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.

 

Quit drinking Ron Paul kool-aid: What are the NEGATIVE consequences to switching to Gold Standard?

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I wait to see the replies from the Paultopians. I'm forseeing lots of denials that there could ever be a drawback to anything Mr. Paul has ever uttered.

So, I'll just be making popcorn.


It's actually nigh impossible to go back to a gold standard now... but not for any reason in the OP.

People still took risk and invested before the 70's.... which pretty much proves his thesis incorrect. The rising/declining value of the dollar is what causes people to take risks.... If it had a static value -- people would still want more of it.

OP is an idiot that doesn't understand economics.

Paul knows what is right, but not how to make it so... if he becomes president -- you can bet it... that it won't be the gold standard as we all ever knew it.... You have to take money out of circulation first... and this would bankrupt so many people.

Dr. Paul knows this, he just knows the average voter doesn't. Don't underestimate him.... but at the same time... we can't over estimate him either. He is the clear choice however.

(Who else is better? Obama? Rick Perry? Sarah Palin? Commmmmme onnnn guys.....)


of course people will take risks be it gold or not.... to make money. That is a given and I hope you realized that I would at least understand that.

unless your a poor mofo with nothing to lose, no hope in our current system then this may be the choice you are leaning to.

but No one will know anything




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
People,

if you are really poor now,

be it fiat currency or gold standard,

you will still be poor either way.

so wake up.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by White Locust
To the OP. There would still be lending performed, thereby giving interest income to the lender. You would still have incentive to save and start businesses, to build streams of income. Ever read The Richest Man in Babylon?


yes i can imagine how you can make money if you had gold standard.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I wait to see the replies from the Paultopians. I'm forseeing lots of denials that there could ever be a drawback to anything Mr. Paul has ever uttered.

So, I'll just be making popcorn.


It's actually nigh impossible to go back to a gold standard now... but not for any reason in the OP.

People still took risk and invested before the 70's.... which pretty much proves his thesis incorrect. The rising/declining value of the dollar is what causes people to take risks.... If it had a static value -- people would still want more of it.

OP is an idiot that doesn't understand economics.

Paul knows what is right, but not how to make it so... if he becomes president -- you can bet it... that it won't be the gold standard as we all ever knew it.... You have to take money out of circulation first... and this would bankrupt so many people.

Dr. Paul knows this, he just knows the average voter doesn't. Don't underestimate him.... but at the same time... we can't over estimate him either. He is the clear choice however.

(Who else is better? Obama? Rick Perry? Sarah Palin? Commmmmme onnnn guys.....)


maybe he is a controlled opposition.?

maybe you don't really know what will happen either. same thing like me.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by joemelon
If we were on a gold standard, the amount of gold in circulation wouldn't make any difference. If you assume all dollars were frozen at current levels, you could count up the total amount of dollars in existence and divide it by the total weight of gold in existence (in ounces, say) and you would come up with a rough idea of how much each ounce of gold would be "worth" in dollars. A stable supply of gold doesn't prevent growth. What happens when the growth in goods and services happens faster than the growth of the supply of gold? Prices drop.

Which is perfectly natural, and would be quite welcome for all of the struggling consumers. Falling prices only hurt debtors. All consumers would benefit form falling prices. You have the same amount of gold chasing more and more "stuff" all the time, the "stuff" becomes less and less "valuable" as compared to gold.


Secondly, hoarding would not be a problem for anyone since the act of hoarding only serves to further increase the value of the rest of the gold in circulation, which again would benefit anyone else who has gold since that same weight of gold in their pocket would have more purchasing power as a result of a part of the money supply being taken out of circulation.

Until we figure out a way to fuse atoms, a massive increase in the supply of gold is not very likely. The supply of gold in the world increases fairly steadily to the tune of about 2,500 tons a year. The total supply of gold already mined in the world is estimated to be around 160,000 tons. It is also estimated that about 85% of the gold ever mined is still available for use, with the other 15% being either lost or used in a non-recyclable industrial manner. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that the gold chain on your neck contains gold that once was used in an Egyptian temple or was part of a Roman aureus. But the magnitude of the supply doesn't matter much. What matters are the things which make gold a great thing to use as a money.

