This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul Explains His Plan For "Monetary Freedom" And Returning To The Gold Standard
Ron Paul lays it out: "We know what to do - we did it once after the Civil War period, we went from a paper standard back to the gold standard, and the event wasn't that dramatic. But today the big problem is that both the conservatives and liberals have an big apetite for big government for different reasons, therefore they need the Fed to tie them over and monetize the debt. So if you don't get rid of that appetite it's going to be more difficult, but the transition isn't that difficult. You have to get your house in order; you have to balance the budget, you have to not run up debt, and you have to promise not to print any more money... I would like to have a transition period and just legalize gold money, gold and silver as legal tender, and work our way back... We want to legalize the use of gold and silver as the constitution dictates, rather than punishing the people who try to do that... I am quite convinced that the system we have will not be maintained - that's what these last 4 years was all about, and that's what the turmoil in Europe is all about. The question is are they going to move toward a constitutional form of money. or are we going to go another step further into international money - instead of having an international gold standard based on the market, are we going to go toward a UN, IMF standard where they are going to control with the use of force another fiat standard. I consider that a very, very dangerous move." And precisely due to that piece of phenomenal insight which nobody else in the GOP or Democratic roster is even parsecs away from grasping, is why Paul can never be allowed to be elected, why he must be mocked and ridiculed by a co-opted ADHD media which focuses on how many mistresses some other idiotic presidential candidates has, instead of focusing on the one person who grasps the big picture: the status quo can not be held accountable to a political leader who understand not only how the system is rigged, but why it is broken to begin with and that there actually is a way out. However, to the "status quo's" chagrin, one that involves the wiping out of generations of plundered middle class wealth to keep the richest denizens of 'extremistan' ever richer.
»
- 33729 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
he actually may. going for the ad hominem argument reflexively is a sign of a weak debater (oh is that self referential? my bad).
Never take a knife to a gun fight.
Paper? Fiat is now only limited by the storage capabilities of Excel and Ben Dover's Storage Area Network.
You are confusing mining with printing, and should probably visit a mine and a printing press. Besides, gold is already money, it's just not currency.
People - if you return to the gold standard then the printing of fiat paper is over right? Isn't that the whole point? So if you do that who are the only people in the world with the "new and improved" printing press? In order of importance, Russia, South Africa, Mexico and Canada the then in a very distant fifth place the U.S. Why do you dolts think the Chinese are camped out on a currency basket? Maybe because they have diminimis gold reserves? Nobody is going back to the gold standard for national security reasons if nothing else. A new OPEC cartel only this time dealing in gold. Yeah sure. Just what we need.
Gold is monie. It doesn't matter who can print what debt based on what reserve. Gold is monie.
Gold production adds 1.5% to worldwide reserves each year. lll take that rate of inflation over man made inflation any day. Its a lot harder to mine gold than to run a printing press
"Current" gold production there Dave. If gold were money Russia would be the new Saudi Arabia. 80% of world production. The South African's have some very rick strikes but they are deep. Hard to mine. The Russian gold is all alluvial. American companies proved up about 15 billion tones before 1996 before the Russians put a stop to the foreign sponsored drilling. Most of the best educated guesses estimate that they have something approaching a trillion tones of probable reserves. The whole Northern slope of the southern mountains. A strike on the order of 1,700 miles long between 5 and 25 miles wide and hundreds of feet deep. It's outrageous. They have like a million times more gold (in terms of raw ore) reserves than we do.
Put down the crack pipe, bro.
@ Paul B
Source(s) please re Russian giga tons of gold, thx!
Basically he just said,
i know we should trust him more than wikipedia because he's insulting but, fwiw, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gold_production
Your laughably simplistic neo-mercantilist views were already discredited over 200 years ago by Adam Smith.
Money, like wealth, is not and never has been a static concept. When has wealth ever been equally and uniformly spread --- and when has its unequal distribution ever had fatal implications for international trade? Please go back to (Austrian) Economics 101, which you clearly failed the first time around.
And Paul, your error is that you assume governments get to decide what money is. The more they print the less they get to say. The gold standard will come no matter what you or I or any government does. You will be long gold either proactively at a profit or reactionarily like the rest of the sheeple.
Tim
You can't really conflate gold to oil, unless someone figures out a way to burn gold for energy, and someone else figures out how to fit barrels of oil in your pocket. Gold is valuable because it is rare, desirable and portable, and most of all because everyone agrees that it is valuable. Gold is rare for two reasons:
1. There isn't a huge amount of it already mined.
2. It is difficult to mine.
New mines could gradually change #1, and the value of gold would gradually decrease as more was mined. Kind of like inflation in slow motion. New mining technology could change #2, but I would expect the changes to be incremental. Nobody is going to mine a trillion ounces of gold overnight. Throughout history fiat currencies have invariably crashed and burned with an average lifespan of 40 years. Gold has never become worthless, and it never will. The only real argument against gold currency is that it prevents governments from stealing from their citizens (and other currency holders) via printing, but for some reason the anti-gold crusaders never use that argument.
And it only comes from supernovas
Gold's value is due to its high stock to flow ratio and its lack of non-substitutable other uses, not rarity.
could you please give me some details on that? Its sounds familiar to me, reminds of posts at fofoa, where I already had a hard time grasping the concept of "stock vs flow"...
I'll post something directly addressing this on my blog (here:Flow) in the next day or so.
In the meantime, some things to consider:
What is it that a monetary system flows?
How could we hope to understand the system if we were not considering it in terms of this basic "good", this lowest common denominator?
