Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   The military rank and file love Ron Paul. The bureaucrats, not so much   (motherjones.com) divider line 537
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5008 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2012 at 3:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



537 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-27 01:17:37 PM  

DozeNutz: WRONG. A quick "GOOGLE" search will help you.


The Treasury Department prints money. You honestly think banks have money printers? Fascinating. I'd really like to see any source that states this is true. 5 will get you 10 that you're confusing distribution of newly printed money (or manipulation of existing money) with actual printing of money. You would have had a way out, were you not a total moron and injected the word 'literally' in there.

DozeNutz: And nice job on dodging the real question.


There was no 'real question'. You just said that you'd refuse to accept reality unless I assume banks have money printers. I'm not going to accept your nonsense, so you can go on ignoring reality.

Bonus hilarity was earned by you ignoring every point made so far and just babbling about how BANKS HAVE MONEY PRINTERS THEREFORE GOLD IS NOT VOLATILE.
 
2012-02-27 01:27:20 PM  

sprawl15: DozeNutz: WRONG. A quick "GOOGLE" search will help you.

The Treasury Department prints money. You honestly think banks have money printers? Fascinating. I'd really like to see any source that states this is true. 5 will get you 10 that you're confusing distribution of newly printed money (or manipulation of existing money) with actual printing of money. You would have had a way out, were you not a total moron and injected the word 'literally' in there.

DozeNutz: And nice job on dodging the real question.

There was no 'real question'. You just said that you'd refuse to accept reality unless I assume banks have money printers. I'm not going to accept your nonsense, so you can go on ignoring reality.

Bonus hilarity was earned by you ignoring every point made so far and just babbling about how BANKS HAVE MONEY PRINTERS THEREFORE GOLD IS NOT VOLATILE.


Wow. Treasury prints money - THAT THE FED TELLS THEM TO. So yeah?

Does the Fed buy treasury bonds be adding zeros? YES.
Does the Fed loan to the member banks, and the banks buy bonds at ~5%, while getting the money from the Fed at Does that mean it will create a bond bubble? YES.
Does that mean fiat currency will implode? YES.
So does that mean debt based money will ultimately fail? YES.
Is having money that can be redeemed for a commodity honest money? YES.
Is having money that is based on faith alone worth anything? NO.
 
2012-02-27 01:32:48 PM  

DozeNutz: Wow. Treasury prints money - THAT THE FED TELLS THEM TO.


Exactly. The banks do not print the money, the treasury prints money. Glad to see you admit you're wrong.

If you want a response to the rest of your post, please translate it to English. Providing bases for your assertions wouldn't hurt either, since through the fog of tard it sounds like you're just vomiting out a wall of NO U. The thread has been civil up until your tantrum.
 
2012-02-27 01:36:21 PM  

DozeNutz: sprawl15: DozeNutz: Ok. I will concede my argument IF you can tell me how a BANK can PRINT MONEY and that equals a good thing... Literally printing money

Banks cannot print money. Literally. You do know this, right?

WRONG. A quick "GOOGLE" search will help you. Might want to open up an economics book also, so you don't look like you are talking out of your ass all the time. And nice job on dodging the real question. You talk about how a gold standard (or commodity backed currency) is backwards or not capable of working, but not able to argue what the current system is using now.

PS - I'd love to hear your love affair with fiat money and how its working so well for us, and the rest of the world right now


Huh, a quick "GOOGLE" search shows me that US currency is printed by the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which is part of the Department of the Treasury, neither of which are banks.

Would you like to try again? Maybe you'll get it right this time.
 
2012-02-27 01:39:37 PM  

Teufelaffe: Huh, a quick "GOOGLE" search shows me that US currency is printed by the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which is part of the Department of the Treasury, neither of which are banks.


The saddest thing is that - like many PAULTARDS - he's pointing out a semi-real problem (the capacity for our currency to be manipulated for less-than-magnanimous reasons), while suggesting something that doesn't actually solve - or even begin to address - the problem. It's the old "if your hand offends you, cut it off" solution.
 
