You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy

[hwt 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I8NhRPo0WAo

For those of you that think Ron Paul is wrong, please watch this...

Ron Paul is a modern day Thomas Jefferson...

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none”
Thomas Jefferson

“I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”
Thomas Jefferson

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I like him, I would vote for him if I could. The Donkeys should like his stance on the US military intervention around the world. But the Donkeys hate him because he wants to restore fiscal responsibility at the cost of the Donkey's government entitlements. The Elephants should like him for his calls for fiscal responsibility. But for some reason the Elephants don't want to stop waging war around the world. FUBAR I say ... both the Donkeys and the Elephants are FUBARed. Ron Paul is one of the few people in Washington who makes sense.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[DanG 1]

Anyone who thinks going back to the gold standard would be anything but an economic disaster is completely out of touch with reality.

Anyone who thinks eliminating the EPA and relying on private lawsuits to stop major polluters would be anything other than an ecological disaster is completely out of touch with reality.

Ron Paul is completely out of touch with reality.

- Dan G

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Anyone who thinks going back to the gold standard would be anything but an economic disaster is completely out of touch with reality.

Anyone who thinks eliminating the EPA and relying on private lawsuits to stop major polluters would be anything other than an ecological disaster is completely out of touch with reality.

Ron Paul is completely out of touch with reality.

Could you expand on the first point? Why would it be an economic disaster? Not disagreeing, just would like to hear an arguement for it.

The second point, is one thing that has bothered me a little about Ron Paul, but keep in mind if any president out there got there way with everything it would be even a further messed up country than it is now. Because he has an opinion that the EPA is unecessary, doesn't mean that he's going to be able to walk in and dismantle it.

And I'm not so convinced myself either that the EPA is worth the money we're spending on it. It hasn't protected us from several big disasters as it is. You don't need an entire govt organization in place to have a few laws in place to protect the environment. Temple inland just dumped thousands of gallons of untreated wastewater into one of my favorite rivers near where I live. It did a 100% kill of every fish, turtle, snake, and amphibean for 60 miles downstream. What did the EPA do to prevent that? They've done nothing to ensure it doesn't happen again either. They got a slap on the wrist and didn't even have requirements set forth to improve their wastewater treatment. The only thing hitting them where it hurts right now is all the landowners along the river suing the crap out of them. Its not a bad philosophy, and a worthy experiment.

[gher 0]

Quote

Anyone who thinks going back to the gold standard would be anything but an economic disaster is completely out of touch with reality.

Yes. As I understand it, at one time every paper dollar had a little piece of Gold in a vault backing it, giving it inherent value. Now that there is so much more paper money than there is Gold, putting us back on the Gold Standard is ludicrous and would serve to simply vaporize the value of the Dollar.

Quote

Anyone who thinks eliminating the EPA and relying on private lawsuits to stop major polluters would be anything other than an ecological disaster is completely out of touch with reality.

Yes. Lawsuits, other than those for injunctive relief, are a curative, not a preventative. Even ones for injunctive relief require at least some damage.

In a EPA-free world, there would always be some damage to the environment, as it would be a requisite to these panacea-like (In RP's mind) lawsuits. And to be honest, law is not about who's right, it is about who has the better attorney. Who has more cash to hire a better attorney--Exxon/BP or some podunk community wherein the kids are being born without limbs because of toxic pollution?

That he was a USAF doctor is not reason to be a foreign policy/defence guru--that's a noncombatant officer who practices medicine, nothing war-related... As an OB/GYN, the closest he likely got to combat was a obnoxious Officer's wife giving birth.

RP is a Putz who needs to go back to being an OB/GYN.

[Andy9o8 2]

Not bad, for a trout herder.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Quote

Anyone who thinks going back to the gold standard would be anything but an economic disaster is completely out of touch with reality.

Yes. As I understand it, at one time every paper dollar had a little piece of Gold in a vault backing it, giving it inherent value. Now that there is so much more paper money than there is Gold, putting us back on the Gold Standard is ludicrous and would serve to simply vaporize the value of the Dollar.

So you think going back to a gold standard means Ron Paul is going to walk in and overnight take billions of $$ out of circulation?

Ok, if he does that, sure there would be economic repurcussion I'd imagine. But explain how that would "vaporize the value" of the dollar. Seems to me it do quite the opposite. Printing endless dollars is what seems to be the problem with the steadily dropping value of the dollar.

[gher 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyone who thinks going back to the gold standard would be anything but an economic disaster is completely out of touch with reality.

