Post by: AmbulanceDriver on May 08, 2008, 04:15:53 AM
I was sure he'd realized that he had a snowballs chance in hell of winning and bowed out... Aparently I'm wrong.....
(This was in Portland, OR BTW)
[Edited for subject heading]
Post by: Manedwolf on May 08, 2008, 04:21:37 AM
Post by: ilbob on May 08, 2008, 04:39:06 AM
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 08, 2008, 05:08:16 AM
As I've said before, I was pleasantly surprised by the numbers of his supporters among the elected state delegates for the Nevada GOP. Here's hoping this phenomenon isn't unique to Nevada!
Post by: zahc on May 08, 2008, 05:11:58 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 08, 2008, 05:19:14 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 08, 2008, 07:05:41 AM
I think he made a promise to stay in the race to very end. Perhaps he is just following through on that priomise.
Quite.
I don't see what is the problem with that.
Naturally he can't win. It's still the right thing to do to fight until the end.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 08, 2008, 07:06:16 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 08, 2008, 07:11:12 AM
Ron Paul ran ads here in Hoosierland for the past week or two. Foolish. Why throw away good money trying to win a race that's over and lost? Ya can't change the past.
Because Ron Paul is using the same team that 'helped' him in 1988.
Their goal was originally to 'run to just make a point', and that's what they're doing. They're using their enormous blob of money to 'spread the message'.
What ARE hey going to do with twenty-plus million dollars? Buy an Olympic swimming pool and fill it with beer?
Post by: MrRezister on May 08, 2008, 08:08:41 AM
Holy crap! That guy has a Ron Paul sign! That MUST mean that Ron Paul agrees with that guy on EVERYTHING!!!!
Post by: Manedwolf on May 08, 2008, 08:51:10 AM
Say it was Diebold's fault?
Post by: MrRezister on May 08, 2008, 09:15:24 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 08, 2008, 09:16:33 AM
Post by: GigaBuist on May 08, 2008, 09:49:12 AM
What ARE you people going to do when Crazy Old Uncle Ron finally calls it quits, and your messiah is gone?
I'm not at liberty to divulge too many details, but it involves 14 bass boats, a lot of guns, Sealand, and a donkey.
Post by: K Frame on May 08, 2008, 11:17:37 AM
While I wish I could have messed with the ones here, I couldn't. I'm still pissed at them for forcing me to agree with Bill Clinton, when he looked across a Manchester street at a bunch of Ron Paul / Bush is Evil/ 9-11 troofers and said "Y'all are completely nuts."
Yeah, that was quite painful...
Post by: xavier fremboe on May 08, 2008, 11:48:13 AM
Post by: K Frame on May 08, 2008, 12:02:48 PM
I'm praying Hillary and Barak both stay in and force a floor fight at the convention. There hasn't been a good one of those in either party since 1980.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 08, 2008, 12:05:13 PM
If Ron Paul stays in it all the way to the convention, it'll divide the party. He should drop out now instead of trying to improve his chances in 2012 by beating up McCain. It's only helping the Dems...
paul and the paulistas operate at a higher moral plane unaffected by such petty reallitys
Post by: xavier fremboe on May 08, 2008, 12:07:09 PM
<sarcasm>
If Ron Paul stays in it all the way to the convention, it'll divide the party. He should drop out now instead of trying to improve his chances in 2012 by beating up McCain. It's only helping the Dems...
</sarcasm>
Post by: Manedwolf on May 08, 2008, 12:28:31 PM
Ron Paul's ability to divide the Republican Party is NOTHING like what is going on in the Democratic party right now.
I'm praying Hillary and Barak both stay in and force a floor fight at the convention. There hasn't been a good one of those in either party since 1980.
I'm praying Hillary and Barak both stay in and force a floor fight at the convention. There hasn't been a good one of those in either party since 1980.
If that happens, (hopefully a literal fight!) I will watch the footage over and over and over... probably in slow motion, too.
Maybe someone will hit Markos Moulitsas with a chair.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 08, 2008, 12:38:49 PM
Quote
Maybe someone will hit Markos Moulitsas with a chair.
He deserves it. Look at this quotation from the About page on his website. As ManedWolf likes to say, WTF? Reads like a parody. Quote
Markos Moulitsas -- a.k.a. "kos" -- created Daily Kos on May 26, 2002, in those dark days when an oppressive and war-crazed administration suppressed all dissent as unpatriotic and treasonous. As a veteran, Moulitsas was offended that the freedoms he pledged his life for were so carelessly being tossed aside by the reckless and destructive Republican administration.
Daily Kos has grown in those five years to the premier political community in the United States, with traffic of about 600,000 daily visits. (Click on the rainbow box at the bottom of the page for up-to-date stats.) Among luminaries posting diaries on the site are President Jimmy Carter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and dozens of other senators, congressmen, and governors.
Daily Kos has grown in those five years to the premier political community in the United States, with traffic of about 600,000 daily visits. (Click on the rainbow box at the bottom of the page for up-to-date stats.) Among luminaries posting diaries on the site are President Jimmy Carter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and dozens of other senators, congressmen, and governors.
How can a nobody start a website like that, in the dark days when all dissent is being suppressed as unpatriotic and treasonous?
Post by: Finch on May 08, 2008, 01:53:00 PM
paul and the paulistas operate at a higher moral plane unaffected by such petty reallitys
Maybe because we don't mindlessly follow what ever the party tells you is right. Maybe we don't buy into the B.S. that McCain is any better than Hillary or Obama. Maybe we like to stand on what is best for the country and not what is best for the GOP...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 08, 2008, 01:57:38 PM
paul and the paulistas operate at a higher moral plane unaffected by such petty reallitys
Maybe because we don't mindlessly follow what ever the party tells you is right. Maybe we don't buy into the B.S. that McCain is any better than Hillary or Obama. Maybe we like to stand on what is best for the country and not what is best for the GOP...
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 08, 2008, 02:04:36 PM
Post by: mek42 on May 08, 2008, 02:41:51 PM
Do the other parties even have primaries?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 08, 2008, 02:44:54 PM
Do the other parties even have primaries?
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it still make a sound?
Post by: mek42 on May 08, 2008, 02:59:59 PM
Do the other parties even have primaries?
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it still make a sound?That was funny - thanks!
Post by: Manedwolf on May 08, 2008, 03:51:39 PM
paul and the paulistas operate at a higher moral plane unaffected by such petty reallitys
Maybe because we don't mindlessly follow what ever the party tells you is right. Maybe we don't buy into the B.S. that McCain is any better than Hillary or Obama. Maybe we like to stand on what is best for the country and not what is best for the GOP...
Isn't is amazing how, when you challenge them like that, all they do is PROVE what it is that you're saying about them?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 08, 2008, 04:04:32 PM
Post by: El Tejon on May 08, 2008, 04:15:22 PM
The proper analogy for a Ron Paulian would be "if a Cheetoes falls off my mom's couch in the basement, will I still not have a job whoever is President as I cannot operate an alarm clock and do not shave or shower."
Let's get it right, people.
Post by: K Frame on May 08, 2008, 05:58:29 PM
paul and the paulistas operate at a higher moral plane unaffected by such petty reallitys
Maybe because we don't mindlessly follow what ever the party tells you is right. Maybe we don't buy into the B.S. that McCain is any better than Hillary or Obama. Maybe we like to stand on what is best for the country and not what is best for the GOP...
Yep, you're legendary visionaries in your own mirrors...
I'm a Republican. I've been a Republican every since the mid 1970s when I first came to understand what the two parties stood for, and that was only hardened as I grew up through the Reagan years. I suspect that I always will be a Republican on those terms.
That said, I think it's pretty obvious that I don't much like John McCain. He's not my kind of Republican. Far from it, in fact. He and I don't share a common vision, as they say.
But, then again, Ron Paul isn't my kind of Republican, either. Quite far from it, in fact, to the point where, when I read about Mr. Paul and his positions, I'm not quite sure why he thinks he's a Republican.
You seem to think that anyone who doesn't support your candidate is a mindless aparachnik of the mainline Republican party. You seem to think that you, and only you, have the monopoly on what is right and proper, and that if only people would see things through your eyes, everything that is wrong with the nation would somehow magically fix itself.
Congratulations. You've become a mindless follower of Ron Paul, putting your brain in neutral and believing only what your candidate's core handlers tell your candidate to tell you to believe, and you believe it because that's what the big man tells you.
That's not enlightenment. That's downright pitiful laziness. But don't worry, one of Mr. Paul's handlers will tell you that you're not being lazy, you're being a progressive America First supporter of Ron Paul.
And like a good Ron Paul supporter, you'll believe it.
And all will seem right in your world.
Post by: MillCreek on May 08, 2008, 06:08:04 PM
When you live in a basement, you don't know what the weather is.
This is one of the most profound statements I have ever read on APS.
Post by: K Frame on May 08, 2008, 06:18:35 PM
I do.
If my east foundation wall is leaking, it's raining.
HARD.
Uh oh....
Like it is right now.
Time to turn on the pump.
Post by: GigaBuist on May 08, 2008, 06:41:16 PM
So is he going to run on the Libertarian ticket if McCain somehow pulls off the Republican primary?
No, he's made that pretty clear. He's a Republican. He's won 10 elections as a Republican. He's not going to run as a Libertarian.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 08, 2008, 06:49:23 PM
Quote
You seem to think that anyone who doesn't support your candidate is a mindless aparachnik of the mainline Republican party. You seem to think that you, and only you, have the monopoly on what is right and proper, and that if only people would see things through your eyes, everything that is wrong with the nation would somehow magically fix itself.
Oh, direct hit.
Quote
Congratulations. You've become a mindless follower of Ron Paul, putting your brain in neutral and believing only what your candidate's core handlers tell your candidate to tell you to believe, and you believe it because that's what the big man tells you.
That's not enlightenment. That's downright pitiful laziness. But don't worry, one of Mr. Paul's handlers will tell you that you're not being lazy, you're being a progressive America First supporter of Ron Paul. And like a good Ron Paul supporter, you'll believe it. And all will seem right in your world.
Well, now you sound just like Finch; assuming the other guy is a "mindless aparachnik."
Post by: Sindawe on May 08, 2008, 07:50:08 PM
Quote
Isn't is amazing how, when you challenge them like that, all they do is PROVE what it is that you're saying about them?
Quote
whats amaing is how they can't see it.
Quote
When you live in a basement, you don't know what the weather is.
Wait a moment. I'm SURE I typed in www.armedpolititesociety.com into the address bar, yet for some odd reason it seems I've ended up at DemocraticUndergound.com.
Post by: K Frame on May 08, 2008, 08:35:50 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 08, 2008, 08:38:38 PM
Quote
Wait a moment. I'm SURE I typed in www.armedpolititesociety.com into the address bar, yet for some odd reason it seems I've ended up at DemocraticUndergound.com.
You were supposed to notice.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 09, 2008, 04:26:16 AM
Wait a moment. I'm SURE I typed in www.armedpolititesociety.com into the address bar, yet for some odd reason it seems I've ended up at DemocraticUndergound.com.
If you were there, there'd be people throwing chairs and screaming about Clinton and Obama, while others wore Che shirts and kaffiyehs while visualizing world peace and how to take away everyone's guns.
So you're obviously not there.
Post by: El Tejon on May 09, 2008, 05:11:29 AM
Quote
If you were there, there'd be people throwing chairs and screaming about Clinton and Obama, while others wore Che shirts and kaffiyehs while visualizing world peace and how to take away everyone's guns.
Is there a webcam inside my office?
Post by: Silver Bullet on May 09, 2008, 05:14:17 AM
Quote
Holy crap! That guy has a Ron Paul sign! That MUST mean that Ron Paul agrees with that guy on EVERYTHING!!!!
Post by: Scout26 on May 09, 2008, 09:47:19 AM
HTG, I object to your analogy. That is completely unfair.
The proper analogy for a Ron Paulian would be "if a Cheetoes falls off my mom's couch in the basement, will I still not have a job whoever is President as I cannot operate an alarm clock and do not shave or shower."
Let's get it right, people.
The proper analogy for a Ron Paulian would be "if a Cheetoes falls off my mom's couch in the basement, will I still not have a job whoever is President as I cannot operate an alarm clock and do not shave or shower."
Let's get it right, people.
El Tejon, FTW.....
Post by: Finch on May 09, 2008, 01:04:31 PM
Yep, you're legendary visionaries in your own mirrors...
I'm a Republican. I've been a Republican every since the mid 1970s when I first came to understand what the two parties stood for, and that was only hardened as I grew up through the Reagan years. I suspect that I always will be a Republican on those terms.
That said, I think it's pretty obvious that I don't much like John McCain. He's not my kind of Republican. Far from it, in fact. He and I don't share a common vision, as they say.
But, then again, Ron Paul isn't my kind of Republican, either. Quite far from it, in fact, to the point where, when I read about Mr. Paul and his positions, I'm not quite sure why he thinks he's a Republican.
You seem to think that anyone who doesn't support your candidate is a mindless aparachnik of the mainline Republican party. You seem to think that you, and only you, have the monopoly on what is right and proper, and that if only people would see things through your eyes, everything that is wrong with the nation would somehow magically fix itself.
Congratulations. You've become a mindless follower of Ron Paul, putting your brain in neutral and believing only what your candidate's core handlers tell your candidate to tell you to believe, and you believe it because that's what the big man tells you.
That's not enlightenment. That's downright pitiful laziness. But don't worry, one of Mr. Paul's handlers will tell you that you're not being lazy, you're being a progressive America First supporter of Ron Paul.
And like a good Ron Paul supporter, you'll believe it.
And all will seem right in your world.
I'm a Republican. I've been a Republican every since the mid 1970s when I first came to understand what the two parties stood for, and that was only hardened as I grew up through the Reagan years. I suspect that I always will be a Republican on those terms.