2012-02-27 01:42:19 PM  

DozeNutz: sprawl15: DozeNutz: First off, it wasn't free market that brought about the fiat system.

Yes, it was. The international currency market is unregulated. Competition between currencies already exists: the Euro competes with the Dollar competes with the Yuan, etc. That has remained true. You're looking intranationally instead of internationally.

DozeNutz: Also gold standard is still holding its own, just look at the gold prices.

The latter is in no way a justification for the former. Prices of vintage guitars keep going up, that doesn't mean they're a solid basis for an economy.

Ok. I will concede my argument IF you can tell me how a BANK can PRINT MONEY and that equals a good thing... Literally printing money, and then charging people for it. HOW IS IT SUSTAINABLE?


Sustainability notwithstanding, a banks ability to issue bills of exchange has facilitated nearly all commerce worldwide for nigh on two centuries now.

Let us suppose that there is exactly 1000 dollars worth of "money" out there. I'm a business that has, each month, command of 10% of that or 100 dollars of all money in this mythical economy. In conducting my business I require 10 dollars of goods a month, 5 dollars worth of labor to use solely in the maintenance of the equipment and land necessary to conduct my business and 30 dollars worth of labor to use in manufacturing the goods sold by my business. That's 45 bucks per month I don't have access to. It's spoken for, every month.

This gives me an operating budget of 65 dollars/month.

Now, I go to a bank that issues bills of exchange. I take a loan out with my entire 100 dollars/month as collateral. It demonstrates the scale of my operation and, in combination with my monthly obligations, demonstrates my ability to pay a loan back regularly and with interest. I get all 45 of those dollars to spend each month, at the cost of the regular legal rates of interest, say... 5%. Now, instead of only having 65 bucks a month to grow and expand my business, I have the full 100... less the 5% interest on the 45 dollars I am borrowing. Something like $2.50.

That's pretty cool, right? I just magically increased by operating budget by 50% without increasing or decreasing the actually supply of money in the economy! Same amount of money is out there, I just get the chance to put all of it to use without having to worry about keeping cash-on-hand to pay recurring obligations.

Problems arise when banks redraw against one another's bills of exchange, see: Credit Default Swaps. You can only leverage to the labor-value of money present in an economy. Leveraging past this upper limit is what creates unsustainability. Up until that point you're just making the most out of your society's collective wealth.
 
2012-02-27 01:44:42 PM  

idiotwithabeer: I think you may have mis-quoted the Colbert episode, if it's the one I'm thinking of (good episode btw).


Nope.

Link (new window)

Ron Paul makes the argument that the gold standard is better because it would maintain tremendous value even if it was lost at see forever. In other words, Ron Paul is making the argument that the gold standard is better because it could arbitrarily cripple the economy.

i.e., let's suppose that half our gold supply is put on a boat and sinks in the middle of the ocean. That cripples our economy, because there's not enough gold to go around. People who had loans to pay off no longer have the currency to pay them, even though they are contributing just as much to the economy as the did before. i.e., in the past, a person pays off his mortgage by working 80 hours per week at the factory. But now the gold supply has been cut in half, so his 80 hours will no longer pay his mortgage. It also means that employers don't have enough money to pay off their employees.

OTOH, suppose that someone manages to unearth all that gold 100 years later. Now you have the opposite problem, instant inflation. If you're a lender, you're basically screwed. Because you lent money out when gold was valuable, and you're now being paid back when gold is worthless.

Okay, but maybe that scenario is a bit implausible. What if instead of losing that money at sea, you just have 50% of the gold supply getting hoarded? In fact, pretty much all the arguments in favor of the gold standard are to encourage hoarding. Since gold goes up in value along with population and GDP with no work required, it means all you have to do is sit and wait, and you'll get rich. In economic terms, money being hoarded would essentially be the same thing as money being lost at sea. Prices are determined by supply and demand, not by some abstract notion of the total money supply. If money is being hoarded, then demand goes down, which means that prices go down. Thus crippling the economy.

