Ron Paul Says 1.3 Trillion Dollar Debt Owed To Federal Reserve Is Not Real! Amazing Plan To Save A T

reply to post by timi0000


And even if it is a natural event, since he is 76 YEARS OLD, conspiracies will abound!

I wanted to clarify a point I made above about money being tied to commodities. A lot of folks want to bring the gold standard back and refer to fiat money as trash. It is important to note that if goods are suddenly easy to produce then our money is suddenly worth more. If our fiat money is suddenly abundant then demand will increase and commodity prices will rise and thus our money is worth less. These 2 events are deflation and inflation respectively and are greatly affected by supply and demand.

To put this in terms of gold it would be like something being easy to produce and then you require less gold to sell it. OR, a huge amount of gold is suddenly discovered and suddenly everyone has some gold and thus demand rises, therefore prices rise. Commodities are just as arbitrary as fiat money and that is why we rely on a supply and demand framework using a fiat money instead of carrying 10lbs of gold in our pockets.

If you wish to completely tie prices up with commodities then we would need price controls. If the government starts controlling prices then its all over. I refer you to the price caps on gas in the 70's in our free market, and the prices of everything in any communist nation(exception being China) which are completely government controlled, rationed, and under a perpetual shortage.

Whether we believe it or not, our money is already backed by goods and those goods prices rely on the supply of money. EVERYTHING is interconnected. We don't need a gold standard, silver standard, or any other standard, because we have a central bank, the FED. I will be the first to tell you that we would certainly need one of those standards if we remove the FED from existence, however. Politicians need to keep their hands off our monetary system, even Ron Paul.

reply to post by JR MacBeth

If you want rampant inflation and worthless money, although high employment and manufacturing, then sure, let the US create US notes. It didn't work for the continental congress during the revolution, "Not worth a continental", it didn't work for the states during the Articles of Confederation, it didn't work for the Union and definitely not the Confederacy, and it won't work for us now. Even Alexander Hamilton knew we needed a central bank. Andrew Jackson even succumbed to a central bank charter and history provided the necessary need to implement what we know as the FED today, way back in 1913.

I can only imagine the horrible effects on the economy that would be inevitable if the geniuses we have in charge now were allowed to print money to pay for debt willy-nilly. Imagine the social programs, the overspending, and so on. Why even pay taxes any more? Every politician could just spend like crazy and lower taxes as far as possible. We would never be able to choose a good representative(as if we can now) since every platform would be the same, "I'll give you money and not tax you for it!" ''

Yeah, lets not do that, lets keep from giving our government a blank check and a printing press. Go FED and hold the line GOP! ''

The thing is, everyone rags on the Fed and for good reason, but what else do you propose should be in its place?

To understand the purpose of the Fed you must take a trip down memory lane. Believe it or not, it was created in the hopes that we would have a solid group of people who understand money, thus handling financial aspects, while the politicians would be able to govern. I'm pretty sure then as well as now, people would NOT feel comfortable with the government having full control over the banking system.

They rounded up the Bill Gates, the Warren Buffets of their time, and basically handed them the keys to the castle, literally and figuratively. This was in the hopes that they would act in good faith for the people, and monitor the economic status of the country, effectively finding ways to make sure we never went into another Great Depression.

The sad thing is, it makes sense in theory, to put people in positions where they clearly excel. Yet, human qualities like Greed eventually consumed any possible benefits and eventually backfired and turned the Fed into the antithesis of what it was originally intended to prevent.

So I ask again, if we throw out the Fed, who will run the financial aspects of this nation?

Please dont say the politicians!!

And everyone keeps talking about Ron Paul, what about RU PAUL?

reply to post by WhiteDevil013

The thing is, everyone rags on the Fed and for good reason, but what else do you propose should be in its place?

Replace it with nothing. The market doesn't need any central planning. Just repeal all legal tender laws and then let the free market decide what currency to use.

They rounded up the Bill Gates, the Warren Buffets of their time, and basically handed them the keys to the castle, literally and figuratively. This was in the hopes that they would act in good faith for the people, and monitor the economic status of the country, effectively finding ways to make sure we never went into another Great Depression.

