It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul A Distaster For The USA. Hes Always Wrong. Why Is There So Much Love For Him ? Wrong Paul

page: 36
50
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
No matter how many facts are posted, Gorgi and Foodman will shut it down because their brains are not capable of handling such information.

Living in your little fantasy world isn't going to help anything.



The USD is backed by the US Government, oh yea that is true. Who is losing faith? The people, the markets, the world.

Learn some economics, open your mind to things that go around in the rest of the world. The world used to revolve around the U.S. but not anymore. If they FED keeps up this loose monetary policy, The most powerful city in the world New York City may very well end up like detroit (once the most powerful city in the world).




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by Foodman
gorgi i am tired of your informative posts. just stop posting facts and agree with me. plz.

lol jk, its been three years and ron paul has been wrong on the economy and markets. why do ppl still listen to a person who has been wrong for such a long time. ? isint that the definition of insanity.


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results~ Einstein

Ron Paul has been wrong so many times that it is insane to think that he will ever be right. He has been wrong on everything related to the economy.


According to who? and what source? your innate ability to understand common sense? If so, then yes, he has been world on everything according to your narrow world.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
haha what a silly thread.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 

I believe they are the same individual.
The entire premise of the thread and the financial theory offered is delusional, it's not even economics 101.
There's something wrong with the writer.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 





The entire premise of the thread and the financial theory offered is delusional, it's not even economics 101.


Yes.

Most people understand the concept of counterfeiting. They understand that if you print up twenty dollar bills in the basement and use those bills to buy things that it is a form of stealing.

Our whole world of human interaction is based on the concept of exchanging a thing of value for another thing of value. It started out as barter and is STILL barter except "money" is used to facilitate that barter. Money just represents the agreed upon value of the things being bartered. This means a farmer does not have to use a chicken to pay the dentist who really did not want the chicken so then has to take the chicken to the butcher or shoe maker and hope he can exchange it for what he really wants.

Now we have a system where a man lies as part of that exchange, cheating the other side of the barter contract out of their property.

It is a form of theft. It is Fraud, where in an exchange, one side has reneged by not forking over a thing of value (Consideration). By making trades under false pretenses, only one side of the exchange has actually been made. The defrauder, the counterfeiter, the banker, the Federal Reserve, has gained value from someone, but hasn't provided his side of the exchange.

This was established in a court of law First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)

It was also established quite recently by a friend in a New York court against Bank of America. Like Daly he represented himself. He proved to the court that the contract with the bank was void because there was no consideration on the part of the bank.

Further:


NOTICE OF REFUSAL TO ALLOW APPEAL

TO: Hugo L. Hentges, Clerk of District Court, Plaintiff, First National Bank of Montgomery and Defendant Jerome Daly:

You will Please take Notice that the undersigned Justice of the Peace, Martin V. Mahoney, hereby, pursuant to law, refuses to allow the Appeal in the above entitled action, and refuses to make an entry of such allowance in the undersigned's Docket....

These Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money within the contemplation of the Constitution of the United States and are null and void. Further, the Notes on their face are not redeemable in Gold or Silver Coin nor is there a fund set aside anywhere for the redemption of said Notes.

However, this is a determination of a question of Law and Fact by the undersigned pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. Plaintiff is entitled to be accorded full due process of Law before the Court in this present determination not to allow the Appeal.... usa-the-republic.com...


Consideration



The whole argument revolves around the concept of consideration in a written or unwritten contract.

In common law it is a prerequisite that both parties offer some consideration before a contract can be thought of as binding


Consideration is an essential element for the formation of a contract. It may consist of a promise to perform a desired act or a promise to refrain from doing an act that one is legally entitled to do. In a bilateral contract—an agreement by which both parties exchange mutual promises—each promise is regarded as sufficient consideration for the other. In a unilateral contract, an agreement by which one party makes a promise in exchange for the other's performance, the performance is consideration for the promise, while the promise is consideration for the performance.

Consideration must have a value that can be objectively determined. A promise, for example, to make a gift or a promise of love or affection is not enforceable because of the subjective nature of the promise. legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...


The adequacy of consideration from USlegal.com


Contracts Consideration Law & Legal Definition

Consideration in the law of contracts is something of value given by one party in return for the promises of the other party to the contract. Consideration may be given for performance of an act or for not performing an act. For example, a person may make a valid contract by paying someone not to erect a fence on their property.