Ron Paul thinks that this is a good thing.

IIRC the point was that if the other fellow had to choose between putting paper money or gold in a bank box for an extended period of time, which would he do?

Once again, you're missing the entire point of what money actually is. Money is a medium of exchange. It is not a medium for hoarding. These are completely antithetical goals. The fact that money loses value if you don't spend, save, or invest it right away is a feature, not a bug.

You're basically arguing that gold is superior as money because it achieves something that money isn't supposed to do.

It would be like arguing that firefighters should be using gasoline instead of water, because gasoline is better if you want the fire to get bigger. This is technically true, but again, completely missing the point.

If one considers the idea that the selling price of gold remains somewhat static to the cost of many other goods and services, then the coin would "lose" no purchasing power.

You're saying that in a Ron Paul society, a person who held onto a coin for 50 years would have more purchasing power than someone who held onto a coin in the status quo. Question: Where exactly did this additional purchasing power come from?

You're basically making an argument of something for nothing. Which of course is impossible, but it's a very popular notion among the easily scammed. The only way you can maintain purchasing power of old currency is to take purchasing power away from the people who actually worked. Which, you know, is what has happened historically. Rich people hoarded all the gold for themselves, where the workers were paid in worthless company scrip for the company store.

Back in the year 2000, had my investments been in metals instead of 401k, I'd be ~way~ better off. heh

If I were an early investor in Amway, I'd be super rich. That doesn't mean that Amway isn't a scam.

The promise of the gold standard is "something for nothing." It's persuasive because it works for a few people. It's a scam because it only works at the expense of future suckers. Gold didn't increase in value because Gold created purchasing power from nothing for the people willing to invest. Gold increased in value because more and more people are hoping to get rich off it it.
 
2012-02-27 01:47:24 PM  

sprawl15: DozeNutz: Wow. Treasury prints money - THAT THE FED TELLS THEM TO.

Exactly. The banks do not print the money, the treasury prints money. Glad to see you admit you're wrong.

If you want a response to the rest of your post, please translate it to English. Providing bases for your assertions wouldn't hurt either, since through the fog of tard it sounds like you're just vomiting out a wall of NO U. The thread has been civil up until your tantrum.


Ok. Tell me which scenario is honest.


I buy an apple from you with paper that says 1 dollar. The next day, I buy an apple from you with paper that says redeemable for .1 ounce of gold.

The place where you got the dollar is a bank who CREATES money (not printing, because its technically not the bank that prints it hehehe haraharhar TROLLFACE) So therefore there are more dollars floating around because it keeps being created. The market reflects this, with gold prices going up. (flooding the market with dollars)

So now it costs me $2 to buy your apple. It takes me 2 paper dollars to buy 1 apple. Since the price of gold has gone up, an apple STILL only costs me a piece of paper redeemable for .1 ounce of gold.

OMG its not a story problem its REAL LIFE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!
 
2012-02-27 01:52:33 PM  

vygramul: snuffy: i guess that folks here that do not think we have lost our personal liberty have not lived long enough to know what they missed.

You think Ron Paul will fix that? His notion of "liberty" is that yours should only be protected from the federal government and from foreign governments. He does NOT believe they should be protected from state governments or from other people. At least, the federal government shouldn't protect your rights from other people.

That's not freedom. That's trading one tyranny for 50 petty tyrannies, with the effect of trading a host of pretty solid freedoms for a bunch of less protected freedoms. Privacy, Ron Paul observes, is NOT in the constitution.


Exactly.

No matter where you congregate the power, you will pretty much always end up with tyranny. (Human nature being what it is.)

However, it's a lot easier to change laws and such at the state level, as opposed to the federal level. You'll notice that several states now have legalized gay marriage. Has the federal government? No. It will take a lot longer to get it approved at that level.

The greater the power, the harder it is to effect change. The smaller the power, the easier it is.
 
