Questions regarding Ron Paul's Political Positions.

reply to post by Res Ipsa


Good advice.

Odd, but good.

Originally posted by buni11687
On the tariffs issue, I found this on wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org...

Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs. However, this position is now suspect. During the 2011 CPAC conference, he said he would support a flat income tax of 10 % at 19:23 of that speech

But it is wikipedia. Im trying to find a better site.

edit on 17-8-2011 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)

Tariffs gone wild...www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


The only way Paul is going to get into office, is if I'm right, and he's an NWO shill. Genuinely decent human beings do not become President, in America.

So you don't have anything to worry about, either way.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
With the current state of the U.S. economy (and the globe by default), isn't doing away with the regulation of the federal reserve and the advantages of a fiat currency an incredibly dangerous proposition? Does this not severely curtail a large economic powers possible options to flexibly react to the needs of its economy?

He wants a slow change, if elected into office he's always stated he wouldn't end the FED on day one
It requires a transition period
He wouldn't even end entitlements on day one, he also favors a transition period for that.

Continuing down this path as if money grows on trees is the worse idea possible, ending the FED tomorrow would also hurt the economy alot.
So the best path is the middle, allow a slow transition towards ending the FED and allowing competiting currencies.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
I see no real advantage for the U.S. to embrace a commodity-backed currency short of a last ditch effort to save the economy in a hyperinflation scenario (which is not currently the situation).

Really?
FIAT = Slavery!
FIAT means that the debt is on the backs of the American People and they have promised as citizens to return the debt. Trillions being lost here, trillions being lost there, trillions being used for this and that which majority of american people wouldnt agree with.

A commodity-backed currency would not only disallow that it would keep Govt. spending in check.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Deregulation and economic liberalization were two of the primary causes for the mess the country is in now, how does allowing the banks even more freedom make any sense at all after they just took less than a decade after partial deregulation to muck up so badly that a trillion dollar bailout was necessary?

That's completely untrue my friend
What is regulation? Regulations is setting up new departments to oversee a particular element
Regulators are appointed, not elected.
How do they get appointed?
Lobbying of course.

Lobbyists pay politicians, executives from such companies like Goldman Sacchs, Monsanto etc.. get or rather "buy" regulatory positions.
So in really more regulations means more cronyism, more cronyism results in monopolies.

Look at who caused the economic mess and look who gave buckets of money to Obama's campaign.
Same people
And now, nobody is being arrested.

Allowing freedom in the markets would disallow any "Too Big To Fails" and "Regulatory Cronies" to hurt the economy even more. It would put power in the hands of the people.

Please let me know if you have any more questions.
Thx

reply to post by Res Ipsa


One of the best posts i've ever seen on this site.

Thanks for articulating it so well.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
How does a free market without regulation stop the formation of monopolies? How does it stop the formation of monopoly owned media that pushes the ideology of the money makers? How does the free market protect against environmental damage caused by all the money making? How do we ensure young children are not forced to work instead of being educated? How does the free market renew the non renewable resources of the planet?

I'm sure someone here will be able to answer theses questions for me.

Really?

Hi Woodward, please see this newly created thread ASAP
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Have your opinions changed yet?

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
With the current state of the U.S. economy (and the globe by default), isn't doing away with the regulation of the federal reserve and the advantages of a fiat currency an incredibly dangerous proposition? Does this not severely curtail a large economic powers possible options to flexibly react to the needs of its economy?
He wants a slow change, if elected into office he's always stated he wouldn't end the FED on day one
It requires a transition period
He wouldn't even end entitlements on day one, he also favors a transition period for that.

Continuing down this path as if money grows on trees is the worse idea possible, ending the FED tomorrow would also hurt the economy alot.
So the best path is the middle, allow a slow transition towards ending the FED and allowing competiting currencies.

I see the current debt crisis as the result of an untimely combination of forces and not necessarily a simple failure of economic policies like the market crash of 1929 and resulting bank runs.

The deregulation of the 90's loosening credit lending rules resulting in a housing boom further encouraging irresponsible subprime mortgage lending hyperinflating property values to create a bubble that popped as soon as somebody hiccupped added to the cost of 10 years of military deployment in 2 separate theatres and hundreds of billions in nation building foreign aid handouts.

The current level of debt is obviously unsustainable but had the Fed not acted as it did when it did and allowed the banks to collapse I believe we would be suffering unemployment and homelessness on the scale of the great depression.