Although the consideration must be adequate in order to make a contract enforceable, adequacy does not mean that the contract price exactly matches, or exceeds, the fair market value of the property; instead, to be "adequate" the agreed consideration must only approximate the market value sufficiently that the conscience of the Judge is not offended. Adequacy of the consideration is measured as of the parties' entry into the contract, not at the time for performance or at the time of trial. To measure the adequacy of the consideration at any other time would deprive the buyer of the benefit of his bargain.



Bankers hold themselves above the contract law that governs the rest of us and get away with it because they are so big and powerful.

As one judge said off the record:


If I let you do that – you and everyone else – it would bring the whole system down. . . . I cannot let you go behind the bar of the bank. . . . We are not going behind that curtain!5


... Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s... declared in an address at the University of Texas in 1927:


The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin

. . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. . . . Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.
www.webofdebt.com...


WE ARE FREE RANGE SLAVES UNTIL WE FREE OURSELVES FROM THE BANKERS!




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
He's no charisma, too.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


NONE of THIS Leveraged buyout stuff is "CAPITALISM" it is not wealth driven but Fiat Funny Money Driven!



These Corporate raiders are NOT using their own wealth - that is the product of their own labor, to make these "deals" they are borrowing money that a banker creates out of thin air.

Stop and think, could all those leveraged buyouts actually happen if the "money" to do it had to come from someones savings???

REAL capitalism is reinvesting the fruits of YOUR labor into producing products to sell. It is not the evil here. It is the creating money out of thin air that is the problem. Money whose VALUE according to Mises is stolen from those who are last in line. The poor smucks buying products at inflated prices with devalued wages!

Now to the actual definition of Capitalism since we seem to disagree:


Money is a bartering tool and a commodity. People use money to exchange goods and services at any given value. It is a commodity as well because it represents value, thus when someone asks to borrow a large amount of money from you and you trust them, chances are you will ask for interest in the process. AT LEAST I WOULD!

Would you lend money to someone interest free and wait, lets say 5 years to get back the principle of $5,000 with nothing to show for your troubles? That would be unfair for the lender and unfair for the borrower because he is taking advantage of your money for nothing.

Yes I would lend money interest free to close friends or family but that is a different story and should not be confused with wealth creation.

Again the issue is WHO creates/issues the money regardless of what it is backed by. Fiat money is backed by good will while gold and silver certificates were backed/redemable in gold and silver respectively. Bankers of the 17th and 18th century got wise and figured a way to cheat the system since they realised that only between 20% to 30% would reclaim their gold at any given time frame. Thus they started lending money to governments and financing wars, next thing you know they replaced public banking with private banking covertly. Watch the rothschild documentaries from YouTube--





Even private fiat money has value, except that the people who issued the money did not work for it and DO NOT REPRESENT A SOVEREIGN REPUBLIC! Government could create the money "out of thin air" and it would be perfectly ok since governments govern sovereign citizens and regulate the economy. The issue is who issues the money, NOT if its backed by gold/silver. I doubt there is enough gold/silver to account for all the necessary currency that would be in circulation since the economy and population continually expand. I am pretty sure Ron Paul and his austrian school of economics theory is wrong! It would lead to stagnation or worse deflation in the long run.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi

Look it up. Countries with more a independent federal reserve have a lower inflation rate.If you dont believe me do your own research on that and let me know what you find. You will be surprised to find that i am right.

Our inflation rate is low. If you look at it we do not have hyper inflation. We have a healthy inflation rate. Dr. Paul has no education in economics, so do not take his advice on it. If you get sick then ask him.


Why do banker shills substitute *independant* for *private* and when pressed to a corner say *semi-indepedent*????

Its a game of words indeed and most people do not care enough or do not have the time to do the proper research, especially since corporations with close ties to government BUY UP MOST SLOTS and you have to google at least 30 pages to find any good information, unless of course you know exactly what you are looking for.

The illuminatti BS is getting out of hand and they will fail.............
edit on 5/10/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi

Yeah raise taxes. We have one of the lowest tax rates in the modern world. Us and Japan, and t hasnt been working out do to our low tax rates. We need our government agencies. Instead of abolishing them, raise taxes.


Hey einstein the government you look up to is a registered corporation in the "state" of delaware. I wonder if states are incorporated as well? Probably but I don't have the time to look into that as well.

Second 2.3 trillion dollars are missing from the pentagon budget out of our total $14-$15 trillion defecit and that is JUST 25% of the pentagons budget, so in essence about $9 trillion got spent by the pentagon(DOD) ouf of that $14-$15 trillion.