2012-02-27 01:54:07 PM  

idiotwithabeer: I frankly don't know if the competing currencies idea is good or bad. There seems to be some merits to either side of the debate, but I think the big holdup would be retailers having more cash drawers/registers to bother with it.. meaning that they probably wouldn't unless the competing currency came into big demand. If that did happen, I see no fault in it.. and if it didn't, who would care?


The problem with the competing currency proposal is that there's no proposal.

Deftoons posted a 50 page PDF a while back explaining Ron Paul's competing currency act. It was basically 49 pages of "Hyperinflation is bad, just look at Weimar Germany!" and then one page of "and that's why we need to end the capital gains tax on metals." And that was it. Scare tactic followed by non-sequitur.

The funny thing is that if you did a control-f for the phrase "compet", you would only find something like 14 uses of the phrase in the entire PDF, all of them in reference to the title of the bill. In other words, a bill proposing competing currencies in the title never actually explains what competing currencies are, how competing currencies would work, or how we are supposed to get there.

It's theater. There are no merits to the proposal, because the proposal doesn't exist. Paultards will rail constantly about how Ron Paul proposes competing currency, but I can't get anyone to explain what that actually means in real world terms, or what the experience is like for the average user.
 
2012-02-27 02:03:06 PM  

cuzsis: vygramul: snuffy: i guess that folks here that do not think we have lost our personal liberty have not lived long enough to know what they missed.

You think Ron Paul will fix that? His notion of "liberty" is that yours should only be protected from the federal government and from foreign governments. He does NOT believe they should be protected from state governments or from other people. At least, the federal government shouldn't protect your rights from other people.

That's not freedom. That's trading one tyranny for 50 petty tyrannies, with the effect of trading a host of pretty solid freedoms for a bunch of less protected freedoms. Privacy, Ron Paul observes, is NOT in the constitution.

Exactly.

No matter where you congregate the power, you will pretty much always end up with tyranny. (Human nature being what it is.)

However, it's a lot easier to change laws and such at the state level, as opposed to the federal level. You'll notice that several states now have legalized gay marriage. Has the federal government? No. It will take a lot longer to get it approved at that level.

The greater the power, the harder it is to effect change. The smaller the power, the easier it is.


You're missing one important thing: how long will it take for EVERYONE to get those rights? With 50 states, you can almost count on some people being denied their rights for a very, very long time. It may be harder to change at the federal level for one person, but it's easier at the federal level to change it for all people.
 
2012-02-27 02:04:13 PM  
So the old skool of Military Toughness is in love with some old skool right-winger and gives him a bunch of money.

This is shocking.
 
2012-02-27 02:07:15 PM  

iawai: vygramul: Right. Because being in debt at about your GDP is bankrupt the same way a guy who makes $300,000 and has a $300,000 mortgage is bankrupt.

Not at all.

It would be like the owner of a company who personally makes $20,000 per year, when the company does $600,000 in sales having a $600,000 personal mortgage.

The govt does not list the GDP as "income", but only Tax revenues, which were about 1/30th of the GPD in 2011.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.


Gdp is "income" of the country as a whole. The government revenue is just what you've budgeted for the mortgage. So, no. It really IS right to compare it to GDP.
 
2012-02-27 02:11:27 PM  

cuzsis: The greater the power, the harder it is to effect change. The smaller the power, the easier it is. If you're a spoiled white male.


Fixed that for you.

Spoiled white males believe in states rights because they are used to getting their way. They hate the idea of Federal Government, because Federal government makes them feel insignificant.

OTOH, minorities tend to hate the idea of states rights, because they recognize states rights as the tools of oppression by spoiled white males.

So if you're a spoiled white male who hates black people and gays, then you're going to love the idea of states rights, because states rights gives you the ability to stop human rights. And you will hate Federal government, because Federal government will stop you from using the state to stop human rights.