Everything else in the system is a derivative of this "good", so considering the system in terms of a derivative (and even "money" (whatever you define that to be) is a derivative of the basic "good") is to consider the system only on nominal terms. Only when considering a system in terms of its lowest common denominator can one be considering the system on real terms.
The confusion and the complexity you see, even here on ZH, is a result only of considering the monetary system in terms of its derivatives, which is to say no one is considering the system in the terms of the system's lowest common denominator.
They are overcomplicating the picture by viewing it in terms of derivatives of the basic "good" rather than in terms of that "good" itself, which gives them a nominal (and complicated) rather than a real (and simple) understanding.
Its not a matter of being clever, its a matter of perspective.
So, what is this "good"?
View the system in terms of this "good", and things become clear.
(WARNING: you may not actually want such clarity, preferring to hang with the masses and their complexity. Such clarity may implicate you as a naive participant in the problem, and leave you fearful that the solution, although being equitable, may not be in your personal interests. (in which case I would say you need to examine how you evaluate such interests too))
If we go over to gold standard, the FED will not have enough money to buy the inks needed to run the printing press!!
"if you return to the gold standard then the printing of fiat paper is over right?"
No. Maybe you should read a bit more before you give an opinion. Maybe even read the article that you're commenting on.
$1,7 Billion a month? Are you fucking shitting me? That's what $20.4 billion over a year. How much money has the USA printed in the last year?
So Gold Rush season 3 needs to be in Siberia?
No it's on the North slop of the Southern mountains or the Southern most part of Russia. Don't they educate you kids anymore? All yall are pretty stupid. Siberia is tundra. No gold there. I guess basic physical sciences were deemed to difficult for you genuises.
Yes, let's ignore the past 150+ year history of gold mining in Siberia, because YOU say that it cannot exist.
http://www.goldminershq.com/vlad.htm
http://www.gold-classics.com/siberian.htm
http://www.sras.org/eastern_siberia
Do you have any other facts or realities that you would like to summarily declare null and void by proclamation?
You wouldn't be a descendant of King Canute, would you?
PS: Thanks for your "north slop".
They have a couple of high grade mines near lake Baikal. High grade localized deposits. No large reserves. That does not imply that the Siberian tundra is rich in gold it's not. Peat makbe but not gold. Have you ever been to the Carlin district in Nevada? I remember back in the early 1980's everyone in the geological community was musing about it but the ground was worthless. The mineral rights were selling for less than $1,000 an acre. Then Newmont Mining came up with the bacterial leach technique and it all became mineable. When it was running at full speed was when gold was $200.00 an ounce and they were making money at those prices running .02 ore! The Russians have over 1,000 times more of the same ore or better, we did the metallurgy and extraction science so all they have to do is mine. >95% recovery nowerdays.
Source please, thx!
"Mezhelovsky, N. V., and A. A. Smyslov, eds. 2001. Mineral wealth of Russia. Vol. 1, Mineral resources. Saint Petersburg-Moscow: Interregional Center of Geology."
I spent a bit of time looking and don't see an English translation.
Benevolsky, B. I. 2002. Gold of Russia. Moscow: Geoinformmark.
is also a good reference but again I can't find an English transalation.
Have to admit that I have no idea how much Gold there is in Russia available to mine. But One thing makes me sceptical. If there is known and easy to get gold, why would Russia be buying Gold on a monthly basis? Pretty likely that those claims above in your link, are not to be taken at their face value, or Putin and co would be digging it out by now. 2001 was 10 years ago, and I haven't noticed a big supply of Gold out of Russia since than, quite au contraire.
On other hand, I also tend to believe that Russia has a lot of gold. Just not the amounts that you claim.
60 minutes in Australia just aired a story on gold mines in Siberia last night.
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/8219565/frozen-fortunes
Seems like plenty of gold
P.S. Your confusion is because you trust the internet too much and failed to look up the word alluvial. I specifically said "alluvial gold." Didn't say free gold which is what is Eastern Siberia only. If you want to count free gold they also have big reserves North North East of Vladivostok. But it is all dwarfed by their alluvial reserves.
Actually, you never mentioned "alluvial" gold specifically in your original comment (now conveniently edited), just "gold". You also stated, word-for-word:
And even if you meant to say "alluvial gold" here, you would still be ridiculously incorrect, as Siberia is relatively lousy with it.
Nice try at revisionism.
By acknoldging the existence of established gold mining in Siberia, are you not also admitting that there may be more gold in Russia than realized IF massive North Slope reserves do in fact exist.
Not true you dolt. Suggest you stfu about gold standards and gold mining as you are displaying zero intelligence about either.
I doubt it...seriously doubt it. So they have sooooo much gold it would ruin the market...that is what you imply....sounds a lot like the BS story of Black Gold....SHOW ME THE MONEY (ie gold to you fiat luvers)
@Paul Bogdanick- What would you think the comparison of extraction costs between Russia and other gold producing parts of the world are now and might be into the future?
I see. So Russia is actually rich, but acts like it's poor. And the old USSR could've had plenty of spending money, but they chose instead to hoard their alluvial gold. And pretty soon they'll be awash in abiogenic oil and cold nuclear fusion.
You should buy some Russian stocks while they're still cheap.
"Paul tells the truth."
Really? How about you ask him or his capmaign or campaign for liberty what they think about the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 and the views the founders expressed during these debates?
"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation.Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability." ~ James Madison
Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=Hf8ZdYMBLuQC&pg=PA170&dq=possessed+of+w...
John Jay: "The people who own the country ought to govern it."
Shmron paul won't tell you the truth either becuase is is full of sh!t or doesn't know better.
READ: Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems
http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp...
