Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 01-25-2011, 07:01 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Ron Paul?

Does anyone else on here think he was dead on with describing the problems with our economy???? And during the debates the other candidates ALWAYS looked at him like he was a nutjob and snickered and everything else when he was talking about it? I'm just wondering what others think.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 09:51 AM  
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar

Rochester, New York
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 262 | Kudos: +47
There's no question he's dead-on right with the problems plaguing our economy. His take on the Federal Reserve is dead-on right, too.

For those unaware what the Federal Reserve is, I encourage you to watch these videos (or just go buy The Creature from Jekyll Island).












__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 10:26 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
Does anyone else on here think he was dead on with describing the problems with our economy???? And during the debates the other candidates ALWAYS looked at him like he was a nutjob and snickered and everything else when he was talking about it? I'm just wondering what others think.
It might be best to describe exactly what problem solutions so that people can agree or disagree with his positions

I do generally feel that ron paul gets it and is concerned about this country unlike many politicians just willing to do what it takes to stay in office, he is one of the very few republicans that actually are republicans and hence why he is shunned by the republican party
Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 10:59 AM  
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar

Rochester, New York
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 262 | Kudos: +47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
It might be best to describe exactly what problem solutions so that people can agree or disagree with his positions
Paul correctly asserts that much of the basis for our financial problems are based on our abuse of our currency. Specifically and by virtue of it being fiat currency not backed by anything of value, it is printed and otherwise issued (electronically or via credit) to excess. This invariably has the effect of devaluing our currency, bringing about inflation and thus is an invisible tax on everyone. For example, $1 in 1970, before we went off the gold standard completely, is worth $5.73 in 2010 dollars. $1 in 1913 is worth $21.59 in 2010 dollars.

Ben Bernanke, head of the Fed, has been buying Treasury debt and issuing money based on that debt. The common term for this is "monetizing debt". What this means is that our currency, far from being backed by a tangible commodity of value, is based on future labor. That is, every piece of U.S. currency represents debt.

Given the enormous amount of debt accrued through spending, unfunded programs like Social Security and Medicare, state debt crises, and pending municipal bond failure, we as a country are in exquisitely bad shape financially.

Paul advocates many things to try to mitigate the pending problems and reverse course. Among them is to abolish the Federal Reserve System, hopefully re-establish a commodity- or commodities-backed currency and get away from a fiat currency, rein in spending through renegotiation (and probably outright default, which is almost certainly necessary), and adhere to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution to prevent this from happening again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
I do generally feel that ron paul gets it and is concerned about this country unlike many politicians just willing to do what it takes to stay in office, he is one of the very few republicans that actually are republicans and hence why he is shunned by the republican party
Right, exactly. He's a Constitutional Conservative which is why he rubs Republicans the wrong way.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 11:16 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
I guess i am generally talking about his feelings on the federal reserve, and the gold standard stuff. This was the first stuff I heard from him and I felt like he stole the stuff from inside my head! Especially the gold standard part and the printing of money...
It was stuff that to me makes perfect sense but you NEVER heard anyone else talk about.

I remember during the debates in 2008 where (while the other candidates are looking at him like he is an idiot) Rom Paul sits there and says that the Federal reserve policy of artificially controlling interest rates was intended to promote consumerism, debt and spending and discourage saving. He goes on to say that the money not being backed by gold is what allows this type of economic manipulation. This kind of manipulation WILL result in market collapse because our growing economy was artificial. Look it up on youtube. It is a bit of a long winded discussion but it is almost worth it to see the looks on the faces of the idiots at the table with him. What he said made PERFECT sense.

Oh, and as far as his solution, it is to GET RID OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE thus encouraging a naturally performing, healthy economy.

