Ron Paul??? What the Heck???

[The Annoyed Man]

paul and the paulistas operate at a higher moral plane  unaffected by such petty reallitys

Maybe because we don't mindlessly follow what ever the party tells you is right. Maybe we don't buy into the B.S. that McCain is any better than Hillary or Obama. Maybe we like to stand on what is best for the country and not what is best for the GOP...  

Yep, you're legendary visionaries in your own mirrors...


I'm a Republican. I've been a Republican every since the mid 1970s when I first came to understand what the two parties stood for, and that was only hardened as I grew up through the Reagan years. I suspect that I always will be a Republican on those terms.

That said, I think it's pretty obvious that I don't much like John McCain. He's not my kind of Republican. Far from it, in fact. He and I don't share a common vision, as they say.

But, then again, Ron Paul isn't my kind of Republican, either. Quite far from it, in fact, to the point where, when I read about Mr. Paul and his positions, I'm not quite sure why he thinks he's a Republican.

You seem to think that anyone who doesn't support your candidate is a mindless aparachnik of the mainline Republican party. You seem to think that you, and only you, have the monopoly on what is right and proper, and that if only people would see things through your eyes, everything that is wrong with the nation would somehow magically fix itself.

Congratulations. You've become a mindless follower of Ron Paul, putting your brain in neutral and believing only what your candidate's core handlers tell your candidate to tell you to believe, and you believe it because that's what the big man tells you.

That's not enlightenment. That's downright pitiful laziness. But don't worry, one of Mr. Paul's handlers will tell you that you're not being lazy, you're being a progressive America First supporter of Ron Paul.

And like a good Ron Paul supporter, you'll believe it.

And all will seem right in your world.

Hell, that applies to all parties.

[Eleven Mike]

.

[Mabs2]

Wait a moment.  I'm SURE I typed in www.armedpolititesociety.com into the address bar, yet for some odd reason it seems I've ended up at DemocraticUndergound.com. 

You actually TYPE your addresses in?  And you don't even use ctrl+enter?  Pfft, noob.

[MicroBalrog]

Hell, that applies to all parties.

*stands up and applauds crawdaddyjim*

[Perd Hapley]

It is the view of some people in all parties, about members of the other party.  Which Mike and I have already discussed.  Try and keep up.     

[Dntsycnt]

I have only a high school education when it comes to economics, so perhaps thats why I have been attracted to Ron Paul's economic policies.  When I first really comprehended that the fed basically has freedom to just print money, and exercises it, I was baffled, and Mr. Paul's talk of using solid assets to control that seemed reasonable.

However, I am learning more and more that what SEEMS obvious and SEEMS reasonable is often neither.  I have seen much talk here about how nonsensical Paul's stances are, because even the price of something like gold fluctuates, which makes sense, but I still don't get how complete freedom to print money is a viable alternative.

So are there any links, or preferably books, that explain economics enough that I would be able to see why it is you see him as loony?  I know the basics of economics, such as supply and demand, the invisible hand, interaction between consumers and producers, etc., but I guess I must not have a firm enough comprehension of macroeconomics, or it would be plain to me how idiotic he is.

Basically, what are your reading recommendations?  This is a real life "Paulian" who is not a conspiracy theorist, or a cheeto eating basement-dweller, or a stoner, but just a dude who was presented with someone who made good social and [seemingly] economic sense.  I am willing to admit I'm wrong if shown sufficient evidence.

[Manedwolf]

I have only a high school education when it comes to economics, so perhaps thats why I have been attracted to Ron Paul's economic policies.  When I first really comprehended that the fed basically has freedom to just print money, and exercises it, I was baffled, and Mr. Paul's talk of using solid assets to control that seemed reasonable.

However, I am learning more and more that what SEEMS obvious and SEEMS reasonable is often neither.  I have seen much talk here about how nonsensical Paul's stances are, because even the price of something like gold fluctuates, which makes sense, but I still don't get how complete freedom to print money is a viable alternative.

Think for a second. Where does gold come from? Most gold mined today?

America? Nope. Not since the Gold Rush has that been the case. China. Other principal suppliers are Russia, South Africa, China and Australia.

Here's the 2007 totals:

China:  275 tons (reported, who knows how much really was put away?)
South Africa
Australia
United States: 250 tons
Russia: 150 tons

Why on earth would you back our currency with a metal that we are not the principal supplier of? Especially during the Cold War, that would have been stupid, and it still makes no sense.

So consider that. Ron Paul is so divorced from reality that he's still living in the 19th century. He wants to back our currency with a precious metal that China is the principal supplier of, that has unknown stocks of, and that could flood or withhold from the market at any time to cause fluctuations to suit themselves. And he wants to back our currency with something we don't even control the principal availability of. It'd literally be putting the value of the dollar in China's hands to play with as they saw fit.