Yes. As I understand it, at one time every paper dollar had a little piece of Gold in a vault backing it, giving it inherent value. Now that there is so much more paper money than there is Gold, putting us back on the Gold Standard is ludicrous and would serve to simply vaporize the value of the Dollar.

So you think going back to a gold standard means Ron Paul is going to walk in and overnight take billions of $$ out of circulation?

Ok, if he does that, sure there would be economic repurcussion I'd imagine. But explain how that would "vaporize the value" of the dollar. Seems to me it do quite the opposite. Printing endless dollars is what seems to be the problem with the steadily dropping value of the dollar.

Look at a dollar bill as sort of a Title to $1 worth of Gold. That was the Gold Standard.

Now there are (on an order of magnatude) more pieces of paper than there are bits of Gold. If RP was to tie the value of that dollar to a bit of Gold, what happens when you have far more dollars than you do gold to back them up? There will be trillions of un-backed dollars. Poof!

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyone who thinks going back to the gold standard would be anything but an economic disaster is completely out of touch with reality.

Yes. As I understand it, at one time every paper dollar had a little piece of Gold in a vault backing it, giving it inherent value. Now that there is so much more paper money than there is Gold, putting us back on the Gold Standard is ludicrous and would serve to simply vaporize the value of the Dollar.

So you think going back to a gold standard means Ron Paul is going to walk in and overnight take billions of $$ out of circulation?

Ok, if he does that, sure there would be economic repurcussion I'd imagine. But explain how that would "vaporize the value" of the dollar. Seems to me it do quite the opposite. Printing endless dollars is what seems to be the problem with the steadily dropping value of the dollar.

Look at a dollar bill as sort of a Title to $1 worth of Gold. That was the Gold Standard.

Now there are (on an order of magnatude) more pieces of paper than there are bits of Gold. If RP was to tie the value of that dollar to a bit of Gold, what happens when you have far more dollars than you do gold to back them up? There will be trillions of un-backed dollars. Poof!

OR... the value of gold shoots through the roof. But I understand what you're saying.

That said, I'm not convinced that this is really a concern. I would imagine there would be plenty of economists working with him on this if he were ever able to accomplish such a goal. The purpose of going back to a gold standard would be opposite of your fears, and is to prevent overinflating our economy with bogus money and actually further destroying the value of the dollar. I have a hard time conceiving that there would be no way of implementing this over time without a ill effect on the economy. Then again I have no idea how much gold is in circulation vs dollars currently.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Wut be a "trout herder"?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Are you even sure that a President even has the power to accomplish many of the goals RP touts? Is he just another politician making seemingly great promises only to blame Congress for preventing him from enacting them once elected?

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Are you even sure that a President even has the power to accomplish many of the goals RP touts? Is he just another politician making seemingly great promises only to blame Congress for preventing him from enacting them once elected?

Exactly....... Excellent. A President is not a king.

[gher 0]

Quote

Wut be a "trout herder"?

A person who herds Trout.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Are you even sure that a President even has the power to accomplish many of the goals RP touts? Is he just another politician making seemingly great promises only to blame Congress for preventing him from enacting them once elected?

Absolutely not. Thats why I don't worry so much about a few of his more fringe views. What a president wants and what he accomplishes are two separate things. I made that point in one of my prior posts. He does have a lot of good ideas and seems to be the only one in touch with the budget crisis we have on hand right now though. The other candidates will be more of the same. At least Ron Paul recognizes we can't touch the budget without scaling back military and serious cuts in other areas. How much of that he'll accomplish, who knows, but at least he understands it and will be trying to move us in that direction.

IMO the other candidates are the ones out of touch with reality. They're are picture perfect examples of "politics as usual" regardless of what letter they put in front of their name.

[Channman 2]

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I8NhRPo0WAo

For those of you that think Ron Paul is wrong, please watch this...

Ron Paul is a modern day Thomas Jefferson...

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none”
Thomas Jefferson

“I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”
Thomas Jefferson

Well, I personally would rather not vote for the Man...I think he's a little wacky. However with that said, Anybody but Obama is were I will be in the end. If he desides to go 3rd. party, then anybody who votes for him is really casting a vote for OBAMA Principal be damned...3rd party is OBAMA's only hope, and would be the end of a once great nation.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Could you expand on the first point? Why would it be an economic disaster? Not disagreeing, just would like to hear an arguement for it.

I'm no econimist, but here's a very simplified analysis. If every dollar requires a little piece of gold at Ft. Knox, how can the ecomony grow? The US economy would become a zero sum game. For every dollar I made, it means someoe else would have to lose a dollar. The only way the economy can grow is if we find more gold. That's ridiculous. Fractional reserve banking can be dangerous and lead to financial bubbles, inflation, and other economic troubles, but without it the economy would stagnate. I might be able to get behind a scheme to increase controls over cash circulation, but going back to precious metals is out of touch with reality.