I personally think we are too far gone to fix our problems. The problem is our philosophy in this country. (most countries/governments)



Oh, Brian, you beat me to it!! Oh, well I will leave my post. Yours is more elequant than mine.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 11:19 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
I like this subject!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 03:07 PM  
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar

Rochester, New York
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 262 | Kudos: +47
In order to understand the impact the Fed and our currency system has really had on us, we need to understand what money really is. For money to really be money, it must have these four characteristics:
  1. Money must be a medium of exchange such as when it is used to intermediate the exchange of goods and services. It thereby avoids the inefficiencies of a barter system
  2. It must be a unit of account in that it is a standard numerical unit of measurement against the market value of goods, services, and other transactions. To function as a 'unit of account', whatever is being used as money must be:
    • Divisible into smaller units without loss of value; precious metals can be coined from bars, or melted down into bars again.
    • Fungible: that is, one unit or piece must be perceived as equivalent to any other, which is why diamonds, works of art or real estate are not suitable as money.
    • A specific weight, or measure, or size to be verifiably countable.
  3. Money must be a store of value which means money must be able to be reliably saved, stored, and retrieved ? and be predictably usable as a medium of exchange when it is retrieved. The value of the money must also remain stable over time.
  4. Money must be a standard of deferred payment, which is to say an accepted way to settle a debt
Let's see if our currency qualifies as "money".

Can it be used as a medium of exchange? Yes.

Can it be used as a unit of account? Yes.

Is it a store of value? No. There's the rub.

If my grandma had taken 100 $10 bills and buried them in a sealed container in 1913 and I found out where that container was buried and dug it up now, they would be worth $1000 today. So isn't that the same as saying the money retained its value? That it's a store of value? Absolutely not. Inflation between 1913 and today means that what cost $1000 back then costs about $21,435 today. I'd call that a pretty significant loss of value.

But if grandma had instead put 50 $20 gold coins -- still $1000 by her reckoning -- into a sealed container, that would represent about $67,500 in today's dollars (assuming about $1350/oz of gold in today's dollars and not counting the numismatic value of the coins). The gold did retain its value and then some.

If you look back at the value of commodities relative to other commodities (eg: livestock to textiles, or books to carrots) they tend to more-or-less hold steady relative to one another. So it has been with gold and its relation to other commodities. So when the price of gold rises, what does that mean exactly? It doesn't necessarily mean that the value of gold has increased so much as it means the money you're using to buy it has decreased in value.

Here's one more point that's very definitely worth noting. For the last few thousand years, the value of silver has roughly been at 1/16th that of gold. That is, 16 ounces of silver is about equivalent in value to 1 ounce of gold. As of this moment, gold spot price is $1,332.00/ounce and silver spot price is $26.77/ounce. That means the current gold:silver ratio is 1:49. Said another way, either gold is way overpriced and should be about $428/ounce or silver is way underpriced and should cost about $83/ounce. Given the extremely strong demand and limited supply of gold, I don't see the price falling anytime soon. Given the even more limited supply of silver and that it is used far more in industry than gold, I'm inclined to think silver's price is artificially low.

And in fact it is. We are reasonably certain that JPMorgan-Chase, Goldman-Sachs and other players have been keeping silver's price very low for some time. JPMorgan is reputed to have engaged in enough naked-short sells of silver certificates to account for the next 4+ years global production of silver. Ballsy, but stupid. God help 'em if people want to take possession of physical metal. If anyone is still reading this and actually cares about this, PM me and I'll send you some links to peruse for more info.

So the upshot: if you want a store of wealth that is time-tested and easy to acquire, I can't say buying either gold or silver is a bad idea. Personally, I'd recommend silver for reasons mentioned and not mentioned here.

OK, back to our currency. It isn't really money because it can't hold a store of value because it has no intrinsic value and it isn't backed by anything that does have intrinsic value. How did we get to this point? Through several decades of incremental dumb-ass, short-sighted decisions. To really understand, you need to read the (financial) history of the U.S. and Europe pre- and post-WWI and pre- and post-WWII. Don't neglect Bretton Woods. Pay close attention to Nixon in 1971.