What are you smoking? The Great Depression started in 1929, the Fed was created in 1913. The Fed actually caused the Great Depression, but that's probably too complex for you to understand.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Go read, "The Creature of Jekyll Island". The FED was created by businessmen of the time, who were supposed to understand money, chartered and appointed by the US Congress. I'm not a commie, quite the opposite my friend. Go read the rest of the thread please before name calling. Plus, communists didn't have a central bank like the FED, they had a bank that was directly connected to their government, exactly what I advocate against.

hahaha, RU Paul. LOL,

great find...o how the mighty Americas are falling, although with chinas artificial growth and europes big problems, we are all in the ever sinking bucket.

reply to post by memarf1

Go read, "The Creature of Jekyll Island". The FED was created by businessmen of the time, who were supposed to understand money, chartered and appointed by the US Congress.

I read his book a long time ago, I fully understand how he believes the Fed came to be. That still doesn't change the fact that the Great Depression started in 1929.

I'm not a commie, quite the opposite my friend. Go read the rest of the thread please before name calling. Plus, communists didn't have a central bank like the FED, they had a bank that was directly connected to their government, exactly what I advocate against.

I've read your posts and you like many others here advocate for central banking. You like it quasi-private, they want full govt control. All of you are wrong.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Well, you haven't stated any reasoning, only your opinion, and barely that. While that is perfectly acceptable, it doesn't make me a communist. lol. I am certainly against central planning, and positively against communism! More importantly, this is not for this thread, it would be better discussed in U2U messages.

reply to post by memarf1

Well, you haven't stated any reasoning, only your opinion.

Well, my reasoning is pretty obvious -- Competition vs. Monopoly? I don't see how you could claim to enjoy reading Adam Smith and adamantly support a state granted monopoly.

I am certainly against central planning

Your posts suggest otherwise.

More importantly, this is not for this thread, it would be better discussed in U2U messages.

This thread is fine. I doubt we would need to leave this thread to talk about this.

Well what does it mean its not real? You owe it to the federal reserve. If you repay money at an interest to the federal reserve, who gets the profits? America? Somebody else? If you default on the debts to the central bank what is it gonna do? And who exactly will be shortchanged if those trillions arent repayed to the fed?

National debt is good for one thing, controlling the worth of money by taking it from the working stiffs. If I have to give money to pay for the national debt and other people have to give money to pay for the national debt, that is money they lost, value they lost, however they created value by working. Money isnt so much about having a currency so people can buy goods, but mostly controlling what people can not have access to.

The circle of the very rich, who do not pay taxes, or less taxes experience an increased buyingpower. While you give away part of the value you create through taxes on your salary, the very rich get to keep it all and are able to buy up your share as well. The value of their money is preserved, because the money supply goes down, because part of it ends up in the blackhole that the central bank is. You dont get to safe as much as you should, while a tiny percentage of people keeps up pyling money and assets and their money is still worth something, because the money supply is limited through taxes towards the central bank. The value of money is not backed by gold or oil or any of that, but by an army of working stiffs willing to work for minimum wage.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


There are plenty of examples of market failures and the monetary system is a good one. You can trace the most obvious failure straight back to the 13 colonies following the Revolutionary War. The reason the Articles of Confederation didn't succeed is because the federal government didn't have enough power to regulate something as simple as trade. Every colony had its own currency and every colonies currency was valued differently. The problem arose during the war, and became far more pronounced following the Treaty of Paris. One of the solutions to that problem was a single currency and the removal of the states rights to create money(something California recently ignored when it couldn't pay state wages and issued IOU's which the banks accepted as deposits, essentially a California currency).

There is very little central planning related to the FED, other than that of currency levels and value. There is no monopoly here, there are many banks that compete with each other with many financial instruments and the only thing they truly share is the currency they use. The FED issues charters to the banks, but the banks are not required to be members of the FED either(although most CHOOSE to do so anyway). A single currency is far more efficient than many currencies or barter, I think even you would agree. The world is even negotiating a basket of currencies or a single world currency to make trade easier. Most central american economies use the Dollar and don't even have central banks or a currency of their own, they chose it because it is powerful and efficient.

