Why is Ron Paul considered a nutjob?

[matt0611]

Its value is what we give it, if it remains a freely traded commodity the amount does matter as that trading gives it a value which people deem it worth. Saying it is worth X when people are willing to pay Y for it leaves it at being just as fiat as the non backed currency that it is looking to replace.

No, you're a bit confused I think.

We use the gold itself as the money. In what unit are you valuing gold? People would walk into a store and trade a certain amount of weight of gold or silver for something they want to buy.

You don't have to declare that gold or silver is worth anything per se.
The prices are set in weight of gold and silver.

 

[Matthiasa]

The dollar value is just used for comparison it makes it easier then saying x.x grams or ounces or whatever. It would also have to be agreed upon internationally. It could potentially lower the cost of US made goods while good for trade, what would other nations pay with? There is still going to have to be a conversion factor to them. Now if the whole world went back to a gold based standard that would be different but it would also do serious harm to industries that actually used gold.
Basically it would require the whole world to go back to gold to be truly successful, and I am not so sure they would agree to that.

 

[matt0611]

The dollar value is just used for comparison it makes it easier then saying x.x grams or ounces or whatever. It would also have to be agreed upon internationally. It could potentially lower the cost of US made goods while good for trade, what would other nations pay with? There is still going to have to be a conversion factor to them. Now if the whole world went back to a gold based standard that would be different but it would also do serious harm to industries that actually used gold.
Basically it would require the whole world to go back to gold to be truly successful.

If we went on a gold standard (and our dollars were equivalent to some weight of gold), there will be a conversion factor for other currencies to USD just as there is now. All foreign currencies would freely float against the USD/gold. There's no problem with this.

 

[Matthiasa]

But all other countries also have a value set for gold which is currently traded on the open markets. Unless the plan was to change that as well?
Also, as the economy expanded the amount needed for items would necessarily have to drop due to the limited supply which effectively causes deflationary trends.
Most countries don't do that well during extended periods of deflation.

 

[Craig234]

Cuz he's not vetted (read bought) by the powers that be or by their media hierlings who tell America what to think. Poles show most agree with the man, getting peoples to vote that way is another show.

No, most disagree with Paul. Most agree with him on SOMETHING, that's how Libertarianism is - almost everyone likes parts and hates parts.

 

[Craig234]

I think he's a weirdo. However when I compare him to say Palin or any of other main GOP candidates he looks pretty good.

I swear we need better candidates.

Then get corporate money out of elections. You won't have them until then.

 

[Craig234]

Almost nobody here can actually defend a position against a gold standard, or even defend a position for fiat currency for that matter...

http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/201...ng-about-the-gold-standard-by-gregory-hilton/

 

[matt0611]

But all other countries also have a value set for gold which is currently traded on the open markets. Unless the plan was to change that as well?
Also, as the economy expanded the amount needed for items would necessarily have to drop due to the limited supply which effectively causes deflationary trends.
Most countries don't do that well during extended periods of deflation.

Right, all other countries currencies would float against USD/gold, since USD==gold, its equivalent.

Say $10= 1 oz gold

Then the euro would float against gold. If one day the price of gold in euros is 20 euros, then the exchange rate would be 2 euro = 1 USD.

And yes, there would be a slight deflationary trend over the long run. Economy can function just fine under it.

 

[Craig234]

Are states too dumb to live in the paths of hurricanes and plan their own disaster agency? Guess federal government is the only level of government capable.

It's efficient to have a federal emergency agency, not only 50 state emergency agencies, many unneeded in any given year, all having to be ready for a lot.

 

[Rainsford]

Right, all other countries currencies would float against USD/gold, since USD==gold, its equivalent.

Say $10= 1 oz gold

Then the euro would float against gold. If one day the price of gold in euros is 20 euros, then the exchange rate would be 2 euro = 1 USD.

And yes, there would be a slight deflationary trend over the long run. Economy can function just fine under it.

"A slight deflationary trend" is more or less why commodity backed currencies ended up being phased out in recent history, and why suggestions of reintroducing such an idea are not met with a lot of support. Deflation will hamper both spending and investment, since simply holding currency makes you "richer". And the problem is that without a centrally managed fiat currency, there's little way to control deflation (or inflation, for that matter). And economic history tends to support the idea that having some levers on an economy makes for a smoother ride.