Unlike Newt or Mitt;
Flip and Flop; Newt and Mitthttp://www.dailypaul.com/189449/flip-and-flop-newt-and-mitt
This quote is dedicated too mitt, obama, newt, cain, santorum, and bachman.
“All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.”Mark Twain
Short truth. Long consequences.
Ron Paul didn't get everything right. For instance, his claim of "the event wasn't that dramatic". It WAS dramatic, but for avoidable reasons.
For instance, there was the demonitization of silver in 1873 that we should avoid. And then there was the deliberate shrinking of the money supply by more than 2/3rd that we should avoid.
Other than that, yes, I support going back to a bi-metal standard just like the Constitution says.
Bill Still's book "No more national debt" has to be reconciled here. His position, which I am now a believer in is this: Money should not be gold/silver backed. Simply regulate the value and quantity of the paper money. Make it debt free and only congress can issue them. Like what Lincoln did when he issued the US Note that was authorized by congress printed at the mint. It was not borrowed via debt at interest.
Its not enough.
Ron needs to be outlaw the derivatitive industry.
All 800 Trillion of them outlawed over night.
Ron needs to END the Fed, not audit it.
Ron Paul please stop pussy footing around with this gold standard.
Ron Paul the only voice of sanity.
Yer ass got good picks for the S&P?
I don't deal in holograms.
Announce your VP and select cabinet choices now Dr. Paul.
Forget about Ron Paul. He is doomed to failure in the GOP nomination race. Most Americans can not even manage their own money wisely. How can anybody expect these people to choose the right man who can manage their country wisely.
because it's harder to manage money than vote?
but but but... the Bilderberg / Rothschild / Davos / NWO / Plutocracy is not (yet?) ready for a gold standard...
FOFOA makes a good case AGAINST a gold standard, even shows in his recent article ("Honest Money") that Ron Paul WAS edging away from a gold standard.
A gold standard can be manipulated, and is weaker at the role of currency being flexible. The BEST route is untied currrency and Freegold. I refer yo all to:
fofoa.blogspot.com
(as his arguments cannot be summarized briefly, you will need TIME and MENTAL ENERGY to grasp his points)
Yeah, who is to say China does not have tungsten reserves, too. Rock meet hard place.
Just buy gold, drink bourbon, and meet beautiful women.
+ 1
Gold: check
Beautiful woman: married her, check
Drink: raspberry vodka mixed with absinthe straight from the freezer, check
That's some great reading, DoChen. My quick summary is that gold is the standard by which all fiat is measured. Gold is its own standard, and to think we should want to sully gold by getting it tangled up into the monetary system is a pretty dumb idea. Instead, let it float unencumbered by having it be some peg or part of some basket or another. We don't need a gold standard. It's its own standard.
I don't think Ron Paul is any sort of purist on bringing back the gold standard, he is simply trying to open up the FRN to a little competition, and gold and silver are an obvious gateway to competing currencies; competing amongst themselves, but most importantly competing against the FRN debt money scam.
Fucking right on. You two get it.
Ron Paul does not want bimetallism or the fixed faux-gold standard that we had even before 1971. Fixing the price of gold artificially to silver or the dollar is what resulted in FDR confiscation and debasement from $20 to $35 an oz. all that he wants is to legalize it as a competing currency and allow people to price their labour and goods in gold or silver. My guess would be an electronic accounting to assist in the divisibility issue (so you can pay 1/1600th and oz for that drink) with each credit union / bank etc maintaining its own gold reserves and each having regular physical audits. That way if any particular bank is debasing its gold credits, it will go bankrupt but not cause losses on the greater population, only On its Depositors. Bailouts would stop since congress is unlikely to be able to vote to physically send us treasury gold to the bankrupt bank to restore depositors.
Centralizing storage of gold in the fed or the us treasury is not a good idea.
I have been reading FOFOA and at first I found it interesting and entertaining but the more I read the more suspect I became and at this moment I wouldn't trust that blog for a second for a number of reasons and I wouldn't even be surprised if someone at the Fed is writing it.
Any human made standard of anything is suspect. The only standard that works is one that allows for immediate and independent verification of whatever has been issued without relying on any concept based on any trust of anything or anyone whatsoever. Trust, but verify. That is only achievable if the issuer can, through a "gold window" of some form can redeem the certificate for what it is worth (i.e. gold, silver or whatever) preferably 24/7 at a guaranteed quantity from whoever issued the certificate, which can be anyone (government, bank, company, your friend, etc). Anything else is totally suspect to manipulation. This does not preclude that silver, wheat, oil or anything else can be money. Arguing whether gold or silver is money and what the ratio shall be is a waste of time. Allow it all and let the market decide. Anything can be money in barter, so why not let anyone issue certificates of anything, as long as they are forced to honor their obligation on demand. Today we have the equivalent in a floating standard but you are getting less and less. In simple terms this is called theft. Someone is stealing your rights to your gold.
FOFOA keeps writing stuff like "there is a conflict between debtors and savers", which is just rethorical nonsene. This so-called conflict is a fallacy. This is solved by an interest rate that balances supply and demand. The whole blog oozes with rethoric and appeal to emotions with terms like "confusion", "misguided", "misunderstanding", "dogma", "gold bugs" etc. which would be totally unnecessary if the ideas themselves were strong enough. But in fact FOFOAs concepts are very weak. He argues that a fiat system is "convenient", but the whole blog confuses the form of the certificate with its function. If someone trusts that the issuer of a digital certificate of gold will honor his obligation to deliver, that is fine, it is just a market decision. The problem now is that there are legal tender laws that prohibits the creation of various forms of certificates of money which stifles innovation and this acts as financial repression.