Central planning is far more than advocating a single military or a central bank to control the monetary system. That is far from communist, socialist, fascist, or whatever other title you would like to saddle me with. Additionally, if you don't like the dollar then go trade your dollars for Euros or Yuan, there is plenty of competition out there for the Dollar. I bet you won't do that though because its far easier to trade in Dollars when you are stateside. Maybe you would prefer to get a home loan in Rubles? I don't think you will find many sellers willing to accept Rubles though.

Furthermore, the FED's entire mandate is to control inflation and reduce unemployment. Until recently they have done a relatively good job of both. The hard part is that inflation and unemployment are very much related and correlate negatively with one another. If, as was done with the QE, the FED undertakes an expansionary policy then we can expect inflation but employment should rise. However, the opposite is sometimes true also and if the FED's tools don't work we end up with inflation and high unemployment. What we need is another Allen Greenspan(whom I am sure you like to attack also).

What you advocate isn't a free market, you advocate anarchy. Anarchy doesn't work because we eventually end up with power mongers and usually a dictatorship or feudal system. There is nothing wrong with a central bank, in fact all logic dictates that it is far better than a direct government control over the monetary system. The FED is loosely tied and acts entirely independently of the central government. It doesn't take part in free market banking, only stabilizing and regulating policies are allowed(relating to member banks) and they must be hammer like in that they must sweep every member bank of the type they are regulating. The only monopoly they have is the creation of money, which we don't want competition for. If I can create more money than you, and then you decide to beat me, and so on, then we end up with worthless currency and a bad economy. The FED is a good organization and it does not make sense to attack them in this manner, nor accuse me of being communist.

Please go read a first year Macro-Economics book! You say you read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" but clearly you don't understand the FED, its operations, or its mandate.

I think Ron Paul has Visited ATS


Yep
looks like he visited ATS

reply to post by memarf1

reply to post by JR MacBeth

If you want rampant inflation and worthless money, although high employment and manufacturing, then sure, let the US create US notes. It didn't work for the continental congress during the revolution, "Not worth a continental", it didn't work for the states during the Articles of Confederation, it didn't work for the Union and definitely not the Confederacy, and it won't work for us now. Even Alexander Hamilton knew we needed a central bank. Andrew Jackson even succumbed to a central bank charter and history provided the necessary need to implement what we know as the FED today, way back in 1913.

I can only imagine the horrible effects on the economy that would be inevitable if the geniuses we have in charge now were allowed to print money to pay for debt willy-nilly. Imagine the social programs, the overspending, and so on. Why even pay taxes any more? Every politician could just spend like crazy and lower taxes as far as possible. We would never be able to choose a good representative(as if we can now) since every platform would be the same, "I'll give you money and not tax you for it!" ''

Yeah, lets not do that, lets keep from giving our government a blank check and a printing press. Go FED and hold the line GOP! ''

Not sure what you're smokin', but your statement about "rampant inflation and worthless money" can be applied to any fiat currency, and some might even go further, and try to show that it eventually applies to ALL fiat.

And Federal Reserve Notes are different, how exactly? Yes, they currently enjoy "special" status, since they were given global power, primarily through the link to petroleum, as potentially (actually!) enforced by a powerful military, and therefore ended up the default world reserve currency, but surely you know that things are a changin'.

I'm not convinced yet that fiat will ever work, but there are some "success" stories. Spouting off the same ignorant nonsense everyone learns in econ 101 in the US isn't all that helpful though. You mention the infamous Continental, but seem to forget that there was a war on, and are perhaps ignorant of the role the world's most powerful nation of the time, England, played in that debacle. Ever hear of counterfeiting? Yeah, they did it back then, just as North Korea has done in recent decades in the East-West battle that few speak of.

Before that, and far more germane to obtaining an understanding of the issue, you had Colonial Scrip, so successful that the Colonies thrived, in spite of a chronic lack of coin. When Ben Franklin was asked once about how it was that the colonies were so successful, he answered, "That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money, it is called colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportions to the demands of trade and industry."

Some believe that this frustrated England, and they cranked up the heat, that eventually led to the Revolution. The scrip is generally regarded as a success story that only ended when a CENTRAL BANK introduced a debt-based monetary competitor. The First Bank of America's charter of course ended in 1811. Some say there was no coincidence that we fought a War of 1812.