That means almost all of the budget goes to the military and federal government to FUND ITSELF rather than fund the pseudo-citizens of the corporate nation. The customers are being treated like dirt for decades now yet republicans want to cut down on medicare.

Ignorance makes me sick!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi
Ron Paul has been constantly wrong on most stuff relating to the economy. His ideas of what he wants to do to the country will destroy it.

Ron Paul says he wants a smaller government. I suppose he doesnt realize what his actions will do to the country. He says he wants to get rid of many government agencies including the DOE, DHS, IRS, FEMA, DHHS, and the federal reserve.. What is he thinking? These are horrible ideas. The DOE oversees the US energy, inspections, research ect. The DHS keeps us safe. FEMA responds to disasters. The federal reserve is a very important body of the government. Doesnt he realize that by abolishing this he will destroy the country?

The federal reserve is what keeps the US government going. We need a strong independent federal reserve. Studies have shown that the more independent that are the lower the inflation rate is. He keeps calling the Fed wrong or that Bernanke doesnt know what hes doing but thats just plain wrong. He also wants to bring back the gold standard but thats another failure too.

He voted against the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Does he want another Enron scandal ?

He wants to get rid of the income tax and fun the government through tariffs. Thats insane. Tariffs reduce trade and there will not be enough money to fun the government. His idea of a small government does not work in the twenty-first century, maybe in in the 1800's.

He wants to have a national sales tax. There wont be enough money raised to support the government. Maybe if we abolish government to the point that the is almost no it might work, but thats not realistic. Sales taxes are regressive taxes that hurt the middle and lower class and favor the upper class. maybe he doent know that or he is in someones pocket?

He was also against TRAP. TARP was instrumental in saving the US economy and has worked fantastically. Since then the US has made a profit off it and kept the economy together.

QE1 and QE2 have also worked to stimulate the economy. Ben Bernanke can also prove how it has worked and why we needed it. There is proof that it has worked.

It appears that Ron Paul is continually wrong about the economics of the country. Now that the debate has just passed it seems that the Ron Paul fascination is in full swing once again.

Congressman Paul's Legislative Strategy

wrong paul

youtube

ron paul

more ron paul

ro n paul gold

positions of ron paul

Federal reserve

Bernanke vs Paul

Trap makes profit

Trap works

Trap worked deal with it.

Gold standard wont work
edit on 6-5-2011 by gorgi because: Title


Your thinking is illegitimate, ignorant, and uninformed. Your overtly biased opposition to informed thinking is blatant ignorance and should be ignored for it's lack of informed thought. Please do your research into what those agencies ACTUALLY DO and what they SAY THEY DO before you open your mouth again.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Bernanke’s QE2 Averts Deflation, Spurs Credit

"Ben S. Bernanke’s $600 billion strike against deflation is paying off, as stock and debt markets rise, bank lending grows and economists forecast faster growth. "

www.bloomberg.com...


Things keep looking better. QE2 was a huge success. Ron paul looks like a fool again.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Foodman because: none



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by allprowolfy

Originally posted by Foodman
reply to post by lostviking
 


hey noob, ever since qe1 on march 2009, stock markets have soared. the s&p has doubled. qe was a huge success.

Hey, was that before or after the government revisions.
1) the U.S. is at a 15 TRILLION debt ceiling -14 of that is in less than 10years of the Fed, and the same banksters regulating our treasury. So what's with the name calling with your blantant disregard of facts

As for the op's sure cited troll thread with 30 flags, it has become clear even to a toddler that if America keeps the course, a 3rd world country will prevail.

Go,Paul

edit on 8-5-2011 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)


Congress is responsible or making the budget and setting taxes. Thats what the Fed does. If you want the debt smaller, have congress raise taxes.


Or, following extremely simple economic principles that seem to fail you, cut spending. What about that is so hard for you to understand? You harp that Dr. Paul doesn't have an understanding of economics, yet you espouse raising taxes is the only way to decrease debt? You are a true Progressive.

/TOA


Yet republicans spend at least twice as much as democrats and most of it goes to the military-industrial complex.

Democrats spend most of it on social welfare programs.

So all in all, who is better? Well I am an average joe....so I guess democrats!

Bill Clinton balanced the budget and that was bad news for the progressive republicans, so they figured lets nail him with monica lewinsky. At least she was pretty, but a little fat!

edit on 5/10/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





I am pretty sure Ron Paul and his austrian school of economics theory is wrong! It would lead to stagnation or worse deflation in the long run.


We have two options. We can increase the money supply and therefore increase prices.