There is agreeably a need to reduce our national deficit to a reasonable level as the recent credit downgrade attests. A very close look and necessary reform of our current policies is in order but I still don't see the wisdom or necessity to completely dismantle the Federal Reserve as a response.

If we toss the Fed and the fiat system the current privileged status of the dollar as the worlds primary reserve currency is lost along with billions in revenue from foreign investment.

How does that help anything?

Really?
FIAT = Slavery!
FIAT means that the debt is on the backs of the American People and they have promised as citizens to return the debt. Trillions being lost here, trillions being lost there, trillions being used for this and that which majority of american people wouldnt agree with.

A commodity-backed currency would not only disallow that it would keep Govt. spending in check.

As I said earlier, I am not fluent in economics but I believe you may be overlooking the advantages of an elastic currency that can react to market needs as a necessary tool in macro managing the economy. My understanding is that an elastic currency allows the economy to react quickly to mitigate recession as well as regulating inflation to a healthy level.

A commodity based standard is far to rigid to effectively manage healthy economic growth in a modern,dynamic global economy, I cant help but believe the solution to reduced spending lies in legislative responsibility with our law makers rather than hamstringing our currency.

That's completely untrue my friend
What is regulation? Regulations is setting up new departments to oversee a particular element
Regulators are appointed, not elected.
How do they get appointed?
Lobbying of course.

Lobbyists pay politicians, executives from such companies like Goldman Sacchs, Monsanto etc.. get or rather "buy" regulatory positions.
So in really more regulations means more cronyism, more cronyism results in monopolies.

Look at who caused the economic mess and look who gave buckets of money to Obama's campaign.
Same people
And now, nobody is being arrested.

Allowing freedom in the markets would disallow any "Too Big To Fails" and "Regulatory Cronies" to hurt the economy even more. It would put power in the hands of the people.

Please let me know if you have any more questions.
Thx

Its not my own thought so I take no credit but many of the economic theories I have been reading would disagree with you on your definition and cause-effect of regulation.

Lobbyists and special interest do what they do because they can within the law. Turning a blind eye will do nothing but embolden "cronyism".

Regulation means there are rules, deregulation means anything goes as we just saw with the mess we are in now.

Regarding who caused the mess? It was everyone, anyone who tapped their home equity for a big screen they couldn't afford, took on a mortgage in a house outside of their means with interest only payments gambling the house would appreciate enough to offset an impossible mortgage payment when it was time to pay the piper etc.

Its not a partisan issue and trying to place the blame anywhere but in the mirror (metaphorically) is dishonest and not the solution. (IMHO)

It's NOT the the fact that it's FIAT that makes our monetary system dangerous. It's the fact that the banks are allowed to practice:

FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING

We could have Fiat currency which is tightly and closely regulated by a GOVERNMENT body (Treasury anyone?), and still have a very stable and strong currency so long as banking practices are kept at 100% reserves.

The reason Ron Paul suggests the Gold Standard (this also implies Silver, which is what both Lincoln and Kennedy tried to do with their greenbacks), is because its a widely traded commodity which would take HUGE amounts of resources to influence and manipulate. This is essentially just the easiest, and most readily available option out there, because even a Regulatory body governing Fiat would eventually succumb to corruption. While manipulation of the gold market would take massive coordinated resources with constant efforts to do any lasting damage to the currency.

Overall, he's just trying to suggest "SOUND MONEY", as in "money that doesn't lose it's purchasing power" as loans are given out by banks in the economy.

Please watch this video for a history on how all this works and came about:

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
The current level of debt is obviously unsustainable but had the Fed not acted as it did when it did and allowed the banks to collapse I believe we would be suffering unemployment and homelessness on the scale of the great depression.

You will be suffering sooner or later, there's no way to avoid it
The only questions now is how, when and how can you soften the inevitable blow.

If the debt is unsustainable you don't add more debt to it.

Think of a balloon, the balloon needs to pop, but instead of allowing it to pop you keep inflating it.
By doing that when it will pop, and it will, it will be a bigger POP then if you just let it pop when it wanted to.

If you understand that a depression or a big recession is inevitable then why delay it only to instead suffer a massive depression similar to the breakup of the USSR?