Here are some of the "moneyish" qualities that gold has: it is portable, highly divisible/combinable, easily made homogeneous, it is fungible, durable, and it has value for non-monetary uses as well, which is an important quality of "good" money. This is by no means an exhaustive list. See how many of those qualities dollars have, or packs of cigarettes (a common 'money' in some parts...). Some, but not nearly all.

Also, people shouldn't get confused and think that a gold standard means you could/would only use gold. You could also use silver and copper for much the same reason as gold, however for smaller purchases where it wouldn't be as feasible to trade a tiny amount of your gold for, say, a pack of gum. But there are even ways you can use gold for that. Check these out, for instance: Shire SIlver Card Products. Just one of many ways gold and silver could be made useful for small purchases. Likewise, you could use platinum if you wanted for some huge purchases. Nothing stops this except the existence of legal tender laws and capital gains taxes on precious metals.

There are many more reasons why gold/silver would make a better money than dollars, and people shouldn't forget that there is nothing wrong with paper money that is 100% backed by gold with no fractional reserve banking going on and healthy competition between banks. There just wouldn't be a central bank controlling a banking cartel and protecting the member banks by "loaning money" at virtually no interest to cover any runs on deposits.

If you want more information about all of this, check out these books for free courtesy of mises.org:
What Has Government Done To Our Money?
The Case Against The Fed

Both are by Murray Rothbard, and he does an excellent job going over the history of money and banking and also explains in greater detail some of what I have posted here. He also covers some other questions I saw asked in this thread. If you would like any sources for any of the info I have here, let me know. Most of these facts are easily verifiable, though.

edit on 13-8-2011 by joemelon because: (no reason given)


i like what you have said from skimming....

but are you saying deflation is goood?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by donbot1000
reply to post by OrionsRage
 


Exactly. Our fiat currency and the system surrounding it has nothing to do with money. Money, being defined as gold or silver. Gold "investors" are licking their chops, waiting for the system to crash, because the very same system is telling them that their gold will be worth 20 quintillion dollars in only a short while. What a joke. The system itself is valuing the gold against its own fiat currency.

I personally know that if crap hits the fan, I wouldn't take on trade a shard of gold for a fat heffer cow that could feed me and my family. Eat your gold, buddy!


i agree completely. no matter how you put it, gold or paper, it is still medium of exchange.
the real thing is a fat cow.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by saabacura
People,

if you are really poor now,

be it fiat currency or gold standard,

you will still be poor either way.

so wake up.


Got a damn good point,
wont do a damn thing to
help people without a job!!



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Ron Paul isn't going to do anything that hurts the economy. That's all you need to know IF you aren't even going to offer a rebuttal against my semi-educated exploration of what Ron Paul has said on this issue. Our other leaders have hurt the economy to provide various sectors advantages - whether it's the military-industrial complex, or the medical-industrial complex, or the banking complex, or the subsidies, or whatever. He's not going to sell out to any of those, he's not going to sell out to anyone.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by saabacura

i like what you have said from skimming....

but are you saying deflation is goood?
If we have an economy with a money supply that doesn't grow as fast as the number of goods and services produced, you will get price deflation as a result. This is a good thing for consumers. If you have an artificial reduction of the money supply, that is real deflation. This doesn't hurt the consumer either. It just drives up the purchasing power of whatever money they have.

Right now, we live under a system where it is "normal" that the dollars you earn lose their value as time goes on. Inflation is seen as a good thing. It is a good thing only for those who sit at the top of the money chain, along with the people who get the money soon after they have created it. The poor and middle class get their savings wiped out because it can't buy anything anymore. But imagine a system where the money you save appreciates over time. That is the natural way. It encourages saving (and thus investment) and discourages debt. Instead of hearing "Spend!" from Washington, we would have an economy that is at "full employment" with tons of capital saved up for future growth. This empowers the consumer. As you know, we live in a world dominated by people who take advantage of the consumer. The table needs to turn a bit.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I don't see a cogent argument from the OP yet that convinces me he knows anything about the current monetary system or what may be a viable alternative. I see a pointless, strawman thread being used as political pinata.