FOFOA never ever clearly claims that there is any problem with the issuer of "official money" using its advantage and that there are moral issues with this, but rather tries to present this is a natural fact that we must somehow accept and is inevitable, e.g. ascribing opinions and ideas like they were stickers, "our collective spirit and lifestyle has encouraged the near-exponential growth". I guess the 100 million Americans (and many more worldwide) near or below the poverty line beg to differ. Thus I find that an unacceptable viewpoint, simple because I don't accept theft. I never ever recall reading on that blog that theft is wrong.
FOFOA in short: there are too many thiefs out there who needs fiat to steal for their purposes, and you can't fight them, so better give up, and we'll give you a hideout, which is wonderful, so just save in gold, and I promise you that will be a really nice system as we can keep debasing the means of exchange in general forever and you stay in your little "Freegold" hideout. This is just so blatantly open to manipulation. He keeps talking about a monetary quadrant and that some "responsible central bank" will ensure that fiat will be convertible to gold and that this will make the fiat stable. History shows that this kind of privilege centralization leads to massive corruption and gigantic theft of purchasing power by the central banks and the destruction of near 99% of the fiat's value. Entrusting someone to "manage" a currency is in itself a fallacy, especially someone such as a government, who has political interests, or a central bank, who has financial interests. Expecting them to be responsible for anyone but themselves is just more than a little bit naive. You can even find a post trying to refute that fiat does not create wars, that type of argument should immediately raise suspicions.
Also, he ascribes the derogatory term gold bugs to proponents of gold, which I find extremely distasteful. Proponents of gold know well that gold is the primary means of achieveing economic freedom, and this is far more important than any vanity aspects of gold, and further to that, these are not mutually exclusive.
The term "Freegold" does not mean you get more freedom by retaining the fruits of your labor, no, the term is meant to make the concept likeable, whereas in reality it promotes a repressive, freedom-killing fiat system that shall continue to exist alongside. There is as much "freedom" about "Freegold" as there is "Federal" in the "Federal reserve"
The issue today is the combination of two factors: all currencies are suspect and are being debased/pegged/QEd, and at the same time in a competitive race to the bottom while governments force you to use it e.g. to pay taxes, and also prohibit you from issuing an alternative. This is coercion by force and effectively economic imprisonment, taking away what is rightfully fruits of your labor and transferring it to someone else. Just having FOFOA write 10,000 words does nothing to change the fact that legalizing freedom of choice in money is morally the right thing to do, and that this is likely to lead to the absolutely most prosperous outcome for the many. Then FOFOA can start his business issuing notes where 10,000 Fofoas = 1 oz of gold and everyone can decide whether to accept them.
In short, inflating money issued and used by goverment decree is forceful, brute and primitive and belongs only to repressive societies that lack genuine respect for the individual, and this is what FOFOA keeps pushing. I think society has suffered enough complex grand schemes from intellectual ivory towers, it is time to let the market decide what is money and what it shall be worth.
Wow! Thanks for that! I wish I could write so clearly and concisely on such a complex topic.
I looked into FOFOA a year or so ago and was immediately turned off by it. I couldn't understand why others here were raving about it, and never revisited. You have kindly explained in excellent detail why I had such a negative reaction!
Silver bitchez
well put
gold and silver bitchez
+ 1
Diversification: it's a good thing!
Exactly.
May the 'rigor' of your cold dead hands....and the vicious path to get at your stack, be always on their minds.
Beware...."The Pilgrim Society" (Silver Stealers) never abandon their original mandate
(Bring the masses "Sovereign Debt Obligations"....then forgive them...in trade for "original money")
http://blog.ml-implode.com/2011/11/interview-with-charles-savoie-on-tptb-of-silver-manipulation/
Geez, a sensible politician who actually understands banking - unlike, say, next-in-line after Bawney retires Maxine - and can answer questions intelligently when asked? A doctor who doesn't believe vaccination causes retardation? A man of moral integrity who's still humble enough not to want to impose his sexual mores on others? A man of conviction, who hasn't changed his tune in thirty years?
Two questions: what the heck is he doing running for president, and does Intrade offer shares on "mysterious post-Iowa win deaths"?
After Nixon died they did a poll asking people if they had voted for him for President. With few exceptions everyone said, "No." No one wanted to admit otherwise.
When they had the Congressional vote for the first Quantatative Easing (QE 1) , Paul voted for it. People don't mention that now. The bottomline is that Paul acts, when need be, in his OWN SELF-INTEREST. He understands consensus. He understands being reelected. He is NOT like the late Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, who was one of ONLY two men in Congress that voted against our FIRST involvement in Vietnam. In short, all our Statesmen are dead and gone.
Do you remember what Hunter Thompson said about Nixon ? He said Nixon belonged in the belly of a White Shark.
Hunter S. Thompson was a Statesman.
Congress does not vote on monetary policy. The Federal Reserve is above the branches of government.
Google Greenspan on McNeil/Lehrer.
He discusses how no one, not even the POTUS, has Fed oversight.
You have forgotten that the President appoints the head of the Fed, for what it's worth...
You have forgotten that a small clique of banksters appoint the President.
Not true Don. The FED selects who they want. The President simply rubberstamps the selection. Were he to turn it down, it is still the FED who comes up with the new selection. The FED runs this mf'er. They are the unlected 4th branch of government.
I can't find anything on this vote on QE1. Please show me where that is because I may prefer to vote with the RINO or black Casanova instead.
http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul.htm
You can't find anything beause it doesn't exist. RP Voted against TARP and has believed that every easing has been bad for the economy. I can't find one video where he says otherwise.
I know. The fucker deals in misinformation.
Yeah lets see some proof about this QE1 vote.