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
There is agreeably a need to reduce our national deficit to a reasonable level as the recent credit downgrade attests. A very close look and necessary reform of our current policies is in order but I still don't see the wisdom or necessity to completely dismantle the Federal Reserve as a response.

The FED prints money out of thin air
Once greedy people get their hands on it, they won't let go

Your logic makes sense, but only in an ideal world without greed.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
If we toss the Fed and the fiat system the current privileged status of the dollar as the worlds primary reserve currency is lost along with billions in revenue from foreign investment.

How does that help anything?

How does continuing down the path we are already in help anything?
And again a transition period is required, but a transition without costly wars and and over-regulated market.
I said Over-regulated not completely void of regulations FYI.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
As I said earlier, I am not fluent in economics but I believe you may be overlooking the advantages of an elastic currency that can react to market needs as a necessary tool in macro managing the economy. My understanding is that an elastic currency allows the economy to react quickly to mitigate recession as well as regulating inflation to a healthy level.

In what way?
If a company makes the wrong decisions it shouldn't be bailed out, it should go bankrupt
You don't bailout your buddies thereby removing the fear of bad business decisions.

There is no need for an elastic currency, in fact there is a need for a currency without such flexibility.
Because as very current events shows you, the only ones making use of that elasticism are greedy elitists.

The market can handle the economy on their own, demand will determine value.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
A commodity based standard is far to rigid to effectively manage healthy economic growth in a modern,dynamic global economy, I cant help but believe the solution to reduced spending lies in legislative responsibility with our law makers rather than hamstringing our currency.

I can't help but believe in what you are sayign too, but then reality knocks on my door
Your opinion does make sense but is slightly utopian.

This control that you call "A Rigid Commodity backed currency" is what will disallow what you have now, which is an out of control and unnacountable government.

You are only advocating the empowerment of an almost dictactorial mob.
Unfortunately this is a milestone that we have passed, and the sooner we realize that the better.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Lobbyists and special interest do what they do because they can within the law. Turning a blind eye will do nothing but embolden "cronyism".

I'm not suggesting we turn a blind eye
I'm not suggesting we pave the road to gold for these lobbyists to take.
I'm suggesting the road shouldn't exist to begin with.

We should all realize that special interests group have such a big hand in controlling the country
We should not be creating more lobbying targets for them to take advantage of.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Regulation means there are rules, deregulation means anything goes as we just saw with the mess we are in now.

Today, regulation means cronyism and there are only rules for the small people but not for the big people.

For example Obama put Cronies in the FDA and a crony as Food Safety Czar, now Monsanto is growing stronger and stronger while they are disallowing small food producers to label food as Non-GMO.

This will hurt choice, hurt small businesses and give a bigger piece of the geneticallly modified pie to Monsanto.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Its not a partisan issue and trying to place the blame anywhere but in the mirror (metaphorically) is dishonest and not the solution. (IMHO)

I do agree it's not a partisan issue

I don't agree with what you are saying but I think you are on the right path but now at crossroads.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
If nothing else this issue is forcing me to learn a lot very quickly. ( I don't care who you are, wikipedia instantly bumps your IQ 50+ points

)

I primarily view Wikipedia as a link farm, personally, to provide leads for my own research. The site's own commentary isn't worth very much at all. They are generally very pro-Establishment, and also usually deeply Cartesian/materialistic.

Political positions of Ron Paul

Deregulation

Austrian business cycle theory

Austrian School

In my limited view, the U.S. economy has grown far too complex to be managed by the whim of chance or trust in others to not lie cheat and steal to make a dollar.

Its a nice thought but not realistic to expect from any contemporary civilization and particularly our current form of capitalism.

I believe some oversight on a Federal level is mandatory to maintain economic equilibrium.

You can quote either von Mises or Marx until you are blue in the face, and implement either. It will not help you.

America economically currently has four main problems.

a] Federalism. As a singular entity, the country is simply too large. Secession needs to be put on the table, and granted to anyone who sincerely wants it. You will find that doing so, makes the country infinitely more manageable, as there will simply be less of it for a single point to manage.

b] The country's industrial base is now largely non-existent. Instead, you primarily import from China or Taiwan, and have maintained reserve currency status via a monopoly on oil, which has been achieved by gradually annexing (whether militarily or economically) both the Middle East and Latin America.