Sorry, but it just won't work. If you cannot be bothered to demonstrate at least a remedial understanding of how the economy works, I don't see why anyone else should be bothered in trying to educate you.


edit on 21-8-2011 by Smack because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I wait to see the replies from the Paultopians. I'm forseeing lots of denials that there could ever be a drawback to anything Mr. Paul has ever uttered.

So, I'll just be making popcorn.


They're walking right into the same trap Obama set in 2008, like lemmings.

I feel a deep shame for my country's people being fooled and duped time and time again with the same method.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DieBravely

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I wait to see the replies from the Paultopians. I'm forseeing lots of denials that there could ever be a drawback to anything Mr. Paul has ever uttered.

So, I'll just be making popcorn.


They're walking right into the same trap Obama set in 2008, like lemmings.

I feel a deep shame for my country's people being fooled and duped time and time again with the same method.


If it was the same trap wouldn't that mean the Ron Paul supporters now would have voted for Obama last time? Well that didn't happen. Anyone who was a serious Ron Paul supporter probably took it to heart when Ron Paul supported Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr based on principle, never giving an official endorsement. Ron Paul supporters knew that a vote for Mccain or Obama was a vote for the lesser of two evils. Some may have voted Obama knowing this, but that's a very different sentiment than those who "fell" for Obama.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
I don't see a cogent argument from the OP yet that convinces me he knows anything about the current monetary system or what may be a viable alternative. I see a pointless, strawman thread being used as political pinata.

Sorry, but it just won't work. If you cannot be bothered to demonstrate at least a remedial understanding of how the economy works, I don't see why anyone else should be bothered in trying to educate you.


edit on 21-8-2011 by Smack because: (no reason given)


oh yea, now youre the economic expert. after watching conspiracy videos on economics on youtube. see this is hyped up.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by joemelon

Originally posted by saabacura

i like what you have said from skimming....

but are you saying deflation is goood?
If we have an economy with a money supply that doesn't grow as fast as the number of goods and services produced, you will get price deflation as a result. This is a good thing for consumers. If you have an artificial reduction of the money supply, that is real deflation. This doesn't hurt the consumer either. It just drives up the purchasing power of whatever money they have.

Right now, we live under a system where it is "normal" that the dollars you earn lose their value as time goes on. Inflation is seen as a good thing. It is a good thing only for those who sit at the top of the money chain, along with the people who get the money soon after they have created it. The poor and middle class get their savings wiped out because it can't buy anything anymore. But imagine a system where the money you save appreciates over time. That is the natural way. It encourages saving (and thus investment) and discourages debt. Instead of hearing "Spend!" from Washington, we would have an economy that is at "full employment" with tons of capital saved up for future growth. This empowers the consumer. As you know, we live in a world dominated by people who take advantage of the consumer. The table needs to turn a bit.


good point. but from my understandings, deflation is terrible. people will just hold on to money and never spend it. or they will spend at the last moment when they have to.
deflation causes extreme fear of spending money which will in turn destroy the economy. people don't spend money, demand goes down, companies dont produce, which means supply will go down.... wages will go down, vicious cycle continues....

layoff will start happening and the only way to come out of this cycle is to print more money with low interest rate.

not a pretty picture for average citizen.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DieBravely
 


Have to agree..
Barack Obama made many promises on campaign. He may not as libertarian based as Ron Paul, but he certainly seemed to possess a level of common sense most would wish their president have..

Now it's gone. I wonder if Ron Paul would keep it if he's ever elected.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


Honestly Obama still has that "common sense." We do live in a complicated world. Jefferson thought people would be more educated in his idea of democracy. Instead we have a majority of idiots. Obama is not THAT bad. I think you will find that Ron Paul is the only one in the republican debates who isn't bringing up "blame Obama" every other soundbite. Like Giuliani kept bringing up 911 last time, these guys are blaming Obama at every turn, while Ron Paul gives a real and historical perspective to our nation's problems. If you are going to even attempt to have a clear opinion about Ron Paul, you need to understand quite importantly, he isn't blaming Obama for everything. And neither should the Ron Paul supporters. They need to understand (and they mostly do) that the problems are larger and deeper than the current commander in chief.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join