Obviously a blatant lie
QE came from the Fed, not Congress
Nice slander there, faggot. Paul NEVER voted for ANY bailout.
Go die in the sea of your lies.
why faggot? why not liar, cheat, con artist, deceiver, deluder, dissimulator, fabricator, false witness, falsifier, maligner, misleader, phony, prevaricator, trickster, fraud, scoundrel or villain?
faggot
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faggot
10958 up, 3637 down
In these times not really used if somebody is really a homosexual mostly used instead of calling somebody stupid or a loser.---
Or perhaps he thought of him as a bundle of sticks...
Couldn't have been a bundle of sticks or he would have been referred to as faggots. So just one stick, and a stupid one at that.....just saying. LOL
"When they had the Congressional vote for the first Quantatative Easing (QE 1) , Paul voted for it."
You need to try some creative distortions or sensationalism... Cuz this bullshit is insulting.
Obviously your first rodeo-hedge.
Congress voting for military conflict has been replaced by presidential edict.
Everyone who supports Ron Paul should make it their mission to convert just one additional person to a Ron Paul supporter.
That would make a huge difference. It's all about educating the uneducated.
I agree....It's as good a plan as any.
...and while you're at it....tell the 99% to pull their heads outta their asses and stop 'crying' and 'clawing' for Democacy;
....and learn some history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0
I wear my RP hoodie all the time. I am surprised how many people comment about it, either knowing who he is or asking about him.
Simply the best plan to accomplish something of that magnitude.
One-by-one.
No new taxes!
Yeah!
Smaller government!
Yeah!
Universal healthcare!
Yeah!
End the Fed!
What's the Fed?
as i was told (as part of a group) by a well educated, intelligent person not terribly versed in financial matters, "they are the ones who protect our money". my truly spontaneous near spit take did lead to a brief discussion but it does take more time than most listeners want to give. events in the near future may offer some elementary education upon which one may piggyback.
I like Ron and I voted for him but more and more I disagree with him about the gold standard. I've come over more to candidates like Bill Still of the "it's not what backs the currency, it's who controls the quantity of the money supply" point of view.
Under a gold standard the private banking system will simply be able to concentrate control of the yellow metal, like they do now. What we should have instead is some kind of debt-free money, whether government-issued or not, as well as outlawing fractional reserve banking.
Neither Bill Still or Ron Paul stand a chance because what eigenvalue says above is true.
Gold is debt free money. The only CURRENCY that can be debt free is species, as laid out in our Constitution.
So, I suppose that you will vote again in 2012
Why?
never mind, i imagine your mother told you to
why vote for a dead machine and the same old, same old
anyone can respond to these questions
I'm out of gas on this voting business, but maybe I'm missing something
let me in on the secret, please om
nah, no worries om, you're not missing anything. . .
the "secret" to the "voting business" is you must really really Hope that one man can Change this whole hugely fucked up system, if only you vote him into Presidency.
(and RP fans, just junk me, there's no argument to be made here - if you still believe in voting, then hold your breath & wait a year, vote, see what happens)
even if it is utterly impotent in terms of political change, voting for ron paul and, goodness knows, his nomination or election, would be worth its, what, weight in gold? (what does a vote weigh?) as political theater. entertainment, bitchez!
My hope is to see the faces and reactions to the corporate owned media and their pundits and the political analysts and financial analysts on the business channels and the Wall St. scum and corporate welfare queens and corrupt politicians that know when Ron Paul is President there's a new sherrif in town and he's untouchable.
then it looks like you still "believe" in the political system, and that "the president" has some kind of power and/or authority in the overall scheme of things. which is fine, I just don't believe any of that is true, for decades now at least, and most likely, from the beginning (of amrka).
I'd love to believe in a "white knight" hero riding into town to save the day, one lone figure against the massive system juggernaut crushing everything in its path, but I've read & witnessed too much at this point to let that idea take hold in my thinking.
still, I wish you and the others here the best as the future collides with our awareness.
"Under a gold standard the private banking system will simply be able to concentrate control of the yellow metal"
Precisely!
Gold is bankers money, silver is people’s money. If you follow the yellow brick road it will lead you to a city of green controlled by a deceptive wizard. Silver will let you beat feet out of that trick bag.
Hmm... sounds like a good idea for a story.
Nothing against gold, I've got some, but silver is abundant enough to be reintroduced as circulating money. Bankers are even now making a grab for the gold. Silver is a pain for them and they don't have piles of it anymore.
The trick is to get a real value exchange medium to operate out of the control of bankers.. AND the government for that matter.
JFK tried it but bad things happened and the silver certificate was trashed.
Study history.. this is not the first time around for the issue and the answers are there.
This is a good start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs
The majority of the gold supply is not held by banks. Why do some many people continue to believe it is?
World gold holdings (2008) (Source: World Gold Council[20]) Holding Percentage Jewelry 52% Central banks 18% Investment (bars, coins) 16% Industrial 12% Unaccounted 2%Nice to see the occasional sane comment still gets through. All you people clamouring for a gold standard are in some sort of bizarro religious trance. Thinking a gold standard is the magic bullet is as equally inane as thinking printing endless money is the magic bullet.
It may not be a magic bullet, but still a bullet all the same.
One that would put holes in the current fiat system that steals from its citizens through inflation, etc.
"Under a gold standard the private banking system will simply be able to concentrate control of the yellow metal, like they do now" that is a goofy argument. If they owned/concentrated it all it wouldn't be valuable to anyone. It is only valuable if it's in circulation. Nobody would want something that only a few people had. That is why the movie "Goldfinger" was silly too. The guy that has all the gold is like the guy that "owns" the moon...lot's of good it does when you can't use it for anything. Also, as Crockett below states, the CBs don't own it all anyway, people own most of it. Central Banks didn't make it valuable they wanted it because people deemed it valuable.