So where does that leave We the Little People? Screwed, mostly, but there's still hope and opportunity. Here's something to consider: if you're dumping money into the market (either as a day-trader or through a 401k or some other method), take inflation into account: even as the market creeps up, the value of the dollar creeps down. What looks like an upward trend relative to the dollar may actually be a flat line relative to the decrease of the dollar. It all depends on what scale you're measuring by.

Personally, I buy silver bullion when I can. It is not done as an investment but rather as a hedge against the bottom of the dollar dropping out. It's just a store of wealth. (I have some gold, too, but I don't buy gold right now due to cost.) Rather than contribute as much as I can toward my 401k, I'm diverting that money instead to bullion.

If you do purchase metals, I strongly urge you to take physical possession of the metal; don't buy certificates or paper anything. The whole idea is to get away from paper. You can buy locally from coin dealers (be prepared to pay a little more over spot price): walk in with cash, walk out with metal, no problem. Stick it in your safe at home. (If you don't have a safe, get one.)

Another thing you can do is work very hard to pay off debt. Start with your smallest debt first, pay it off, and work your way up. When you put your mind to it and really think about not nickel-and-diming yourself to death, you can save a lot of money. Just keep at it and most folks can become debt-free sooner than they might think.

Finally, work toward some degree of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Don't be a kitchenista who uses kitchen appliances and storage space for your fashions. Learn to cook and cook well. Keep a hefty supply of store-bought food on hand (at least six months, IMO). When you go to the grocery store, put the new stuff on the back of your shelf and use the older stuff you've stored first. Rotate it out. Grow vegetable gardens. It's inexpensive, produces a helluva lot of food, it tastes great, and it will save you money (to pay off debt). If you're so inclined, learn to fish and hunt. Doing these things, you will eat better food for a lot lower cost. Keep a generator and a store of fuel, candles, flashlights and extra batteries, radios (the type that run off the wall main, batteries and crank dynamo), a means of communication between family and friends, keep your clothing in good shape (if your best shoes are three-year-old sneakers that are all torn up and you can afford something better, go get some decent Merrill hiking shoes now.). You get the idea.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 07:47 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
^^^I like your style man....Dead on.^^^
Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 11:15 AM  
Member

Wisconsin
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 50 | Kudos: +11
I like quite a few of Ron Paul' ideas, but I am afraid we never will see most of them implemented. Implementation of Paul's beliefs would mean that many powerful institutions from left an right would loose their power, and this will never be allowed to happen!

Ron Paul is to old and tired, to get a strong movement going (something like the Tea Party), and I do not see any charismatic successors of him at the political horizon of the US.

I think the USA will continue with the 1 and 1/2 party system (what is the difference between centrist republicans and centrist democrats? Aren't the more or less like Lieberman???) that we have, and once in a while the Tea Party will loud-mouth around for a little bit, and after that everything goes back to business as usual!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 11:24 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudsoner View Post
I like quite a few of Ron Paul' ideas, but I am afraid we never will see most of them implemented. Implementation of Paul's beliefs would mean that many powerful institutions from left an right would loose their power, and this will never be allowed to happen!

Ron Paul is to old and tired, to get a strong movement going (something like the Tea Party), and I do not see any charismatic successors of him at the political horizon of the US.

I think the USA will continue with the 1 and 1/2 party system (what is the difference between centrist republicans and centrist democrats? Aren't the more or less like Lieberman???) that we have, and once in a while the Tea Party will loud-mouth around for a little bit, and after that everything goes back to business as usual!
Ideally we need a change in how our elections are done, this reality of third party votes being wasted votes is absurd. There are alternatives such as allowing one person to vote for as many candidates as they want; for example being able to vote for Obama and Nader or McCain and Ron Paul, that way the vote for Nader/Paul wouldn't be a waste of time but I still have a vote in on the big players, this system won't be perfect with just that but would get a LOT more third party votes to actually happen and there is no real downside to allowing this (unless you are a member of the big two parties).
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.