That's what you call "delusional", and also "stupid".

Secondly, currency no longer needs to be backed by anything, because that's not what currency is anymore. Currency is not a note to deliver a quantity of a pretty, but only industrial-useful metal.

Currency is a to-the-second constantly fluctuating value assigned to what people are willing to pay for goods and services in a global market.

[MicroBalrog]

You're deliberately misrepresenting Ron Paul's position. He's not for a gold standard in the sense of a government currency made of gold having the monopoly. He's for free banking. While I realize that you consider free banking to be as deranged as the gold standard, there is a considerable (though admittedly minority) amount of economists that would disagree with you.

Even a cursory search of the scholarly periodicals available brings up at guys like:

Kam Hon Chu, "Free Banking and Information Asymmetry" Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Nov., 1999), pp. 748-762

"Entry, Rivalry and Free Banking in Antebellum America" The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 72, No. 4 (Nov., 1990), pp. 682-686

 Andrew J. Economopoulos [actually the guy's name. "Illinois Free Banking Experience" Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May, 1988), pp. 249-264

And of course, the most famous one is " New Evidence on the Free Banking Era" by guys called  Arthur J. Rolnick and Warren E. Weber  in
The American Economic Review, Vol. 73, No. 5 (Dec., 1983), pp. 1080-1091.

Permit me to quote:

"Our preliminary conclusion from this evidence is that it is misleading to characterize the overall free banking experience as a failure of laissez-faire banking."

Now, if anything, free banking would be easier to work today than it was in the 1800's   the information networks of today are nothing like the world of telegraph and paper.

More importantly, 'free banking is not 'completely unregulated banking'. The only situation that features that is anarchy. It is quite possible (Sweden, for one, managed it) to have free banking that's overseen by various governments to prevent wildcatting (which, in itself, was actually pretty rare).

So you might disagree with this policy solution, Manedwolf, but it's not 'OMG INSANE' as you like to pretend.

[LAK]

Ah yes; free banking - getting out from the yoke of the current fascist system and perpetual debt slavery... How awful!

Boy oh boy! That trillion dollar interest payment every couple of years - I still want to know how I can get into some of that action. And the Bank of International Settlements; now that's a cozy monopoly of easy trillions too. Do you have to belong to some special club or business association to get a piece of that? Or is it a free trade thing where anyone can play?

--------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Perd Hapley]

So you might disagree with this policy solution, Manedwolf, but it's not 'OMG INSANE' as you like to pretend.

Don't take away Manedwolf's OMG or his WTF.  It's half his vocabulary.   

[Manedwolf]

Show me a "free banking" system that did not, oh, I don't know...FAIL?

Because they all did. Every. Single. One. In the US, the free banking was horribly unstable, and different banks' notes changed value depending on their credit rating. Plus they were backed by...(gasp) precious metal! Obsession with the gold standard again.

Also, FDIC insurance is one of the only things the government does right. Do you want to put your money in a bank where it can go away if the bank does? Do you not remember what happened with that online "Flooz" thing?

So come on. Point to a "free banking" system that still exists. Go ahead.

[Glock Glockler]

Dntsycnt,

"Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell is outstanding, then again just about everything I've read by him was also great. 

http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-3rd-Ed-Economy/dp/0465002609/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210604402&sr=8-2

Maned,

Just to play devil's advocate, how is this "Currency is a to-the-second constantly fluctuating value assigned to what people are willing to pay for goods and services in a global market" any different from the free market handeling currency just like it handles other things so well?

[K Frame]

"Plus they were backed by...(gasp) precious metal! Obsession with the gold standard again."

It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.

[Manedwolf]

"Plus they were backed by...(gasp) precious metal! Obsession with the gold standard again."

It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.

True. Ostensibly backed by gold would probably be more correct. 'Cause a lot didn't even bother.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ah yes; free banking - getting out from the yoke of the current fascist system and perpetual debt slavery... How awful!

Boy oh boy! That trillion dollar interest payment every couple of years - I still want to know how I can get into some of that action. And the Bank of International Settlements; now that's a cozy monopoly of easy trillions too. Do you have to belong to some special club or business association to get a piece of that? Or is it a free trade thing where anyone can play?

Rampant financial tin-foilery like this seems to be the only thing that underlies the gold-standard free-banking beliefs of the libertarian fringe. 

I have yet to see any sort of sound reasoning why the current banking system should be abandoned in favor of obsolete systems that have already proven unsustainable.

[Manedwolf]

More articles out today that the Paulians intend to disrupt the Republican convention.