I used to laugh about Goldfinger (movie) as well in that way...
Now... CRUDE OIL would be a totally different story... If one really wants to (literally) bomb us back into stone age, start dropping nukes into oil fields (applying the Goldfinger method)...
Damnit. Ron Paul is advocating competing currencies. You are NOT restricted to gold or silver. Bill still wants to maintain centralized economic planning of money with the treasury instead of the fed. The outcome will be the same. Ron Paul is saying the the free market decide how much money is needed.
And stop saying we can't go back to the gold standard. Ron Paul's does NOT want the price fixed faux gold standard from the 1930's.
ron paul is the man against the man.
nice vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V36MT5lAMrc&feature=related
This one has more subtle music with additional debate performance clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXwejQJzrJQ
Dangerously advantageous for the US, such a sytem would be. when commodities such as wheat or timber were to be priced in gold, the US would become a net Creditor overnight.
How can you not vote for someone who wants to get rid of the I.R.S?
Those oppourtunities don't come around everyday.
You know the guy believes what he says. He's the only congress person who opted out of the priviliged congressional pension plan.
On that we agree.
Ron Paul Interview with Mike Maloney of goldsilver.com
http://youtu.be/MCt2yRqlCcQ
RP circa 1988, message hasn't changed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I2fRcFPzu4
I like Ron Paul and most of what he has to say, but this is not a solution. And to be give him his props, he is also talking about other ways to fix the problem, such as defense cuts. And his exortation that the real risk to America is not terrorists but our financial debt is on the money. However, what no one will admit (except Tyler) is that the situation cannot be fixed.
We need to face the facts and admit we cannot fix the problem without a revolution. We have to create a new constitution, a new economic system, and a new tax system. And what are the odds of that happening? I'll tell you: One quadrillion to one. It ain't happening.
So, what do we face? We face the imminent demise of our way of life and the United States of America. It is all going to crumble away, and we are going to start over in fits and starts. It won't be pretty and it won't be organized.
This is the last presidential election in the US. Why? Because by 2016 their will not only be less than 50 states, but those states that are left won't care much about the Federal Govt. They will have focused on their own problems and become more localized. In fact, the future is all about local. I call it hyper-local. Get ready for it, because it is coming. I don't know how much time we have left to enjoy our life of affluence, but I give it about 12-36 months (probably somewhere in the middle). Let's guess at 18 months, that would be April 2013....
Newager23
We don't need to create a new constitution. The one we have now is just fine but we need to enforce it.
my uncle runs a small, inflation-hedged fund fund that looks at farmland prices, output projections and the like... and one of the cntral themes that they have discoverd is that the US constitution was magnificently constructed, and it can hold its words in every historical environment, in any country and produce the optimal catalyst for argument... no purpose to bet against the constitution
The constitution is written on hemp paper which is now illegal.
All you need to know about how upside down the world is today.
Don't bogart that Constitution, my friend. Pass it over to me.
The drafts were written on hemp, the real document is on parchment.
Which is the duty of the Executive Branch. Unfortunately, the recent heads of that branch apparently haven't read it.
I'm thinking they "smoked it"... rendering it illegible...
My suspicions about our near-term future align with your own.
I, for one, will find nothing but good things to celebrate in the breakup of the formerly United States.
Take that, Abraham Lincoln, you fascist tyrant!
"fascist" and "nazi". When all else fails use either of these two words.
When a word can mean anything, it means nothing.
By the way, what would a non-fascist tyrant be like for the people?
It's tyranny that is the problem. Not the brand under which it operates.
Since the corporate ball in the USA only really got rolling during and immediately following Lincoln's presidency, it seemed only fitting.
It's tyranny that is the problem
The "PROBLEM" will commence when the hookers & coke dealers will no longer accept your fiat... That'll be when you know it's about time to head for the hills...
It's tyranny that is the problem
The "PROBLEM" will commence when the hookers & coke dealers will no longer accept your fiat... That'll be when you know it's about time to head for the hills...
the states are the Fed's crackwhores.
Without federal bailouts they all crash. And they lose all the cool drone helicopters, M16s, and night vision FLIR shit that the DHS is passing around so they can play Rambo looking for terrorists that are ostensibly lurking behind every fuckin tree.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF CANDIDATE THE AMERICAN MEDIA AND PEOPLE HATE, ....THEY WANT SOMEONE WHO LIES TO THEM, SOMEONE WHO IS A LIAR, A CHEAT, A SCUMBAG, THEY DON'T WANT SOMEONE LIKE HIM, ARE YOU KIDDING ?.....IF BY ANY STRECH OF THE IMAGINATION THIS GREAT AMERICAN WOULD BE PRESIDENT, MOSSAD, WOULD HAVE A FIELD GAME WITH HIM,
If Paul gets the nomination, out come the tribe attack dogs with his on-record, recorded video interviews where he said blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites. These types of hate facts WILL NOT BE TOLERATED by the media. Paul has made the mistake many times of telling the TRUTH about shit. He said blacks have a higher propensity for crime, which is a freaking FACT. It's not made up, it isn't rayciss, it's the effing truth. We have 30+ years of data on this, no matter how much the media tries to bury it.
You see what that gets me here...stating a FACT makes you a racist, KKK, grand wizard. It isn't blacks who are saying that either, it is belly crawling, self-hating whites. The enemy is US.
"Facts" like all people below the 97th percentile of IQs should be sterilized?
Tell it to wall, dumbass.