- Dan G

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Anyone who thinks going back to the gold standard would be anything but an economic disaster is completely out of touch with reality.

Yes. As I understand it, at one time every paper dollar had a little piece of Gold in a vault backing it, giving it inherent value. Now that there is so much more paper money than there is Gold, putting us back on the Gold Standard is ludicrous and would serve to simply vaporize the value of the Dollar.

Quote

Anyone who thinks eliminating the EPA and relying on private lawsuits to stop major polluters would be anything other than an ecological disaster is completely out of touch with reality.

Yes. Lawsuits, other than those for injunctive relief, are a curative, not a preventative. Even ones for injunctive relief require at least some damage.

In a EPA-free world, there would always be some damage to the environment, as it would be a requisite to these panacea-like (In RP's mind) lawsuits. And to be honest, law is not about who's right, it is about who has the better attorney. Who has more cash to hire a better attorney--Exxon/BP or some podunk community wherein the kids are being born without limbs because of toxic pollution?

That he was a USAF doctor is not reason to be a foreign policy/defence guru--that's a noncombatant officer who practices medicine, nothing war-related... As an OB/GYN, the closest he likely got to combat was a obnoxious Officer's wife giving birth.

RP is a Putz who needs to go back to being an OB/GYN.

I don't think eliminating the EPA is good but it should be made alot smaller and only be able to recommend laws for congress to pass.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Quote

Could you expand on the first point? Why would it be an economic disaster? Not disagreeing, just would like to hear an arguement for it.

I'm no econimist, but here's a very simplified analysis. If every dollar requires a little piece of gold at Ft. Knox, how can the ecomony grow? The US economy would become a zero sum game. For every dollar I made, it means someoe else would have to lose a dollar. The only way the economy can grow is if we find more gold. That's ridiculous. Fractional reserve banking can be dangerous and lead to financial bubbles, inflation, and other economic troubles, but without it the economy would stagnate. I might be able to get behind a scheme to increase controls over cash circulation, but going back to precious metals is out of touch with reality.

Just my thoughts on the other side of that. I think we need to first differentiate between the difference of the value of the economy vs the value of the dollar. The wealth of an economy in reality boils down to the measure of efficiency of that economy. If the dollars in circulation are fixed, then assuming the wealth of our economy grows through efficiency, then the value of that dollar will grow in proportion. If its on a gold standard, then the value of that gold will grow in equal proportion as well. In theory this system would only allow the value of the dollar to increase if the efficiency of our economy is increasing. With the current system, the value of the dollar is disconnected from the health of the economy and we could have a booming economy but a falling dollar value if we keep printing money to sustain spending that the economy can't keep up with. Its especially dangerous in a struggling economy like we have now, where we just keep printing money to sustain the spending.

I don't know about you, but I would like to know that my 401K will be worth something when I retire. What good is all that growth in the account if it can't keep up with inflation. At least if we can't print money without something of value to back up its worth, we have some stability in the value of our dollar.

It doesn't matter if we don't have more dollars in the system, someone is supposed to lose a dollar for you to gain a dollar. That's how economics is supposed to work. If your services are gained without the sacrifice of someone else, the system falls apart. We won't run out of dollars to exchange, it will only be the value of those dollars will in theory buy a lot more in services. Which is fantastic for anybody who has a retirement account.

[DanG 1]

I think you're thinking about this in the wrong way on a number of levels.

First of all, if the dollar is tied to gold, why would you think your 401k would grow at all? It would only grow if you put more gold into your vault. Your response to that seems to be that the value of gold will increase even if the quantity remains the same. That doesn't make sense. If each dollar represents one gram of gold (or whatever) the only way the value of gold can increase is if each dollar actually represents less than one gram of gold. But then you're not really on the gold standard. On the true gold standard, which is what Ron Paul seems to want, the value of a dollar is fixed and no growth is possible without adding more gold into the system. Start doing that, and you're back to what we have now.

As far as economics being a zero sum game, you couldn't be more wrong. On the gold standard you're right, but if economics really were a zero sum game, the world standard of living could never improve. The increases in efficiency that you mention allow everyone to win, which is the opposite of a zero sum game.

- Dan G

[diverborg 0]

Quote

I think you're thinking about this in the wrong way on a number of levels.