That said, I think it's pretty obvious that I don't much like John McCain. He's not my kind of Republican. Far from it, in fact. He and I don't share a common vision, as they say.
But, then again, Ron Paul isn't my kind of Republican, either. Quite far from it, in fact, to the point where, when I read about Mr. Paul and his positions, I'm not quite sure why he thinks he's a Republican.
You seem to think that anyone who doesn't support your candidate is a mindless aparachnik of the mainline Republican party. You seem to think that you, and only you, have the monopoly on what is right and proper, and that if only people would see things through your eyes, everything that is wrong with the nation would somehow magically fix itself.
Congratulations. You've become a mindless follower of Ron Paul, putting your brain in neutral and believing only what your candidate's core handlers tell your candidate to tell you to believe, and you believe it because that's what the big man tells you.
That's not enlightenment. That's downright pitiful laziness. But don't worry, one of Mr. Paul's handlers will tell you that you're not being lazy, you're being a progressive America First supporter of Ron Paul.
And like a good Ron Paul supporter, you'll believe it.
And all will seem right in your world.
Silly...
Guys, you act as if the only reason I support Ron Paul is because of the man. Sorry, it's not. I've held these beliefs for a while now and I can tell you, Ron Paul or not, I would still despise and loathe McCain and all the others in this new breed of "republicans" that we are seeing, you know, the ones who ignore the constitution. I never thought for a second that I operate on a higher moral plane, but when I keep seeing "well, at least McCain won't take our guns" It does make me wonder how screwed we are really going to get.
Post by: Scout26 on May 09, 2008, 01:21:35 PM
*Shake* Shake* Shake*
It is certain
*Shake* Shake* Shake*
It is decidedly so
*Shake* Shake* Shake*
Outlook good
*Shake* Shake* Shake*
Signs point to yes
*Shake* Shake* Shake*
Without a doubt
*Shake* Shake* Shake*
Yes
*Shake* Shake* Shake*
Yes - definitely
*Shake* Shake* Shake*
You may rely on it
*Shake* Shake* Shake*
Go eat some Chee-tos
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 09, 2008, 01:22:47 PM
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 09, 2008, 02:19:58 PM
Post by: Finch on May 09, 2008, 02:54:00 PM
Finch, I think the rest of us basically agree with you from a policy standpoint (aside from some of us having a serious disagreement on the Iraq war and on Ron Paul's economic policies). We simply don't think Ron Paul is going to help matters.
And after crying many many tears into my bag of Cheeto's in my moms basement, I have come to terms with that. It's just, I saw him as a refreshing figure in a race that consists of people landing under sniper fire, HOPE HOPE CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN, and we might be in Iraq for 100 years. It's rare when a politician acknowledges that he is limited by what is written in the constitution, and it's even rarer to for someone to actually follow through with that...
Post by: freakazoid on May 09, 2008, 03:25:57 PM
Quote
You seem to think that you, and only you, have the monopoly on what is right and proper, and that if only people would see things through your eyes, everything that is wrong with the nation would somehow magically fix itself.
But isn't that how it is,
Quote
Congratulations. You've become a mindless follower of Ron Paul, putting your brain in neutral and believing only what your candidate's core handlers tell your candidate to tell you to believe, and you believe it because that's what the big man tells you.
Oh thats right, I didn't believe any of what I believe now until I was told to believe it. Since when has Ron Paul been the "big man"? If he was the "big man" then why wasn't he selected by the Republican party?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 09, 2008, 07:23:48 PM
I saw him as a refreshing figure.... It's rare when a politician acknowledges that he is limited by what is written in the constitution, and it's even rarer to for someone to actually follow through with that...
You ain't kiddin. When I first checked him out, I was overjoyed to find a libertarian constitutionalist who realized that an anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage stance was perfectly compatible with those principles.
I actually felt a little betrayed when I learned his stance on our recent foreign policy.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 10, 2008, 05:07:11 AM
I saw him as a refreshing figure.... It's rare when a politician acknowledges that he is limited by what is written in the constitution, and it's even rarer to for someone to actually follow through with that...
You ain't kiddin. When I first checked him out, I was overjoyed to find a libertarian constitutionalist who realized that an anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage stance was perfectly compatible with those principles.
I actually felt a little betrayed when I learned his stance on our recent foreign policy.
Don't forget the GOLD STANDARD looniness. The man apparently thinks finances are still done in paper ledgers by oil lamps, and foreign currency is exchanged at a wooden table at a port.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 10, 2008, 06:48:15 AM
paul and the paulistas operate at a higher moral plane unaffected by such petty reallitys
Maybe because we don't mindlessly follow what ever the party tells you is right. Maybe we don't buy into the B.S. that McCain is any better than Hillary or Obama. Maybe we like to stand on what is best for the country and not what is best for the GOP...
Yep, you're legendary visionaries in your own mirrors...
I'm a Republican. I've been a Republican every since the mid 1970s when I first came to understand what the two parties stood for, and that was only hardened as I grew up through the Reagan years. I suspect that I always will be a Republican on those terms.
That said, I think it's pretty obvious that I don't much like John McCain. He's not my kind of Republican. Far from it, in fact. He and I don't share a common vision, as they say.
But, then again, Ron Paul isn't my kind of Republican, either. Quite far from it, in fact, to the point where, when I read about Mr. Paul and his positions, I'm not quite sure why he thinks he's a Republican.
You seem to think that anyone who doesn't support your candidate is a mindless aparachnik of the mainline Republican party. You seem to think that you, and only you, have the monopoly on what is right and proper, and that if only people would see things through your eyes, everything that is wrong with the nation would somehow magically fix itself.
Congratulations. You've become a mindless follower of Ron Paul, putting your brain in neutral and believing only what your candidate's core handlers tell your candidate to tell you to believe, and you believe it because that's what the big man tells you.
That's not enlightenment. That's downright pitiful laziness. But don't worry, one of Mr. Paul's handlers will tell you that you're not being lazy, you're being a progressive America First supporter of Ron Paul.
And like a good Ron Paul supporter, you'll believe it.
And all will seem right in your world.
Hell, that applies to all parties.
Post by: Eleven Mike on May 10, 2008, 10:49:58 AM
Post by: Mabs2 on May 10, 2008, 11:08:46 AM
Wait a moment. I'm SURE I typed in www.armedpolititesociety.com into the address bar, yet for some odd reason it seems I've ended up at DemocraticUndergound.com.
You actually TYPE your addresses in? And you don't even use ctrl+enter? Pfft, noob.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 10, 2008, 09:34:08 PM
Quote
Hell, that applies to all parties.
*stands up and applauds crawdaddyjim*
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 11, 2008, 12:53:24 AM
Post by: Dntsycnt on May 11, 2008, 01:43:38 PM
However, I am learning more and more that what SEEMS obvious and SEEMS reasonable is often neither. I have seen much talk here about how nonsensical Paul's stances are, because even the price of something like gold fluctuates, which makes sense, but I still don't get how complete freedom to print money is a viable alternative.
So are there any links, or preferably books, that explain economics enough that I would be able to see why it is you see him as loony? I know the basics of economics, such as supply and demand, the invisible hand, interaction between consumers and producers, etc., but I guess I must not have a firm enough comprehension of macroeconomics, or it would be plain to me how idiotic he is.
Basically, what are your reading recommendations? This is a real life "Paulian" who is not a conspiracy theorist, or a cheeto eating basement-dweller, or a stoner, but just a dude who was presented with someone who made good social and [seemingly] economic sense. I am willing to admit I'm wrong if shown sufficient evidence.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 11, 2008, 05:06:48 PM
I have only a high school education when it comes to economics, so perhaps thats why I have been attracted to Ron Paul's economic policies. When I first really comprehended that the fed basically has freedom to just print money, and exercises it, I was baffled, and Mr. Paul's talk of using solid assets to control that seemed reasonable.
However, I am learning more and more that what SEEMS obvious and SEEMS reasonable is often neither. I have seen much talk here about how nonsensical Paul's stances are, because even the price of something like gold fluctuates, which makes sense, but I still don't get how complete freedom to print money is a viable alternative.
However, I am learning more and more that what SEEMS obvious and SEEMS reasonable is often neither. I have seen much talk here about how nonsensical Paul's stances are, because even the price of something like gold fluctuates, which makes sense, but I still don't get how complete freedom to print money is a viable alternative.
Think for a second. Where does gold come from? Most gold mined today?
America? Nope. Not since the Gold Rush has that been the case. China. Other principal suppliers are Russia, South Africa, China and Australia.
Here's the 2007 totals:
China: 275 tons (reported, who knows how much really was put away?)
South Africa
Australia
United States: 250 tons
Russia: 150 tons
Why on earth would you back our currency with a metal that we are not the principal supplier of? Especially during the Cold War, that would have been stupid, and it still makes no sense.
So consider that. Ron Paul is so divorced from reality that he's still living in the 19th century. He wants to back our currency with a precious metal that China is the principal supplier of, that has unknown stocks of, and that could flood or withhold from the market at any time to cause fluctuations to suit themselves. And he wants to back our currency with something we don't even control the principal availability of. It'd literally be putting the value of the dollar in China's hands to play with as they saw fit.
That's what you call "delusional", and also "stupid".
Secondly, currency no longer needs to be backed by anything, because that's not what currency is anymore. Currency is not a note to deliver a quantity of a pretty, but only industrial-useful metal.
Currency is a to-the-second constantly fluctuating value assigned to what people are willing to pay for goods and services in a global market.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 11, 2008, 09:44:05 PM
Even a cursory search of the scholarly periodicals available brings up at guys like:
Kam Hon Chu, "Free Banking and Information Asymmetry" Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Nov., 1999), pp. 748-762
"Entry, Rivalry and Free Banking in Antebellum America" The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 72, No. 4 (Nov., 1990), pp. 682-686
Andrew J. Economopoulos [actually the guy's name. "Illinois Free Banking Experience" Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May, 1988), pp. 249-264
And of course, the most famous one is " New Evidence on the Free Banking Era" by guys called Arthur J. Rolnick and Warren E. Weber in
The American Economic Review, Vol. 73, No. 5 (Dec., 1983), pp. 1080-1091.
Permit me to quote:
"Our preliminary conclusion from this evidence is that it is misleading to characterize the overall free banking experience as a failure of laissez-faire banking."
Now, if anything, free banking would be easier to work today than it was in the 1800's the information networks of today are nothing like the world of telegraph and paper.
More importantly, 'free banking is not 'completely unregulated banking'. The only situation that features that is anarchy. It is quite possible (Sweden, for one, managed it) to have free banking that's overseen by various governments to prevent wildcatting (which, in itself, was actually pretty rare).
So you might disagree with this policy solution, Manedwolf, but it's not 'OMG INSANE' as you like to pretend.
Post by: LAK on May 11, 2008, 11:42:24 PM
Boy oh boy! That trillion dollar interest payment every couple of years - I still want to know how I can get into some of that action. And the Bank of International Settlements; now that's a cozy monopoly of easy trillions too. Do you have to belong to some special club or business association to get a piece of that? Or is it a free trade thing where anyone can play?
--------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 12, 2008, 02:18:43 AM
Quote
So you might disagree with this policy solution, Manedwolf, but it's not 'OMG INSANE' as you like to pretend.
Don't take away Manedwolf's OMG or his WTF. It's half his vocabulary.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 12, 2008, 04:02:18 AM
Because they all did. Every. Single. One. In the US, the free banking was horribly unstable, and different banks' notes changed value depending on their credit rating. Plus they were backed by...(gasp) precious metal! Obsession with the gold standard again.
Also, FDIC insurance is one of the only things the government does right. Do you want to put your money in a bank where it can go away if the bank does? Do you not remember what happened with that online "Flooz" thing?
So come on. Point to a "free banking" system that still exists. Go ahead.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 12, 2008, 06:04:20 AM
"Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell is outstanding, then again just about everything I've read by him was also great.
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-3rd-Ed-Economy/dp/0465002609/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210604402&sr=8-2
Maned,
Just to play devil's advocate, how is this "Currency is a to-the-second constantly fluctuating value assigned to what people are willing to pay for goods and services in a global market" any different from the free market handeling currency just like it handles other things so well?
Post by: K Frame on May 12, 2008, 06:41:42 AM
It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 12, 2008, 06:46:30 AM
"Plus they were backed by...(gasp) precious metal! Obsession with the gold standard again."
It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.
It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.
True. Ostensibly backed by gold would probably be more correct. 'Cause a lot didn't even bother.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 12, 2008, 07:15:47 AM
Ah yes; free banking - getting out from the yoke of the current fascist system and perpetual debt slavery... How awful!
Boy oh boy! That trillion dollar interest payment every couple of years - I still want to know how I can get into some of that action. And the Bank of International Settlements; now that's a cozy monopoly of easy trillions too. Do you have to belong to some special club or business association to get a piece of that? Or is it a free trade thing where anyone can play?
Rampant financial tin-foilery like this seems to be the only thing that underlies the gold-standard free-banking beliefs of the libertarian fringe. Boy oh boy! That trillion dollar interest payment every couple of years - I still want to know how I can get into some of that action. And the Bank of International Settlements; now that's a cozy monopoly of easy trillions too. Do you have to belong to some special club or business association to get a piece of that? Or is it a free trade thing where anyone can play?
I have yet to see any sort of sound reasoning why the current banking system should be abandoned in favor of obsolete systems that have already proven unsustainable.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 12, 2008, 07:22:45 AM
Considering that some are indeed truly insane (three "ron paul revolutionaries" are going to federal prison on weapons charges here for supplying the Browns, already convicted felons, with a 50-cal rifle, explosives and other items), I hope the Secret Service is ready for that.
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 12, 2008, 07:58:14 AM
Quote
Don't take away Manedwolf's OMG or his WTF. It's half his vocabulary.
Yup. I noticed that, too, and am working to fix/edit it where I can find examples of the latter.
