A Critique of "End The Fed"

[YumYum]

My friend just finished reading “End The Fed”, and he sent me the following email contesting some of Ron Paul’s observations. I haven’t responded back to him yet, but I wanted to first share with all of you his thought provoking rebuttals.

: “Hi Isaac,

I just got done reading “End the FED”. Below is a list of problems I see with it. I think after reading this book as well as Allen Greenspan’s book that I would classify myself as a Keynesian, as opposed to following the Austrian or Chicago economic schools of thought.

Some of my comments may seem emotionally charged, but only because I wrote them as I was going through the book and that was my reaction at that time.
According to End the FED:

1. By removing the Federal Reserve the government would no longer have an elastic monetary system. This means it could no longer maintain its “welfare programs” that have made the Americans lazy (I think that was the word he used, if not close to it)??? WTF? So we would not have to have programs like food stamps, social security, and financial aid removed by a radical right wing government, they would just fail due to lack of funds. Not to mention, no Health Care. I could imagine the top 5% richest people in the US love this idea.

2. Banks, having to stand on their own would not make any risky loans. So I, along with most poor and lower middle class people would not be able to purchase a home. Because of a lack of buyers the housing market it would collapse even worse that it has already. Houses, lacking any buyers would be snatched up cheaply by the wealthy, who would in turn rent to us at a higher price per month then a house payment would be (as is true in most rental markets). Talk about “On the Road to Serfdom” (which is probably another book I will read).

3. If a bank fails, any money you have deposited there would be lost, making saving accounts as risky a proposition as trading stocks or commodities. That might be good for bed manufacturers; they could sell more mattresses as places to keep your money.

4. If we didn’t use a fiat money system, what would we move to? Gold? Silver? Again, there’s not that much out there… so the gold and silver would stay concentrated in the hands of those who already have it, the rich. We have discussed before that maybe currency could be based on some other backer like energy, but Ron Paul argues that gold is “…the most important guarantor of money” because “…gold has all the qualities that we associate with good money.” So wouldn’t that be faith just like a fiat money system like we have now. Our current system is backed by the solvency of the US government (like owning stock in a company) instead of the old system of being backed by an industrial metal (like a commodity). If gold were to lose its value (like China starts to mine massive amounts of Gold out of Africa or we bring back a solid gold asteroid from the asteroid belt) we would be in the same pickle.

5. If we just got rid of the FED and let smaller banks take over coinage and banking, that would be the equivalent of getting rid of an organized mob and giving all the guns from the mob to street gangs. If we think banking is corrupt now, just wait until you need to ask for a loan from the bank of John Gotti and Sons, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. As he used as an example a few times, think of “It’s a Wonderful Life”, I couldn’t agree more. You can’t buy a home unless you’re wealthy or a Good Samaritan helps you out.

6. I am paraphrasing here so please excuse me “The ideology of socialism and welfare are easier to sell because the majority gets something for free”… wait… for FREE?! Is he F’n kidding me? Taxes are PAID for systems like this to work. Just like how we have roads and bridges or the Mail, though not guaranteed in the constitution, still working together as a group for the greater good of all. Only a wealthy person who felt all the money belonged to them and did not need, nor could sympathize with someone who needed these programs could even make such a comment. “But when the people realize that these are only a temporary situation, they will become more open to the suggestion that freedom offers more once the bankruptcy of stateism is acknowledged.” Only a temporary situation?? Only if it is actively derailed. And yes we are running up a huge deficit now only because of bad governance on the part of the Right and the NeoCons who deregulated the banking industry (which, yes, Bill Clinton signed, but it was a Republican bill from congress). If we rebalance the budget, cut a lot of the crap that W put into place, reinstate strict banking regulation like the Glass–Steagall Act (see wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act ) and reinstate Paygo (see wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO ) our system would be sustainable again. Think Bill Clinton Years.

7. He argues that an elastic monetary system that can be corrupted to allow for unsustainable wars causes those wars by giving the politicians that option. That’s like faulting a hammer used in a murder instead of the murderer just because it gave the murderer that option. The argument doesn’t work.

8. He faults the monetary system for building “killer weapons of mass destruction.” Again, just because it makes the funds available does not make it the responsibility of the monetary system. It is the responsibility of those who wield the economic tools at their disposal who are to blame, namely the politicians.

9. He also blames the monetary system for “…the construction of a huge welfare state that covers all classes in society.” Oh wait, how is this bad? Again this is what I am championing, government working for the people of all classes in society, not just the wealthy.

10. Ron Paul refers to the “myth” that “…you can rob some people and give to other people and somehow magically create prosperity.” This is most certainly necessary, especially today. We have the greatest gap between rich and poor now, not seen since the Great Depression. The money gained by the most wealthy has not been because of some great increase in their work, but because of huge HANDOUTS from the government in the way of tax breaks, loopholes, no-bid contracts, and cost+ contracts. The fact is the wealthy are on welfare and the poor are the picking up the tab, that needs to be reversed so we can create some degree of prosperity for all Americans not just the Rich.

11. “With a collapse of the dream of easy wealth, the poor, deceived into believing the politicians could deliver the moon are now unemployed and without a home.” Shame on the poor for being dooped into loans they were told they could afford but couldn’t. Again this is because of deceptive lending practices that are legitimately criminal, and deregulation that allowed these con operations to thrive. And that wasn’t even the cause of the collapse, it was the big banks bundling these risky debts, trading them and betting they would fail; something Glass–Steagall Act prevented. The whole tone towards the poor in this book is that they are lazy and looking for a free ride. If the poor would just work hard and get off their ass then everyone would be wealthy just like me, Ron Paul. This view is so divorced from reality it explains a lot. Ending the FED would be a great boon for the wealthy. If we could just get rid of all the social programs in society then the wealthy wouldn’t have to give up such a large percentage of what they earn for the betterment of everyone. Sh*t, next get rid of the IRS and we can just pay taxes to the nearest Lord or Lady.

12. “Although there’s no admission by treasury I’ve always been convinced that the exchange stabilization fund is involved in stock, commodity and currency transactions by manipulating prices.” And next is the proof…… no. No proof, just a one liner that can’t be backed up. There’s quite a few of these in the book. These are just jabs that are not backed up by proof, or at least some reference to where we can find out more. It makes the whole manuscript very “conspiracy theory” like. Even if their true, he needs to back up his assertions.

13. As proof of the evils of a central bank, Ron Paul states that “Carl Marx’s fifth plank of the communist manifesto is clear, centralization of the credit in the banks of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” So by this comparison he is saying we are becoming a communist state. He doesn’t mention that the tenth plank of the communist manifesto is “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form.” (Carl Marx) This must also mean we are a communist state. I guess next we should repeal the child labor laws as an alternative to education. He did state earlier in his book how he had worked at like 10 cents an hour when he was a young child, and how he had learned more there then in most classrooms. Perhaps this will be his next goal if the "End The FED" campaign is successful?

14. He keeps stating towards the end of the book that the biggest argument against the fed is that the creation of additional funds by inflating the currency is immoral… the definition of moral is “concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.” Since this action is legal and within the rules, it by definition is moral. He even admits that on the house floor the weakest argument that can be made is a moral argument, and exactly because you are arguing that the issue is against a set of rules, but the question is who’s rules. Since the currency is based on the liquidity of the of the US government, this works just like it does with traded stock. Businesses do this all the time, they will create additional shares of stock which they introduce into the
market and thus devalue the individual stock price. The then use the new funds created or you could look at it as borrowed from the individual holders of the stock for some new venture. The hope is that this newly created liquidity will be used in a way that will be beneficial for the shareholders as a whole. The board of directors acts as the regulator to make sure the company is not embarking on a fools errand. In time when the venture is successful the company will then the buy stock back and the shares of stock will be even more highly valued. The problem is the last eight years has seen a lot of non-value added activity. The bush years constitute a wholesale theft from the United States as a company. The difference between Bush spending money and Obama spending money is that Obama is adding value to the company and using that money to save money we are already spending. This is like a company spending the money to replace inefficient equipment. There is a first an initial investment, but the total savings over time more than makes up for the initial cost. It just came out not too long back that the medical industry wastes 300 billion a year due to inefficiencies. No wonder the Obama administration is working first on such an inefficient piece of equipment.

15. “If the problem was seen as a moral problem and the people demand morality in money from their representatives in government, the process would end. But the people endorse the system because they have requested and expect government to provide benefits that can’t be provided in any other way.” He hit the nail on the head right there! He got it, he’s on the wrong side but he got it. The benefits that he condemns as welfare programs are not possible unless we work together to ensure are prosperity as a group. People would be against our current policies if they rigidly adhered to a doctrine which the feds policies violated.

16. “Even the Bible is clear…” WOW! Really?! I want to base my banking system on desert nomads fables? I think this could have been left out. "EVEN Jesus endorsed the Austrian theory of economics…" Oh this is getting better the closer to the end I get.

17. Ron Paul argues that all religions are basically on the side of gold based “sound”money… ok, there’s a direct argument against his proposal: “In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.” Thomas Jefferson

18. Wow! Now he is using the talking points from Faux (pronounced: Fox) News; referring to Czars (a term put into practice by the media because the prohibitively long names of key White House staff positions, and it sounds very Russian), hinting at Obama being a dictator (even though we have never been closer to a dictator as under the Chaney-Bush administration), and referring to mandatory service for all young Americans (based on really poorly edited youtube footage that, if watched in full, has nothing to do with mandatory service). He’s even using a slippery slope argument, that because we are trying to nationalize some programs that we will eventually end up with Hitler. He’s at this point in the book trying to pick up some support from the Right wing-nuts, Glenn Beck-Rush Limbaugh following, tin foil hat wearing idiots that might go for his ideas outside of the standard libertarians.

19. The Constitution Argument – Article 1 Section 10: No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin, a tender in payment of debts. “So there you have it, plain and simple. Paper money is unconstitutional period. ” ~Ron Paul. Not so… he even said leading up to this point that it was the states that had made a mess of printing their own money. This article was meant to keep STATES from not minting their own money!! Not the Federal Government. Benjamin Franklin had been trying to get the federal government to mint paper currency even before the Constitution was written. Ron Paul’s watertight case is turning out to be more of a sieve.

20. Holy F***!! He’s for these f***ing astroturfed (fake grass root) Tea Parties, that are funded by literally the richest most greedy people in America. Where they have paid PR groups running around making up sh*t like death panels. I am truly at a loss of words. What creditability does Ron Paul have left? Is he next going to tell us he supports the save the Loc Ness/Big Foot campaign?!

21. There are a lot more points made in the book which we can discuss at length later, but most boil down to:

a. All problems, no matter their actual origin are the fault of monetary policy

b. Only the truly rich should have any degree of security or quality of living

c. Capitalism should have no regulation whatsoever, the market will regulate itself (i.e. all money should flow up to those who are crafty to take it from the poor and who have it already. Anyone who already has the misfortune to not be rich is shit outa luck). He stated that even things like FDIC insurance are a bad thing. Any regulation is bad.

22. He does make some points, and like I said before I am not for the FED, I am sure they are evil. But Ron Paul’s arguments are increasingly, as you get toward the end of the book, illogical. It almost feels as if I am listening to the explanation of faith from a character from a Mitch Albom novel (Yes, I have read a few) or the Chewbacca defense from south park. I look forward to reading the other book you are sending me!! I am sure it is more coherent then this book.

The FED is probably, as stated in the book, nothing more than a puppet of the banking cartels. These people have no one but their own interests in mind and the hell with the little guy. The problem is the current system allows the little guy to live out their lives in some degree of comfort with the hope that they might be able to own their own home, have a decent standard of living, and retire someday. I agree that the system we have now is F’d up beyond repair, but just getting rid of the FED… in favor of what?

It’s like finding out an airline uses its money to try and take over the world, kill puppies, senior citizens AND you overpaid for your ticket. You don’t just jump out the plane mid-flight without a parachute.

If you are talking about auditing and reforming the current system, I am for that kind of. The problem with that is that most politicians now are corrupt, so we would probably get a more corrupt system then we do currently. If we end the FED we will end up with a system more corrupt then what we have now again because of corrupt politicians.

My solution: Colonize Mars and truly start over.:) Ya, you knew that was coming.

I am sure we will have a lively conversation on this subject real soon. There is a ton of other stuff I would liked to have addressed, but I left it out because of time.

Regards,
Irving"

[Bruno]

He spent way more time on his rubuttal than I will rebutting him, and I'm sure others here could do it much more eloquently and with more knowledge of the subject than I ever could.

As I glanced through, I wonder if he really did read the book. If he did, he entirely missed explanations already made by Ron Paul, and he gets things wrong like saying that the media made up the word Czar when it was Biden that used it to refer to the first Drug Czar during the Reagan administration. Then he asks about getting rid of the Fed, and asks "in favor of what?" The answers are there - the free market and sound money. He does not seem to have read the book, or did not comprehend the subject matter.

[silverhandorder]

1. By removing the Federal Reserve the government would no longer have an elastic monetary system. This means it could no longer maintain its “welfare programs” that have made the Americans lazy (I think that was the word he used, if not close to it)??? WTF? So we would not have to have programs like food stamps, social security, and financial aid removed by a radical right wing government, they would just fail due to lack of funds. Not to mention, no Health Care. I could imagine the top 5% richest people in the US love this idea.

I hate when people go for defense of welfare programs. Poor in America live better off than middle class Europeans. What does this tell you?

All that welfare programs do is punish people who want to break out of poverty. You lose benefits as you start earning more money between 20-60k range. So bassically if some one wants to better themselves they first have to do worse for a number of years. To me that sounds retarded. I bet your friend's response will be oh then they should keep giving benefits to people in 20-60k range. Obviously we would go bankrupt immediately if we would ever do that.

Basically I warn you that you are in for a bumpy ride with this one.

[JamesButabi]

I honestly don't think he read the book; It answers most of his questions throughout. I can rebut all of those points if you really want opinions, but the fact that he gave you those responses means he didn't grasp majority of the concepts whatsoever.

[awake]

Average response I would say. 'Live with it... right up untill you can't live with it'.

[coyote_sprit]

Your name is Isaac?

[emazur]

I just got done reading “End the FED”. Below is a list of problems I see with it. I think after reading this book as well as Allen Greenspan’s book that I would classify myself as a Keynesian

Well then I guess Greenspan won himself a convert:
"Greenspan is a Keynesian, and a thoroughgoing one"
-Xu Xaonian, economics professor at China Europe International Business School in Shanghai
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/chinese-give-pm-kevin-rudd-lesson-on-neoliberalism/story-0-1225737425807

[QueenB4Liberty]

I'm sorry, your friend is a complete idiot who clearly has never read the book. People like him infuriate me.

[Danke]

...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

There's no point in reading anything if you have your mind made up beforehand. Ipso Facto he wasted his time, and mine by me reading this. Personally, I would classify him as a thief, but that's me. I also consider that an a priori statement. To me it's self-evident he's a thief.

If the guy had any integrity I would tell him to read The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard, but I know the answer all ready. While we are at it, hand him the Ethics of Liberty.

[ctiger2]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RwdH5DTKRas/SfOgvDo9coI/AAAAAAAABlk/DhyYOzSQAgw/s400/end+the+fed+poster.jpg

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rwdh5dtkras/sfogvdo9coi/aaaaaaaablk/dhyyozsqagw/s400/end+the+fed+poster.jpg

end theft!

[youngbuck]

I only read the first two "rebuttals" and I couldn't continue. He's obviously a collectivist to the core. Until he excepts that collectivism is incompatible with individual liberty, and until he excepts that our economic system must not infringe on individual liberties, his rebuttals are fundamentally flawed.

...

Oops, I just made the mistake of reading a few of his other comments in the middle. Ouch. That's not a critique. It's some of the stupidest crap I've had the displeasure of reading in a long time. I wouldn't waste my time.

[lester1/2jr]

So we would not have to have programs like food stamps, social security, and financial aid removed by a radical right wing government, they would just fail due to lack of funds. Not to mention, no Health Care. I could imagine the top 5% richest people in the US love this idea.


not true. well first of all we don't have health care YET. but all ending the fed would do would mean we would have to pay for these things without borrowing to payfor them.

If americans had to choose between wars and food stamps, my guess is more of them would choose food stamps. and if the government didn't pay for it people could. they'd have alot of money left over because they're currency would be worth more and the state wouldn't be perpetually growing and requiring more of their hard earned money.


" So I, along with most poor and lower middle class people would not be able to purchase a home. "

lol yeah that's what they want to do with their time, run thousands of apartment complexes

if the price of homes are allowed to drop instead of remaining artificially high more poor people will be able to afford them.

people had HOUSES before the federal reseve was created for gods sake

"If a bank fails, any money you have deposited there would be lost, making saving accounts as risky a proposition as trading stocks or commodities"

insurance would be private.

4. see tom woods explanation of the gold standard in "meltdown" and elsewhere


5"If we think banking is corrupt now, just wait until you need to ask for a loan from the bank of John Gotti and Sons, or a reasonable facsimile thereof."

you couls shop around and find a much better rate. that's the point

6. he's answering his own question. welfare and so forth aren't really for free, we pay for them, but people favor them because of the perception that they are giving something to the little guy. they are giving him a little but giving thr state alot.

"Think Bill Clinton Years."

well, think 1980-2000. yes during this time the government followed the lewrockwell motto of "anti war anti state pro market" in it's own weird way:

we didn't engage in and long drawn out military conflicts: unfortunately, we threw our weight around in the middle east so much that it came back to haunt us on 9/11. so we pushed that off a few years but playing the worlds police can't and didn't last

we didn't create any massive new government beurocracies

the state didn't mangle the economy with regulations or weird anti growth policies: but the whle alan greenspan style came into effectr in this era and it was in 08 that THAT came back to haunt us.

so we had relatively good times in the 80-2000 era but alot of it was a mirage and the seeds of our current problems can be traced to then.

I'll do more later gotta get ready for UFC 105!

[torchbearer]

He actually sounds like a Marxist. His world view is rich versus poor.
He believes the poor has a right to the wealth of the rich because they need it.
He must think the fed protects the poor. That is his error in judgement.
The fed protects the rich. It uses inflation to transfer wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich.

Ask him why he hates poor people so much.

[lester1/2jr]

and I think people should show better manners and address the questions without the ad hominems to help the movement gain support :)

[paulitics]

7. He argues that an elastic monetary system that can be corrupted to allow for unsustainable wars causes those wars by giving the politicians that option. That’s like faulting a hammer used in a murder instead of the murderer just because it gave the murderer that option. The argument doesn’t work.

"

Hmmm. He couldn't bring himself to use gun in his analogy. I wonder why.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

and I think people should show better manners and address the questions without the ad hominems to help the movement gain support :)

Pick and choose your battles. The guy is intellectually dishonest.

[torchbearer]

and I think people should show better manners and address the questions without the ad hominems to help the movement gain support :)

I highly suggest Post15 approach. It uses his world view to get him to see what is happening with the fed.
In sociology we call it "Conflict Theory". Old school progressive were masters at using these theories to rally the poor behind them so that they could then turn around and lord over them.

[Epic]

2. Banks, having to stand on their own would not make any risky loans. So I, along with most poor and lower middle class people would not be able to purchase a home. Because of a lack of buyers the housing market it would collapse even worse that it has already. Houses, lacking any buyers would be snatched up cheaply by the wealthy, who would in turn rent to us at a higher price per month then a house payment would be (as is true in most rental markets). Talk about “On the Road to Serfdom” (which is probably another book I will read).

This person has severe economic ignorance. He thinks housing prices should be propped up - so rich people don't form a cartel????

There is no "correct" price for houses - it's whatever price is settled on via voluntary exchange.

Tell him to watch FEE's intro to Austrian economics lecture series.

Or the MisesMedia youtube channel has intro lectures. There should be one by Murphy.

[cooker263]

This guy goes beyond the book to try to bring in the basic liberal talking points. You can tell just by his writing style and sudden outbursts that he had preconceived thoughts or issues with points that Ron Paul brings up and he draws conclusions on the surface of these ideas. This is, unfortunately, the same kind of critique you get from those on the right based on RP's issues. "if you end the Fed then poor people won't get loans," etc. He fails to dig deeper and even consider the point of view from Ron Paul's perspective. He fails to understand that the poor and middle class are becoming increasingly dependent on a system that doesn't represent their best interests.

In reality, his perspective is based on potential immediate consequences of changing the system. He doesn't take into account the long term benefits of making the necessary changes. For example - free education for everyone - what have we seen from subsidies/student loans/dept of education? We've made debt slaves out of our kids by forcing them into massive debt with a watered down education that isn't worth the paper it's printed on (now you need a master's or phd just to get a decent job). The educational establishment is ripping off the kids and the main reason is subsidized education. The Fed bought up all the student loans through this crisis.

Same with programs that encourage housing by cheap interest rates through the Fed. We all know the consequences and issues with the Fed and housing so I won't bother going into detail.

Wars - this is a big issue - he makes the argument of saying that it's not the Fed's fault and that they're just the fuel. While it's true that it's not the Fed that starts wars, they provide the ammo at will. It's stupid that he makes his argument that it's not a problem with the Fed - if he likes seeing his money wasted away along with thousands of lives of our troops and innocent civilians - which just incites more hatred for us abroad - he's incredibly ignorant. Stop the money machine to stop the war machine. He's apparently complacent with Obama at war - as well as Clinton's mischief in the middle east. This just shows you the hypocrisy of the left.

He also doesn't understand that the welfare state is not beneficial to society - but this is an argument that you probably can't win with him because he won't allow you to. He likes the Fed because it allows us to provide for the poor. However, he fails to recognize that it decreases the value of their money which wipes out their savings. Since the poor's biggest problem is savings, the Fed is their biggest enemy. As the value of the dollar goes down and they become more and more dependent on the government for their problems, the very programs that they think help them make them worse off. Also, the middle class is the one that really pays for this. This is the real growth in the split between the rich and the poor. It's all the money machine.

For all that he wrote, there's not much substance behind it. The bottom line is he had the truth in his face but he's been blinded by his own ideology and that's something that you can't really change until a real crisis hits them in the face. Don't worry about trying to win him over, but just make sure that he knows you stand on firm ground and eventually truth wins out. Whether it's in a few years, 10 years, or more, the cracks in the system will become more evident. Unfortunately, while we'll see the truth, many others (like this guy) may see it the way they want to see it: "failure of capitalism" "too many guys running around with bags of money" etc.

[AuH20]

Does this guy understand that if the Fed did not prop up the housing market, housing throughout the country would be significantly cheaper?

[NYgs23]

I think it would take you ten years to detox this guy. He's a hardcore Establishment-worshipping left-statism. For starters, he thinks that "the rich" (whoever that is) is the bogey under his bed, rather than that institution that controls a million guys with guns.

[revolutionisnow]

YouTube - Everyone Is Now Dumber - Billy Madison (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY)

[YumYum]

Bruno said: “As I glanced through, I wonder if he really did read the book.”

JamesButabi said: “I honestly don't think he read the book;”

QueenB4Liberty said: “I'm sorry, your friend is a complete idiot who clearly has

never read the book.”


I can assure all of you that he has read the book.

[JamesButabi]

I can assure all of you that he has read the book.

Well he certainly neglected to retain significant portions of information in it. He is so intellectually dishonest, I think torch is right when suggesting the only way to confront him is to use a method such as post 15 suggests.

[Bruno]

Bruno said: “As I glanced through, I wonder if he really did read the book.”

JamesButabi said: “I honestly don't think he read the book;”

QueenB4Liberty said: “I'm sorry, your friend is a complete idiot who clearly has

never read the book.”


I can assure all of you that he has read the book.

24 responses to your original post and that is all that you respond in return?

Then he needs to read the book again. Every point he brings up is already covered within its pages.

If he needs additional reading, he can turn to The Creature from Jekyll Island, The Case Against the Fed, What has Government Done to our Money?, The Road to Serfdom, or Economics in One Lesson.

[CUnknown]

I believe that he read the book. However, he did not understand it at all. This may not be his fault. The media and the powers that be are secretive about out monetary system purposefully to keep well-meaning people like him from understanding some basic truths about our society.

Have him watch "Money as Debt" and then have him reread the book. Money as Debt is good for liberals because it has a liberal bias, in a way. It really doesn't matter which way you lean, to me, so long as you understand what you're talking about, lol. It is useless to debate this guy because he has zero understanding of the basic issues here.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

1. By removing the Federal Reserve the government would no longer have an elastic monetary system.

Exactly


Banks, having to stand on their own would not make any risky loans. So I, along with most poor and lower middle class people would not be able to purchase a home.

Why do you inherently need to own a house? I dont own a jet ski either. The "American Dream" used to be that you could make your own future and do whatever you wanted and be what you wanted, no matter your background. Then somewhere along the line, you and everyone else were suckered into thinking the American Dream was home ownership.


Because of a lack of buyers the housing market it would collapse even worse that it has already.

So what? Why do we need the housing market at its current levels? Why is the housing market collapse any more relevant than the collapse of tech stocks? Or the collapse in Tickle-me-Elmo sales from their boom highs?


Houses, lacking any buyers would be snatched up cheaply by the wealthy, who would in turn rent to us at a higher price per month then a house payment would be (as is true in most rental markets). Talk about “On the Road to Serfdom” (which is probably another book I will read).

Your speculation. Nobody is buying up the cheap houses now. Why would they in this speculative future?


If we didn’t use a fiat money system, what would we move to? Gold?

Yes. It does a good job of serving its intended function. It also has the benefit of historical validity. The world only recently moved off the gold standard. This is important because in the event of a serious effort to return to a commodity based currency, it would be a tough sell getting the entire world on board with some new commodity. They know gold. They had gold before. It would be an easy task to convince the world to return to it.



Again, there’s not that much out there… so the gold and silver would stay concentrated in the hands of those who already have it, the rich.

You seem to think the wealthy horde currency in Scrooge McDuck style vaults of gold coins.


We have discussed before that maybe currency could be based on some other backer like energy,

This statement is so nonsensical, I dont know how to respond. . .


]but Ron Paul argues that gold is “…the most important guarantor of money” because “…gold has all the qualities that we associate with good money.” So wouldn’t that be faith just like a fiat money system like we have now. Our current system is backed by the solvency of the US government (like owning stock in a company) instead of the old system of being backed by an industrial metal (like a commodity).

Its entirely possible to have a fiat money system that functions exactly like a commodity system. But the entire point of a fiat money system is so that you can manipulate the amount of money in the system and direct monetary policy.


we bring back a solid gold asteroid from the asteroid belt) we would be in the same pickle.

Ticking time bomb argument all over again. A nonsense hypothetical scenario. "If theres a nuke in NYC, and you have the terrorist, and the bomb is about to go off, and he has the code, do you still say we dont torture?"

Though the ticking time bomb is entirely more plausible than golden meteors raining down from the sky.


5. If we just got rid of the FED and let smaller banks take over coinage and banking, that would be the equivalent of getting rid of an organized mob and giving all the guns from the mob to street gangs. If we think banking is corrupt now, just wait until you need to ask for a loan from the bank of John Gotti and Sons, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. As he used as an example a few times, think of “It’s a Wonderful Life”, I couldn’t agree more. You can’t buy a home unless you’re wealthy or a Good Samaritan helps you out.

In what way are local banks "street gangs"? I already get my loans from my local bank. With the Fed gone, my bank is going to turn evil overnight?


I am paraphrasing here so please excuse me “The ideology of socialism and welfare are easier to sell because the majority gets something for free”… wait… for FREE?! Is he F’n kidding me? Taxes are PAID for systems like this to work.

Yes. For free. The taxes the lower class workers pay is far outweighed by their benefit gained.


And yes we are running up a huge deficit now only because of bad governance on the part of the Right and the NeoCons who deregulated the banking industry (which, yes, Bill Clinton signed, but it was a Republican bill from congress). If we rebalance the budget, cut a lot of the crap that W put into place, reinstate strict banking regulation like the Glass–Steagall Act (see wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act ) and reinstate Paygo (see wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO ) our system would be sustainable again. Think Bill Clinton Years.

I fail to see how the Bill Clinton years were any less delusional than the Bernie Madoff years. None of that was real. You have to understand this. Just like the 14000 DOW wasnt real, and the housing prices wernt real.


He also blames the monetary system for “…the construction of a huge welfare state that covers all classes in society.” Oh wait, how is this bad? Again this is what I am championing, government working for the people of all classes in society, not just the wealthy.

How is a huge welfare state good?

And what government are you talking about? You keep bringing up some mysterious government that helps the wealthy and ignores everyone else. This government is a fictional creation in your own head.


Ron Paul refers to the “myth” that “…you can rob some people and give to other people and somehow magically create prosperity.” This is most certainly necessary, especially today.

How does transferring wealth create prosperity?


We have the greatest gap between rich and poor now, not seen since the Great Depression.

I dont think economic equality even matters. If I have a color TV, it makes no difference to me if my neighbor increases the gap by moving up from owning 100 TVs to 10,000 TVs.


The money gained by the most wealthy has not been because of some great increase in their work, but because of huge HANDOUTS from the government in the way of tax breaks, loopholes, no-bid contracts, and cost+ contracts.

I completely agree. Though, by eliminating this situation, does that not answer the dilemma of all the previous questions you just asked?


The fact is the wealthy are on welfare and the poor are the picking up the tab, that needs to be reversed so we can create some degree of prosperity for all Americans not just the Rich.

why do you need to go as far as reversing it? Why not just end the corporate welfare?


“With a collapse of the dream of easy wealth, the poor, deceived into believing the politicians could deliver the moon are now unemployed and without a home.” Shame on the poor for being dooped into loans they were told they could afford but couldn’t. Again this is because of deceptive lending practices that are legitimately criminal, and deregulation that allowed these con operations to thrive. And that wasn’t even the cause of the collapse, it was the big banks bundling these risky debts, trading them and betting they would fail;

This goes beyond bankers and deregulation. This is really an underlying concept that seems to have taken hold of the entire American society. This idea that we need to buy a bunch of stuff. 40 pairs of shoes in your closet, and a new purse every month, and a sports car parked in front of every home.

Find me a politician that will stand in from of the debate podium and say "I want to put less Americans in homes. The party is over. Time to be responsible and buckle down." He would be laughed off the stage.


Ending the FED would be a great boon for the wealthy.

You just fucking said that the wealthy get wealthy because of their government welfare and tax breaks. How on earth do you then think that by ending this supply of corporate welfare, they are possibly going to benefit?

You just arnt making any sense.


Sh*t, next get rid of the IRS and we can just pay taxes to the nearest Lord or Lady.

wtf are you talking about?


12. “Although there’s no admission by treasury I’ve always been convinced that the exchange stabilization fund is involved in stock, commodity and currency transactions by manipulating prices.” And next is the proof…… no. No proof, just a one liner that can’t be backed up. There’s quite a few of these in the book. These are just jabs that are not backed up by proof, or at least some reference to where we can find out more. It makes the whole manuscript very “conspiracy theory” like. Even if their true, he needs to back up his assertions.

Fair enough.


He keeps stating towards the end of the book that the biggest argument against the fed is that the creation of additional funds by inflating the currency is immoral… the definition of moral is “concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.” Since this action is legal and within the rules, it by definition is moral.

wait, what?


The difference between Bush spending money and Obama spending money is that Obama is adding value to the company and using that money to save money we are already spending. This is like a company spending the money to replace inefficient equipment.

What exactly is Obama investing the money in that adds value to the country?


“If the problem was seen as a moral problem and the people demand morality in money from their representatives in government, the process would end. But the people endorse the system because they have requested and expect government to provide benefits that can’t be provided in any other way.” He hit the nail on the head right there! He got it, he’s on the wrong side but he got it. The benefits that he condemns as welfare programs are not possible unless we work together to ensure are prosperity as a group. People would be against our current policies if they rigidly adhered to a doctrine which the feds policies violated.

Everyone can agree that this is true in a literal sense. Only the government can provide such a system. Yet this says nothing of the argument that such a welfare system does anything to increase prosperity.


“Even the Bible is clear…” WOW! Really?! I want to base my banking system on desert nomads fables? I think this could have been left out. "EVEN Jesus endorsed the Austrian theory of economics…" Oh this is getting better the closer to the end I get.

Im an atheist. I agree, the bible argument is dumb.



20. Holy F***!! He’s for these f***ing astroturfed (fake grass root) Tea Parties, that are funded by literally the richest most greedy people in America. Where they have paid PR groups running around making up sh*t like death panels. I am truly at a loss of words. What creditability does Ron Paul have left? Is he next going to tell us he supports the save the Loc Ness/Big Foot campaign?!

I dont think Ron Paul really knows anything about the Teaparties. I imagine he assumes that they are something similar to what happened to his presidential campaign, which truly was 100% grass roots.



He does make some points, and like I said before I am not for the FED, I am sure they are evil.

then what the hell are you talking about? Your not for the Fed, but your still for a centralized bank running monetary policy?


The FED is probably, as stated in the book, nothing more than a puppet of the banking cartels. These people have no one but their own interests in mind and the hell with the little guy. The problem is the current system allows the little guy to live out their lives in some degree of comfort with the hope that they might be able to own their own home, have a decent standard of living, and retire someday. I agree that the system we have now is F’d up beyond repair, but just getting rid of the FED… in favor of what?

