending, we need a constitution amendment to prohibit that practice. They could otherwise go just as far in the red in a hard money system. As long as people buy the bonds, they will sell.

I don't know if the power to borrow is a bad thing, though they have taken it to extremes and have done it in an unconstitutional manor. If there is a sudden need to spend money on something a strict interpretation of the constitution allows, then you need that power to borrow "money". Finding a lender may be a different issue and any interest rate will reflect the risk of the expenditure and may result in rethinking the action. The alternative is to tax the states a large sum, which would probably cause a sudden hardship.