Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

KDakotaFund (23.97)

Ron Paul: What Are They So Afraid Of?

Recs

23

July 31, 2009 – Comments (10)

10 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 31, 2009 at 3:32 PM, rofgile (99.30) wrote:

The reason we don't want congress nosing around and controlling the Federal Banking system with mandates is that congress is a bunch of idiots.

Congress and senate has consisted of ex-comedians (Sonny Bono, Al Franken), pedophiles (Mark Foley), windbags (Sen. Shelby, Santorum, Kennedy, etc etc), and lots of members with particular ties to lobbyists in housing, banking, industry etc.

These are the people you keep away from controlling the money system in the United States.  The minute these guys get the power over the Fed banks, that is the day the Fed banking system dies again (we've had like three Fed banking systems now?).  They'll lower rates and cause super inflation when it'll get them votes, they'll give loans due to lobbyists, etc.  You want people who are economists (such as someone whose extensively studied the Great Depression) in charge of monetary policy.  Not a bunch of clowns.

I have great respect for Ron Paul and his legislative history.  He's done good for his districts.  But he's the kind of ideologue you need to keep out of power - cause he'd remake the whole system.  You don't want ideologues who'll change the whole system in power - that's when you get people like Mao and the effects are all the tens of millions who died under his ideological dreams. 

Report this comment
#2) On July 31, 2009 at 3:33 PM, rofgile (99.30) wrote:

If we had Ron Paul in there right now, it would be like Hoover 2.0

Report this comment
#3) On July 31, 2009 at 3:41 PM, DaretothREdux (43.57) wrote:

rofgile,

Either you completely misunderstand history or you are intentionally manipulating it to get a rise out of some people.

Either way, it's not worth arguing with you until you get your facts straight.

Dare

Report this comment
#4) On July 31, 2009 at 3:56 PM, abitare (33.78) wrote:

Good post.

rofgile,

U do not know your history. But it does not matter the current system is done. It is just a matter of time before everyone adapts.

Here what they FED said in 1933:

Report this comment
#5) On July 31, 2009 at 3:59 PM, abitare (33.78) wrote:

See if this rings true:

 

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."  Thomas Jefferson, Letter 1802 to Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin

 

Report this comment
#6) On July 31, 2009 at 6:29 PM, rofgile (99.30) wrote:

That's fine guys, but you didn't answer my post:

Would you really want the folks in house and senate to be deciding monetary policy?  I don't. 

Report this comment
#7) On July 31, 2009 at 6:31 PM, rofgile (99.30) wrote:

If we got rid of the Fed Banking system (Ron Paul - style), how would our monetary policy (how much currency to have at a time, how much interest rates should be set for, etc) be decided?

Report this comment
#8) On August 01, 2009 at 1:18 AM, DaretothREdux (43.57) wrote:

rofgile,

No. I don't want congress and the senate deciding monetary policy, but that might be preferable to a "secret" agency with zero oversight.

The solution is actually quite simple: allow competing currencies.

Allow for banks to print their own money and back it by whatever they see fit: gold, silver, oil, etc.

Then let people choose which currency to use and which banks to borrow/loan to/from.

I don't expect the government to be able to determine the price of eggs or car tires, so why would I expect them to be able to determine interest rates or decide how much "fiat" (read back by nothing) money should be printed.

Dare

After all, the market is pretty effiecent when it knows all the facts.

Report this comment
#9) On August 01, 2009 at 1:39 AM, rofgile (99.30) wrote:

So, every US bank would have its own currency? 

How is this different than if every country has its own currency?  

All you seem to be wanting is more variables, and confusion?  I wouldn't want to get paid in some weird currency that only people in say Utah would accept, but not New Mexico.  That would just be a gigantic pain.  

When does the market know all the facts?  How would I know that the Utah bank hasn't just printed a whole lot of cash for one of it's bankers to buy a new car?  

At least with countries managing currencies, the uncertainties are lower.  We know that the US has printed more currency lately through buying its own debt.  Has this led to inflation?  Not really, because at the same time our interest rates are very low.  If inflation occurred above 5% yearly rate, they could just raise the interest rates and end it.

Having each bank print its own currency, would be almost back to the level of bartering.  And at least with bartering, you could know how much you assets are worth.

Daretooth,

 I'm not trying to troll this blog, but I really have my doubts about Ron Paul as an economic answer to the current problems.  You should write a blog listing his ideas perhaps, and why each would be helpful?  That would be very interesting.  I actually was quite enamored with him as a candidate when he was running, but the last two years have changed a lot of my beliefs about economic policy.  Now I am more on the Krugman side of things, believing that to avert a depression, we need to have government spending to balance out the loss of trade and consumer spending.  I think this is a minority view in CAPS.

Report this comment
#10) On August 01, 2009 at 4:03 AM, whereaminow (20.24) wrote:

So, every US bank would have its own currency? 

The notes issued by the banks may or may not differ, but their underlying value would be measured against the same specie, so it is for all practical purposes irrelevant.  It is also the system that existed without government interference via legal tender laws and bank cartelization.

How is this different than if every country has its own currency?

Currency would maintain its purchasing power value, since it would not be subject to the discredited beliefs of Keynesian economists.  If you are not aware that Keynesians are discredited, please research the word stagflation. Futhermore, paper currencies only exist by force.  They never arose naturally in the market economy.

All you seem to be wanting is more variables, and confusion?

Nothing could ever match the government's ability to increase variables and confusion.  See the millions of pages of regulations and legislation currently on the books.  Not to mention the inherent confusion caused by trying to guess what the great Communist Central Planner Fed Chairman's next move will be,

At least with countries managing currencies, the uncertainties are lower.

Not at all historically true.  Pure government propaganda.

Having each bank print its own currency, would be almost back to the level of bartering.

Not true. Bartering is the direct exchange of goods.  Commensurability is what makes indirect exchange possible.  Historically, the market has always chosen a fungible, durable good as the means of commensurability.  Paper currencies are lack the monetary value (it's zero) to ensure stability.  That's why every paper currency ends up leading to bartering once it implodes.  Each paper currency has failed historically.

David in Qatar

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement