The Ron Paul Movement

At 2/9/2012 5:42:27 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I think the pertinent question is "why?" When you look up a Ron Paul debate from the 80s, and he's saying the exact same things he's saying now, it kind shocks you into believing that he may have right on his side after all. Obama and Romney's views probably just shift with the political wind.

Yeah... because holding the same views for three decades is totally proof that he's actually right. Totally.

At 2/10/2012 10:21:30 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

If Sanotrum can stay on the roll he is on and keep winning caucases, I will throw my support with him. I want whoever can beat Obama.:

That's dumb. Romney IS Obama... they have the exact same policies. Obama is every bit as "conservative" as Romney is, and Romney is every bit as "liberal" as Obama is. They both play the harlot... both true-blue politicians to the end. Gingrich is a self-serving neo-con, and Santorum would want to waterboard truant kids from school.

Why do you settle for the lesser of two evils? Ever heard the phrase, "The enemy of my enemy is not my friend?" That applies to this conversation.

10/10

At 2/9/2012 3:02:10 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I personally do not think that Ron Paul will come even close to winning the presidency, or even close to the Republican nomination.

But he is starting a movement that is rocking politics. He wants the Government to get out of our lives, he wants polticians to put the country first, and he wants freedom to be restored to this country.

His movement is gaining tremenduous momentum too. Everywhere I go there are Ron Paul signs and political paraphenalia. I see no other Republican political stuff. He has a lot more followers than he did 4 years ago, and 4 years before that, his movement was non-existant.

I think Ron Paul is the best of a bad bunch for Republican candidates because he is suspicious of the monetary system and the way in which money is borrowed into existence. His embracing of a Gold Standard is I think the wrong solution however. It would create even greater inequality than we have now. Why would he want to base the dollar currency on something that the US has very little of? Most of the gold is in private hands so the money supply will be controlled by these people instead of bankers (assuming they are not one and the same).

We need to return the money creation power back into democratic hands.

At 2/10/2012 3:58:07 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

At 2/9/2012 3:02:10 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
I personally do not think that Ron Paul will come even close to winning the presidency, or even close to the Republican nomination.

But he is starting a movement that is rocking politics. He wants the Government to get out of our lives, he wants polticians to put the country first, and he wants freedom to be restored to this country.

His movement is gaining tremenduous momentum too. Everywhere I go there are Ron Paul signs and political paraphenalia. I see no other Republican political stuff. He has a lot more followers than he did 4 years ago, and 4 years before that, his movement was non-existant.

I think Ron Paul is the best of a bad bunch for Republican candidates because he is suspicious of the monetary system and the way in which money is borrowed into existence. His embracing of a Gold Standard is I think the wrong solution however. It would create even greater inequality than we have now. Why would he want to base the dollar currency on something that the US has very little of? Most of the gold is in private hands so the money supply will be controlled by these people instead of bankers (assuming they are not one and the same).

We need to return the money creation power back into democratic hands.

+1. If only he could be elected.

I think Ron Paul is the best of a bad bunch for Republican candidates because he is suspicious of the monetary system and the way in which money is borrowed into existence. His embracing of a Gold Standard is I think the wrong solution however. It would create even greater inequality than we have now. Why would he want to base the dollar currency on something that the US has very little of? Most of the gold is in private hands so the money supply will be controlled by these people instead of bankers (assuming they are not one and the same).:

The reason the Gold Standard is so highly touted by him is that gold, unlike the fiat currency we now use, actually has intrinsic value. Because there is a finite amount, money that is backed by gold becomes that much more precious and it keeps inflation and hyper-inflation in check. The monopoly money that the FED prints is backed by nothing, except debt that's already embedded into it. It's literally legal counterfeitting.

Why we haven't learned from other countries, who print so much f*cking money they literally have to walk around with wheelbarrow's of cash (seriously), because the currency has been debased so much that the paper and ink used to print it is worth much more than the currency it represents

Ft. Knox is the most secure building in the world for a reason.

We need to return the money creation power back into democratic hands.:

We need to get rid of the central banks and the private bankers who control credit.

At 2/10/2012 4:53:23 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

I think Ron Paul is the best of a bad bunch for Republican candidates because he is suspicious of the monetary system and the way in which money is borrowed into existence. His embracing of a Gold Standard is I think the wrong solution however. It would create even greater inequality than we have now. Why would he want to base the dollar currency on something that the US has very little of? Most of the gold is in private hands so the money supply will be controlled by these people instead of bankers (assuming they are not one and the same).:

The reason the Gold Standard is so highly touted by him is that gold, unlike the fiat currency we now use, actually has intrinsic value. Because there is a finite amount, money that is backed by gold becomes that much more precious and it keeps inflation and hyper-inflation in check. The monopoly money that the FED prints is backed by nothing, except debt that's already embedded into it. It's literally legal counterfeitting.

I have sympathy with a lot of your views Mr Paradigm but I'm not convinced that a return to the Gold Standard is the solution. If I have a Disney World Ticket, is that worthless just because it's printed on paper? Would it be that much more valuable if it was made out of gold leaf (or backed by a tiny amount of gold)? Would it be good for production of Disney tickets if Disney couldn't produce any more because they were waiting for some more gold to be mined?

Just look at how much gold is in the world versus dollars. If the dollar was pegged to gold, you would have massive currency devaluation overnight, not just the 20% we have experienced in the UK over the last 3 years.

It doesn't matter what backs the money IMO, what matters is who controls the quantity of money. Let us use modern technology and an independent body (accountable to parliament but not govt) to do this.

Why we haven't learned from other countries, who print so much f*cking money they literally have to walk around with wheelbarrow's of cash (seriously), because the currency has been debased so much that the paper and ink used to print it is worth much more than the currency it represents

This hasn't happened that often recently in the West. The last time I can think of hyperinflation was Weimar Republic 1920s. And part of the reason for that was speculative attack by private financiers.

Ft. Knox is the most secure building in the world for a reason.

Why won't they audit the gold properly then? What's the purity of the gold in Fort Knox? Is there any gold actually there now?

We need to return the money creation power back into democratic hands.:

We need to get rid of the central banks and the private bankers who control credit.

I am sympathetic to this view. Central banks had interest rates far too low leading up to the crash. But it's a crazy system of control that often lags the real activity in the economy by months. During a boom, private banks have their foot on the accelerator and central banks have their foot on the brake. When there is a crash, they swap peddles! Ridiculous! I would rather the interest rates were market controlled and an independent body (such as the MPC in the UK) controlled the quantity of money.