Considering that some are indeed truly insane (three "ron paul revolutionaries" are going to federal prison on weapons charges here for supplying the Browns, already convicted felons, with a 50-cal rifle, explosives and other items), I hope the Secret Service is ready for that.

[Gewehr98]

Don't take away Manedwolf's OMG or his WTF.  It's half his vocabulary.   

Yup.  I noticed that, too, and am working to fix/edit it where I can find examples of the latter.   

[WeedWhacker]

"Plus they were backed by...(gasp) precious metal! Obsession with the gold standard again."

It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.

Oh, good. I'm glad that we've moved to a system where NONE of the money issued by ANY bank is backed by anything more than a kiss and a promise, with reserves on deposits are less than 10%, where bank fraud is rampant. (Worldcom, Enron, Bear Stearns, etc. - not having an account at such a bank in no way insulates you from the damage of liars at their helms.)

[Manedwolf]

"Plus they were backed by...(gasp) precious metal! Obsession with the gold standard again."

It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.

Oh, good. I'm glad that we've moved to a system where NONE of the money issued by ANY bank is backed by anything more than a kiss and a promise, with reserves on deposits are less than 10%, where bank fraud is rampant. (Worldcom, Enron, Bear Stearns, etc. - not having an account at such a bank in no way insulates you from the damage of liars at their helms.)

Uh.

Are you not aware of how FDIC insurance works? At all?

[WeedWhacker]

"Plus they were backed by...(gasp) precious metal! Obsession with the gold standard again."

It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.

Oh, good. I'm glad that we've moved to a system where NONE of the money issued by ANY bank is backed by anything more than a kiss and a promise, with reserves on deposits are less than 10%, where bank fraud is rampant. (Worldcom, Enron, Bear Stearns, etc. - not having an account at such a bank in no way insulates you from the damage of liars at their helms.)

Uh.

Are you not aware of how FDIC insurance works? At all?

You've completely missed the point. The paper scrips most Americans consider money is actually nothing more than ink on paper. If you'd given the servants a break and checked out the prices at the supermarket yourself, you'd have noticed that prices on most staples are up significantly, a key factor being that due to rampant fraud in various other markets (housing, stock, etc.), the value of the USD is falling like a rock, driving up prices denoted in USD. Is the FDIC going to fix that for me?

Then there's the overall matter of the USD as a fiat currency being destroyed over time: inflation has destroyed ~97% of the "dollar"'s value since fiat money was introduced as the "dollar". Save $100 in 1913, and now you'd have only three dollars of value left. Thank you, government.


As an aside, here's a comment which I find to be amusing as to how it related to the FDIC, and it being a government program, in conjunction with my maxim that 'the only thing the government does well is screw stuff up':

In response to this posting I got a strongly "indignant" email claiming that I "misrepresented" the FDIC's status, as they are backed by the "Full Faith and Credit" of the United States Government, and "demanding" that I post a "retraction". That such a claim exists (Full Faith and Credit) is true.

What's also true, however, is that the FDIC's "insurance" fund has $50 billion in it, and, incidentally, just one of those banks that got the 23A "exemption" letters has $800 billion in deposits, or more than TEN TIMES the amount of money on hand in the "insurance" fund.

If you believe the "Full Faith and Credit" argument in the face of an ACTUAL crisis then you must also believe that the "Full Faith and Credit" of the US Government will pay the $75 trillion that it is obligated for in Social Security and Medicare over the next 30-40 years. I respectfully suggest that if you believe that The Congress will not repudiate some or ALL of this obligation, should there be a true crisis (when the alternative is to print 1/3rd of the entire Federal Budget all at once in new money) that you need serious psychiatric help.

-edit
zahc pointed out my inability to do math

[Manedwolf]

You've completely missed the point. The paper scrips most Americans consider money is actually nothing more than ink on paper.

Really? Huh.

I can trade that paper for goods and services from people in any number of countries. They know what it is, they respect it, they accept it. It's the same for the Euro and Yen and other world currencies. The value of how much goods and services each currency's units will buy is in constant fluctuation.

What is with this ancient obsession with having it "backed" by a foreign-supplied industrial-use metal with a highly volatile trading history that isn't even the most valuable of such compared to platinum and rhodium?

And if you distrust the FDIC so much, that means you don't have any accounts in an FDIC-insured bank, right? You have it all on, perhaps, Paypal. Right? Right?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Oh, good. I'm glad that we've moved to a system where NONE of the money issued by ANY bank is backed by anything more than a kiss and a promise, with reserves on deposits are less than 10%, where bank fraud is rampant. (Worldcom, Enron, Bear Stearns, etc. - not having an account at such a bank in no way insulates you from the damage of liars at their helms.)