Ron Paul never said the things which you attribute to him. They were published in his newsletter twenty years ago but were not written by him. He has publicly repudiated the comments on several occasions. Ron Paul is not interested in collectivist labels but rather sees each person as an individual.
He has, however, seen at least four thousand women naked --a feat to which Herman Cain can hardly aspire.
who writes his speeches now?
as to his "sees each person as an individual" I've yet to see a coherent response to his views on female body sovereignty. if RP wants to limit or deny a woman's right to not carry a foetus full term, has he made any comments on who will support these unwanted babies, or on paternity tests for the sperm donors so as to allow for equal responsibility in the situation?
but in the end, yeah, I highly doubt any of this will be an issue going forward, doubtful an "election" will ever take place. . .
and when an election does take place (if), what of your other views will you question?
truly not understanding your question here, care to restate it please?
The problem isn't unwanted babies. People who don't want babies can avoid their creation which a two-bit piece of rubber. The problem is stupidity and a disregard for human life.
Signed,
Just another bastard you never wanted to meet.
fine, lets go with what you've written - how is placing the responsibility SOLELY on the female for an unwanted pregnancy fair or reasonable?
MEN who don't want babies can definitely use the rubber, but unfortunately most don't.
IF denying females a right to decided whether they want to carry a pregnancy full term - and there may be a huge variety of reasons why this decision takes place, most of them to do with not being in a supportive relationship with the sperm donor - THEN will equal laws be enacted for the sperm donor? Paternity tests & subsequent expectations of financial support for the "baby"? or who will be responsible for the financial support of the human child? is this solely the responsibility of the female? if so, can you perhaps see why this is rather unfair?
WHEN that subject begins to be addressed, trust me, I'm listening.
The mothers can simply sue the fathers. With the availability of DNA testing, proof is conclusive. There ya go.
Of course my Mom decided to just raise me herself with the help of Gram and Grampap. I guess that murdering me wasn't worth the money she'd save on the deal. I really should give her a call...
I see you have an emotional dog in this race, so you're understandably responding to my posts - appreciate that you've allowed some more info into the discussion, and I'll reply with that in mind.
first, the mothers suing the the fathers is never "simple" and rewards lawyers & the system more than it awards the child. although a paternity suit - assessing DNA - would seem simple, the "she trapped me" defense makes for huge animosity between the parents, not necessarily the best way to raise a child, parents at war.
sometimes the female is emotionally attached to the "father" BUT NEITHER want to bear & raise a child, despite falling short of responsible precautions taken to prevent pregnancy. sometime circumstances change, particularly financial ones, and choices are made with many relevant (to the individuals involved) points addressed.
and sometimes women are lied to just to get laid, and shit happens.
mothers sue fathers for support all the time, and men refuse payments, disappear, lie, etc. - it's not a solution, or it would be working already, and it's not - if you read the bitterness of many of the posters here, you'll see it's not really in the best interest of the child, nor the parents, to bear a child & sue for decades of support.
with regards your mother raising you on her own, with family support - surely you can agree she chose to do this, and had a good family support system to make this choice in? SHE didn't choose abortion because of this - but what of other women who do not have these advantages? because there are many, and to disregard their personal sovereignty based on YOUR life experience is unfair.
it's like a middle class person, raised in a decent neighbourhood, with money available for extra-curricular activities, college, internships, study abroad, etc. saying, "well, I don't understand how the poor don't just succeed - I did!!"
we're not all cut from the same cloth, but we should all have the same personal rights. even women.
Should one's own offspring have the same personal rights that one desires for one's self?
I'm actually fairly agnostic about abortion as it really doesn't pertain to my current life situation at all. I see it as a distraction from issues I really care about.
But the more often I hear the practice of abortion defended in a cavalier fashion (oh that baby would be just too inconvenient so go ahead and kill it) the more I gravitate toward the anti-abortion position. But note that even Dr. Paul said that he wouldn't attempt to prosecute a woman who used "the morning after pill."
Signed,
Just another atheist who's trying to do the right thing.
I'm also a non-believer in any godlike things or beings, also trying to do what I feel is the right thing.
I'm not aware of "defending abortion in a cavalier fashion" here or anywhere - I bring it up "here" because there is talk of reversing a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, which isn't a right women have claimed historically.
I don't believe most women make the choice "cavalierly" although I'm sure some do - but again, this is their right, for the moment at least - as much of a "right" as a man has to not wear a condom, even though he has zero desire to be a father.
All I am bringing to the discussion is IF people want to role back a woman's right to make decisions about whether to carry a foetus full term, THEN the loss of personal sovereignty caused by an unwanted pregnancy should be borne by BOTH parties, which NO ONE is including in the dialogue, including Ron Paul.
If he wants to limit a woman's right to body sovereignty, I'd like to hear what the plan is for the babies that will be born to women who did not want to be fully responsible for their upbringing, including the man who contributed to the pregnancy.
Who will support the "family" financially? the state? by the taxed citizens? I'd like to read what he envisions as the outcome of this repeal of body sovereignty for women. I'd also like to know how government justifies laws applicable to only females.
Religion does NOT belong in governance. We have the results of this non-sense to live with daily already.
There is such a hunger on the part of some people to be parents that they travel to foreign lands to adopt children. Babies are wanted - desperately.
Religion doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. And personal sovereignty (of which I am a huge proponent) does not permit the injuring of another person. We could get into the "is a fetus a person" debate but let me just cut to the chase and say that I find it difficult to see a stray kitten die and human life is certainly of greater importance still. So at the very least I feel compelled to say a few good words about not killing your own kids here in the ZH forums.