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 12, 2008, 08:02:55 AM
"Plus they were backed by...(gasp) precious metal! Obsession with the gold standard again."
It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.
It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.
Oh, good. I'm glad that we've moved to a system where NONE of the money issued by ANY bank is backed by anything more than a kiss and a promise, with reserves on deposits are less than 10%, where bank fraud is rampant. (Worldcom, Enron, Bear Stearns, etc. - not having an account at such a bank in no way insulates you from the damage of liars at their helms.)
Post by: Manedwolf on May 12, 2008, 08:03:49 AM
"Plus they were backed by...(gasp) precious metal! Obsession with the gold standard again."
It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.
It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.
Oh, good. I'm glad that we've moved to a system where NONE of the money issued by ANY bank is backed by anything more than a kiss and a promise, with reserves on deposits are less than 10%, where bank fraud is rampant. (Worldcom, Enron, Bear Stearns, etc. - not having an account at such a bank in no way insulates you from the damage of liars at their helms.)
Uh.
Are you not aware of how FDIC insurance works? At all?
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 12, 2008, 08:48:39 AM
"Plus they were backed by...(gasp) precious metal! Obsession with the gold standard again."
It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.
It would be more correct to say that SOME of the money issued by SOME of the banks was actually backed by gold. A lot of it wasn't. Bank fraud in this time was rampant.
Oh, good. I'm glad that we've moved to a system where NONE of the money issued by ANY bank is backed by anything more than a kiss and a promise, with reserves on deposits are less than 10%, where bank fraud is rampant. (Worldcom, Enron, Bear Stearns, etc. - not having an account at such a bank in no way insulates you from the damage of liars at their helms.)
Uh.
Are you not aware of how FDIC insurance works? At all?
You've completely missed the point. The paper scrips most Americans consider money is actually nothing more than ink on paper. If you'd given the servants a break and checked out the prices at the supermarket yourself, you'd have noticed that prices on most staples are up significantly, a key factor being that due to rampant fraud in various other markets (housing, stock, etc.), the value of the USD is falling like a rock, driving up prices denoted in USD. Is the FDIC going to fix that for me?
Then there's the overall matter of the USD as a fiat currency being destroyed over time: inflation has destroyed ~97% of the "dollar"'s value since fiat money was introduced as the "dollar". Save $100 in 1913, and now you'd have only three dollars of value left. Thank you, government.
As an aside, here's a comment which I find to be amusing as to how it related to the FDIC, and it being a government program, in conjunction with my maxim that 'the only thing the government does well is screw stuff up':
Quote from: Karl Denninger
In response to this posting I got a strongly "indignant" email claiming that I "misrepresented" the FDIC's status, as they are backed by the "Full Faith and Credit" of the United States Government, and "demanding" that I post a "retraction". That such a claim exists (Full Faith and Credit) is true.
What's also true, however, is that the FDIC's "insurance" fund has $50 billion in it, and, incidentally, just one of those banks that got the 23A "exemption" letters has $800 billion in deposits, or more than TEN TIMES the amount of money on hand in the "insurance" fund.
If you believe the "Full Faith and Credit" argument in the face of an ACTUAL crisis then you must also believe that the "Full Faith and Credit" of the US Government will pay the $75 trillion that it is obligated for in Social Security and Medicare over the next 30-40 years. I respectfully suggest that if you believe that The Congress will not repudiate some or ALL of this obligation, should there be a true crisis (when the alternative is to print 1/3rd of the entire Federal Budget all at once in new money) that you need serious psychiatric help.
What's also true, however, is that the FDIC's "insurance" fund has $50 billion in it, and, incidentally, just one of those banks that got the 23A "exemption" letters has $800 billion in deposits, or more than TEN TIMES the amount of money on hand in the "insurance" fund.
If you believe the "Full Faith and Credit" argument in the face of an ACTUAL crisis then you must also believe that the "Full Faith and Credit" of the US Government will pay the $75 trillion that it is obligated for in Social Security and Medicare over the next 30-40 years. I respectfully suggest that if you believe that The Congress will not repudiate some or ALL of this obligation, should there be a true crisis (when the alternative is to print 1/3rd of the entire Federal Budget all at once in new money) that you need serious psychiatric help.
-edit
zahc pointed out my inability to do math
Post by: Manedwolf on May 12, 2008, 08:53:20 AM
You've completely missed the point. The paper scrips most Americans consider money is actually nothing more than ink on paper.
Really? Huh.
I can trade that paper for goods and services from people in any number of countries. They know what it is, they respect it, they accept it. It's the same for the Euro and Yen and other world currencies. The value of how much goods and services each currency's units will buy is in constant fluctuation.
What is with this ancient obsession with having it "backed" by a foreign-supplied industrial-use metal with a highly volatile trading history that isn't even the most valuable of such compared to platinum and rhodium?
And if you distrust the FDIC so much, that means you don't have any accounts in an FDIC-insured bank, right? You have it all on, perhaps, Paypal. Right? Right?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 12, 2008, 08:54:22 AM
Oh, good. I'm glad that we've moved to a system where NONE of the money issued by ANY bank is backed by anything more than a kiss and a promise, with reserves on deposits are less than 10%, where bank fraud is rampant. (Worldcom, Enron, Bear Stearns, etc. - not having an account at such a bank in no way insulates you from the damage of liars at their helms.)
Pssst! Worldcom was a telephone company, not a bank. Enron was an energy company, not a bank. Bear Sterns was an investment house, not a bank. You might want to correct those blatantly stupid misstatements before anyone else sees them and embarrassment ensues.Do you honestly think that the gold standard would prevent embezzling, clever accounting tricks, and fraud? Do you think that such things didn't exist before the Federal Reserve was created?
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 12, 2008, 09:10:06 AM
Oh, good. I'm glad that we've moved to a system where NONE of the money issued by ANY bank is backed by anything more than a kiss and a promise, with reserves on deposits are less than 10%, where bank fraud is rampant. (Worldcom, Enron, Bear Stearns, etc. - not having an account at such a bank in no way insulates you from the damage of liars at their helms.)
Pssst! Worldcom was a telephone company, not a bank. Enron was an energy company, not a bank. Bear Sterns was an investment house, not a bank. You might want to correct those blatantly stupid misstatements before anyone else sees them and embarrassment ensues.Do you honestly think that the gold standard would prevent embezzling, clever accounting tricks, and fraud? Do you think that such things didn't exist before the Federal Reserve was created?
So, the dip in stocks when WC and Enron went down affected no one, least of which were the ones who actually had their retirement accounts in the stock of the company they worked for? Finances aren't just limited to depositor banks, you know. Fraud is fraud, and the matter of the FDIC being established to prevent fraud in depositor banks does not equate to depositors being immune to all finance fraud.
Fraud will be present as long as there are people, just as with other crimes. However, that should be the role of government, to prevent the use of force or fraud, or failing that, to deter it through the capture and prosecution of assailants and fraudsters. Setting up fancy offices to lock the door, but neglect the big picture window out front doesn't make the problem magically disappear, either.
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 12, 2008, 09:19:47 AM
You've completely missed the point. The paper scrips most Americans consider money is actually nothing more than ink on paper.
I can trade that paper for goods and services from people in any number of countries. They know what it is, they respect it, they accept it. It's the same for the Euro and Yen and other world currencies. The value of how much goods and services each currency's units will buy is in constant fluctuation. Correct. However, I find I must repeat myself: notice that, due primarily in reaction to the market conditions in the USA, influenced heavily by fraud in the housing markets, the value of the USD is much, much lower than it has been... EVER?
Manipulation of currency is much harder to accomplish when one's currency is backed by something of value, and history, recent history, has shown that fiat currencies are abused by those in control of the presses.
When someone has been caught repeatedly breaking into apartment buildings, it is not recommended that the complex management hire him to manage the keys to all the locks within the property.
Quote
And if you distrust the FDIC so much, that means you don't have any accounts in an FDIC-insured bank, right? You have it all on, perhaps, Paypal. Right? Right?
No more than I'm willing to lose, same as any other resource I entrust to a faceless entity.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 12, 2008, 09:38:55 AM
You've completely missed the point. The paper scrips most Americans consider money is actually nothing more than ink on paper.
I can trade that paper for goods and services from people in any number of countries. They know what it is, they respect it, they accept it. It's the same for the Euro and Yen and other world currencies. The value of how much goods and services each currency's units will buy is in constant fluctuation. Correct. However, I find I must repeat myself: notice that, due primarily in reaction to the market conditions in the USA, influenced heavily by fraud in the housing markets, the value of the USD is much, much lower than it has been... EVER?
Manipulation of currency is much harder to accomplish when one's currency is backed by something of value, and history, recent history, has shown that fiat currencies are abused by those in control of the presses.
When someone has been caught repeatedly breaking into apartment buildings, it is not recommended that the complex management hire him to manage the keys to all the locks within the property.
Quote
And if you distrust the FDIC so much, that means you don't have any accounts in an FDIC-insured bank, right? You have it all on, perhaps, Paypal. Right? Right?
No more than I'm willing to lose, same as any other resource I entrust to a faceless entity.
First you say that it's the market conditions that are influencing our currency, and those market conditions are in turn influenced by housing fraud.
Then you go on to imply that it's somehow the government (those in control of the presses, presumably) who is manipulating our currency.
Then you go on to imply that we've hired the metaphorical to thieves to protect our money supply. But you said it was the fraudulent mortgage seekers that was causing our currency to lose value. So are the mortgage seekers the thieves you think the government hired to guard the money supply?
What you're saying really, really doesn't make sense.
I said earlier in the thread that financial tin-foilery are the underpinings of the extreme-fringe-ibertarian views on finance. I see it all the time, yet like the proverbial fool, I keep expecting a different result every time I engage a Libertarian in discussion on finance.
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 12, 2008, 10:02:48 AM
First you say that it's the market conditions that are influencing our currency, and those market conditions are in turn influenced by housing fraud.
Then you go on to imply that it's somehow the government (those in control of the presses, presumably) who is manipulating our currency.
Then you go on to imply that we've hired the metaphorical to thieves to protect our money supply. But you said it was the fraudulent mortgage seekers that was causing our currency to lose value. So are the mortgage seekers the thieves you think the government hired to guard the money supply?
Then you go on to imply that it's somehow the government (those in control of the presses, presumably) who is manipulating our currency.
Then you go on to imply that we've hired the metaphorical to thieves to protect our money supply. But you said it was the fraudulent mortgage seekers that was causing our currency to lose value. So are the mortgage seekers the thieves you think the government hired to guard the money supply?
It's "all of the above". The government, via the central bank, has the means to influence the value of the USD by both providing availability of credit to certain institutions, as well as the interest rate on the same. (It could also pay its debt service by simply "printing" money, which is the route Zimbabwe's government went, taking a corresponding hit to its currency.) Accordingly, the free market, as reflected in the US Dollar Index, has deemed the USD to be less valuable when compared to a basket of other currencies.
You've neglected to consider the matter of there being two groups of thieves bilking the commonfolk: the government and other fraudsters.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 12, 2008, 10:53:01 AM
Like most fringe-Libertarian financial thought, it simply isn't rational. That irony always amused me.
The bottom line is that risk is a fact of life in general, and finances in particular. Gold won't change that. In many ways, gold will increase the risks.
"But... but... but... gold is GOLD. Gold is BETTER. Goldstandardhyoperinflationgovernmentisevilblaaarrg!"
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 12, 2008, 11:45:11 AM
Ah, yes. There isn't just the one bogeyman out to get you and your money, there are many. And gold is the magical cure-all for all of them.
Like most fringe-Libertarian financial thought, it simply isn't rational. That irony always amused me.
The bottom line is that risk is a fact of life in general, and finances in particular. Gold won't change that. In many ways, gold will increase the risks.
"But... but... but... gold is GOLD. Gold is BETTER. Goldstandardhyoperinflationgovernmentisevilblaaarrg!"
Like most fringe-Libertarian financial thought, it simply isn't rational. That irony always amused me.
The bottom line is that risk is a fact of life in general, and finances in particular. Gold won't change that. In many ways, gold will increase the risks.
"But... but... but... gold is GOLD. Gold is BETTER. Goldstandardhyoperinflationgovernmentisevilblaaarrg!"
Pfft, avoiding the issue doesn't make your case (or lack thereof) stronger.
Yes, there are boogeymen in the world today who wish to deprive you of the fruits of your labor. Making light of that fact does not change it. Having a currency based on a hard commodity ties inflation to that of the commodity, not to the whims of a few. Neither does it much matter if the chosen commodity is gold, silver, copper, etc. Denying that the current debasement of the US dollar was made possible by decoupling it from the gold standard is to deny reality. Is a metal-based commodity a perfect solution? No. Is it better than the current fiat model? By far.
Post by: Bigjake on May 12, 2008, 12:18:42 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 12, 2008, 01:26:41 PM
Ah, yes. There isn't just the one bogeyman out to get you and your money, there are many. And gold is the magical cure-all for all of them.
Like most fringe-Libertarian financial thought, it simply isn't rational. That irony always amused me.
The bottom line is that risk is a fact of life in general, and finances in particular. Gold won't change that. In many ways, gold will increase the risks.
"But... but... but... gold is GOLD. Gold is BETTER. Goldstandardhyoperinflationgovernmentisevilblaaarrg!"
Like most fringe-Libertarian financial thought, it simply isn't rational. That irony always amused me.
The bottom line is that risk is a fact of life in general, and finances in particular. Gold won't change that. In many ways, gold will increase the risks.
"But... but... but... gold is GOLD. Gold is BETTER. Goldstandardhyoperinflationgovernmentisevilblaaarrg!"
Pfft, avoiding the issue doesn't make your case (or lack thereof) stronger.
Yes, there are boogeymen in the world today who wish to deprive you of the fruits of your labor. Making light of that fact does not change it. Having a currency based on a hard commodity ties inflation to that of the commodity, not to the whims of a few. Neither does it much matter if the chosen commodity is gold, silver, copper, etc. Denying that the current debasement of the US dollar was made possible by decoupling it from the gold standard is to deny reality. Is a metal-based commodity a perfect solution? No. Is it better than the current fiat model? By far.
The money base must be expandable. That's an economic reality. If it's expanded too fast we have inflation, which is bad. But if it isn't expanded fast enough, or if it isn't expanded at all, we have deflation. Deflation is probably worse than inflation. Just ask Japan. Or FDR.
The Federal Reserve system allows the money base to be expanded deliberately and intelligently. We may debate the rate at which to expand the money supply. Different people have differing ideas. But you cannot deny that the Fed can expand at whatever rate it chooses. Nor can you deny that they employ many of the world's best economists and financial minds expressly for the purpose of trying to figure out just how much expansion we need.
Your alternative, the gold standard, ties money base expansion to the rate the gold-mining nations wish to allow their gold onto he open market. They would literally have the power to cripple our economy. Even if the Ruskies and Chicoms and South Africans did have our best interests at heart, they still couldn't produce enough gold to preserve our economy and prevent crippling deflation. The money base is simply too big, and the necessary money base expansion would swallow up worldwide annual gold production.
Even if a gold standard were possible, and even if the Chicoms and Ruskies were acting in our best interests (neither of which will happen in our lifetime, but let's pretend for just a moment), the gold standard still wouldn't solve the problems you've listed throughout this thread. The stock market would still fluctuate, causing people with investments to lose value. Fraud would still exist, and Worldcoms and Enrons would still happen. Inflation would still be possible, and its magnitude would be far more volatile than our fiat-system inflation. Wild bouts deflation would also occur with alarming frequency. That would make it impossible to make any long-term economic decisions, which would cripple investment and the economy at large.
Once you remove all of the anti-government conspiracy theories and paranoia, the gold standard becomes far less appealing. A rational, unemotional, objective assessment shows that the question isn't whether the gold standard is better than the Federal Reserve system. That was long-ago decided in favor of fiat money. The real question is how best to manage the Federal Reserve system. A reasonable monetary policy absolutely stomps all over the gold standard, plain and simple.
Post by: Dntsycnt on May 12, 2008, 06:27:43 PM
I'm convinced.
But I shall NEVER vote McCain!
Post by: K Frame on May 12, 2008, 08:09:36 PM
Ok, Weedwhacker.
Explain to us.
Just exactly WHAT does a currency backed strictly by gold get us?
Does it get us a more stable economy, one that is less likely to have periodic recessions?
The answer to that is no, it doesn't. Regular severe recessions and depressions were a hallmark of times when the money was pegged strictly to gold. Since the ending of the gold standard in the United States there have been no depressions and our worst recessions pale in comparison to those of gold-backed currencies.
Is the economy less likely to see inflationary periods?
Another no. Periods of hyper inflation were common when the US was on the gold standard.
Does a gold-backed economy allow for adjustments that can head off or lessen the effects of a recession?
Once again, yet another no. If anything, economies with gold-backed currency are extremely resistant to this kind of course corrections. This is one reason why recessions and depressions in the days of a gold-backed currency would so regular and so resistant to corrections.
So, three major negatives. Let's here what the supposed benefits of a gold-based currency are.
Oh, and in the days of gold-backed currency?
A company the side of Bear Sterns going under would have caused a massive financial panic and would have led to a recession, or worse, a prolonged depression. As it was, it was largely a blip on the screen.
Oh, and where did you ever get the idea that Bear Sterns or Enron were banks?
"The paper scrips most Americans consider money is actually nothing more than ink on paper."
And gold is nothing more than a metal. A pretty metal, but like zinc, copper, and iron, nothing more than a metal.
The only reason gold has been recognized as a currency is because people agree that it has some intrinsic value.
In that sense, gold is NO different than that $20 bank note of ink and paper.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 12, 2008, 08:10:26 PM
Show me a "free banking" system that did not, oh, I don't know...FAIL?
Because they all did. Every. Single. One. In the US, the free banking was horribly unstable, and different banks' notes changed value depending on their credit rating. Plus they were backed by...(gasp) precious metal! Obsession with the gold standard again.
Also, FDIC insurance is one of the only things the government does right. Do you want to put your money in a bank where it can go away if the bank does? Do you not remember what happened with that online "Flooz" thing?
So come on. Point to a "free banking" system that still exists. Go ahead.
Because they all did. Every. Single. One. In the US, the free banking was horribly unstable, and different banks' notes changed value depending on their credit rating. Plus they were backed by...(gasp) precious metal! Obsession with the gold standard again.
Also, FDIC insurance is one of the only things the government does right. Do you want to put your money in a bank where it can go away if the bank does? Do you not remember what happened with that online "Flooz" thing?
So come on. Point to a "free banking" system that still exists. Go ahead.
No, they did not all 'fail'. Some of them were abolished by their respective governments, which is not the same as failing. This is again an illogical argument on the same rationale of "everybody in the world does it, so it must be right."
Practically every nation in the world operates a progressive income tax system (there's maybe 10, 15 exemptions, Russia being the major one), and yet I think we're both in agreement in our opposition to that system.
Further, you are incorrect when you state that most banks in the free banking system were unstable (as demonstrated in my sources), or relied on precious metal (very often, stock in companies was used as the backing).
Post by: K Frame on May 12, 2008, 08:17:21 PM
And, for the most part, the reason those respective governments abolished those kinds of banking systems were because of the regular, and very often extremely messy, failures of such a system.
This type of banking/currency system was abandoned because the entire concept was an outright failure and the inherent liability was FAR too great.
Post by: LAK on May 12, 2008, 10:16:01 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 13, 2008, 04:45:07 AM
Look, my argument is as follows:
1.While you may disagree with free banking, there is a variety of economists who support it. It may be a minority view, but it's not flat-out-insane.
2.Furthermore, a Presidential candidate's support for free banking, gold standards, or any other alternative to the current system, does not disqualify him from the Presidency. The Fed cannot be abolished by executive fiat, and is one of the most entrenched institutions of modern economic life. At best, such a candidate's participation in the process can cause a mainstreaming of the argument about monetary system.
Note that nowhere did I rip off my shirt, throw chairs, or argue against the Fed. Right now, I am focusing on merely the fact (uncontested by Manedwolf) that there exists a minority of economists who support this view, who do not, apparently, wear tinfoil, and that though you may disagree with this position, it does not disqualify Ron Paul, nor does it make him a bad candidate. The best/worst RP could do on this issue is bring it into discussion again.
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 13, 2008, 04:55:43 AM
Just exactly WHAT does a currency backed strictly by gold get us?
Does it get us a more stable economy, one that is less likely to have periodic recessions?
The answer to that is no, it doesn't. Regular severe recessions and depressions were a hallmark of times when the money was pegged strictly to gold. Since the ending of the gold standard in the United States there have been no depressions and our worst recessions pale in comparison to those of gold-backed currencies.
Does it get us a more stable economy, one that is less likely to have periodic recessions?
The answer to that is no, it doesn't. Regular severe recessions and depressions were a hallmark of times when the money was pegged strictly to gold. Since the ending of the gold standard in the United States there have been no depressions and our worst recessions pale in comparison to those of gold-backed currencies.
Seen the costs of staples at the market lately? Have you examined the activity of the stock market for the last year or so? What's flour and gas going for in your neck of the woods? Your suggesting that the Fed has prevented economic instabilities since its inception is laughable. What is has done is destroy the value of the US' currency, and it has done that very well.
Your other statements/questions have already been addressed in previous posts in this thread.
Show me a fiat money system that has not bankrupted a nation
This. Exactly.
Quote from: MicroBalrog
I watch this become an argument of two sides on one hand, Weedwhacker and LAK, arguing for a gold standard a literal, King Louis-XIV-era gold standard
I beg to differ. I am against the government's mandate that their fiat currency be the only one in circulation. (Before you object, take careful note of what happened to the Liberty Dollar folks.) I agree that a "gold" standard has its problems, to include the matter of the gold market being very small in comparison to many others, which is also why I explicitly mentioned other metals (silver, even copper) as a way of suggesting that while the currency must be tied to *something* to prevent the abuses we've seen the USD subjected to, it does not necessarily need to be gold.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 13, 2008, 04:58:05 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 13, 2008, 05:00:46 AM
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 13, 2008, 05:03:25 AM
"Fiat". The favorite word of Paulians.
Quote from: thefreedictionary.com
fi·at (ft, -t, -ät, ft, -t) n.
1. An arbitrary order or decree.
2. Authorization or sanction: government fiat.
1. An arbitrary order or decree.
2. Authorization or sanction: government fiat.
How does that definition not apply to the "backed by the full faith and in-the-hole-for-nine-plus-trillion credit of the United States"?
Got a better argument than a screenshot from an awful movie?
Okay, that's it. You've gone too far. Insinuating that The Princess Bride isn't the best movie, ever, has now proven that you know absolutely nothing, in fact, less than nothing. Long live the FRN USD!
;)
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 05:11:00 AM
and how many liberty dollars you guys got stashed away?
Post by: K Frame on May 13, 2008, 06:02:05 AM
You're telling us that the cost of a pound of flour in Thurungia in a.d. 872 was the exact same as a pound flour in Detroit in 1932?
That's amazing.
In reality, episodic inflation, and hyperinflation, is not only possible with a currency tied to a gold standard, it's inevitable.
The inflation in prices we're seeing right now is nothing compared to the kind of inflation in prices that could, and did, happen in economies tied to a strict gold standard.
"Your suggesting that the Fed has prevented economic instabilities since its inception is laughable."
That right there tells me that you know absolutely nothing about the subject.
The Federal Reserve was created in 1913. The United States was still on the Gold Standard until 1933 -- 20 years.
In those 20 years there were two recessions, one minor, one pretty bad, followed by the Granddaddy of them all, the Great Depression.
Federal Reserve economic policy as it stands today was largely created from 1935 onwards, with the majority of it occurring in the years after WW II.
Since World War II, roughly 60 years, there have been 5 recessions, 4 of them rather minor, one moderate to severe, and NO depressions.
In the 60 years prior to the creation of the Fed, there were at least 4 major depressions (or panics), and numerous recessions in that time. Go back even farther, and it's a much bleaker picture.
Finally, answer the question.
Answer the question as to what is so economically wonderous about a strict gold standard.
Tell us, in detail, why pegging a currency to a strict metallic standard is, or would be, such a tremendous benefit.
Post by: oldfart on May 13, 2008, 08:27:42 AM
"You're telling us that the cost of a pound of flour in Thurungia in a.d. 872 was the exact same as a pound flour in Detroit in 1932?"
I can't tell you much about flour but I do have this little tid-bit: In Roman times a laborer who worked in the fields for about a month was paid (in today's funds) about $500. In fact, that was what Judas was paid for betraying Jesus -- 30 pieces of silver. As I type this, silver is worth $16.74 an ounce -- $502.20!! Evidently, metals do hold their value pretty well over the years.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 13, 2008, 08:38:11 AM
I probably shouldn't get into this but... what the hell.
"You're telling us that the cost of a pound of flour in Thurungia in a.d. 872 was the exact same as a pound flour in Detroit in 1932?"
I can't tell you much about flour but I do have this little tid-bit: In Roman times a laborer who worked in the fields for about a month was paid (in today's funds) about $500. In fact, that was what Judas was paid for betraying Jesus -- 30 pieces of silver. As I type this, silver is worth $16.74 an ounce -- $502.20!! Evidently, metals do hold their value pretty well over the years.
"You're telling us that the cost of a pound of flour in Thurungia in a.d. 872 was the exact same as a pound flour in Detroit in 1932?"
I can't tell you much about flour but I do have this little tid-bit: In Roman times a laborer who worked in the fields for about a month was paid (in today's funds) about $500. In fact, that was what Judas was paid for betraying Jesus -- 30 pieces of silver. As I type this, silver is worth $16.74 an ounce -- $502.20!! Evidently, metals do hold their value pretty well over the years.
Wrong. If you bought gold in the early 80's, you'd just now be breaking even on value, accounting for inflation. Barely breaking even.
Yeah, that's a great investment there.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 13, 2008, 09:11:44 AM
I probably shouldn't get into this but... what the hell.
"You're telling us that the cost of a pound of flour in Thurungia in a.d. 872 was the exact same as a pound flour in Detroit in 1932?"
I can't tell you much about flour but I do have this little tid-bit: In Roman times a laborer who worked in the fields for about a month was paid (in today's funds) about $500. In fact, that was what Judas was paid for betraying Jesus -- 30 pieces of silver. As I type this, silver is worth $16.74 an ounce -- $502.20!! Evidently, metals do hold their value pretty well over the years.
Huh?"You're telling us that the cost of a pound of flour in Thurungia in a.d. 872 was the exact same as a pound flour in Detroit in 1932?"
I can't tell you much about flour but I do have this little tid-bit: In Roman times a laborer who worked in the fields for about a month was paid (in today's funds) about $500. In fact, that was what Judas was paid for betraying Jesus -- 30 pieces of silver. As I type this, silver is worth $16.74 an ounce -- $502.20!! Evidently, metals do hold their value pretty well over the years.
I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar, but I do believe Judas' price was 30 shekels of silver, not 30 ounces. Ounces didn't exist back in Jesus' day, dontcha know. According to an online unit conversion site, 30 shekels is only 12 ounces. At today's prices that would be only $200.
I have no idea what labor cost in Roman times, but I do know that, even if it was $500 a month, it has no bearing on what Judas was paid, nor on current labor or metal prices. It does nothing to enlighten the discussion on inflation or gold-standard vs Fed Reserve.
If you were aiming to show that metals are worth the same today as they were in ancient Roman times, I think you missed.
Post by: zahc on May 13, 2008, 09:39:02 AM
Quote
Then there's the overall matter of the USD as a fiat currency being destroyed over time: inflation has destroyed ~97% of the "dollar"'s value since fiat money was introduced as the "dollar". Save $100 in 1913, and now you'd have three cents of value left.
math checkQuote
In reality, episodic inflation, and hyperinflation, is not only possible with a currency tied to a gold standard, it's inevitable.
Could you please explain how that is, for those of us who are interested? It would seem to my primitive mind that may not be able to grasp economic theory, that if a dollar literally corresponded to an ounce of gold, that the only way inflation could happen would be to mine (or meltdown) gold.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 13, 2008, 09:45:33 AM
Why do people keep thinking that gold is American, and not a commodity mined around the world?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 13, 2008, 09:51:47 AM
Quote
In reality, episodic inflation, and hyperinflation, is not only possible with a currency tied to a gold standard, it's inevitable.
Could you please explain how that is, for those of us who are interested? It would seem to my primitive mind that may not be able to grasp economic theory, that if a dollar literally corresponded to an ounce of gold, that the only way inflation could happen would be to mine (or meltdown) gold. Demand for money changes all the time. Even if the supply of money was fixed, it's value would still be dependent upon fluctuations within the economy at large, due to changing demand for money. And for the record, the gold standard will not, cannot, keep the supply of money fixed.
Obviously the supply and demand of the items we buy varies, too. Take food as an example. Over time the demand for food grows, if only because the population grows. If farm production (supply of food) doesn't increase to keep pace with the increase in demand, the prices of food will rise. The result will be food price inflation.
That's a good microcosm for what's happening in the world economy now. The supply of money is growing relatively slowly. It isn't fixed, but it's darned close to fixed. Over the past few decades, many nations of the world (China, India, South America, former USSR nations...) have embraced capitalism and produced some semblance of prosperity within their populations. All of those people are now able to bid for commodities on the global markets. Prices of all globally traded commodities (oil, metals, grains, etc) are rising sharply because of increased demand coupled with no increase in supply.
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 13, 2008, 10:47:46 AM
If you bought gold in the early 80's, you'd just now be breaking even on value, accounting for inflation. Barely breaking even.
Yeah, that's a great investment there.
Yeah, that's a great investment there.
Cherry-pick your arguments much?
Quote from: zahc
math check
D'oh. Fixed, thanks.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 13, 2008, 10:50:55 AM
If you bought gold in the early 80's, you'd just now be breaking even on value, accounting for inflation. Barely breaking even.
Yeah, that's a great investment there.
Yeah, that's a great investment there.
Cherry-pick your arguments much?
And you point, for "proof", to a site that has this banner?
Quote
Call 800-289-2646 or register below for a FREE copy of FED: FRAUD OF THE CENTURY. As a bonus, you'll also receive Swiss America's "Rare Opportunity" DVD, booklet and CD featuring WND founder Joseph Farah.
Hosted from their site, yet, not even an external sponsor! That image is ON their server. As are the ads for...surprise! Ron Paul's new book the site owner is getting a sponsored cut of sales from through Amazon.
I got a bridge to sell you. Cheap. Interested?
Man. The Paulians have become a niche market for goods now, sort of like how "anti-establishment" pseudogoths will buy anything Hot Topic puts in the window. Bunch of nonconformists that are all alike, and oh, so easy to sell to.
Addition: It gets even better. This banner belongs to that site, too. They want you to buy buy buy gold...through them!
Damn, I gotta come up with some jingoistic products to sell to Paulians. I mean, wow. Talk about easy marks.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 13, 2008, 11:52:09 AM
Got a better argument than a screenshot from an awful movie?
You are a bad, bad man.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 12:00:36 PM
Post by: GigaBuist on May 13, 2008, 12:10:31 PM
Wrong. If you bought gold in the early 80's, you'd just now be breaking even on value, accounting for inflation. Barely breaking even.
Yeah, that's a great investment there.
Yeah, that's a great investment there.
I think that was the point of the user you responded to. Gold as an investment is horrible, but it is inflation proof. Well, at least when compared to holding onto actual FRNs. That's always a losing position in today's world.
Now, gold wouldn't be that stable if the US was using the gold to back their dollars. I have no illusions of that. If we were then other countries, like China as Manedwolf has pointed out, would, or at least could, be playing games with our currency. Then again, under our current system the Chinese still hold about 1.3 trillion in US dollars that could be dumped on the market any time. I have no idea what that'd do to inflation because I have no idea how many dollars are actually out there.
Does anybody at this point? We don't even know what's going on with the "M3" index or whatever it is anymore. Yes, I realize just mentioning "M3" sends up flags that I pay attention to the tin-foil hat brigade of the finance world.
It isn't so much what is backing the US dollar that bothers me. It's that there's nothing backing it. As far as I know, and I could be entirely wrong on this, there's nothing that would stop the Federal Reserve from just doubling the money supply in a single night. That sort of bothers me.
I've never taken Ron Paul's words on the Fed and the gold standard as him insisting that we return to the gold standard itself. Perhaps I'm reading him wrong. I think he just uses it as an example of how the US worked before the Fed could print money willy-nilly. Said system was obviously far from perfect as Mike Irwin has pointed out. We don't ever want to go back there again.
But, to tie the money supply to something -- anything -- outside of the whims of the Fed seems like a decent idea to me. That could mean a cap on what percentage increase they're allowed in a year. If done wrong, as in set too low, recessions and depressions might ensue, but if done right then we'd at least know what kind of yield on investments we'll need to counteract inflation.
Now, I'm not so ignorant to believe that we can do something as silly as say no more than X% of the money supply may be increased in a year. The formula would be much more complex than that, taking into account increase in the national GDP, our rank in the world marketplace, and God knows what else.
All I want are some agreed upon rules for how our money supply is managed. I don't think "GOLD!111elventy!! R0N PAUL IS G0D!" is the answer. I'm not real keen on letting the Federal Reserve control the whole damned thing either. It's certainly better then the former, but it still seems far from ideal to me.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 13, 2008, 01:02:26 PM
But, to tie the money supply to something -- anything -- outside of the whims of the Fed seems like a decent idea to me. That could mean a cap on what percentage increase they're allowed in a year. If done wrong, as in set too low, recessions and depressions might ensue, but if done right then we'd at least know what kind of yield on investments we'll need to counteract inflation.
Now, I'm not so ignorant to believe that we can do something as silly as say no more than X% of the money supply may be increased in a year. The formula would be much more complex than that, taking into account increase in the national GDP, our rank in the world marketplace, and God knows what else.
All I want are some agreed upon rules for how our money supply is managed. I don't think "GOLD!111elventy!! R0N PAUL IS G0D!" is the answer. I'm not real keen on letting the Federal Reserve control the whole damned thing either. It's certainly better then the former, but it still seems far from ideal to me.
Google "monetarism" and read away. I bet you'll like what you see. I suspect that when most extreme Libertarians argue in favor of a gold standard, what they really want is a strict monetarist policy, which they mistakenly believe a gold standard would deliver.
There have been several formulas proposed for determining the growth of the money supply, formulas which attempt to gauge the demand growth for money and increase the supply to match. I don't think any have ever been tested in the real world. But they look good on paper, and their reasoning seems sound to me. They look far better than the gold standard.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 13, 2008, 02:31:15 PM
How about an increase in the money supply corresponding to overall growth in the GDP? I'm thinking that would keep inflation in check and keep prices relatively stable, now how do we get the Feds to limit spending?
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 13, 2008, 03:25:01 PM
If you bought gold in the early 80's, you'd just now be breaking even on value, accounting for inflation. Barely breaking even.
Yeah, that's a great investment there.
Yeah, that's a great investment there.
Cherry-pick your arguments much?
And you point, for "proof", to a site that has this banner? :lol:
[... completely irrelevant avoidance of issue snipped ...]
You know, damned well, that you picked the speculation bubble of the 80s to base your otherwise craptastic argument upon.
The practice of picking your data to match your argument is called "cherry picking", and you sir have been caught red handed.
Everyone else, see the attached images to get straight to the point - if anyone has a bone to pick with the data, go right ahead and show your proof.
I probably shouldn't get into this but... what the hell.
"You're telling us that the cost of a pound of flour in Thurungia in a.d. 872 was the exact same as a pound flour in Detroit in 1932?"
I can't tell you much about flour but I do have this little tid-bit: In Roman times a laborer who worked in the fields for about a month was paid (in today's funds) about $500. In fact, that was what Judas was paid for betraying Jesus -- 30 pieces of silver. As I type this, silver is worth $16.74 an ounce -- $502.20!! Evidently, metals do hold their value pretty well over the years.
"You're telling us that the cost of a pound of flour in Thurungia in a.d. 872 was the exact same as a pound flour in Detroit in 1932?"
I can't tell you much about flour but I do have this little tid-bit: In Roman times a laborer who worked in the fields for about a month was paid (in today's funds) about $500. In fact, that was what Judas was paid for betraying Jesus -- 30 pieces of silver. As I type this, silver is worth $16.74 an ounce -- $502.20!! Evidently, metals do hold their value pretty well over the years.
Wrong. If you bought gold in the early 80's, you'd just now be breaking even on value, accounting for inflation. Barely breaking even.
Yeah, that's a great investment there.
So, Manedwolf, care to try to answer oldfart again, with an intellectually honest answer this time?
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 13, 2008, 03:26:31 PM
Everyone else, see the attached images to get straight to the point - if anyone has a bone to pick with the data, go right ahead and show your proof.
Here's another chart - the spike in historical terms is much more blatant.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 13, 2008, 04:23:13 PM
Why don't you just buy some gold, Weedwhacker? You know, it might go to $2000 an ounce!
(If the illuminati doesn't manipulate market forces, of course. Roooon Pauuul could saaaave you...)
Post by: Scout26 on May 13, 2008, 05:49:51 PM
Damn, I gotta come up with some jingoistic products to sell to Paulians. I mean, wow. Talk about easy marks.
That's why I'm heavily invested in the Chee-to and Wookie Costume markets...
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 13, 2008, 07:25:04 PM
[... kindergarten taunting snipped ...]
So, the best non-response you have is displaying banner ads and repeating "nyah nyah nyah"?
I guess you win at internets.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 13, 2008, 11:06:13 PM
Quote
Google "monetarism" and read away. I bet you'll like what you see. I suspect that when most extreme Libertarians argue in favor of a gold standard, what they really want is a strict monetarist policy, which they mistakenly believe a gold standard would deliver.
Yes, because we never read. Because I don't know what monetarism is, or what a Gold standard is, and I have never read an introductory economics course, nor have I read Marx, Friedman, Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard, and am not familiar with either Keyenesian nor any other economics, and I just lift my ideas by randomly reading conspiracy-theory tracts.
Post by: oldfart on May 14, 2008, 07:02:42 AM
I think most of us believe the second Amendment to the Constitution should be taken literally. I know, there are those who feel it needs to be "interpreted" as if it were written in Sanskrit or Mayan and those languages had no words for "arms" but since it was written in English we (again, most of us) think it pretty well says what it is supposed to.
So if that idea is good enough for the Second Amendment, why are we debating the meaning of the first paragraph of Section 10, Article 1 of the main body of The Constitution?
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
Was that originally written in Sanskrit? Does it need to be interpreted, ignored or deleted from the document entirely? Of course it might help if we were just a bit more consistent and less hypocritical... Or maybe not.
Post by: K Frame on May 14, 2008, 07:25:31 AM
Even as the Constitution was passed and ratified there was SIGNIFICANT disagreement among the framers as to whether the government could issue paper money.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty3.html
But, if you wish to return to a strict, literal reading of the Consitutiton, no problem.
The Fed Gov't can mint tin, lead, copper, aluminum, and zinc "coinage."
Nothing in the Constitution says that gold and silver coinage has to be made available to the public, and nothing in the Constitution says that the coin that is minted has to be backed with gold or silver. The Constitution says only that the Feds coin the money.
The section you have quoted?
It says only that the States cannot require anything but Gold and Silver coinage be used to pay debts. No similar prohibition exists against the Federal government.
So.
Who wants a $100 face value zinc coin?
Post by: oldfart on May 14, 2008, 07:44:15 AM
Obviously, the Silver Certificates were backed with actual silver money. The new Federal Reserve Notes were backed with a promise to tax your children to cover your debt.
That's progress, I guess.
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 14, 2008, 08:35:37 AM
It says only that the States cannot require anything but Gold and Silver coinage be used to pay debts. No similar prohibition exists against the Federal government.
Not having researched this specific line of argument enough, I only have one thing to say in response to this specific point:
Be very careful in assuming that simply because there is no rule barring the federal government from doing an arbitrary thing, it is therefore allowed to do so. If Congress' list of enumerated powers includes the power to "coin" "money", then arguments should be based upon that, rather than what isn't prohibited.
Post by: mtnbkr on May 14, 2008, 08:59:20 AM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
And gold is nothing more than a metal. A pretty metal, but like zinc, copper, and iron, nothing more than a metal. The only reason gold has been recognized as a currency is because people agree that it has some intrinsic value. In that sense, gold is NO different than that $20 bank note of ink and paper.
Thank you. People seem to ignore that tidbit. Gold/Fiat Money/etc are only a store of value. At some point, you and I agree that an hour of my labor is worth X amount of currency (gold or paper) and tha X amount of that currency is worth an hour of your labor or a given amount of your goods. It's merely a way of trading my labor for your labor or goods. It makes it easier to trade my labor in Va for your goods produced in China and sold via your store in Kentucky.
Just as people may decide fiat money (to use a phrase) isn't worth anything, they may also decide that about gold. People may decide, in a true TEOTWAWKI sitation that trading with gold is too risky and prefer to trade goods for goods or labor for goods (ie barter).
Chris
Chris
Post by: K Frame on May 14, 2008, 09:43:16 AM
Which I have been saying, REPEATEDLY, in this and other threads for months.
But no, the "Gold = God, the solution to all of the world's problems" people never seem to comprehend that. It's as if gold has some mystical properties above and beyond a nice sheet, good conduction and ductability.
The only reason that gold has a value is because people agree that it has a value.
That's no different than with today's currency.
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 14, 2008, 09:58:25 AM
Gold/Fiat Money/etc are only a store of value. At some point, you and I agree that an hour of my labor is worth X amount of currency (gold or paper) and tha X amount of that currency is worth an hour of your labor or a given amount of your goods. It's merely a way of trading my labor for your labor or goods. It makes it easier to trade my labor in Va for your goods produced in China and sold via your store in Kentucky.
Just as people may decide fiat money (to use a phrase) isn't worth anything, they may also decide that about gold. People may decide, in a true TEOTWAWKI sitation that trading with gold is too risky and prefer to trade goods for goods or labor for goods (ie barter).
Just as people may decide fiat money (to use a phrase) isn't worth anything, they may also decide that about gold. People may decide, in a true TEOTWAWKI sitation that trading with gold is too risky and prefer to trade goods for goods or labor for goods (ie barter).
Agreed; obviously, as you've explicitly stated, currency in either fiat money or asset-backed money could become less desirable than a hard good at any point. A gold standard isn't meant to fix that "problem".
A principle reason for tying a currency to a hard asset is that the only way to inflate the currency is to produce more of said asset - unlike fiat currencies, which can be inflated at the push of a button nowadays... and are.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 14, 2008, 10:02:21 AM
A principle reason for tying a currency to a hard asset is that the only way to inflate the currency is to produce more of said asset - unlike fiat currencies, which can be inflated at the push of a button nowadays... and are.
You mean like China dumping gold on the world market, or withholding gold from the world market?
Again. GOLD IS NOT A SOLELY AMERICAN RESOURCE. We don't even produce most of it!
Why is that so hard to understand? You'd be giving that "inflated at the push of a button" button to another, hostile country!
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 14, 2008, 10:16:44 AM
If and when we get into a Mad-Max SHTF situation, gold will be no more desirable than silver coins minted with Ron Paul's face, or any other existing currency.
What will work is X number of chickens for a bag of flour, or X number of .30-06 rounds for a tank of propane.
As for Fiat money, that's the amount I spent to keep my 1979 124 Spider running all those years before I sold it.
Weedwhacker - a synonym for beating around the bush?
Post by: K Frame on May 14, 2008, 10:50:36 AM
Everyone knows that Americans, and ONLY Americans, own God, Guns, and Gold.
One of the worst financial episodes of the 19th century was caused by severe flucutations in the availablility and control of the gold supply.
The struggle over control (NOT production) of gold kicked off dramatic fluctuations in the value of gold and let to widespread business failures and a catastrophic drop in the stock market.
Post by: oldfart on May 14, 2008, 10:52:56 AM
That's no different than with today's currency."
Yeah, you're right of course but people have considered gold to be more valuable than, say - paper, for thousands of years. Why? Because it takes a lot of labor to produce gold, whereas paper can be made by a bunch of mindless wasps. Gold has a finite value. I know a lady in Alaska whose family owns several gold claims that have been assayed as worth over forty million dollars. Problem is, it'd cost fifty million to get it out of the ground.
Paper and ink, on the other hand, are relatively easy to make and combine as a medium of exchange. That's why counterfeiters go into business in the first place. That's why North Korea has been printing "funny-money" for distribution here in the U.S. for years and why the Mugabe government in Zimbabwe has pushed their inflation to over 100,000%.
Laying here in my desk drawer is a 1 ounce silver 'round.' According to this morning's tally, it's worth about $16.50. A few weeks ago it spiked at $21 so you could say that I've lost about $4.50. When you consider that I bought it several years ago for $5.50 it takes on a somewhat better value. I wish I had bought a bushel of them then but I've said the same about those $75 Chinese SKS's too. The value of that silver piece will fluctuate over the years depending on supply and demand but it will always be worth whatever another, similar piece is worth.
Pennies and nickles are now worth less than the metal they're made of and are due to be re-formulated soon. The intrinsic value of a "real" dollar bill is worth almost exactly what a $100 bill is. Paper money is worth whatever is printed on it and if the printer just happened to be a counterfeiter it's only worth whatever the holder can con someone out of without getting caught.
Try counterfeiting a Double Eagle. I suppose it could be done but the profit margin would be pretty slim.
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 14, 2008, 11:45:06 AM
If and when we get into a Mad-Max SHTF situation, gold will be no more desirable than silver coins minted with Ron Paul's face, or any other existing currency.
Weedwhacker - a synonym for beating around the bush?
Weedwhacker - a synonym for beating around the bush?
Agreed; obviously, as you've explicitly stated, currency in either fiat money or asset-backed money could become less desirable than a hard good at any point. A gold standard isn't meant to fix that "problem".
Neither does it much matter if the chosen commodity is gold, silver, copper, etc.
I've said as plainly as possible, and often, what the big problem with a paper-only, backed-by-nothing currency is: ease of manufacture.
If you've a problem with the smallish size of the gold market (justifiable), it doesn't negate any other asset with both some base use which also requires work to produce.
Feel free to continue avoiding any of the points anyone outside your narrow circle of thought presents, or failing that, find something unrelated to nitpick about while basing some more misleading arguments around the '80s' spike in gold prices.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 14, 2008, 12:27:27 PM
Here's a visual reminder for you to make it harder to ignore.
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 14, 2008, 12:37:23 PM
And, as before, weedwhacker is completely ignoring the fact that China and Russia have far more control over the amount of gold on the world market than we do.
If you've a problem with the smallish size of the gold market (justifiable), it doesn't negate any other asset with both some base use which also requires work to produce.
Neither does it much matter if the chosen commodity is gold, silver, copper, etc.
*ahem*
Post by: GigaBuist on May 14, 2008, 06:08:13 PM
Quote
Google "monetarism" and read away. I bet you'll like what you see. I suspect that when most extreme Libertarians argue in favor of a gold standard, what they really want is a strict monetarist policy, which they mistakenly believe a gold standard would deliver.
Yes, because we never read. Because I don't know what monetarism is, or [yadda yadda yadda]
I didn't take any offense to his remarks, which were directed at me. I'm not terribly well versed in this topic and he added a new word to my lexicon. That and he summarized my position exactly: I want a strict monetarist policy.
Gold, silver, copper, iron, zinc, maple syrup, midgets -- I don't care what we tie the damned currency to just so long as it's something better than:
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 14, 2008, 06:16:43 PM
fiat currencies, which can be inflated at the push of a button nowadays... and are.
Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
Post by: Manedwolf on May 15, 2008, 04:28:43 AM
If you control your own money as a nation by printing it, you are still in control of it.
If you back it with a commodity that OTHER countries control the flow of, then you are no longer in control of it.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 15, 2008, 09:21:29 AM
fiat currencies, which can be inflated at the push of a button nowadays... and are.
Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
Creating currency on a whim is necessary in a modern economy. That's why the Fed was created, that's what it's supposed to do. That's its chief advantage over the gold standard. Creating of money is a powerful tool that can be used to stabilize the markets and substantially improve general prosperity and quality of life.
Of course, this powerful tool is like any other powerful tool. It can be misused, either deliberately or accidentally. Used incorrectly, it can cause as much pain as it was intended to prevent.
So, do we blame the tool? Is the tool itself bad? Or should we accept that the tool exists and that it has benefits and risks associated with its use?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 15, 2008, 09:26:41 AM
Quote
Google "monetarism" and read away. I bet you'll like what you see. I suspect that when most extreme Libertarians argue in favor of a gold standard, what they really want is a strict monetarist policy, which they mistakenly believe a gold standard would deliver.
Yes, because we never read. Because I don't know what monetarism is, or [yadda yadda yadda]
I didn't take any offense to his remarks, which were directed at me. I'm not terribly well versed in this topic and he added a new word to my lexicon. That and he summarized my position exactly: I want a strict monetarist policy.
I was simply trying to do the same for Giga that others have done for me. That is, help me learn about something I didn't know much about.
If what I said was offensive, I'm sorry. I didn't mean it to be.
Post by: Balog on May 16, 2008, 05:18:18 AM
Post by: GigaBuist on May 16, 2008, 06:06:26 AM
But since FRN's are freely traded on the open market and the chicoms hold a ton of them, couldn't they just flood the market by selling a trillion or so?
They only hold $1.3 trillion... whereas their gold reserves are slightly higher than hours according to ManedWolf.
If we were on a gold standard they could halve our dollar's value by dumping their gold onto the market.
I'm not sure what fraction $1.3 trillion is compared to the FRNs in circulation, but it's nowhere near half!
Post by: roo_ster on May 16, 2008, 08:34:36 AM
Basic reality check.
If you control your own money as a nation by printing it, you are still in control of it.
If you back it with a commodity that OTHER countries control the flow of, then you are no longer in control of it.
If you control your own money as a nation by printing it, you are still in control of it.
If you back it with a commodity that OTHER countries control the flow of, then you are no longer in control of it.
We have a winner...
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 19, 2008, 10:56:12 AM
Ron Paul ran ads here in Hoosierland for the past week or two. Foolish. Why throw away good money trying to win a race that's over and lost? Ya can't change the past.
On the other hand, why not? The money was not taken by force from taxpayers and that makes all the difference in the world. It was voluntarily donated.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 19, 2008, 05:36:25 PM
Ron Paul ran ads here in Hoosierland for the past week or two. Foolish. Why throw away good money trying to win a race that's over and lost? Ya can't change the past.
On the other hand, why not? The money was not taken by force from taxpayers and that makes all the difference in the world. It was voluntarily donated.
It was donated for the purpose of having him spend it on political ads to promote himself and his views. To spend it on something else would be fraud from a moral standpoint, even if it is not fraud legally.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 20, 2008, 03:20:28 AM
Ron Paul ran ads here in Hoosierland for the past week or two. Foolish. Why throw away good money trying to win a race that's over and lost? Ya can't change the past.
On the other hand, why not? The money was not taken by force from taxpayers and that makes all the difference in the world. It was voluntarily donated.
It was donated for the purpose of having him spend it on political ads to promote himself and his views. To spend it on something else would be fraud from a moral standpoint, even if it is not fraud legally.
Isn't that what he is using the money for?
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 20, 2008, 03:23:21 AM
Post by: roo_ster on May 20, 2008, 06:46:03 AM
Heck, I ended up voting for Paul, but I have no illusions about his overall effectiveness.
I just did it so I can pull an inverted Kerry:
"I voted against McCain before I voted for McCain."
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 20, 2008, 06:46:55 AM
When was the time that RP made a difference, again?
You don't only make a difference by winning elections.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 23, 2008, 09:13:54 AM
My only gripe with Ron Paul is that he is running these ads now and not when they could have made a difference.
I think he is making more of a difference most people think he is.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 23, 2008, 09:17:47 AM
My only gripe with Ron Paul is that he is running these ads now and not when they could have made a difference.
I think he is making more of a difference most people think he is.
Yes. He got the entire libertarian moment dismissed by the general populace as a bunch of wookie-costume-wearing 9/11 troofer basement-dwelling gold-obsessed nutcases.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 23, 2008, 09:22:48 AM
My only gripe with Ron Paul is that he is running these ads now and not when they could have made a difference.
I think he is making more of a difference most people think he is.
Yes. He got the entire libertarian moment dismissed by the general populace as a bunch of wookie-costume-wearing 9/11 troofer basement-dwelling gold-obsessed nutcases.
How is that different from every other libertarian candidate? He had more people interested in his campaign than the last three libertarian candidates combined. Still does as far as I can tell.
The statists were worried enough about his followed to coin a term "Paultards" to dismiss them as wingnuts.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 23, 2008, 09:36:03 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 23, 2008, 09:42:30 AM
Actually, I called then Paulistinians after they ran around Manchester in a screaming, near-rioting mob screaming about Fox News not hosting their messiah. It looked exactly like one of the infamous rock-throwing-fests.
People do tend to get over excitable in crowds.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 23, 2008, 10:03:40 AM
Quote
Yes. He got the entire libertarian moment dismissed by the general populace as a bunch of wookie-costume-wearing 9/11 troofer basement-dwelling gold-obsessed nutcases.
Oh god, not the wookie costumes!
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 23, 2008, 10:55:21 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on May 23, 2008, 11:24:09 AM
Post by: xavier fremboe on May 24, 2008, 01:24:44 AM
Actually, political debates would be much more interesting and likely honest if they had to chug beers or drink shots after each question.
In wookie costumes.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 24, 2008, 05:06:02 AM
Actually, political debates would be much more interesting and likely honest if they had to chug beers or drink shots after each question.
I want the House and Senate floor to look like the one in Taiwan when they get into a disagreement. Room-clearing brawl. People would pay to watch that.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 25, 2008, 01:14:31 AM
Actually, I called then Paulistinians after they ran around Manchester in a screaming, near-rioting mob screaming about Fox News not hosting their messiah. It looked exactly like one of the infamous rock-throwing-fests.
People get angry. People protest.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 25, 2008, 04:54:40 AM
Actually, political debates would be much more interesting and likely honest if they had to chug beers or drink shots after each question.
I want the House and Senate floor to look like the one in Taiwan when they get into a disagreement. Room-clearing brawl. People would pay to watch that.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 25, 2008, 05:18:03 AM
Actually, I called then Paulistinians after they ran around Manchester in a screaming, near-rioting mob screaming about Fox News not hosting their messiah. It looked exactly like one of the infamous rock-throwing-fests.
People get angry. People protest.
Was it supposed to be a protest, or a primary?
Post by: Manedwolf on May 25, 2008, 05:23:41 AM
Actually, I called then Paulistinians after they ran around Manchester in a screaming, near-rioting mob screaming about Fox News not hosting their messiah. It looked exactly like one of the infamous rock-throwing-fests.