Pssst!  Worldcom was a telephone company, not a bank.  Enron was an energy company, not a bank.  Bear Sterns was an investment house, not a bank.  You might want to correct those blatantly stupid misstatements before anyone else sees them and embarrassment ensues.

Do you honestly think that the gold standard would prevent embezzling, clever accounting tricks, and fraud?  Do you think that such things didn't exist before the Federal Reserve was created?

[WeedWhacker]

Oh, good. I'm glad that we've moved to a system where NONE of the money issued by ANY bank is backed by anything more than a kiss and a promise, with reserves on deposits are less than 10%, where bank fraud is rampant. (Worldcom, Enron, Bear Stearns, etc. - not having an account at such a bank in no way insulates you from the damage of liars at their helms.)

Pssst!  Worldcom was a telephone company, not a bank.  Enron was an energy company, not a bank.  Bear Sterns was an investment house, not a bank.  You might want to correct those blatantly stupid misstatements before anyone else sees them and embarrassment ensues.

Do you honestly think that the gold standard would prevent embezzling, clever accounting tricks, and fraud?  Do you think that such things didn't exist before the Federal Reserve was created?

So, the dip in stocks when WC and Enron went down affected no one, least of which were the ones who actually had their retirement accounts in the stock of the company they worked for? Finances aren't just limited to depositor banks, you know. Fraud is fraud, and the matter of the FDIC being established to prevent fraud in depositor banks does not equate to depositors being immune to all finance fraud.

Fraud will be present as long as there are people, just as with other crimes. However, that should be the role of government, to prevent the use of force or fraud, or failing that, to deter it through the capture and prosecution of assailants and fraudsters. Setting up fancy offices to lock the door, but neglect the big picture window out front doesn't make the problem magically disappear, either.

[WeedWhacker]

You've completely missed the point. The paper scrips most Americans consider money is actually nothing more than ink on paper.

I can trade that paper for goods and services from people in any number of countries. They know what it is, they respect it, they accept it. It's the same for the Euro and Yen and other world currencies. The value of how much goods and services each currency's units will buy is in constant fluctuation.

Correct. However, I find I must repeat myself: notice that, due primarily in reaction to the market conditions in the USA, influenced heavily by fraud in the housing markets, the value of the USD is much, much lower than it has been... EVER?

Manipulation of currency is much harder to accomplish when one's currency is backed by something of value, and history, recent history, has shown that fiat currencies are abused by those in control of the presses.

When someone has been caught repeatedly breaking into apartment buildings, it is not recommended that the complex management hire him to manage the keys to all the locks within the property.

And if you distrust the FDIC so much, that means you don't have any accounts in an FDIC-insured bank, right? You have it all on, perhaps, Paypal. Right? Right?

No more than I'm willing to lose, same as any other resource I entrust to a faceless entity.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You've completely missed the point. The paper scrips most Americans consider money is actually nothing more than ink on paper.

I can trade that paper for goods and services from people in any number of countries. They know what it is, they respect it, they accept it. It's the same for the Euro and Yen and other world currencies. The value of how much goods and services each currency's units will buy is in constant fluctuation.

Correct. However, I find I must repeat myself: notice that, due primarily in reaction to the market conditions in the USA, influenced heavily by fraud in the housing markets, the value of the USD is much, much lower than it has been... EVER?

Manipulation of currency is much harder to accomplish when one's currency is backed by something of value, and history, recent history, has shown that fiat currencies are abused by those in control of the presses.

When someone has been caught repeatedly breaking into apartment buildings, it is not recommended that the complex management hire him to manage the keys to all the locks within the property.

And if you distrust the FDIC so much, that means you don't have any accounts in an FDIC-insured bank, right? You have it all on, perhaps, Paypal. Right? Right?

No more than I'm willing to lose, same as any other resource I entrust to a faceless entity.

Who do you imagine is manipulating our currency?

First you say that it's the market conditions that are influencing our currency, and those market conditions are in turn influenced by housing fraud.

Then you go on to imply that it's somehow the government (those in control of the presses, presumably) who is manipulating our currency.

Then you go on to imply that we've hired the metaphorical to thieves to protect our money supply.  But you said it was the fraudulent mortgage seekers that was causing our currency to lose value.  So are the mortgage seekers the thieves you think the government hired to guard the money supply?

What you're saying really, really doesn't make sense.

I said earlier in the thread that financial tin-foilery are the underpinings of the extreme-fringe-ibertarian views on finance.  I see it all the time, yet like the proverbial fool, I keep expecting a different result every time I engage a Libertarian in discussion on finance.