Remember, Ron Paul has not said that he wants the Federal government to ban abortion. He says that the matter should be left up to the states. One of the great things about the rights states have under a true federalist system is that America becomes a living laboratory of 50 different ways to deal with things. Perhaps one of those states will find a good answer to the abortion question which has plagued our nation for so long. If such an answer can be discovered in the crucible of the federalist system then other states could enact similar policies.
those who hunger for adopting babies have plenty to choose from - plenty. those who travel to foreign lands to adopt have many, many reasons for doing so - there are plenty of babies available in amrka, not all of them wanted.
and whether you want to "go there" or not, a woman choosing not to carry a foetus full-term is not "injuring another person" - bringing in stray kittens is irrelevant to this discussion, IMO. if human life is of greater importance to you, be responsible in your actions so as not to cause harm, as do many of us.
terminating an unwanted pregnancy is NOT "killing your own kids" - now that we've gotten to the heart of your argument, we'll have to leave it at that, because you are not addressing any of my points relative to equity in the personal responsibility stakes. I'm not responding to this emotionally, I'm trying to address personal responsibility & inequity in the application of laws, based on emotive, or religious beliefs solely.
finally, shrugging off the "problem" to the individual states is exactly what I'd expect from a politician - while I'd LOVE for the states to step up and represent, we all know where that leaves us - California has legalised marijuana, and the Feds raid the legal shops selling, confiscating monies & product. Etc.
it's a moot point of course, RP will not be elected, and we have plenty more civil rights being signed away by the Congress, even today. /shrugs.
Thanks for your input. I'm now moving from the "I don't know" camp to the pro-life camp. There's few things more off putting than causal arguments in favor of the death of innocents.
give me a break dude, and stop with the intentional mis-reading of my posts.
go "pro-life" if you desire, but you're still ignoring the actual lives of who you think you're saving.
how will these "innocents" be provided for? paid for by who? over the long-term, how will these kittens survive?
or is it merely the actual BIRTH that concerns you, as so many "pro-lifers" have proved?
who pays for teh innocent baybeees???
When running for office, it matters not what you've said, only what the MSM says you've said.
Haha Crockett...ever seen a birth? I wouldn't exactly call that "naked". Here is an example of what it looks like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuPauY0abtw
sure he did...I watched the video the last time he was running for office, where he said exactly the things I have attributed to him.
Why WOULDN'T HE SAY THEM? THEY ARE THE TRUTH!
WTF is it with you people, really? It is a FACT that blacks have a higher propensity to violent crime. Got that yet? No amount of hollyweird conditioning can change that it is a FACT.
You can scream racyiss till you're blue in the face and it WON'T CHANGE THE FACT.
Y'all need to get your heads out of your asses and wake the fuck up, ok? What the fuck are you so scared of anyway, being called a racist by scummy, backstabbing white punks?
or is it that you've been taught by every message since you were a kid that to even think these things or accept the truth makes you somehow a pariah? You need to look behind the screen and identify who is selling you this lie and why.
Look, if you don't QUESTION what you believe, QUESTION authority, if you have a "mental 3rd rail" on this topic, then you have a PROBLEM.
Blacks have a higher propensity for crime, which is why they set up an quadri-continental system of stealing people and selling them into slavery.
Shit, that was white people.
Blacks have a higher propensity for crime, which is why they set up a brutal, oppressive system where one man could own another and work him to death.
Shit, that was white people.
Blacks have a higher propensity for crime, which is why they set up a comically unfair system of second-class citizenship for millions of people.
Shit, that was white people.
Blacks have a higher propensity for crime, which is why they sent tens of millions of white people to their graves in World War I and World War II.
Shit, that was white people.
Blacks have a higher propensity for crime, which is why they stole trillions from ordinary Americans when their elaborate Ponzi schemes collapsed a few years ago.
Shit, that was white people.
If only those blacks could get their criminal propensities under control, what a paradise we would have!
*chuckle*
Do check your facts. West African blacks were sold into slavery by their own 'king' / rulers of the day... The ruling black elite.
"Dreams from my father"
I guess Egypt didn't exist until white people?
LOL...you should review Farrakhan's writings about the slave trade. Wasn't so "white" as you believe, bud.
And you should check out the Congo War. On a per capita basis, white wars are less destructive than black ones.
Get off your belly and stand up like a man, bitch.
Plus, I'm not sure what relevance shit that happened 150 years ago, 50 years, 100 years....has to do with NOW or LAST YEAR, where blacks AGAIN committed roughly 54% of homicides, THE SAME AS THEY HAVE FOR 30 YEARS.
In fact, during Jim Crow, after Jim Crow, before/after Brown, before/after AA, before/after gangsta rap, before/after crack, before/after EVERYTHING, the percent of homicides attributable to this group has been PRETTY MUCH LEVEL.
Go look at the fucking data. Not ONE of the things you throw up as an ill visited upon blacks is in ANY WAY material to the statement of FACT about their propensity to violent crime.
In fact, the way you throw up that chaff is tantamount to a CONCESSION on your part that what I have said is true! You do not even dispute it. I LOVE how people do that, don't even argue the point and instead start throwing up things that are supposed to somehow EXPLAIN the fact and then they throw in a huge nonsequitur and fallacy at the end to sum it up.
.... a man of deep conviction, intelligence & a patriot. Dr. Paul shines bright in the midst of a bunch of criminals, liars & theives that currently are in charge & call themselves a government.
Dr. Paul should remind Timmy...and his minions at the gubmint's Treasury Dept....that in the "Civil War Period".....debasing and 'jackin' around with the nation's currency was a crime punishable by death.
I'd like to see him ramp up the rhetoric...with a bit more vitriol....and put an end to the "Media Blackouts"