The War Between the States, more disinfo (perhaps you went to graduate school too?). First, there was a WAR on, so perhaps it's not so fair to bring up examples within emergency contexts. Nevertheless, Lincoln's hand was seemingly forced. To prosecute the end of the war, Lincoln needed funds, and the banksters were willing to loan it to him. Of course, at over 25% interest, Lincoln balked.

Lincoln went straight to Congress, and they simply handed him the $400 million he requested, INTEREST-FREE! No doubt, an "impossibility" to the indoctrinated mindset, but this is history, as it happened, not as our masters wanted it to happen. The infamous "greenbacks" were issued. Lincoln said, "We gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they ever had - their own paper money to pay their debts..."

Best of all, the insane bloody war came to and end, rather than being prolonged.

You sound confused about your dates. Andrew Jackson was long dead by 1913. Alexander Hamilton? He was a filthy bankster criminal, and thank goodness Aaron Burr put the beast down before he did any more damage.

I can only imagine the horrible effects on the economy that would be inevitable if the geniuses we have in charge now were allowed to print money to pay for debt willy-nilly.

Sounds reasonable, unless you actually think it through. The problem with propping up this straw man is that you would never have got the worthless "geniuses" we have in charge now, if the banksters hadn't installed them!

Sure, we could look for historic examples, like Chicago in the mob era. We could say, "Oh golly, it would be so nice if the police department wasn't corrupt!" Well, why not ask first what you gonna do about the friggin' MAFIA!

And that's the bigger problem here. As Eustace Mullins once famously replied, when asked about auditing the Fed: "Would YOU audit the Mafia??"

Yeah, we would have to be crazy!

So, giving our bumbling, corrupt government, the "printing press" might be asking for trouble? OK, but why not tell us why you think letting the Mafia do it is so "smart"??

Oh yeah. "Protection." Sure, I get it.

So, the Fed is indispensable? To whom exactly?

Again, answer the same, they're indispensable for the banksters, the "Mafia" / Fed has to get it's skim.

And don't tell me they "earn" that skim, for their valuable service. Or, would you like me to launch into that very embarrassing and highly illegal incident of a few years ago with JP Morgan (one of the part-owners of the Fed), and Bear Stearns?

The cat is out of the bag. The Fed is there for THEM. They are hurting the nation. They take risks, and if they win, they win big. If they lose, WE lose big.

Go FED and hold the line GOP!

You've got to be trolling with that line, but OK. I can only hope you're not typing at us from the insane asylum, because I guess that would make me look pretty silly too.

JR

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Yep looks like he visited ATS

I don't get it.

What did he say that makes you think he comes here?

LoL, that was a bit over my head but I understand basically. I was astonished because that seems to be the first news reporter that actually understood what he was talking about on a useful level. Ron Paul is sometimes criticized for just pointing fingers and never having any ideas of his own. Well this just shows his genius. He might not have a ton of straight ideas (his ideas are more about what the government should NOT do), but here is an example of one of his ideas, and the one's he has are great. Another example of a direct idea of his, is to drastically lower the number of U.S. troops on foreign soil, not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but places like Korea, Germany, etc. So he has ideas.

It's like it was an open secret where 1.3 trillion was buried and he was the only one to remember and to point it out... Now this might have it's own problems like the reporter said you don't want to make the assets of the fed MEANINGLESS, though we can admit they are ficticious in a way, but if an idea like this meant continuing to operate as a solid government, or even as extreme as a last ditch to not default. I don't know, Ron Paul just continues to amaze me.

reply to post by SavedOne

S&F

I am not going to read all the posts but I did want to comment on this:

My limited understanding is that the Fed as a private bank buys up government bonds and then sells them off later to recoup its investment. So in essence they would be telling a bank to burn all the investment bonds that it had purchased from the government while offering them nothing in return for doing so. That would be great if the they would be willing to do it, but it wouldn't exactly make good business sense to the Fed now, would it? LOL!

First the Federal Reserve and Government Accounts (such as Social Security) account for 40.6% of the 14 trillion dollar debt.