For instance, the governor of Michigan has basically made it so that people in black neighborhoods have pretty much no say in local government. Do a search on this on the Ron Paul forums, and Ron Paul supporters generally support this move. Because when they talk about people being able to affect local government, they're only referring to spoiled white male voters. Poor black voters apparently don't count.
 
2012-02-27 02:12:35 PM  

cuzsis: vygramul: snuffy: i guess that folks here that do not think we have lost our personal liberty have not lived long enough to know what they missed.

You think Ron Paul will fix that? His notion of "liberty" is that yours should only be protected from the federal government and from foreign governments. He does NOT believe they should be protected from state governments or from other people. At least, the federal government shouldn't protect your rights from other people.

That's not freedom. That's trading one tyranny for 50 petty tyrannies, with the effect of trading a host of pretty solid freedoms for a bunch of less protected freedoms. Privacy, Ron Paul observes, is NOT in the constitution.

Exactly.

No matter where you congregate the power, you will pretty much always end up with tyranny. (Human nature being what it is.)

However, it's a lot easier to change laws and such at the state level, as opposed to the federal level. You'll notice that several states now have legalized gay marriage. Has the federal government? No. It will take a lot longer to get it approved at that level.

The greater the power, the harder it is to effect change. The smaller the power, the easier it is.


Yeah, that worked out just fine in the 60s. Oh wait.
 
2012-02-27 02:14:37 PM  

HighOnCraic: cuzsis: The greater the power, the harder it is to effect change. The smaller the power, the easier it is.

Yeah, that worked out just fine in the 60s. Oh wait.


Well, considering that a lot of Ron Paul's support comes from bigots and white supremacists, you can say that it actually did work out for them in the 1960s.
 
2012-02-27 02:27:16 PM  

schrodinger: HighOnCraic: cuzsis: The greater the power, the harder it is to effect change. The smaller the power, the easier it is.

Yeah, that worked out just fine in the 60s. Oh wait.

Well, considering that a lot of Ron Paul's support comes from bigots and white supremacists, you can say that it actually did work out for them in the 1960s.


B-but he's such a nice guy. He wouldn't screw anything up.
 
2012-02-27 02:32:13 PM  

schrodinger: HighOnCraic: cuzsis: The greater the power, the harder it is to effect change. The smaller the power, the easier it is.

Yeah, that worked out just fine in the 60s. Oh wait.

Well, considering that a lot of Ron Paul's support comes from bigots and white supremacists, you can say that it actually did work out for them in the 1960s.


...Only until the Federal government stepped in and took away their precious right to separate water fountains.

But yeah, a lot of Paul's support is based on his vehement opposition to using Federal power to solve issues like that.
 
2012-02-27 02:40:20 PM  

idiotwithabeer: 1) investment bubbles likely would still be driven by people who build the bubble by rapid investment, just as always I suppose (hey I enjoy learning about things, so it's worth a study, eh?). fractional reserve banking wouldn't seem to occur under a pure gold standard, since the gold couldn't be fractional-ized as printed money can be created. Well... the Romans did it somewhat, but they just added other metals to the coin to dilute them.


Credit still existed and was extended prior to going off the gold standard. The gold standard isn't going to restrict all purchases to physical trades of gold and notes directly tied to gold.

idiotwithabeer: As a counter question, do you think that money decreases in "value" if the supply outpaces the production of goods (or services?). In example, were the money supply doubled today, would it still hold the same value (i.e. not having "inflation" of costs)?


Inflation exists. Did I imply I thought it did not?

idiotwithabeer: 2) I don't "fear" inflation in the sense that you may think of it, but I am *painfully* aware that costs of living have increased much faster than wages over the last thirty years (I'm 42 btw). Because of that, my retirement and longer term financial planning is based on eliminating expenses.. being out of debt and things of that nature. The inflation/deflation mess is just that, a mess with no good solution or end. Were it possible, neither would be sweet.. but I don't think we'll ever see it. :)


Yes, but wages are adjusted by supply and demand every time someone accepts job A for X dollars. Inflation-adjusted wages rise and fall regardless of the value of the dollar. If you were paid a half ounce of gold dust a month by your employer 10 years ago, instead of still getting a half ounce and it being worth less in terms of buying power (the way it works with dollars), the employers would be cutting pay down to 1/3 of an ounce.
 