The shell game that the American government has played with oil in order to maintain its' economic supremacy, is not and has never been sustainable. A return, by itself, to the gold standard also will not help you. What you really need is a renewed focus on domestic manufacturing (and not purely in the area of weaponry and munitions) as a way for the country to raise real, non-fiat physical wealth. Industry was what created the country's real wealth in the first place.

c] The middle class has largely ceased to exist. Too many of the people who were members of said middle class during the 80s, are now living in tents. They can't get blue collar jobs, because you've built robots to do all of those, and they can't get white collar jobs, because nearly all of those have been offshored. About the only industry left is hospitality, and you can't have a population of 300 million+ working as waitresses or bartenders.

What needs to be developed, is localised, decentralised subsistence and urban agriculture, but it won't happen, primarily because of the gangsterism of Big Food and the FDA. If everyone started growing their own food, however, it would solve all sorts of problems, including unemployment.

d] The American government, at virtually every level, has been overrun by non-treatable, spiritual and neurological psychopaths, who need to be removed from office, and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. This is your single biggest issue. If you don't take care of this, nothing else that you try and do will get you anywhere, because no matter what you try and do, you will always have the cabal working against you. They need to be locked up, first.

reply to post by Hamking


Thanks for posting that as yours is the impression I have of Ron Paul's views on the FED as well as one of the primary tenants of the Austrian School of economic thought, of which Ron Paul is a student.

I'll address my understanding of the advantages of fiat currency versus a commodity backed tender in response to both yourself and to ModernAcadameia in my next post down as you have both touched on similar points.

I would point out that there seems to be a common facet of distrust driving the reasoning for tossing the Federal Reserve amongst many of Ron Paul's economic supporters.

Is it possible the old saying about "cutting one's nose off to spite one's face" might be relevant here?

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
You will be suffering sooner or later, there's no way to avoid it
The only questions now is how, when and how can you soften the inevitable blow.

If the debt is unsustainable you don't add more debt to it.

Think of a balloon, the balloon needs to pop, but instead of allowing it to pop you keep inflating it.
By doing that when it will pop, and it will, it will be a bigger POP then if you just let it pop when it wanted to.

If you understand that a depression or a big recession is inevitable then why delay it only to instead suffer a massive depression similar to the breakup of the USSR?

My apologies, the real world calls so I'll have to continue our discussion at a later time.

I'll try and respond to the remainder of your post when I get back.

Back on topic...

I don't believe the situation at hand is as black and white nor as cut and dry as your comment implies.

There is no historical precedent for the current U.S. global macroeconomy. Perhaps the poster above is correct and the system has grown to where it is impractical and unmanageable and needs to be broken up into smaller pieces however maybe a global macroeconomy is sustainable with the proper management tools.

The system has worked very well to get the U.S. to where it is. I fear that to throw our hands up in hopeless frustration is both defeatist and unnecessary.

The U.S. has faced difficult economic times before, a couple during my lifetime, and has rebounded into prosperity every time. There is no real reason to believe now is any different.

At least there are no lines for blocks to buy gas, interest rates aren't hovering steady at 18% with 13% inflation and 10% unemployment. I remember the Carter years all too well, these are easy times and good living in comparison.

I believe your analogy with the Soviet Union to be unfounded but that is for a different conversation.

In what way?
If a company makes the wrong decisions it shouldn't be bailed out, it should go bankrupt
You don't bailout your buddies thereby removing the fear of bad business decisions.

There is no need for an elastic currency, in fact there is a need for a currency without such flexibility.
Because as very current events shows you, the only ones making use of that elasticism are greedy elitists.

The market can handle the economy on their own, demand will determine value.

A fiat currency allows the monetary authority to regulate money supply ideally allowing a small percentage of monetary inflation which most economic theorists ( Ron Paul excluded) believe is necessary for healthy economic growth.

A fiat currency allows monetary authority to tailor available currency to an economy’s demand for money. At first signs of recession you print more cash to stimulate growth, at the first hint of inflation you remove money from circulation. It seems to have worked well thus far.

Historically, many believe U.S. reliance on the gold standard helped to deepen and lengthen the great depression.

A return to a gold standard would almost certainly cause economic deflation. Historically deflation rewards the wealthy and penalizes the common man reducing overall expenditure and further slowing spending.

As I said, most modern economic theories believe a currency needs to be elastic to respond to the needs of a dynamic global economy.

Once again, I'm not an authority but the argument seems sound to my laymen ears.