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.

 

Serious Question for Ron Paul Supporters.

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Is it just me, or is Ron Paul essentially running on a campaign promise to bring about the end of civilization as we know it? A provocative question, maybe, but hear me out. First off, I generally like RP. Of the Republican candidates, he is clearly the most worthy of consideration even if my personal beliefs are more of a more pragmatic anarchist bent.

However, it seems that his promise to audit/abolish the Fed is a pretty hefty domino to be pushing. Let's face it. Money is imaginary. Has been for years. Not just in the U.S., but worldwide. At the same time, it is the glue that holds society together, especially on the vast scale that society has taken on (the macro is far more important to the average person than the micro, I am sad to say). The world is built on this foundation of imagination play where everyone agrees that our various portraits of historical figures have value, or in the case of the trillions of dollars that make up the world of computerized assets, the pixels on screen have value.

It is nonsense, but this nonsense is the very basis of our world and RP seems hell bent on shattering the illusion. And yet, I can not seem to find a cogent presentation of his ideas for a Post-Fiat Money World. There's talk of a return to the Gold Standard which 4th Grade math will tell you is no longer even remotely viable, and frankly completely irrational. We could go to some sort of Commodity backed system (grain, fresh water, flax, bacon, rare earth minerals, etc) but the transition would be a logistical nightmare beyond the comprehension of most people, let alone their capacity to actually cooperate on such a thing.

So my question is this: Has Ron Paul articulated a comprehensive Money Policy beyond the abolition of fiat currency? Not just a simple slogan or catch phrase not just "a return to the gold standard" or "restoring value", but a genuine breakdown of the brass tacks HOW of such an undertaking.

If not? Why not? What would be the realistic outcome of a RP presidency?

An additional note, I am not for the status quo. I am in favor of radical, epoch defining change. I will not be voting for either Republican or Democratic candidates this year and will be convincing every single person I can to vote for third parties (ANY third parties) in an attempt to bring down the bogus two party system. So I am not peeing in RP's Cheerios because I like the establishment. I am asking questions because I want a clear vision for the future.
edit on 11-5-2012 by RobertAntonWeishaupt because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I don't know he'll be able to end fiat money and such, but I think the idea is to start reversing the crap we've gotten ourselves into. I think his time in office would be a foundation for this kind of reform. I'm not sure he wants to pull the plug immediately, but rather get the national momentum going to start working towards sound money - whatever that may be in our modern society.

He's also talked about competing currencies and not just gold.

edit on 11-5-2012 by WordsAreAvenues because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt
 


He's written 2 books that pretty much outline the policy. He isn't trying to abolish money, he is trying to make the money backed by something tangible that is controlled by the market instead of being arbitrarily controlled by a handful of key figures without absolutely zero oversight.

He has also laid out many potentially successful scenarios that he would consider in addition to his own solutions, and all of them are considerably better than what we have now. Read his book "End the Fed."

His monetary policy and his foreign policy are actually the more mundane of his policies, but those are the ones that his detractors hone in on. If anyone should should be concerned, they should be concerned with his handling of the Federal Lands and National Parks, and they should be concerned with what his drastic cuts in government will do to the entrenched government workers that are no longer qualified to work in the private sector. For a true Ron Paul fan, or an anarchist like yourself, he really is very exciting, but if someone wants to panic, they should do a little research and panic for the right reasons, LOL!



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Dr. Paul has been opposed to the Federal Reserve for many decades; however, recently he has focused his efforts on a particular point - the legalization of competing currencies.

Moreover, they believe it would pave the way for private companies to create their own competing currencies. Dr. Paul is an ardent capitalist who believes in small government, so it follows that one could theoretically create a new form of currency, based on electricity; therefore not fiat, and perfectly legitimate in Dr. Paul's world. Soon, the only thing that would matter would be whether or not parties agreed upon the method of exchange. "We accept " on the register plaque.

To wrap things up, if gold, silver, bitcoints, oil dollars, or anything else you can dream up become legally competing currencies in the United States, it is hypothesized that the Federal Reserve will then no longer be a monopoly and forced to compete; therefore the concept of the free market would be allowed to work as intended. If I am to understand their position, Dr. Paul and his supporters believe that the legalization of competing currencies will force the Federal Reserve to alter their business practices.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
Is it just me, or is Ron Paul essentially running on a campaign promise to bring about the end of civilization as we know it?