2012-02-27 02:40:26 PM  

HighOnCraic: ..Only until the Federal government stepped in and took away their precious right to separate water fountains.


Now look, both Rand and Ron have stated over and over again that if we repealed the CRA and a business owner discriminated against solmeone they would get really really MAD about it.
 
2012-02-27 02:44:34 PM  

roddack: vygramul: roddack: To raise and support Armies

For two years. Try again.

They can only apportion money for two years at a time that doesn't mean they can't "renew" it at the end of two years.


That would make for some fun budget battles in congress.
 
2012-02-27 02:54:04 PM  

cuzsis: No matter where you congregate the power, you will pretty much always end up with tyranny. (Human nature being what it is.)

However, it's a lot easier to change laws and such at the state level, as opposed to the federal level. You'll notice that several states now have legalized gay marriage. Has the federal government? No. It will take a lot longer to get it approved at that level.

The greater the power, the harder it is to effect change. The smaller the power, the easier it is.


We have a country where slavery is illegal. Before, we had legal slavery in half the states, and none in the other half, and a fight broke out because the side that dismissed blacks as inferior got pissy that the side that didn't wasn't helping them keep their slaves.

Now, thankfully not much of the country is that backwards on slavery, but I'm not willing to trade the long term success of all slaves being free for the short term success of half of them. This applies to gays, folks who want to use condoms, freedom from state religions, and whatever else the kooks put forward. And they WILL put those forward. Look at the popularity of a guy like Santorum. What do you think happens when his ilk get power in a state?

Look at how purchasable our legislature is when its countrywide. Now imagine an oil company that only has to purchase one state to rape its resources.

It may seem promising to imagine that you live in one of the 'good' states, but lots of people will be stuck in the bad, and many who don't want to be will flood into the good and wreak all sorts of economic havoc.
 
2012-02-27 03:03:58 PM  

DozeNutz: The place where you got the dollar is a bank


No, the place I got a dollar from is my employer.

DozeNutz: So therefore there are more dollars floating around because it keeps being created. The market reflects this, with gold prices going up. (flooding the market with dollars)


This makes slightly less than no sense. The amount of dollars floating around doesn't increase or decrease gold prices directly, it only influences them. The price of gold is a relationship between the buying power of the dollar and the observed value of the gold. Gold prices can - and do - go up regardless of inflation rates. Look at the inflation over the last few years - which has been minimal - and the skyrocketing of gold.

People on TV selling gold because OBAMA SOCIALISM FASCIST MUSLIM ATHEIST have a bigger impact on the price of gold than inflation.

DozeNutz: So now it costs me $2 to buy your apple. It takes me 2 paper dollars to buy 1 apple. Since the price of gold has gone up, an apple STILL only costs me a piece of paper redeemable for .1 ounce of gold.


While, simultaneously, the amount of dollars available - through acquisition and spending - have also doubled. This kind of inflation impacts storage of money that has returns below inflation, but the impact of this is absolutely based on the inflationary amount. A situation with 100% inflation has bigger problems than the price of apples.

Likewise, the value of gold is just as arbitrary as the price of apples; your piece of paper worth .1 ounce of gold is simply scrip for barter. Take the same situation you mentioned, and extend it over a year with real values: your $1 goes up 1.5% in inflation (in a steady, marginal rise) so the apple now costs $1.02. Meanwhile, gold's price fluctuates heavily, so during Valentine's Day your gold scrip is worth 3 apples while the day after Valentine's Day it's only worth one. That volatility means that merchants have a vested interest in not accepting raw gold - or scrip worth raw gold; the price swings based on real world events, the whim of consumers, and many other non-controllable factors.