People get angry. People protest.
Was it supposed to be a protest, or a primary?
It was supposed to be a primary.
And it wasn't a "protest". Here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7b4IqC8BA8
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 25, 2008, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Manedwolf
Seen it before.
Have you seriously not seen a real angry mob that you are calling that an angry, violence-prone, mob?
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 25, 2008, 12:49:10 PM
Post by: El Tejon on May 25, 2008, 12:57:17 PM
Must be after noon.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 25, 2008, 02:37:27 PM
There's a productive way to protest, think "We shall overcome", and there's looking like a bunch of immature nutjobs who don't deserve to be taken seriously.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 25, 2008, 04:23:51 PM
Quote from: Manedwolf
Seen it before.
Have you seriously not seen a real angry mob that you are calling that an angry, violence-prone, mob?
Seen riots in Miami. That's closer to that than to a political protest.
A political protest should be a group of adults making their case in a show of numbers with a clear message delivered in a civilized manner.
That was a bunch of idiots acting like animals. If that's your idea of a valid political protest, I suggest you revise it before coming to the US.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 25, 2008, 10:12:24 PM
A one-man protest is not valid anymore?
The various naked lie-ins of the peace movement are now 'not valid'?
And I've seen an angry mob. That's not even close.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 26, 2008, 06:15:02 AM
After Maned posted that clip I showed it to a total of 5 people, none of whom had seen it before, after watching it every one of them was surprised and had a lower opinion of Ron Paul. The point of a protest is to 1) let people know that you object to some type of injustice, and 2) hopefully getting them to side with you. Looking like a nutjob certainly doesn't accomplish #2 and it might even make people question the "injustice" they're protesting.
Here's the main thing, why are you drinking the Kool-Aid? I understand that you're all about the FSP and like the idea of a candidate who talks about liberty, when I first heard about the FSP I loved the idea, but then I started meeting FSP members. I was completely psyched when found out Ron Paul was running and I've become more and more disenchanted with him over time. I'm not saying you need to share my opinion, only that you have enough presence of mind fo call a spade a spade. I LOVE to talk smack about Obama and his supporters, but if Ron Paul supporters are behaving just as nutty then we should criticize them just as much.
At this point it appears these "protesters" are counter-productive, I don't know what they've done to advance the cause of liberty but I sure know they've turned people off.
Other than that, Happy Memorial Day everyone!
Post by: oldfart on May 26, 2008, 08:23:55 AM
Then something interesting happened. We "misfits" kinda banded together out of necessity and became a force to be dealt with. In our small school we had some real power though we lacked the experience to really know how to wield it. So we became troublemakers. Nothing real serious because we knew our parents would kill us if we did anything really dumb but we still took every opportunity to pee in the cornflakes of those who had ostracized us.
I think we're now looking at a larger group of people recently labled "moonbats" and "loonies" who have found strength in numbers. Every once in awhile you can expect them to do something really stupid if for no other reason than to let off steam. If they also shake the whithered husk that is our present political system and cause a few seeds to fall onto fertile soil... well, all the better. But even if they don't those who treasure their status quo had better keep a close eye on their cornflakes!
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 26, 2008, 08:53:01 AM
Second, I know a variety of FSP members. I'm not naming names, because I'm not sure these people would like it publicly known that they're my friends (and because it may be seen as bragging). I've also followed Ron Paul's actions in Congress since I've first heard about him, which was around 2003 (some of you remember me from back then). I'm not one of the people who jumped on the bandwagon just now because they heard about it on the Interwebs and they think it's really cool.
Third, consider history. When a movement that wants to seriously change the system is born, first it's advocated by intellectuals, then it's joined by various disenfranchised weirdos who think they've been screwed by the world (rightly or not), and then the various power players - wealthy elites, or politicians or whoever - who stand to gain from it join in usually just before or simultaneously with the regular joes.
We're now at the stage of wackos and weirdos joining. It's okay. There's nothing really wrong with someone dressing for a different peer group than mine, or being generally all weird-out. I'm a huge weirdo myself in real life, and in some countries I'd qualify to be put away for good.
Fourth, consider an army. A political movement is a lot like an army on the march. You have the strategists, you have the sappers, the pilots, some nations have kamikazes, and they all converge towards the cause.
Fifth, how does a small group of people with beliefs everybody thinks are outlandish make itself heard? By SCREAMING.
You do civil disobedience, you do protests, you do naked lie-ins, you do crazy stuff, because otherwise nobody will hear you.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 26, 2008, 09:31:01 AM
A political protest should be a group of adults making their case in a show of numbers with a clear message delivered in a civilized manner.
So your argument is that only a protest-through-numbers is valid? A one-man protest is not valid anymore?
No, that is clearly not his point.
Quote
The various naked lie-ins of the peace movement are now 'not valid'?
Why should they be considered valid? Valid is a very vague term. A "naked lie-in" is certainly very foolish and should give any movement a bad name. They are obviously childish, and have more to do with the participants' emotional/psychological problems than they have to do with the supposed "cause."
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 26, 2008, 09:47:47 AM
Quote
A "naked lie-in" is certainly very foolish and should give any movement a bad name. They are obviously childish, and have more to do with the participants' emotional/psychological problems than they have to do with the supposed "cause."
If it's stupid, but it works...
Naked lie-ins haven't given the peace movement a bad name, except among people who already think that anti-war protestors are worthless longhairs.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 26, 2008, 10:19:08 AM
As well as people on the fence, who are also the most important of all. The average guy on the street is the one who will determine the direction a movement goes, is he going to be swayed by naked hippies?
Post by: Manedwolf on May 26, 2008, 10:22:34 AM
Fifth, how does a small group of people with beliefs everybody thinks are outlandish make itself heard? By SCREAMING.
You do civil disobedience, you do protests, you do naked lie-ins, you do crazy stuff, because otherwise nobody will hear you.
You do civil disobedience, you do protests, you do naked lie-ins, you do crazy stuff, because otherwise nobody will hear you.
Funny, I think one of the most effective movements in America in the 20th century was done by a well-dressed man who behaved in a civilized manner, and made speeches eloquently in the Washington Mall to vast crowds. You might have heard one or two, one includes the words "I have a dream..."
Even other participants in that movement who were effective were civilized about it. Rosa Parks simply refused to sit where the black people were supposed to sit, but she didn't throw a screaming fit. She just did it in a dignified manner.
Another successful movement was done by a soft-spoken Indian man, bald, with glasses, who led a disobeyance against a salt tax and other injustices. There was no screaming.
Only the childish scream and rant. The effective, the adult, make their case in a manner that people will listen to.
When one party is calm and collected and the other is screaming, who appears to be in control?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 26, 2008, 10:44:13 AM
If it's stupid, but it works...
Can you provide evidence that nudity has helped the cause of groups that have used it as a form of protest or consciousness-raising?
Can you provide evidence that nudity has helped the cause of groups that have used it as a form of protest or consciousness-raising?
Quote
Naked lie-ins haven't given the peace movement a bad name, except among people who already think that anti-war protestors are worthless longhairs.
This is a curious view you have, that anyone who is turned off by nudity must also have a hopelessly bigoted view of peace protesters or men with long hair.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 26, 2008, 10:48:46 AM
There has always been a coalition of various people - calm, rationed-looking college professors, union bosses (and you know of course early unions were often violent and linked to the mob), angry feminists, and of course, various hidden communists, and so on. Anarchists and communist radicals played a role in the formation of the union movement. Some of them were pretty crazy mofos.
But look today - say on live TV that the graduated income tax is a socialist measure, and you'll be derided as an utter madman. Nevermind that it IS a socialist measure.
And as for MLK, he had a variety of allies in the civil rights movement who were not quite as nice and civil as him. We just remember him as the 'face' of the movement, but it also had a lot of other body parts - which is not to draw from the general validity of the movement.
The statists have won, and they have won so much that it'll take decades upon decades of hard work until the Wilson-FDR-LBJ welfare state is undone, if we only restrain ourselves to wearing ties and being cute and reasonable. The damage that they've inflicted to every aspect of American culture in particular and Western culture in general is innumerable.
Assuming the libertarian movement has it right, and we should strive for a minarchist future (I know you think drug dealers need to be shot, but bear with me), making that happen by the comfortable tie-wearing ways will take at least as long as it took to build the modern welfare state - say, 70 years?
Now, I know that you think it's funny when people call what we have today opressive, and it's naturally not even close to being as evil as Stalin and Hitler and Mao. But, just for the purpose of this argument, imagine yourself in my shoes. I *do* think that it is opressive and evil, and I want to actually live in a society that is at least remotely like what I think is fair before I'm in a wheelchair and drooling on my shirt.
If the cost is endorsing a guy who looks slightly wacked-out to the average man in the street, so be it. I look slightly wacked-out to many people, too.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 26, 2008, 01:53:59 PM
Micro, what you don't get is that 'being radical' doesn't get you to that goal any quicker, it actually takes more time because you wind up alienating people. If you actually want to move the football forward you need to get into the head of the average Joe and get him to agree with you, so what is going to accomplish that?
Post by: Manedwolf on May 26, 2008, 02:10:46 PM
I *do* think that it is opressive and evil, and I want to actually live in a society that is at least remotely like what I think is fair before I'm in a wheelchair and drooling on my shirt.
Micro, what you don't get is that 'being radical' doesn't get you to that goal any quicker, it actually takes more time because you wind up alienating people. If you actually want to move the football forward you need to get into the head of the average Joe and get him to agree with you, so what is going to accomplish that?
Micro, what you don't get is that 'being radical' doesn't get you to that goal any quicker, it actually takes more time because you wind up alienating people. If you actually want to move the football forward you need to get into the head of the average Joe and get him to agree with you, so what is going to accomplish that?
That is the point, yes. A movement needs followers. If you piss people off, they'll become followers of the people opposing you.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 26, 2008, 07:35:45 PM
I *do* think that it is opressive and evil, and I want to actually live in a society that is at least remotely like what I think is fair before I'm in a wheelchair and drooling on my shirt.
Micro, what you don't get is that 'being radical' doesn't get you to that goal any quicker, it actually takes more time because you wind up alienating people. If you actually want to move the football forward you need to get into the head of the average Joe and get him to agree with you, so what is going to accomplish that?
Micro, what you don't get is that 'being radical' doesn't get you to that goal any quicker, it actually takes more time because you wind up alienating people. If you actually want to move the football forward you need to get into the head of the average Joe and get him to agree with you, so what is going to accomplish that?
That's only part of it. You also need to get to the average Joe, first. He must first even be aware that you exist. How many people, who are not political junkies, are aware of the libertarian position on a given issue? How many of those are aware that a decent argument exists for that position (not saying it's necessarily true - I disagree with the libertarian position on immigration, abortion, and a couple of other things), rather than it being completely outlandish?
How do you get past the gatekeepers?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 26, 2008, 07:44:31 PM
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 26, 2008, 09:11:20 PM
1 - Talk to voters about things they're interested in as opposed to what you're interested in, this means things like gas and food prices, healthcare, education, etc, and not pontificating about the unconstitutionality of the govt., the war on drugs, legalizing prostitution, etc. People don't give a crap about the Constitution, they just want something that works and makes their lives better, just convince them that we'd be better off with 'market regulation' rather than 'govt. regulation' and they'll buy.
2 - Pound the pavement! This means they need to put down the Cheetos and build a party the old fashioned way by knocking on doors and making phone calls, and meeting people. You also need to build a social network to support your political activities, this means getting together for shooting, softball games, BBQs, etc.
Unfortunately most libertarians I know would rather spend 18 hours debating nonsense like privatizing roads instead of knocking on a single door. This is where the appeal of their childish antics comes into play, by cursing out Sean Hannity they can think of themselves as "activists" while still avoiding having to meaningfully interact with anyone new.
Building and organizing an effective base for lasting political change is not fun, it's a lot of thankless hard work that will take time, and if you're not prepard to put that in then you're not actually serious about changing things.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 26, 2008, 10:40:44 PM
But the truth is, all of these things are necessary. Like the leftists have the eminent tie-wearing academics, and the party hacks, and the full-time protesty fellows who help them attract attention to Ze Cause. Every one of those has his purpose.
So libertarians [by analogy] need the Cato Institute, and they need the LewRockwell.com guys, AND they need to have their people in the Republican party, running for primaries and voting etc. (because let's face it, the LP is dead at best), AND they need the full-time protesters.
And of course there's a niche reach out thing. A lot of the people who read High Times and the like are potential recruits in the same way people who read, say, The New Gun Week are potential recruits. THere are people who are better set to reach out to one community rather than to the other.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 27, 2008, 03:41:09 AM
They point and laugh.
That is not an effective political strategy. People join up with things they think are cool, not that they point and laugh at.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 27, 2008, 05:18:13 AM
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 27, 2008, 06:30:43 AM
Right now there is the preception among a lot of people that Libertarians are just a bunch of hippies that want pot to be legal so they can smoke it without getting busted, marketing to those exact people might get you a few of those but it'll turn off exponentially more. You say that all those groups are necessary, so where are the pavement pounders? You look at the Democrats and Republicans, they have an actual machine in place to get things done, they know specifically what their goals are and have a plan set how they want to achieve them?
What are the specific political goals of the LP and FSP people? Democrats market themselves to various groups, teachers, unions, pro-choice, etc. and they are able to take people in those groups and get them to work for the party, what is the LP doing to organize various groups on their behalf? I used to be involved with both the LP and the FSP and can say that it's the blind leading the blind, no one wants to even discuss a common end to work towards. The most rational of the FSP people that I've met so far had zero interest in the rampant voter fraud that occured here and resulted in a Democratic governor instead of one who was libertarian leaning, they felt to ask anyone to provide identification before voting was an abridgement of their natural rights, instead that wanted to start a class educating people about jury nullification.