The Federal Reserve does NOT BUY US debt. They create "money" out of thin air and then tell the tax payer that we OWE them that money plus interest!!! It is the largest FRAUD/SCAM in the world!

When the Bernanke doubled the US money supply it was done by banks LENDING the new money into the system. That is how "new money" is created in a fiat money system.

To put it bluntly the FED OWNS THE PRINTING PRESS!!!

I suggest you read:
EASY READS:
DOLLAR DECEPTION: HOW BANKS SECRETLY CREATE MONEY

US Banks Operating Without Reserve Requirements

The Federal Reserve System: A Talk


LONG READS:
A PRIMER ON MONEY. SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC FINANCE. COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES....

What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard

Mises on Money

Appendix E – Money Is Created by Banks Evidence Given by Graham Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada

Some of the most frank evidence on banking practices was given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government's Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939. Its proceedings cover 850 pages. (Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence Respecting the Bank of Canada, Ottawa, J.O. Patenaude, I.S.O., Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, 1939.) Most of the evidence quoted was the result of interrogation by Mr. “Gerry” McGeer, K.C., a former mayor of Vancouver, who clearly understood the essentials of central banking. Here are a few excerpts:

Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange?

Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for... That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287)

The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238)

Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238)

Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans.

As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt. (p. 459)

Q. When $1,000,000 worth of bonds is presented (by the government) to the bank, a million dollars of new money or the equivalent is created?

Mr. Towers: Yes.

Q. Is it a fact that a million dollars of new money is created?

Mr. Towers: That is right.

Q. Now, the same thing holds true when the municipality or the province goes to the bank?

Mr. Towers: Or an individual borrower.

Q. Or when a private person goes to a bank?

Mr. Towers: Yes.

Q. When I borrow $100 from the bank as a private citizen, the bank makes a bookkeeping entry, and there is a $100 increase in the deposits of that bank, in the total deposits of that bank?

Mr. Towers: Yes. (p. 238)

Straight from the horses mouth. Bankers print pretty pieces of paper and swap that paper for your property, assets and labor.... CAN YOU SAY SLAVERY WITHOUT THE HASSLE OF UPKEEP???

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by WhiteDevil013

 

The thing is, everyone rags on the Fed and for good reason, but what else do you propose should be in its place?

Replace it with nothing. The market doesn't need any central planning. Just repeal all legal tender laws and then let the free market decide what currency to use.

In the 19th century, for some time, this is exactly what happened. It was a disaster. Individual banks issued their own currencies, and when there was a 'run on the bank' and collapse, the notes issued by the bank became worthless. And of course thanks to the non-regulatory attitudes, there was plenty of thievery, scheming and bankster scamming. Even more than today.

People have lots of fuzzy romanticized notions about how economics and banking once worked.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Well what does it mean its not real? You owe it to the federal reserve. If you repay money at an interest to the federal reserve, who gets the profits? America? Somebody else?

The profits enjoyed by the Federal Reserve, which are the result of interest on bonds that it holds minus its operational costs, are donated to the U.S. Treasury for the purpose of reducing debt. In practice, thus the interest paid from the US Treasury to the Federal Reserve on the Feds holdings is recycled back to the Treasury.

See Federal reserve act, section 7, in particular (b)

www.federalreserve.gov...

The statutory 6% dividends to member banks are very small in size.

The Federal reserve is not a scam. You may dislike its policies and actions (I think Bernanke is actually pretty good but Greenspan was a disaster), but it is not a Vast Evil Conspiracy.

reply to post by mbkennel


Well stated, very concise. I wish I could have said it in exactly that way but I am far too long winded. LOL

reply to post by mbkennel

In the 19th century, for some time, this is exactly what happened. It was a disaster. Individual banks issued their own currencies, and when there was a 'run on the bank' and collapse, the notes issued by the bank became worthless. And of course thanks to the non-regulatory attitudes, there was plenty of thievery, scheming and bankster scamming. Even more than today.....

The reason for a 'run on the bank' and collapse, is because of FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING. A Fancy name for banker FRAUD. When people realized the bank was lending out money that did not exist and/or lending "recklessly" to bad risks, you ended up with a run on the bank. If I place money in a saving account or CD I expect it to be lent out. If I place the money in a checking Acct. AND I pay fees for the privilege, then the money had better be there - a CONTRACT.