No, he just wants to take us back to the 19th century. You know? When resources were plentiful and the population was less than a third it is today, and when we had enough physical gold to back our currency with. Ah yes, those were the times when state governments could also freely limit individual liberties without those pesky federal authorities to intervene. Those were the good days eh?


However, it seems that his promise to audit/abolish the Fed is a pretty hefty domino to be pushing. Let's face it. Money is imaginary. Has been for years. Not just in the U.S., but worldwide. At the same time, it is the glue that holds society together, especially on the vast scale that society has taken on (the macro is far more important to the average person than the micro, I am sad to say). The world is built on this foundation of imagination play where everyone agrees that our various portraits of historical figures have value, or in the case of the trillions of dollars that make up the world of computerized assets, the pixels on screen have value.


Yes the gold standard isn't coming back anytime soon. We simply lack sufficient resources to back it up with, Fort Knox itself has an estimated $300 billion worth of gold reserves, not enough at all to convert. Imagine if there was a Gold standard brough back and China demanded her debt be paid back, what, are we going to pay her the same in gold? Please..... And this is just china, tip of the $14 trillion debt we have. Same as our GDP. Where is all this gold going to come from? What are we going to devalue the gold reserves in order to match what's needed to be backed? By how much. It's just not workable sorry.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Your first paragraph makes no sense.

When we had enough gold to back our currency? What does that exactly mean?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dance4Life
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


What does that exactly mean?


What does the Gold standard mean to you?

To me it means essentially backing our current against a certain weight of Gold. Frankly there isn't enough Gold in reserve to back our money with. The United States has a GDP of $14 trillion, government has deficit spending exceeds $4 trillion annualing as I believe. This isn't going to work. It may have worked roughly 100 years ago when we had less than a third of the population and more per head in Gold reserves, but not nowadays.

Ron Paul did mention backing currency up with something else that is valueble, but I fail to see just what that could be.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
Is it just me, or is Ron Paul essentially running on a campaign promise to bring about the end of civilization as we know it?


It's a moot point. It's collapsing as we speak.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Dance4Life
 


Here are some good explanations:


The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 metric tons and arguments have been made that this amount is too small to serve as a monetary base. The value of this amount of gold is over 6 trillion dollars while the monetary base of the US, with a roughly 20% share of the world economy, stands at $2.7 trillion at the end of 2011. Murray Rothbard argues that the amount of gold available is not a bar to a gold standard since the free market will determine the purchasing power of gold money based on its supply.

The unequal distribution of gold as a natural resource makes the gold standard much more advantageous in terms of cost and international economic empowerment for those countries that produce gold. In 2010 the largest producers of gold, in order, are China, followed by Australia, the US, South Africa and Russia. The country with the largest reserves is Australia.

The gold standard acts as a limit on economic growth. “As an economy’s productive capacity grows, then so should its money supply. Because a gold standard requires that money be backed in the metal, then the scarcity of the metal constrains the ability of the economy to produce more capital and grow.”

en.wikipedia.org...

Going back to the Gold standard would be good, if Gold itself was far more common or available. As for backing currency with something else, well it depends just what.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


No, unfortunately you are mistaken, although I can see how you could think that.

The thing is that you can still back our currency with gold.

It doesn't like have to be an ounce in gold reserves : $1 US Dollar. If we used this method we better have a few boatload's of gold because we have an enormous money supply.

RP's point about all of this boils down to manipulation of currency value. The gold standard would not allow a 24/7 printing press to devalue (key word) the US Dollar.

In reference to the gold : dollar ratio. It would be an interesting topic, but you could take money supply / ounces of gold and come up with something, although it would probably be much more in-depth.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


That is one viewpoint. It does make our economy much more dynamic.

It also puts us in positions like we are now.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dance4Life
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


That is one viewpoint. It does make our economy much more dynamic.

It also puts us in positions like we are now.


I have no doubt that weighting our currency against something tangeble, valuable, will do good for the economy and will keep the Federal reserve in check as well as governments, however Gold is simply not the resource we can do this with so freely. Given the limited reserves in Gold, the fluctuations in value that market dictates on Gold, and given our debt. Which would you prefer? We pay our debt down through low inflation, through the current currency? Or should we pay back tha debt in gold? Because I can assure you, we wouldn't even be able to cover 20% of that.

