We’ve been on the gold standard before, you know. Things were worse.
A fraud whose support is mostly made up of credophiles. conspiracy nuts and woo-believers?
You may have a point…
The dollar is backed by the most stable, reliable commodity known, that being the dollar. Sure, it has no inherent value, but then, neither does gold. The only reason gold has any value in today’s world is that you can get dollars with it.
A dollar would only be worth a specific amount of gold because the government says it is. You know, by fiat.
I think Paul would be a disaster as president (although I wouldn’t mind a few more libertarians in the legislature). I hope, though, he’s included in a few presidential debates just so we don’t have to hear how the media has kept him down. What, you don’t think the RP conspiracy theories will die down if he’s given a “fair shot”?
Are you fucking kidding me? As people become educated about him and his positions, he gains support exponentially. Because he is right, he has been right. He has spent an entire lifetime learning economics and understanding the Federal Reserve system and Fractional Reserve Banking. He has studied history and Constitutional law. He is a statesman first and foremost, a politician second.
Considering you don’t seem to have a vaguest notion of economics yourself, why don’t you read Ron Paul’s book End the Fed and educated yourself a little bit?
Then read these books:
Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises
The Road to Serfdom, by FA Hayek
Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt
America’s Great Depression, by Murray Rothbard
I have read all of these. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt you have studied any economics at all. How can you smear someones ideas when you know nothing about the subject?
If you care to be intellectually honest, research Ron Paul’s positions on economic issues and tell me, point by point, why he is wrong.
Why don’t you also explain why your favored mainstream Keynesian economists (who without question failed to understand to origins of our economic crisis and don’t have any real solutions) have any credibility left.
I’ve noticed that weak minded people tend to throw around labels like “kook”, “fringe”, “tin foil hat wearing nut” as a crutch to obscure their own lack of knowledge of the issues. Its like somebody is trying to educate you about whats going on in the world around you, and you refuse to allow him to make you think. You would say, “keep out the intellectual, researched arguments, lets narrow down the field to the sound byte guys, the guys who are simply paid corporate shills.” Keep dumbing it down, Sage Rat.
If you want to have a truly intellectual argument about the merits of Austrian theory vs Keynesian theory, I am open to that. If you care to respond, try to actually put some substance into your post.
I don’t think Greenspan would characterize himself as a Keynesian. But its not like the gold standard is some great untried experiment. Unemployment doesn’t look any better or worse pre goldstandard then it does post, and I’d argue the standard of living is very much higher now then back then, and our recessions are both milder and less frequent.
Inflation hasn’t been a problem in the US for my entire life, and we currently have deflation. If leaving the goldstandard leads to hyperinflation, it sure takes its sweet time doing so.
Exactly. A currency “backed by” gold is just a currency that you can take to a certain location, and exchange it for a certain weight of gold. You can do this today with the US dollar–you can take dollars into any coin shop and exchange your dollars for gold.
A promise from the government that you will be able to exchange your dollar for a certain weight of gold is just that, a promise. It’s only trustworthy to the extent the government is trustworthy. If you don’t trust the government to maintain a fiat currency, why would you trust it to maintain a gold backed currency? The history of currencies backed by gold shows that the moment there’s a crisis or a war, the first thing the government does is suspend the exchange of gold for currency.
And so the gold standard is a fraud. If you want money that isn’t a fraud, you’d have to use actual gold and silver coins, rather than pieces of paper with some government promise printed on them. And note that there is nothing stopping you from using only gold and silver to trade with, except the problem that very few commercial entities want to deal with gold and silver, and instead prefer the fictional fiat currency. In fact, they don’t even want the currency and would prefer to deal exclusively with electronic money.
That is, you pay your bills by credit or debit card, you pay your monthly credit card bill by transfering from your bank account, and you add to your bank account by direct deposit from your employer. No actual currency changes hands, just entries in a database. Once we’re at the point where the vast majority of transactions are electronic, what’s the point of insisting that the dollar can be converted to a specific wieght of gold? If you’re worried about hyperinflation, then don’t leave much of your savings in the form of dollars. But gold coins aren’t the only way to pereserve the value of your savings against inflation–stocks, real property, and lots of other goods could do that. Gold is just one of literally thousands of goods that you can exchange your dollars for, that won’t lose their value in the event of hyperinflation.
In fact, if you’re expecting hyperinflation the best thing you can do is take out a thirty year fixed rate mortgage on a home. You’ll buy the house in 2010 dollars, but pay it back in worthless 2020, 2030 and 2040 dollars. Take out as much debt as you possibly can, because inflation will erase those debts. You want to be a debtor, not a creditor. Of course, if we have deflation instead you’ll have to pay back your debt with more expensive dollars, and you’ll be ruined.