 

[matt0611]

http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/201...ng-about-the-gold-standard-by-gregory-hilton/

There is not a single coherent or logically consistent thought in that article. I'd have to spend a day quoting and pointing out the vacuous idiocy of each and every claim made in it.

From his page:
"Just Republican, NOT a libertarian, isolationist or protectionist. I miss Bush and Cheney."

Right...

 

[matt0611]

"A slight deflationary trend" is more or less why commodity backed currencies ended up being phased out in recent history, and why suggestions of reintroducing such an idea are not met with a lot of support. Deflation will hamper both spending and investment, since simply holding currency makes you "richer". And the problem is that without a centrally managed fiat currency, there's little way to control deflation (or inflation, for that matter). And economic history tends to support the idea that having some levers on an economy makes for a smoother ride.

"Holding currency", you mean like saving it in bank accounts and thereby increasing investment? Right....

And no, the gold standard was not abandoned because of its long-term deflationary effects. See the 1970s.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

He wants to bring back the Gold Standard. How much more proof do you need?

That's exactly what we need. Unrepresented taxation by the Fed is not.

 

[frostedflakes]

He wants to bring back the Gold Standard. How much more proof do you need?

He may think that's the ideal, but he also knows it probably isn't going to happen, at least not within his lifetime.

My understanding is that he wants competing currencies, i.e. legalize the use of gold and silver as currency for those who would rather use them instead of dollars. Take away the government monopoly on money. If the people and the markets decide that gold and silver sucks and dollars are better, then so be it. But let them decide instead of bureaucrats in Washington.

I thought his $0.10/gallon gas answer in one of the recent debates was pretty clever. Really goes to show how much the US dollar has been devalued over the decades compared to precious metals with a more fixed supply.

I know the gold issue is an easy one to knee-jerk on, because like many others I used to not take Ron Paul seriously because of it. But the more I read about it, the more it started to make a lot of sense to me. So I'd encourage others to approach it with an open mind, because you might also find yourself questioning assumptions you never did before. Just this layperson's $0.02, I'm not an expert or an economist and I'm well aware that Austrian economics is far from mainstream. But it does seem to be gaining some traction, and the social sciences are always changing. Remember that we've only been on a true fiat system for about 40 years, this is still a relatively new and untested idea.

 

[yllus]

My understanding is that he wants competing currencies, i.e. legalize the use of gold and silver as currency for those who would rather use them instead of dollars. Take away the government monopoly on money. If the people and the markets decide that gold and silver sucks and dollars are better, then so be it. But let them decide instead of bureaucrats in Washington.

I don't think that's a good idea. No matter what a currency is backed by, the key to its prolonged use is faith in it. A dozen or two competing currencies in the United States introduces enormous risk and would lead to capital fleeing the country.

It'd also introduce extra costs to businesses of every kind, as they'd all now have to deal and exchange a whole bunch of new currencies, plus keep tabs on which ones are looking too risky as of late to accept. Today, if you do over a million dollars in transactions a month, you probably get a per transaction fee of 3%. I'm thinking that shoots up to at least 9% if competing currencies get introduced within the U.S. (ignoring for a moment that this would be immaterial as the U.S. economy would have collapsed). That'd be fun times for companies as they raise prices to try and eke out a profit again.

The central bank system isn't perfect, but it also hasn't entered into use in every modern country in the world on chance - it's the best system yet proposed. Certainly experts are often wrong, but on this I don't see the flaws in their reasoning.

 

[Modelworks]

If you look at Ron Paul over the years his message has stayed fairly consistent but I think his age is starting to effect his judgment . If you compare his speeches now from 10 years ago you can see a clear difference. Before he had his facts straight and kept on target with his message. Now he often stutters, loses his place and has trouble delivering the message he wants people to hear. I think there is an age when people should gracefully bow out of politics . It is a stressful job and when you start passing 65 it begins to cause problems.

 

[airdata]

because people are idiots and easily influenced by the "party", whichever "party" it is they prescribe to.

Exactly.

Ron Paul is the only guy talking about real issues. He's also got a very long track record of doing the same... talking about things that actually matter and being spot on about issues.

If a guy like Ron Paul had control of the country for the past 20 years, We wouldn't be in this clusterfuck situation we're in.

 

[ShawnD1]

I guess all of our founding fathers were crazy when they decided to use gold and silver for money too.

History fail. The revolutionary war was the result of Britain trying to force the gold and silver standard on the colonies. Up until then, the colonies used "colonial script" paper money.