With this option which is what we have seen in my live time. Gas at $.20 => $4.00, Coke $0.10 => $1.29. Given wages lag the price increase it has been a net transfer from the working class to the elite.

The second option is to keep the money supply relatively constant with mining adding to the supply gradually.

So what happens ???

The ratio between money and goods changes and the prices fall. This is BAD??? The price of calculators and computers falling HURT the economy???



Actually Mises/Gary North addressed that exact issue. I am afraid it is a bit wordy but I do not want to cut it down any more.

GOLD STANDARD VS. STATE-ISSUED MONEY



Why did Mises defend a money system based on money metals? First, because such a system reduces fluctuations in the value of money. Second, in order to get the State out of the money business.



Under the gold standard, the determination of the value of money is dependent upon the profitability of gold production. To some, this may appear a disadvantage; and it is certain that it introduces an incalculable factor into economic activity. Nevertheless, it does not lay the prices of commodities open to violent and sudden changes from the monetary side. The biggest variations in the value of money that we have experienced during the last century have originated not in the circumstances of gold production, but in the policies of governments and banks-of-issue. Dependence of the value of money on the production of gold does at least mean its independence of the politics of the hour. The dissociation of the currencies from a definitive and unchangeable gold parity has made the value of money a plaything of politics (pp. 17-18). [like doubling the money supply Mr Bernanke?]

The significance of adherence to a metallic-money system lies in the freedom of the value of money from state influence that such a system guarantees. Beyond doubt, considerable disadvantages are involved in the fact that not only fluctuations in the ratio of the supply of money and the demand for it, but also fluctuations in the conditions of production of the metal and variations in the industrial demand for it, exert an influence on the determination of the value of money. It is true that these effects, in the case of gold (and even in the case of silver), are not immoderately great, and these are the only two monetary metals that need be considered in modern times. But even if the effects were greater, such a money would still deserve preference over one subject to state intervention, since the latter sort of money would be subject to still greater fluctuations (p. 238).

The excellence of the gold standard is to be seen in the fact that it renders the determination of the monetary unit's purchasing power independent of the policies of governments and political parties. Furthermore, it prevents rulers from eluding the financial and budgetary prerogatives of the representative assemblies. Parliamentary control of finances works only if the government is not in a position to provide for unauthorized expenditures by increasing the circulating amount of fiat money. Viewed in this light, the gold standard appears as an indispensable implement of the body of constitutional guarantees that make the system of representative government function (p. 416).


...In a growing economy,... "there prevails a tendency toward an increase in the demand for money. Additional people appear on the scene and want to establish cash holdings"

When we say that there is an increase in the demand for cash balances, this is another way of saying an increase in bids for money. Those people with goods or services to exchange enter the market and offer them for sale. If the money supply is relatively stable, those with items for sale must offer more for the money they want to obtain. In the auction for money, higher bids appear. "Higher bids for money" is another way of saying "lower bids in money." Sellers of goods (buyers of money) offer more goods at yesterday's prices. Prices denominated in money go down = prices denominated in goods go up....


More goods and services are available for purchase. This means that there has been an increase of choices available to people per unit of currency at the newer, lower prices. Probably the best definition of "increase in wealth" is "increase of choices." As Mises says, "such a fall in money prices does not in the least impair the benefits derived from the additional wealth produced" (p. 431). This is not deflation, as he defined it later in his career. This is price competition.

Mises no doubt would have made good use of the example of the falling price of computing power since 1965.

It is not likely that any economist would want to present a theoretical case for a theory that the world has been made poorer by the fall in the prices of computers.

What engineer would turn in his multi-function, solar-powered, scientific $20 calculator in order to go back to a slide rule? ("Where was that decimal point supposed to go?") This steady drop in the price of computing power has been going on since at least 1910. Computing speed per dollar doubled every three years (1910-1950), then every two years (1950-1965), and then every year (1966-2000). Nothing in human history has matched this reduction in price (increase in output) at such a rate for so long a period. But the fact that such a steady increase in consumer value is both possible and economically profitable to producers indicates that there is no need for an increase in the money supply to facilitate exchanges. This price-cutting process is not a defect of the free market economy; it is a benefit. Mises said, that "one must not say that a fall in prices caused by an increase in the production of the goods concerned is proof of some disequilibrium which cannot be eliminated otherwise than by increasing the quantity of money" (p. 431).


...All other schools of economic opinion recommend monetary inflation as the only way to overcome increased productivity's outcome in the macro economy – falling prices – which they proclaim as the goal of production at the micro level: falling prices. They do not believe that the free market endogenously supplies the correct quantity of money to facilitate voluntary exchange...