First of all, if the dollar is tied to gold, why would you think your 401k would grow at all? It would only grow if you put more gold into your vault. Your response to that seems to be that the value of gold will increase even if the quantity remains the same. That doesn't make sense. If each dollar represents one gram of gold (or whatever) the only way the value of gold can increase is if each dollar actually represents less than one gram of gold. But then you're not really on the gold standard. On the true gold standard, which is what Ron Paul seems to want, the value of a dollar is fixed and no growth is possible without adding more gold into the system. Start doing that, and you're back to what we have now.

As far as economics being a zero sum game, you couldn't be more wrong. On the gold standard you're right, but if economics really were a zero sum game, the world standard of living could never improve. The increases in efficiency that you mention allow everyone to win, which is the opposite of a zero sum game.

Let me try to clarify a couple things. I never meant to say that the value of gold would increase variable to the dollar. If one gram equals on dollar, then one gram equals one dollar. I would imagine there are things that could change that given the supply/demand for gold changes, but ignore that idea for a moment. What I'm saying is if the efficiency of our economy increased, and the number of dollars in circulation stay the same, then that one dollar will be worth more and buy you more services, therefore that gram of gold will be worth more in "services". It isn't worth more in "dollars", it would be the same. Thats what I meant by the value of that gold increasing as well.

You seem to be assuming that we need to have more dollars in circulation for wealth to increase, and for situations to improve. If ten years from now we have the same exact amount of dollars in circulation, but a cheeseburger that once cost $5 lets say you can now buy it for a $1. That cheeseburger isn't worth less, that dollar is worth more. A cheeseburger is still just a cheeseburger.

I am oversimplifying it a lot, but this is the basic concept. We want the value of our dollar to increase don't we?

Right now we are trying to create wealth without the economy and/or item or service of value to back it up, and thats a very dangerous concept.

[livendive 8]

A dollar is essentially a debt, owed by the goverment, to the possessor. Currently, those debts are unsecured, only guaranteed by the US government saying "Trust Me." A gold standard would collateralize that debt with a small amount of gold...a relatively worthless material from a logical standpoint, but which nonetheless has a relatively stable value over a MUCH longer timeframe than the US government. Why do you suppose collateral would prohibit the earning of interest? It seems to me that banks have no trouble charging me interest on my home mortgage, why should I not be able to collect interest from the mutual fund that wants to borrow from my savings? Interest isn't something magical, it's a fee paid for a service rendered. Whether a loan is secured or not has little affect on whether interest is due.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[DanG 1]

Quote

If ten years from now we have the same exact amount of dollars in circulation, but a cheeseburger that once cost $5 lets say you can now buy it for a $1.

Sounds great.

Unless you sell cheeseburgers for a living.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Yeah, I understand that. Maybe I'm not thinking correctly about this, but I still fail to see how everyone can make more money, if there is no more money to be made. Let's say I loan you $100, and over time you pay me back $110. That's great, maybe you used the money to start a lemonade stand, and made $110, too. Sounds like economic growth. But what I don't understand is when I go to the government and ask for my 110 grams of gold, where did the new 10 grams come from? When dollars are just a medium of exchange, I have no problem with people making money. When you're forced to trade using physical objects, how is new wealth created?

- Dan G

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Quote

If ten years from now we have the same exact amount of dollars in circulation, but a cheeseburger that once cost $5 lets say you can now buy it for a $1.

Sounds great.

Unless you sell cheeseburgers for a living.

Lol. Well that dollar you get for making each of those cheeseburgers will go a lot further than it did back when cheeseburgers were $5.

But those numbers are assuming our economy would be growing at 500% in ten years. Unrealistic, to say the least. The changes will be a lot more gradual and won't have cause some crazy shockwave to ripple through the system. The dollar's value will go up and down, but what stays relatively consistent is the value of work. An hour spent welding on a cruiseship will be worth roughly 4 times an hour spent working at burger king flipping burgers. What that translates to in numbers of dollars is relatively meaningless. Pretty much the reason minimum wage laws are kinda pointless. If we make minimum wage $20/hr, then a cheeseburger is going to cost us $15. We are no wealthier or less wealthier than we are before. Only the value of the dollar has changed.

But if we have a system in place where we can at least try to curb some of the rapid devaluation of our currency, then at least what we've saved up in our lives to retire will buy us relatively the same services as what that money is worth today. What good is $1,000,000 in the bank if 50 years from now it costs me $300,000 year just to survive each year vs the $70,000 I can live off of now.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

But what I don't understand is when I go to the government and ask for my 110 grams of gold, where did the new 10 grams come from? When dollars are just a medium of exchange, I have no problem with people making money. When you're forced to trade using physical objects, how is new wealth created?

Why do you think that only the dollars you loaned him were backed by gold?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706