You mean the Federal Reserve System created a century ago? Yes, I would say it has been somewhat successful in creating the most diverse and robust economy on Earth.
Ron Paul is a crank who predicts disaster every time a microphone is shoved in his face. Wait, nobody who knows anything about economics or politics cares what Paul has to say, so I should say that he predicts disaster every time he can push his way onto a stage.
And you know what? It doesn’t matter to his supporters when he was wrong. His cries of disaster are disregarded if it about the economic growth of most of the 1980s, 1990s, or even the modest growth in the 2000s. But mention the recession of 1991, or 2000, or 2009-10, and OMG he’s a genuis! It’s confirmation bias in action.
Actually, as far as I can tell, he has never entered a formal study of economics, history, or politics. He got his BA in biology and later an MD. There’s nothing I can find that says has even taken an economics 101 class. Please show me at what college or university and under which professors he studied economics, and it’d be great if you could tell me what grades he got. I can share my transcript if you wish.
Paul is actually a lifelong politician. He’s been running for elected office pretty much continuously since 1974. You may admire him, but that doesn’t make him not a politician.
He’s a Chicago School, Milton Friedmanish monetarist, which to the Austrian school is just as bad, if not worse, because ever since the 1980s and embrace of monetarist theories by people like Reagan and Thatcher, monetarism is seen as the “conservative” economic school, which the Austrian school resents.
I like the quote from the blogger who observed that Ron Paul was getting quite a bit of support from fringe types, “because Lyndon Larouche is too dang cerebral”. 
Libertarianism, carefully filtered, sounds just fine to a lot of people until they figure out what they’re going to lose with it. And that’s before the bigotry and wooist lunacy gets wider attention.
This is a guy (a physician, no less) who is involved in fearmongering about vaccines and preaches against government-mandated vaccination programs (which have been hugely successful in eliminating or vastly reducing once-feared diseases). Here’s an example of what his loony antivax followers have been saying (the most hilarious bit is where the writer refers to his Leader as *** **** (He Who Must Not Be Named).
Yup, a Paul candidacy appeals to those who simplify complex issues by suggesting that all their opponents are on the take and They Don’t Want You To Know (about everything).
As a G.O.P. candidate, Ron would continue to grab a few headlines and finish well back in the pack. As an independent candidate, he is Obama’s dream come true - getting up to 10% or so of the vote and siphoning off far more support from the Republican candidate than from Obama. Make it a Paul-Palin ticket and they might come in a distant second to Obama.
It would be fun.
By the way, why did you ignore the issue of Ron Paul’s despicable, racist comments?
Keep in mind I only provided a couple quotes. There’s certainly more where that came from.
And, btw, it’s not like Hayek was in love with the gold standard, anyway. Even near the end of his life, when he was at his most radical and playing with the idea of getting rid of government issued money (he floated the idea of replacing it with private currency and introducing competing currencies), he said in an interview in 1984:
Ron Paul claims that we should return to the gold standard because gold represents “real value”. He never explains why gold represents real value. (Neither do you, for that matter.) You can’t eat gold, live in gold, drive gold, or do anything else useful with gold. As for the idea that gold somehow represents a store of value that doesn’t depreciate, it’s nonsense. The price of gold depends on supply and demand, just like everything else. When there’s a big gold find anywhere, the price plummets. Between 1981 and 2000, the inflation-adjusted price of gold dropped by more than 90 percent. If we had followed Ron Paul’s leadership, the value of our dollars would have dropped by that same amount. Would you be happier if we had lost 90+% of our money between 1981 and 2000?
At least you are being honest. I suggest you actually look through all the links, given how many inaccuracies are in this post.
What? Ron Paul wants to cut spending, so he can’t balance the budget? That is the only way to balance the budget. A balanced budget means that we are not spending more than we are taking in in revenue. To accomplish this means we must cut spending significantly. Do you dispute this?
Ron Paul does NOT favor abolishing Medicare and Social Security. He favors phasing them out over a period of time. All current recipients will be taken care of. In fact if we don’t cut elsewhere the programs will simply collapse due to a monetary crisis.
Ron Paul’s solution is to make these programs solvent, while allowing young people to opt out (they won’t receive anything when they retire anyway).
If you actually looked through the links you wouldn’t be mis-characterizing Ron Paul’s position.
That is absurd. Going off the Gold Standard didn’t get us out of the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve’s reckless monetary policy during the 20s caused the Great Depression. Then propping up bad debt, not allowing the correction to occur, deficit spending and public works programs caused what would have been a year or two correction into a fifteen year nightmare for this country.
Most people don’t know the truth about the cause of the Great Depression, so I don’t blame you for parroting mis truths we are told over and over again.
Its the most sane of any Democrat as well. What on earth does the Cold War have to do with us continually fucking with third world nations in the middle east? Don’t you admit we are bankrupt and need to cut somewhere? If we can’t cut wasteful overseas military expenditures what can we cut?