They want Big Brother and the holding company (the central bank) to supply new money scientifically, so that the market pricing process can function properly. This is true of the Keynesians, the monetarists, and the supply-siders. None of them trusts the free market in the area of monetary policy.

If output is rising in a free market, and the money supply is fairly constant, then prices will fall. The market's clearing price is that price which allows a sale in which there are no further buyers or sellers at the sale price. The high bid wins. When output is rising, buyers of money (sellers of goods) increase their bids by offering more goods for sale at the old price. This is another way of saying that prices denominated in money fall, or at least do not rise as high as they would otherwise have risen, had there been no increase in the quantity of goods and services offered for sale. Mises describes this process in his 1951 addition to Theory of Money and Credit, in the essay titled, "The Principle of Sound Money." He speaks of "a general tendency of money prices and money wages to drop" (p. 417). This is not deflation, which Mises defined as a decrease in the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. Price competition is not deflation.
Mises on Money: www.lewrockwell.com...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foodman

Bernanke’s QE2 Averts Deflation, Spurs Credit

"Ben S. Bernanke’s $600 billion strike against deflation is paying off, as stock and debt markets rise, bank lending grows and economists forecast faster growth. "

www.bloomberg.com...


Things keep looking better. QE2 was a huge success. Ron paul looks like a fool again.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Foodman because: none


I think you may be THE stupidest person in America.


Your doubt tactics don't work here, try another forum of fools like yourself.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


This is perhaps the key to the entire issue:



Mises concluded that money is neither a consumption good nor a capital good. He argued that production and consumption are possible without money (p. 82). Money facilitates both production and consumption, but it is neither a production good nor a consumption good. Money is therefore a separate analytical category.

"It is illegitimate to compare the part played by money in production with that played by ships and railways. Money is obviously not a 'commercial tool' in the same sense as account books, exchange lists, the Stock Exchange, or the credit system"



Because money is not capital, he concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value. If you fail to understand this point, you will not be able to understand the rest of Mises's theory of money. On this assessment of the value of money, his whole theory of money hinges.

An increase in the quantity of money can no more increase the welfare of the members of a community, than a diminution of it can decrease their welfare. Regarded from this point of view, those goods that are employed as money are indeed what Adam Smith called them, "dead stock, which . . . produces nothing"


Her is the other key concept. It is the sleight of hand used to rob us of our wealth so pay close attention.



New money does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people's bank accounts or under their mattresses. Money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money

It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits made by the mine owners and the groups most closely connected with them



This indicates a fundamental aspect of Mises's monetary theory that is rarely mentioned: the expansion or contraction of money is a zero-sum game.



Mises did not use this terminology, but he used the zero-sum concept. Because the free market always maximizes the utility of the existing money supply, changes in the money supply inescapably have the characteristic features of a zero-sum game. Some individuals are made better off by an increase in the money supply; others are made worse off. The existing money is an example of a "fixed pie of social value." Adding to the money supply does not add to its value.

Economists argue that in a conventional economic exchange, both parties win. One person does not benefit at the expense of another unless there has been fraud.
The "pie of social value" has grown because there are two winners. The conceptual problem begins with a fixed social pie.
Mises argued that the losses of the late-coming losers are the source of income for the early arrival winners. This inescapably identifies the monetary system as a zero-sum game. In Human Action, he included a section denying what he calls the Montaigne dogma: "the gain of one man is the damage of another; no man profits but at the loss of other"

...his [Mises] entire theory of money rests on this dogma's complete applicability in the matter of increases and decreases in the money supply. The economic benefits obtained by the early users of new money, even gold, are made at the expense of those who gain access to it after it has altered the array of prices.

Again, here is his theory, briefly stated.

Money is neither a production good nor a consumption good. Thus, increases or decreases in the supply of money cannot scientifically be said to create or destroy wealth in general. These changes distribute wealth.



Mises on Money: www.lewrockwell.com...


It seems that everyone equates money with wealth but money it is not wealth. "Money serves as a transmitter of value through time because certain goods serve as media of exchange.
Money transmits value, Mises taught, but money does not measure value."


The GNP of a country is the same whether the money supply is $205 billion (1985) or $1663 billion (2009) all that has changed is the value of the money I have in savings. It is now worth a lot less because its "value" has been "stolen" by those who added the additional $1458 billion to the money supply.

In 1972 I could trade $2,200 for a brand new car now I am luck if I can buy a 15 yr old car for the same amount.