Therefore all of this can be handle by insisting that banks honor contract law just like the rest of us have to. Today bankers do not have to play by the same rule the rest of us do and that is the problem, we now have a "privileged class" - the bankers.


The problem is the system we now have is beneficial to the bankers, the corporations who get first crack at the new money and the politicians who get to raise taxes without telling the tax payers by simply increasing the money supply.

Since Ron Paul is a fan of Mises it is useful to see what Mises wrote about money. Note one of his disciples, Friedrich Hayek, got the Nobel Prize in Economics so Mises is not a "Crackpot"

"The Return to Sound Money,"

1951 appendix essay
" The first step must be a radical and unconditional abandonment of any further inflation. The total amount of dollar bills, whatever their name or legal characteristic may be, must not be increased by further issuance. No bank must be permitted to expand the total amount of its deposits subject to check or the balance of such deposits of any individual customer, be he a private citizen or the U.S. Treasury, otherwise than by receiving cash deposits in legal-tender banknotes from the public or by receiving a check payable by another domestic bank subject to the same limitations. This means a rigid 100 percent reserve for all future deposits; that is, all deposits not already in existence on the first day of the reform."

...In Human Action, Mises said that the government's task is to enforce contracts. Among these contracts are contracts for redeeming money-certificates for money metals on demand. He defined a money-certificate a receipt for a money metal that has 100% of the promised metal in reserve. He said that banks should not be favored by the government. They should not be allowed the right to break contracts, which is what a refusal to redeem money-certificates on demand is. "What is needed to prevent any further credit expansion is to place the banking business under the general rules of commercial and civil laws compelling every individual to fulfill all obligations in full compliance with the terms of the contract" (p. 443)


NO NEW MONEY IS REQUIRED

... Mises discussed the free market's use of whatever quantity of money is presently in presently circulation. "As the operation of the market tends to determine the final state of money's purchasing power at the height at which the supply of and the demand for money coincide, there can never be an excess or deficiency of money. Each individual and all individuals together always enjoy fully the advantages which they can derive from indirect exchange and the use of money, no matter whether the total quantity of money is great or small." The conclusion is obvious, and he makes it: "The quantity of money available in the whole economy is always sufficient to secure for everybody all that money does and can do" (p. 421).

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. This was one of Mises's original contributions to monetary theory, one that is ignored by all other schools of economic analysis.... Mises argued that the losses of the late-coming losers are the source of income for the early arrival winners....

...This analysis of the uneven spread of new money applies to gold as well as to central bank money. ....

Mises said specifically that the sources of the economic profits of the gold mine owner are the economic losses sustained by the late recipients of the new gold. "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.... 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....

GOLD STANDARD VS. STATE-ISSUED MONEY

Mises's commitment to economic freedom led him to the conclusion that the State should not prohibit gold mining and silver mining, for these are voluntary activities. But he did argue for market-created monetary standards that are based on money metals. Why? Because the cost of mining is high, which will always limit the expansion of money.... Mises regarded as the supreme benefit of a gold standard: a metallic money standard hampers the State....

Mises recognized the implications of a State-induced redistribution of wealth. The following comment came in his discussion of State-issued money. In Human Action, he wrote:

If the government-made cash-induced changes in the purchasing power of money resulted only in shifts of wealth from some people to other people, it would not be permissible to condemn them from the point of view of catallactics' [economic theory's] scientific neutrality. It is obviously fraudulent to justify them under the pretext of the commonweal or public welfare. But one could still consider them as political measures suitable to promote the interests of some groups of people at the expense of other...

It would be fraudulent, he says, for politicians to justify the issue of additional fiat money on the basis of the supposed increases in the public welfare. Why fraudulent? Because, for Mises (and for any fully consistent subjective value theorist), there is no such thing as measurable public welfare. It is impossible to add up benefits and losses in estimating total welfare because there is no objective measure of subjective utility. So, any State policy that rests on a claim of an increase in the public welfare is scientifically bogus and therefore fraudulent....
www.lewrockwell.com...

Now you know where Ron Paul ideas come from, Mises.