What other resource can we point to? Silver?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
He knows that ending the fed abruptly would be complete turmoil. So he has recommended setting up a parallel currency to compete with the dollar. Which would make for quite the scenario, I could imagine the confusion initially. In the long term perspective it makes sense because I think we have all beat that horse over and over by now. When it comes to Austrian banking methods and how they all lead to the scenario that is unfolding before our eyes. So a little bit of fact finding will help to resolve what seems to be repetitive attempts to play naive and purpose preposterous outlandish ideas about him. Sorry the guy wants to bring us back to how this government should have been running for the past 100 years. Well at least as far as the currency is concerned.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Dance4Life
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


That is one viewpoint. It does make our economy much more dynamic.

It also puts us in positions like we are now.


I have no doubt that weighting our currency against something tangeble, valuable, will do good for the economy and will keep the Federal reserve in check as well as governments, however Gold is simply not the resource we can do this with so freely. Given the limited reserves in Gold, the fluctuations in value that market dictates on Gold, and given our debt. Which would you prefer? We pay our debt down through low inflation, through the current currency? Or should we pay back tha debt in gold? Because I can assure you, we wouldn't even be able to cover 20% of that.

What other resource can we point to? Silver?


The reason we went off of the gold standard was due to the economy not being dynamic enough. Ex. Bank runs etc..... There are arguments for both sides. Personally I am all for competing currencies like RP likes, but I am not totally sold either on the all gold standard. In this scenario though, the price of gold would most probably change and it would be an entirely different commodity. I'm not sure how the parallels would be drawn from this current economy to the next. But it does not send the signal that we will be paying back this huge debt like you suggested, then to go ahead and do it right over again - because you know that will happen.

Also, we are not really paying our debt w/low inflation. Our money supply is expanding very quickly and this is the very definition of inflation. It may not show up in CPI, but it shows up when you fill your gas tank and buy groceries.

I should also say that I am not well versed in the gold standard and the possible eventual outcomes. There are probably far better resources than me to explain this.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Ron Paul wouldn't 'shatter' society per se, he would let competition and the free market eliminate the federal reserve/fiat money system.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by stalphos

To wrap things up, if gold, silver, bitcoints, oil dollars, or anything else you can dream up become legally competing currencies in the United States, it is hypothesized that the Federal Reserve will then no longer be a monopoly and forced to compete; therefore the concept of the free market would be allowed to work as intended. If I am to understand their position, Dr. Paul and his supporters believe that the legalization of competing currencies will force the Federal Reserve to alter their business practices.


How's that going to work? Every business and consumer in the country would have to keep track of the value of multiple currencies which would be constantly fluctuating. If you think there is financial shenanigans going on now imagine how this system could be abused, especially with no government oversight per the Paul agenda.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


Read your Constitution....it's all spelled out there. Only Congress can authorize currency....I think it would be awesome to have competing currencies....just think, energy currency...build a wind mill, solar panels or other source and make money. It could be a way to get free from their "slave wage" job.

Just a reminder to those who are afraid of RP's points....it all boils down to the law of the land, which is the Constitution, it really is that simple!



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
The logic is so simple

Right now you have ridiculous spending going on left and right and in the middle
So much ridiculous massive spending it's beyond control and "too big to audit"

two ways for a nation to spend like this, either tax the people like crazy or print money out of thin air, or both.

having money backed by gold keeps govt. spending in check.

It's that simple



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
having money backed by gold keeps govt. spending in check.


It certainly helps to keep the government in check in terms of spending, I agree.


It's that simple


No it's not that simple.

I'll give you an example. If crude oil was more abundant, the cost of gasoline would not be so high. This is true, only we have a limited resources of crude out there on both domestic and foreign soil so this isn't a solution in the first place. The same could be said for Gold, there simply isn't enough Gold to sufficiently back the amount of currency out there. Not to mention how valuable gold has become on the market, it simply isn't possibly to back it by every dollar as we did in the years past, where Gold was more common, and where our population was less than a third the size it is today.
edit on 12-5-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


It doesn't really have to do with the population, rather the supply of money the US has vs then. Without knowing off the top of my head, I would guess that we (US FED RESERVE) easily though have 3x as much gold as we did back then, probably multiples of that. Just a guess though.

Like I said, we do not need to have a 1:1 ratio between gold and population or anything like that.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join