Sorry dude I rather take my chances with a gold standard, an expanding money supply has been tried for one hundred years and has been a BIG FAIL for the average American.



edit on 10-5-2011 by crimvelvet because: edit





posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





I am pretty sure Ron Paul and his austrian school of economics theory is wrong! It would lead to stagnation or worse deflation in the long run.


We have two options. We can increase the money supply and therefore increase prices.

With this option which is what we have seen in my live time. Gas at $.20 => $4.00, Coke $0.10 => $1.29. Given wages lag the price increase it has been a net transfer from the working class to the elite.

The second option is to keep the money supply relatively constant with mining adding to the supply gradually.

So what happens ???

The ratio between money and goods changes and the prices fall. This is BAD??? The price of calculators and computers falling HURT the economy???


Ok. I see your point and must admit I got confused with "inflation, deflation, stagnation".

Wasn't the entire issue of "indepedent" private central banking to prevent inflation? Now they tell us quantitive easing by minor inflation is good yet the prices will go up again in relation to wages. I read your chart and agree 100% with what your saying.

My question is why then are most liberals->republicans and most conservatives-> democrats? Remember republican administrations spend 2-3 times more than democrat administrations. Are republican "conservatives" conservative only in relation to gay marriage, military and religion?

Why does Ron Paul stick around with those weasel SOBS if he expects respect&dignity? He should be on the libertarian or constitutionalist ticket, correct?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Doesn't Ron Paul want various private competing currencies all based on gold/silver or was it someone else?

Sorry I am getting more and more confused on this topic. I thought the whole idea was to have the nation issue its own currency regardless if it is backed by precisious metals or fiat based. The FED is not a public organisation and I think we can all agree about this.

The stagnation of the money supply is a good thing in relation to goods/serivces produced and in fact prices do need to go down and the best way to accomplish this either to fix the value of money or to shorten the money supply.

It would seem the supply of money would be irrellevant if the value of money was affixed to precious metals but precious metal valuations themselves fluctuate according to supply and demand.

So wtf is the solution? Sorry I am no economist thats for sure, but then the economists themselves don't know # or they do and pretend they don't! All I know is that some people want to bring down the USA and install a New World Order...............

edit on 5/10/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   


Just like I thought! This guy is CONTROLLED OPPOSITION!

[sarcasm]

Yeah lets do away with one private currency...........and wait a minute.......

introduce VARIOUS competing PRIVATE currencies. [/sarcasm]

Do people have any idea just how problematic this approach is?

The CONFUSION&INSTABILITY that would ensue, not just in america, but worldwide would be DISASTEROUS!

People must be really ignorant/stupid to believe this guy but then what do you expect from people who still think 9-11 was caused by Bin Laden and all our super-paid corporate agencies were unable to stop him and/or that they knew nothing of the event before it took place.

Truely sad world we live in!

edit on 5/10/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by Foodman
gorgi i am tired of your informative posts. just stop posting facts and agree with me. plz.

lol jk, its been three years and ron paul has been wrong on the economy and markets. why do ppl still listen to a person who has been wrong for such a long time. ? isint that the definition of insanity.


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results~ Einstein

Ron Paul has been wrong so many times that it is insane to think that he will ever be right. He has been wrong on everything related to the economy.


According to who? and what source? your innate ability to understand common sense? If so, then yes, he has been world on everything according to your narrow world.


I have already provided many sources that proves he is wrong. if you are too lazy to read them or lack the skill to understand it, that's not my fault. Refer to my opening post.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by gorgi

Yeah raise taxes. We have one of the lowest tax rates in the modern world. Us and Japan, and t hasnt been working out do to our low tax rates. We need our government agencies. Instead of abolishing them, raise taxes.


Hey einstein the government you look up to is a registered corporation in the "state" of delaware. I wonder if states are incorporated as well? Probably but I don't have the time to look into that as well.

Second 2.3 trillion dollars are missing from the pentagon budget out of our total $14-$15 trillion defecit and that is JUST 25% of the pentagons budget, so in essence about $9 trillion got spent by the pentagon(DOD) ouf of that $14-$15 trillion.

That means almost all of the budget goes to the military and federal government to FUND ITSELF rather than fund the pseudo-citizens of the corporate nation. The customers are being treated like dirt for decades now yet republicans want to cut down on medicare.

Ignorance makes me sick!


You have no idea what you are talking about. There is no missing money. 9 trillion did not get spent by the pentagon. Do you even know what a trillion means ? It doesnt look like you do.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join