Is Ron Paul Wrong?...

Does Ron Paul have it wrong?..

I understand that we should abolish the central banking debt based system.
Ron Paul seems to speak out against it.
lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html

But then I hear nonsense about a Gold Standard!
Does Ron Paul not understand what money or value is?
If we are to abolish the Federal Reserve, then we are to put in place a system that will adjust according to the people.
Gold or any standard is a limitted resource.
There can be NO STANDARD! This idea is ill-conceived and anyone who believes there needs to be a standard, does not understand what money nor what value are.

In a previous thread I posted the following:
I like the ideas for a solution after minute 36 in ‘Money as Debt’. Check it out if you haven’t seen it.

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

Please understand that there can be no standard.
Money supply should be expanded and contracted based on the needs for a given country.
If anyone thinks money needs a standard, then they don’t understand what money is.
More specifically, they don’t understand what VALUE is!

Ron Paul isn’t a total genius. The guy is smart, but he has his flaws.

If there is one thing we seemingly know about him, is that he’s not some illum puppet. He might not have all the solutions, but he won’t be working to kill/enslave us.

The value of a dollar shouldn’t change much over time, I think he’s trying to cut the strings that allows people to adjust it’s value. It’s a first step, but there would have to be more than just this to stabalize our dollar. Perhaps going back to the gold standard?

Money is not stable. One unit of a commodity to one person is valued differently that the same one unit of a commodity to another person. Gold is just another commodity, and a very limited one at that! So whoever has the gold makes the rules.

I believe you are talking of ‘stabilizing’ the dollar compared to other major currencies, correct? In terms of making the dollar stronger, it seems a major step would be taking control of the dollar again. Whoever has the power to create currency (currently the central bank, the Fed) has the power. The people need the power to regulate the supply of currency. All this nonsense about elections and democracy are rendered rather unimportant (in terms of economics) due to the fact that our whole finacnail system is not OWNED by the people. It is not run by the people.

Note - It is not necessarily in the Fed’s private interests to keep a strong dollar. Their ultimate goal is how much profit can be made from the US without causing so much devastation to our economy that we finally realize we can just get rid of them. They’ll try to avoid a depression, but if they can get away with another one, they will!

Using a gold standard is unworkable IMO. Besides, the value of gold is also arbitrary but he doesn’t seem to grasp that money has only symbolic value.

He gets it.

The implementations won’t be so utterly simplistic, I don’t think. But he’s only got so much time on the debate forum… most people are morons so he has to explain that way.

I understand what he hopes to acheive by returning to the gold standard, but I don’t think it’s logical or practical.

Why’s that?

Getting rid of the fed is, or is not the rightful first move in restoring some economic stability to the US?

As the only candidate that does not want to continue warring, and wants to actually repair the failing infrastructure, I don’t personally see how he is unpractical to the countries interests.

In case you haven’t noticed, everyone is is OBSCENELY RICH and is more or less helping/wanting the US to crumble as a nation. They’re thinking 6 chess moves ahead, and just going through the motions now.

Let me ask you something… do you think the US will be past, at, or before it’s ‘peak’ as a nation if Guilillary or Hilloma get in? Where do you see the country going under illum leadership?

Well, conspiracies aside tying a countries currency to gold should reduce inflation and stabilize the value (to an extent- gold is volatile but not like currency). Problem is that the value of gold is just as imaginary, and completely dependant upon common concencus. You can’t eat it. I agree getting rid of the Fed would be a great start, though.

It’s hard to say if the US is “past its prime.” Most people think the Golden Age is whenever they were young, so it was the 50’s to my Dad, woulda been the 20’s to his. A nations peak is usually only visible in hindsight. That said I do think we’re in a downswing right now. Bush has really fucked things up, and of course everyone went along with it until recently. I don’t think things are irreversibly hosed, but it’s gonna take a lot of work to get back to a better place.

I do think civilization is teetering on a knife edge, though. We can’t gobble resources up like there’s no tommorrow for much longer, not with the the rest of the world adopting Western notions of consumerism & modernity. Population & pollution are issues we’ll have to face as a species if we’re to survive.

… shit I got nothing. :laughing:

:laughing: =D>

I agree. It doesn’t help or solve anything! If anything it would make things worse. Well actually, as often is the case, this change would benefit very few and hurt or take from very many.

… have no effect whatsoever!

Man on the street - “Under a gold standard our currency would be worth something. It would be worth GOLD.”
Bane - “Ahhh… and what is gold worth?”
Man on the street - “What do you mean? Gold is valuable… You can hold it and touch it.”
Bane - “So it has value inside it?..”
MOTS - “Yes.”
Bane - “In what part of the gold has the value?”
MOTS - “Uhhhhh…”.

The MOTS does not understand what value is.
You can make representative currency out of anything.
Gold had been traditionally used because of its malleability.
It made for good coins. But at some point bankers realized that paper is even easier. Notes are easier. yet it will still take time for the masses and the MOTS to understand that…

Value is not inherent in any object.
Value is subjectively attributed to things by each individual.
There can be no standard as… we are individuals.

Until the masses understand this. They shouldn’t talk of financial solutions.
In fact, I get nervous when I say that ‘the people’ should determine the supply of currency (not the fed) because the people still seem to think that ‘value’ is IN objects like gold!

Again, I like the ideas proposed at minute 36 in Money as Debt. I see this as the way that things will have to go eventually.

Hey by the way, just before minute 34 in Money as Debt, they talk about the stupidity of a gold standard.

What’s the value of anything?

The ideal purpose is to stabalize currency and prevent drastic changes in precieved value. There is no 100% stable value to anything. But, a government that is able to print currency out of thin air has disasterous implications for the ones down the line. Gold can’t be made out of thin air (not yet). It can be found, but that at least requires someone earning that gold by working for it (literally).

How can we fix this problem? Anyone have a genious idea on how?

Why gold? Why not tree bark, rocks or Lucky Charms cereal? The problem is that money is a McGuffin, something to make economies work- it has no inherent value. Why should the number of dollars in circulation coincide with the extant supply of gold, rocks or fruity childrens breakfast foods?

Precisely. There is no certain quantity of value. If the world has 1,000,000,000 people in it and one more baby is born, the entire population is affected by this one child’s needs. Do you see how if we have different needs, then we have different values? That all there is to it. We have different values. Therefor ‘value’ or any representation of it (for example money) is not static. It is constantly in flux. You can relate one representation of it (gold) to another representation of it (a dollar or euro) but it doesn’t change the fact that everything, every commodity, currency, EVERYTHING is in flux. There can be no standard. (Much goes the same with morals. CHeck out my post ‘God & Moral Relativism’.

There should be a cap on the human population. After it’s met, an old person should die for every new birth. We gotsta maintain a balance somehow, otherwise the earth won’t be able to support anybody before long.

This aside, what should our currancy be?

That is a pretty serious suggestion.
Do you realize what you are suggesting?
Are you prepared to enforce it?

What do you mean?

*Sorry everyone, I may not be able to post for quite a while. I promise to return when I can.

I was talking about the same subject on here last year. Great points.