Look at it this way, how long has the FSP been around for, what have they accomplished so far? How long has the LP been around for, since 71, and what have they accomplished?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 27, 2008, 02:15:50 PM
As a kid in school, I was somewhat of an outcast. I was smaller than my classmates but smarter than they and they didn't like being shown up by the "fat little shrimp." As my marginalization began to show some success (at least from their point of view) they did it to other kids for other reasons and soon there were several of us on the ouside looking in.
Then something interesting happened. We "misfits" kinda banded together out of necessity and became a force to be dealt with. In our small school we had some real power though we lacked the experience to really know how to wield it. So we became troublemakers. Nothing real serious because we knew our parents would kill us if we did anything really dumb but we still took every opportunity to pee in the cornflakes of those who had ostracized us.
I think we're now looking at a larger group of people recently labled "moonbats" and "loonies" who have found strength in numbers. Every once in awhile you can expect them to do something really stupid if for no other reason than to let off steam. If they also shake the whithered husk that is our present political system and cause a few seeds to fall onto fertile soil... well, all the better. But even if they don't those who treasure their status quo had better keep a close eye on their cornflakes!
Then something interesting happened. We "misfits" kinda banded together out of necessity and became a force to be dealt with. In our small school we had some real power though we lacked the experience to really know how to wield it. So we became troublemakers. Nothing real serious because we knew our parents would kill us if we did anything really dumb but we still took every opportunity to pee in the cornflakes of those who had ostracized us.
I think we're now looking at a larger group of people recently labled "moonbats" and "loonies" who have found strength in numbers. Every once in awhile you can expect them to do something really stupid if for no other reason than to let off steam. If they also shake the whithered husk that is our present political system and cause a few seeds to fall onto fertile soil... well, all the better. But even if they don't those who treasure their status quo had better keep a close eye on their cornflakes!
Well put. Different people have different ways of protesting. You can be as "civilized" as holding hands and singing hymns in a park, or you can dress up like a band of "savages" and throw some tea in a harbor.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 27, 2008, 07:01:27 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 27, 2008, 07:09:20 PM
The LP has basically accomplished nothing, but the LP is the retarded child of the libertarian movement. I will return later today and post in great detail on the FSP's accomplishments.
Coming from someone who lives in NH, they sure haven't accomplished anything here besides alternately providing annoyance and comic relief to residents.
People snicker when they get shown on the news making a scene and getting themselves arrested, (I've heard "hippies" said in a diner full of locals, even), and get annoyed when they get in-your-face loud and confrontational in public, since that is so not a traditional New Hampshire way to behave at all. And people were actually really upset when their antics brought the US Marshals to question people in the Manchester bar that's their hangout. People at work were talking about that, and someone mentioned the Weathermen. That incident made the front page of the local papers.
I've seen more than a few "FREE STATERS GO HOME" bumper stickers, because the best way to piss off a traditional Northern New Englander is to show up as a newcomer and say you're going to change stuff.
So, then. Coming from someone who is not here, what have they accomplished?
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 27, 2008, 09:33:33 PM
Let us now go towards the FSP. The project's aim, in accordance with its founding principles, is to get people with generally libertarian views to move to the state. It does not do any organizational work within the state at all. That said, the very existance of the Project has acted in an invigorating fashion on those libertarians that reside in New Hampshire already, allowing the creation of various activist groups in the state, and getting libertarians to join, and volunteer for, NHLA, GONH [which is naturally not a 'libertarian' group, but obviously the vision of furthering gun rights is common to us all on this forum]. Several FSP members have won various offices, including a guy called Joel Winters in the state legislature. That's some pavement-pounding right there.
Than there's Liberty Scholarship.
At the current time, libertarians (small 'l' or big L) are not likely to win any major elections anywhere, but they are able to some extent to affect the platform of the two major parties, their primaries, and so forth.
What the entire Ron Paul thing has done to what degree it is difficult to judge is to get many Libertarians to join the various GOP state organizations, to become precinct committee members and so forth. It's not much, but I'm not expecting much, as of now. If it works out and it might not work out, especially if McCain wins we're going to see the libertarian wing of the GOP get larger.
As for the accomplishments of libertarians in general, I remind you gently that it is the Cato Institute that started Heller v. DC.
P.S. Ron Paul's loss is of course not only the libertarians' loss, it is the Republicans' loss. Had he been elected, he'd give the Republicans many Republican stuff (lower taxes, for instance), in exchange for one major issue of ending the War in Iraq (few people genuinely care about the monetary policy of the United States, or are equipped intellectually to argue for, or against, Keynesian monetary policy, or monetarism, or free banking, or the gold standard. Nor is central banking going away any time in the next, say, two decades. No matter who is President.) They decided the War was the one key issue, because the impending threat of 'Radical Islam' was the most terribly important thing. Essentially, it was the revival of W. F. Buckley's idea that huge government is awesome, if it just lets you beat the Soviets.
P.P.S. You do realize the people selling the Free Staters Go home stickers are raving 'progressive' socialists?
Get your Free Staters Go Home! stickers here!
Post by: Manedwolf on May 28, 2008, 04:17:03 AM
Let us now go towards the FSP. The project's aim, in accordance with its founding principles, is to get people with generally libertarian views to move to the state. It does not do any organizational work within the state at all. That said, the very existance of the Project has acted in an invigorating fashion on those libertarians that reside in New Hampshire already, allowing the creation of various activist groups in the state, and getting libertarians to join, and volunteer for, NHLA, GONH [which is naturally not a 'libertarian' group, but obviously the vision of furthering gun rights is common to us all on this forum]. Several FSP members have won various offices, including a guy called Joel Winters in the state legislature. That's some pavement-pounding right there.
That's funny. The most I've seen them do is repeatedly get arrested, call the Manchester PD "Nazis", and then march around the jail wearing "V for Vendetta" costumes.
Quote
P.P.S. You do realize the people selling the Free Staters Go home stickers are raving 'progressive' socialists?
They are? Huh. Well, for one thing, that's not the sticker I saw. They were sans-serif font white on black. Considering in one case the other sticker on the TRUCK was a Bush/Cheney 04 sticker, and in two other cases, on a truck and a car, there were also NRA stickers and one Marine Corps sticker, and on an older jeep, an NRA and SASS sticker. Yeah, that really looks like raving progressive socialists.
I love how you, half a world away, can definitively say what the mentality is of people in cars I pass on the road every day.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 28, 2008, 06:21:36 AM
Regarding Joel, I've met him on several occasions, so I know a little about him being elected, before I get to that you should know that the NH House a few hundred representatives. Anyway, a lot of times the Democrats and Republicans actually can't get people from every district to run for all the available seats, so if anyone from that district who is a member of the party says "I want to run" they'll put them on the ballot. With many elections a voter won't know all the specific people running for a particular office so they have a "straight ticket" option, you check that and everyone in that party will get your vote, so it's entirely possible to win a seat and never have to get off the couch.
Joel decided to run as a Democrat in a heavily Democratic city and managed to win, good for him, but I'm not exactly going to break out the champagne over it. One thing you seem to forget is that I live in NH and I was involved with the FSP for about 2-3yrs after NH was chosen, and I know many of the people involved in it. There's a reason why I'm not involved anymore.
Post by: roo_ster on May 28, 2008, 07:56:00 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 28, 2008, 08:21:54 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 28, 2008, 01:08:03 PM
You know, I'm going to cede the argument. You dismiss any achievements that I refer to, overstate side points of my argument as important, and deliberately avoid the crux of my argument.
Some people thrive for winning arguments online. Today at least, you are not one of those people. Salute.
I sense that you are perhaps frustrated at your loss. Here is an article that I hope will provide you with some comic relief:
http://www.jonathancrossfield.com/blog/2008/05/how-to-win-arguments-online-a.html
Quote from: Robert Frost
There is no arguing with him, for if his pistol misses fire, he knocks you down with the butt end of it.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 28, 2008, 02:09:35 PM
Quote
P.S. Ron Paul's loss is of course not only the libertarians' loss, it is the Republicans' loss. Had he been elected, he'd give the Republicans many Republican stuff (lower taxes, for instance), in exchange for one major issue of ending the War in Iraq (few people genuinely care about the monetary policy of the United States, or are equipped intellectually to argue for, or against, Keynesian monetary policy, or monetarism, or free banking, or the gold standard. Nor is central banking going away any time in the next, say, two decades. No matter who is President.) They decided the War was the one key issue, because the impending threat of 'Radical Islam' was the most terribly important thing. Essentially, it was the revival of W. F. Buckley's idea that huge government is awesome, if it just lets you beat the Soviets.
I think Ron Paul is the one who ruined his chances by not compromising his message a bit to stick with the primary issues he could accomplish. The smaller govt/lower taxes message is a good one as well as cutting useless govt programs. I think he should have shut up about the gold standard and the Fed and left that for another day. Proposing changes like that are going to scare or concern more people than not. Sort of like saying you are going to completely end Social Security.
Post by: oldfart on May 28, 2008, 08:40:20 PM
You may be right. If so, it's a sad commentary on American politics that a candidate must water his message down to please an electorate that has learned to expect compromise rather than principle. Ron Paul seems to believe in all the right things. He was never able to make a populace addicted to the government teat realize it had to be weaned before America could prosper again.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 28, 2008, 09:02:45 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 28, 2008, 11:12:44 PM
if he can't handle that to get elected he woulda been a nonstarter once in office as far as getting anything done in dc
Would you like to separate, purely mental-exercise thread, as to what Ron Paul would be able to achieve, if elected? [Given he lost] I believe I could argue that one. But I think it would be a poinltess argument.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 29, 2008, 05:19:41 AM
IMO, it underscored the fact that he was not an effective campaigner and he would not likely be a good leader. I like the idea of guys like him in Congress or in a President's cabinet, but not as the POTUS.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 29, 2008, 05:24:45 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 29, 2008, 05:32:11 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 29, 2008, 08:14:38 AM
Ayn Rand had some pretty outlandish views. Yet how many people arrived to conservatism, or libertarianism, through Rand?
She called it "objectivism" and it had many valuable and rational ideas at the core. Anyone unwilling to think with the crowd should expect to be labeled, ridiculed, lambasted, lampooned and disparaged. Doesn't mean their ideas have no value.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 29, 2008, 08:43:23 AM
Ayn Rand had some pretty outlandish views. Yet how many people arrived to conservatism, or libertarianism, through Rand?
She called it "objectivism" and it had many valuable and rational ideas at the core. Anyone unwilling to think with the crowd should expect to be labeled, ridiculed, lambasted, lampooned and disparaged. Doesn't mean their ideas have no value.
Yes. Objectivism has great value. But inquire about the personal life and habits of Ayn Rand, and you'll discover some pretty strange stuff - quite on par with the wookie suits.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 29, 2008, 08:49:52 AM
Ayn Rand had some pretty outlandish views. Yet how many people arrived to conservatism, or libertarianism, through Rand?
She called it "objectivism" and it had many valuable and rational ideas at the core. Anyone unwilling to think with the crowd should expect to be labeled, ridiculed, lambasted, lampooned and disparaged. Doesn't mean their ideas have no value.
Yes. Objectivism has great value. But inquire about the personal life and habits of Ayn Rand, and you'll discover some pretty strange stuff - quite on par with the wookie suits.
I'm well aware of the strange stuff. She was a cult of personality. I can separate her weirdo trysts and odd marriage and cult like followers from her philosophy. Hell, I hope people will do the same for me. What I believe in and what I actually do day to day don't make much sense sometimes either.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 29, 2008, 01:03:42 PM
Anyone unwilling to think with the crowd should expect to be labeled, ridiculed, lambasted, lampooned and disparaged. Doesn't mean their ideas have no value.
Heck, you can go along with the crowd and still get all of that. Just log on to APS.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 29, 2008, 10:51:36 PM
Quote from: 40 caliber
I'm well aware of the strange stuff. She was a cult of personality. I can separate her weirdo trysts and odd marriage and cult like followers from her philosophy. Hell, I hope people will do the same for me. What I believe in and what I actually do day to day don't make much sense sometimes either.
Which is EXACTLY my point.
You can't expect a normal, tie-wearing, no-noise-making, nine-to-five person to make a revolution.
Post by: seeker_two on May 30, 2008, 01:19:08 AM
Anyone unwilling to think with the crowd should expect to be labeled, ridiculed, lambasted, lampooned and disparaged. Doesn't mean their ideas have no value.
Heck, you can go along with the crowd and still get all of that. Just log on to APS.
Nope....that's just you....
Post by: Sylvan-Forge on June 04, 2008, 12:42:32 PM
Mises on Money
by Gary North
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north83.html
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 04, 2008, 08:13:14 PM
Post by: Sylvan-Forge on June 05, 2008, 06:00:26 AM
The President of Ludwig von Mises Institute is in fact Mr. Rockwell.
http://mises.org/about.aspx
Re summaries ..
To summarize even further:
Quote
The State's coercive interference in either money or banking, including its licensing of a monopolistic central bank, reduces all men's freedom and most men's wealth.
http://mises.org/
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 05, 2008, 06:02:40 AM
Post by: RoadKingLarry on June 05, 2008, 11:17:03 AM
Holy crap! That guy has a Ron Paul sign! That MUST mean that Ron Paul agrees with that guy on EVERYTHING!!!!
Nope but it sure goes a long wat to point out what kind of whack job is attracted to
Post by: MrRezister on June 05, 2008, 01:24:16 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 05, 2008, 01:40:43 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 05, 2008, 10:22:32 PM
Nope but it sure goes a long way to point out what kind of whack job is attracted to George Bush.
Fixed it for ya.
Post by: Scout26 on June 06, 2008, 08:09:53 AM
Nope but it sure goes a long way to point out what kind of whack job is attracted to George Bush.
Fixed it for ya.
Why do keep posting that picture of Fistful ?? (And do you actually expect proper spelling from a Cardinals fan ??"
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 07, 2008, 02:06:05 PM