 

[matt0611]

History fail. The revolutionary war was the result of Britain trying to force the gold and silver standard on the colonies. Up until then, the colonies used "colonial script" paper money.

Which is why they used paper money as our currency, oh wait they didn't, the dollar was DEFINED as a certain amount of weight of silver. Whoops.

The paper "continental" currency that they used during the war failed miserably, which is why they abandoned paper money and used gold and silver instead.

 

[momeNt]

History fail. The revolutionary war was the result of Britain trying to force the gold and silver standard on the colonies. Up until then, the colonies used "colonial script" paper money.

Hmm, so your trying to say they would have been okay with the stamp act of 1765 if only they were able to pay it in their own currency? Yea that's some pretty big fail on your part.

 

[soundforbjt]

I posted this in another thread, but it works here as well.

"What could Ron Paul get done anyhow? Look how much Obama has done lately with just the repubs trying to block him. Imagine just RP and possibly the Tea Party against all the dems & establishment repubs in Congress. They could overide a veto."

 

[-Slacker-]

Dude thinks that uninsured people should be left to die. I'm not an american, but I actually liked him as a presidency candidate before this, even though I strongly disagree with him on a few issues; this, however, was the last straw. The guy is a lunatic. Now the US officially has no half decent candidates for 2012, that would stand even a microscopic chance of winning. Just a couple of circus freaks and troglodytes that happen to get a lot of media coverage. Your country is boned.

 

[ShawnD1]

Hmm, so your trying to say they would have been okay with the stamp act of 1765 if only they were able to pay it in their own currency?

Um yes? At least that's what historians seem to think.

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

The Currency Act of 1764 (4 Geo. III c. 34) extended the 1751 act to all of the British colonies of North America. Unlike the earlier act, this statute did not prohibit the colonies from issuing paper money, but it did forbid them from designating future currency emissions as legal tender for public or private debts. This tight money policy created financial difficulties in the colonies, where gold and silver were in short supply.[2] Benjamin Franklin, a colonial agent in London, lobbied for repeal of the act over the next several years,[3] as did other agents.
The colonial government of the Province of New York insisted that the Currency Act prevented it from providing funds for British troops in compliance with the Quartering Act. As a result, in 1770, Parliament gave permission (10 Geo. Ill c. 35) for New York to issue £120,000 in paper currency for public but not private debts.[4] Parliament extended these concessions to the other colonies in 1773 by amending the Currency Act of 1764 (13 Geo. III c. 57), permitting the colonies to issue paper currency as legal tender for public debts.[2]

Isn't that strange how much of the revolution seems to focus around having control of your own money? Under a gold standard, you don't have control of your own money. This is also why Greece is totally fucked right now. They don't have their own money; they use Euros.

Obviously that's not the only thing that caused a war. It's one more thing to a big pile of things the colonies wanted to control but couldn't.

 

[xj0hnx]

Dude thinks that uninsured people should be left to die

That is a complete, and utter lie.

 

[momeNt]

Um yes? At least that's what historians seem to think.

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


Isn't that strange how much of the revolution seems to focus around having control of your own money? Under a gold standard, you don't have control of your own money. This is also why Greece is totally fucked right now. They don't have their own money; they use Euros.

Obviously that's not the only thing that caused a war. It's one more thing to a big pile of things the colonies wanted to control but couldn't.

I think you're forgetting the fact that the colonies also did not like not having control on what taxes, acts, laws were imposed on them without them having a say in the matter.

No taxation without representation, remember?!

The money was not an issue in the end it was the fact that the colonialism and mercantilism that England put the colonies through was keeping them from advancing. Export raw materials to England, and England turns around and dumps finished goods on the colonies, also England imposed controls on them that they could only export raw materials and not produce anything else. If anything it was a fight to stop letting their economy be dictated by England.


The reason Greece is truly in a "debt crisis" (different than USA debt ceiling fabricated crisis)is because their debt issuance really is an IOU because they do not control their currency, in the case of gold, you can't go out and dig more gold without incurring significant costs, but the committee that controls the Euro can give Greece more Euros, in a government controlled currency such as USD the government can always print more dollars.

It sounds like you are trying to use this as an example as why government controlled currency is a good thing, but giving government that power to many people is a bad thing. It does not encourage fiscal responsibility, and adding a government controlled currency also forces government to learn monetary responsibility, something that a gold money does not require.