You seem to be confusing the nature of inflation - and the capacity to print money - with the capacity of the government to manipulate the value of our currency. That capacity would exist regardless of gold-backed currency (see: the speculation market of oil being one of the major cost drivers of oil), and would actually be exacerbated by switching to a material that is widely available. China has plenty of gold reserves, and were we to switch to a gold-backed currency they would suddenly effectively own a significant amount of US backed buying power.
 
2012-02-27 03:14:32 PM  

whidbey: HighOnCraic: ..Only until the Federal government stepped in and took away their precious right to separate water fountains.

Now look, both Rand and Ron have stated over and over again that if we repealed the CRA and a business owner discriminated against solmeone they would get really really MAD about it.



Ron Paul: We say, "Love your brother." We don't say it really, but...
Rand Paul : We don't literally say it.
Ron Paul: No, we don't say it.
Rand Paul: We don't really, literally mean it.
Ron Paul: No, we don't believe it either, but...
Rand Paul: But we're not racists.
Ron Paul: But that message should be clear, anyway.
Rand Paul: We're anything but racists.
 
2012-02-27 03:15:46 PM  

schrodinger: idiotwithabeer: I frankly don't know if the competing currencies idea is good or bad. There seems to be some merits to either side of the debate, but I think the big holdup would be retailers having more cash drawers/registers to bother with it.. meaning that they probably wouldn't unless the competing currency came into big demand. If that did happen, I see no fault in it.. and if it didn't, who would care?

...a bill proposing competing currencies in the title never actually explains what competing currencies are, how competing currencies would work, or how we are supposed to get there.

It's theater. There are no merits to the proposal, because the proposal doesn't exist. Paultards will rail constantly about how Ron Paul proposes competing currency, but I can't get anyone to explain what that actually means in real world terms, or what the experience is like for the average user.


Not to mention that competition is anathema to currency. Minted currency exists solely to prevent mass exodus of gold and silver from a country experiencing economic troubles to a more stable country. If France has a million lbs of gold and Britain has a million lbs of gold, and France is faultering while Britain is growing, all that gold is going to leave France (where it becomes necessarily cheap, or at least cheaper than it was) and flow into Britain (where it becomes more expensive as demand grows with the nation's economy). To prevent this natural condition of precious metals, principalities mint coinage. A gold coin being worth slightly more than the value of the metals contained therein will necessarily give it greater value in the country in which it's minted than anywhere else in the world.

Competing currencies only make sense between nations. Not INSIDE of a nation. That's ridiculous. Give states that power and Kentucky is going to be the richest state in the union. Move all that gold out of Fort Knox before giving states that power and you're conducting the largest "wealth redistrubution" campaign in the history of mankind. All the while you'd be slowly deteriorating the TRUE value of our currency. The Full Faith And Credit Of The United States Of America.
 
2012-02-27 03:43:34 PM  
As a side note: The US currently holds $663,488,004,000.00 in its two largest (by far) bullion reserves. That's 238 bn in Fort Knox and another (larger) 425.5 bn in New York.

Fort Knox ALONE accounts for 2.5% of ALL GOLD. EVER.

That's $9,520,000,000,000.00 (9.52 Trillion Dollars).

Our current debt is 14 trillion? 15? Good plan, that.
 
2012-02-27 03:57:29 PM  

BeesNuts: 425.5 bn in New York.


Approves:
www.saberdragon.at11.clyx.com
 
2012-02-27 04:06:59 PM  

FlashHarry: well, i'd love a guy who doesn't want to send me to get my ass shot off for some bullshiat reason. who wouldn't?


Over in two.
 
2012-02-27 04:08:02 PM  

snuffy: NewportBarGuy: You mean the guy who wants to eliminate the standing army because it's not in the constitution?

just so we know your background, have you ever served in the military during time of conflict outside of this country?


I am a member in good standing of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. How can I help you?
 
2012-02-27 04:08:56 PM  
www.tulving.com

I have two of these under my pillow just in case...