You should stop using labels like liberal and conservative. There is only Truth and Lies. Ron Paul is not going to alienate the elderly (I already explained this). Look at the Tea Party movement. Social conservatism is taking a backseat to economic issues, unemployment, anger about corporate bailouts and such. Grassroots conservatives have moved in a libertarian direction. The old GOP coalition is already broken up. If the Republicans ever want to win again, they can’t simply rely on wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion, and warmongering. The Demographics are changing.
You say the left is disillusioned because Obama isn’t liberal enough? What does that mean to you? You think he should spend more money? I don’t know exactly what that means.
For many years, to be truly “far left” according to Fox News was to be truly Anti War. To be far left was to be for ending the war on drugs. To be far left meant prosecuting corporate crime and ending agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare.
All positions Ron Paul endorses. Many liberals care about Civil Liberties and privacy. Obama has continued the Bush policies over warrantless wiretapping and suspension of habeas corpus. He even endorses assassination of US citizens if they are deemed an “enemy combatant”. Many on the left are angry about this.
Ron Paul supports civil liberties.
Ron Paul frequently says that conservatives tend to defend economic liberties (keeping your own money, free enterprise, freedom from excessive regulation) and liberals tend to defend personal liberty (gay rights, lifestyle choice, freedom to use drugs, freedom from invasion of privacy, etc). He believes that Freedom is one indivisible whole that should be defended in its entirety.
And there are many liberals who are angry that Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan and is promoting propaganda against Iran. Don’t you see how powerful a truly antiwar Republican could be against Obama in 2012? (one who has true credibility on the issue).
Ron Paul is not going to completely dismantle the Federal Government in a four year term. Don’t worry about that. But I believe he will attract liberals who are very supportive of the items highest on his agenda (ending overseas wars, auditing the federal reserve, prosecuting corporate crime, ending the war on drugs, repealing the Patriot Act).
This support from democrats was demonstrated in 2008. Ron Paul’s supporters overlapped significantly with Barack Obama’s supporters (particularly the youth demographic). At his rallies you would see many democrats.
Plus, there are more registered Independents than every before. Most people don’t consider themselves Republican or Democrat. They may sometimes vote that way, but it is a compromise. Most people just want somebody who makes sense and has practical solutions to lead us out of this mess we find ourselves in.
So, I know that Ron Paul can attract a very diverse cross section of this country, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians.
Besides, having the truth on your side never hurts.
I don’t think you really understand what he stands for. He has already demonstrated a diverse coalition of supporters. An ideologue just means someone who actually believes in something. If you are a “pragmatist”, it means you will support the status quo and corporate oligarchy simply because it is the easier thing to do.
We need an “ideologue”. We just need to figure out which ideology makes sense and support it 100%.
Seriously. I don’t actually think Obama is that intelligent. I think he is talented. His image is that of a very sophisticated, professorial guy who is likable and has charisma. But its just an act. Like Reagan before him, Obama is an actor who knows how to read his lines and project a certain image. But when you actually listen to the substance of his speeches, it is mind numbing stuff. He knows nothing about economics (perhaps an important subject to understand given our current conditions). He knows nothing about middle east history and foreign policy (otherwise he would never have supported the surge in Afghanistan).
To me, he is a puppet designed to distract from the people really running the show. He simply provides cover for the wall street criminals and the military industrial complex who are running this country into the ground.
Hes certainly smarter than Bush, however. But in a debate of substance, Ron Paul would blow him away with his knowledge of economic policy, the banking system, US history, and foreign policy. I would suspect Obama’s responses would be something like McCain’s response to a question posed by Ron Paul in one of the republican debates:
jrodefeld, I suggest you tone it down. Personal attacks aren’t allowed here. If people want to call Ron Paul or his ideas kooky, they’re allowed to do so. Your comments to Sage Rat were personal and that stuff belongs in The BBQ Pit.
Why on earth would you think that people knowing what Ron Paul believes in would make people turn against him? The evidence suggests that the more people learn about him and his positions the more support he gains. It is exponential.
What exactly do you think is so dangerous and radical about obeying the Constitution, having a balanced budget, ending illegal overseas wars, and prosecuting corporate crime? Ending the War on Drugs? Auditing the Federal Reserve?
I would hope you could put some substance into your post next time.
You don’t support ending the war on drugs? I’m not a stoner (though I partake on occasion).
Do you think Obama is doing a great job? Would you rather see Palin or Romney as a challenger?
This.
If Ron Paul is the answer, then the question is: “Can’t we put a better face on crazy than Sarah Palin?”
Mitt Romney is the one the us Democrats are worried about.
I don’t think Palin has every advocated switching to the gold standard.