/Fark Ron Paul though
//It doesn't matter who wins, we've gotten so good as a nation at politics that we forgot how to govern...
 
2012-02-27 04:42:19 PM  

DozeNutz: WaitWhatWhy: DozeNutz: Oh great, the Paul haters all up in this thread. I love how Farkers (closet Obama lovers) can bash Pauls sound money message, because when they do so, they literally support a fiat money system where the biggest banks get to make money off of printing money. LITERALLY! It is amazing!

Still waiting for an explaination on why gold isn't a fiat money system. Since paper is technically edible, I would think that it has more intrinsic value then a random type of rock.

Do you even know what fiat means? Also gold has properties that are valuable other than its shiny... printing money vs commodity backed currency HMMMMMMM.....



So it makes sense to tie it all up as unusable bars in some bank vault rather than material for various construction and radiological needs?
 
2012-02-27 07:59:14 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: So it makes sense to tie it all up as unusable bars in some bank vault rather than material for various construction and radiological needs?


I thought the point was to stop runaway hyperinflation. But now you want to make it happen. Damn I'm so confused with you Paultards.
 
2012-02-27 10:27:02 PM  

intelligent comment below: SN1987a goes boom: So it makes sense to tie it all up as unusable bars in some bank vault rather than material for various construction and radiological needs?

I thought the point was to stop runaway hyperinflation. But now you want to make it happen. Damn I'm so confused with you Paultards.


Wut? What gives you the impression that I, in any way, shape or form, support Ron Paul? I'm a capitalist, not a Randian.
 
2012-02-27 11:42:39 PM  

schrodinger: DrPainMD: Here's the Peter Schiff YouTube channel (new window). Feel free to laugh and point out all those missing facts and poor logic.

Anyone find it amusing how Paultards insist on posting everything in highly edited youtube form? It's almost as if they want to discourage fact checking by refusing to present an actual text document that we can skim through at our own pace for key points.

They also have a tendency to post vague links to "everything," rather than a comprehensive list of direct argument. Thus insuring that any possible response or refutation can be dismissed as "nitpicking" or "missing the point." Their response is always, "Watch the whole video, it's explained in there!", rather than actually explaining it. It's almost as though they're trying to avoid any sort of direct accountability for anything they say.


Got all the bases covered, eh? Here's something specific:

"Failure of the 'New Economics', " by Henry Hazlitt (new window), editorial writer on finance and economics for The New York Times and The Nation, and was the founding vice-president of the Foundation for Economic Education. It's a line-by-line refutation of Keynes' "General Theory," and should satisfy your requirement for "a comprehensive list of direct argument."

or

"Economic Science and the Austrian Method," by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (new window), Professor Emeritus of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Read these and then get back to me.
 
2012-02-28 12:01:30 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: DrPainMD: Friedrich Hayek

Ahh yes, a dead Nobel Laureate with a hard on for Pinochet.

insert your favorite ad hominem attack here and pretend it's debate Which part does he comment on the existing global recession? I am having trouble finding it...

Better than a dead economist who was never even considered for a Nobel Prize and who didn't even understand something as simple as Say's Law (new window).
 
2012-02-28 12:27:29 AM  

DrPainMD: PC LOAD LETTER: DrPainMD: Friedrich Hayek

Ahh yes, a dead Nobel Laureate with a hard on for Pinochet. insert your favorite ad hominem attack here and pretend it's debate Which part does he comment on the existing global recession? I am having trouble finding it...

Better than a dead economist who was never even considered for a Nobel Prize and who didn't even understand something as simple as Say's Law (new window).


You know who else never won a Nobel Prize in economics?

Adam Smith.

Neither did Locke.
 
2012-02-29 08:44:47 AM  

snuffy: since no one wants to recognize that ron paul is the only candidate with military experience, when he says we need to bring the troops home and defend our country, why do others find something wrong with that?


Everyone in the pentagon has military experience too. That doesn't keep them from being complete idiots either.
 
Displayed 37 of 537 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report