This entire paragraph made no sense


It’s like finding out an airline uses its money to try and take over the world, kill puppies, senior citizens AND you overpaid for your ticket. You don’t just jump out the plane mid-flight without a parachute.

another nonsensical analogy


If you are talking about auditing and reforming the current system, I am for that kind of. The problem with that is that most politicians now are corrupt, so we would probably get a more corrupt system then we do currently. If we end the FED we will end up with a system more corrupt then what we have now again because of corrupt politicians.

What the hell are you even trying to argue?

[RM918]

He's your friend? My condolences.

[YumYum]

He's your friend? My condolences.

Yes, and a good friend at that. I would be a very shallow person if I were to turn on somebody who has been there for me at various times in my life when I needed help, just because I changed my political views.

I can't believe some of the comments on this thread.

[RM918]

Yes, and a good friend at that. I would be a very shallow person if I were to turn on somebody who has been there for me at various times in my life when I needed help, just because I changed my political views.

I can't believe some of the comments on this thread.

No, it's nothing to do with political views. He just seems like a gigantic prick.

I'm fine with genuine challenges of ideas, and it certainly started out as that but the tone of the response shifted to obvious holier-than-thou asshattery toward the latter half.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

He actually sounds like a Marxist. His world view is rich versus poor.
He believes the poor has a right to the wealth of the rich because they need it.
He must think the fed protects the poor. That is his error in judgement.
The fed protects the rich. It uses inflation to transfer wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich.


That's what it comes down to.

And if he read the book at all, it was only so he could rebut it. So he learned nothing, and he may not even be capable of learning basic economic thought. A logic class and a basic economics class could do this guy wonders if he doesn't attend them to argue against the professors.

[NYgs23]

Well, I think one of the better books to give left-wingers is Mary Ruwart's Healing Our World. She explains why things like minimum wage, etc. hurt the poor rather than help them, and she does it in a way that's very compatible with left-wing rhetoric.

[WClint]

1. By removing the Federal Reserve the government would no longer have an elastic monetary system. This means it could no longer maintain its “welfare programs” that have made the Americans lazy (I think that was the word he used, if not close to it)??? WTF? So we would not have to have programs like food stamps, social security, and financial aid removed by a radical right wing government, they would just fail due to lack of funds. Not to mention, no Health Care. I could imagine the top 5% richest people in the US love this idea.

Firstly of all this sounds like music to my ears cut off aid to the parasites, it will encourage to sink or swim just as nature had intended. There is nothing stopping him and all the other "bleeding heart liberals" from giving there hard earned money to various charities or setting up there own.


2. Banks, having to stand on their own would not make any risky loans. So I, along with most poor and lower middle class people would not be able to purchase a home. Because of a lack of buyers the housing market it would collapse even worse that it has already. Houses, lacking any buyers would be snatched up cheaply by the wealthy, who would in turn rent to us at a higher price per month then a house payment would be (as is true in most rental markets). Talk about “On the Road to Serfdom” (which is probably another book I will read).
If Banks were left to there own devices we WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD THE MORTGAGE BUBBLE. Banks would not given risky loans to the low class people who could never in a million years pay it back, this was caused by government. A top down decree from the President that "encouraged" the banks to make RISKY LOANS TO MINORITIES and other LOW EARNERS. Strike another failure for the SOCIAL ENGINEERS, another failure for big government.


George Bush: we want everybody in America to own their own home. That's what we want.
YouTube - George Bush: we want everybody in America to own their own home. That's what we want. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68)



3. If a bank fails, any money you have deposited there would be lost, making saving accounts as risky a proposition as trading stocks or commodities. That might be good for bed manufacturers; they could sell more mattresses as places to keep your money.
Banks would not take such stupid policies if there was not government interference.


9. He also blames the monetary system for “…the construction of a huge welfare state that covers all classes in society.” Oh wait, how is this bad? Again this is what I am championing, government working for the people of all classes in society, not just the wealthy.
This encourages people to become parasites, dependent on the government handouts, takes from the productive and giving to the unproductive. If he truly cared about the "greater good" he would want to see the parasites fail and the stronger more able replace them, in the long term these people would produce better offspring and therefore ensure a better future for "greater good".


10. Ron Paul refers to the “myth” that “…you can rob some people and give to other people and somehow magically create prosperity.” This is most certainly necessary, especially today. We have the greatest gap between rich and poor now, not seen since the Great Depression. The money gained by the most wealthy has not been because of some great increase in their work, but because of huge HANDOUTS from the government in the way of tax breaks, loopholes, no-bid contracts, and cost+ contracts. The fact is the wealthy are on welfare and the poor are the picking up the tab, that needs to be reversed so we can create some degree of prosperity for all Americans not just the Rich.
Hes living in a dream land. Just look at Obamas most recent debacle with health care. He is going to give subsides to the poor who can not afford health care (by using tax payers money). To the middle class, if you can afford health care but choose not to get it, you will be thrown in jail for being a drain on the "collective", never mind that the middle classes tax money is going to help the people who can not afford and who probably dont even pay taxes.
YouTube - Obama Gets The Jail Question! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEjHmf0BGoQ)



11. “With a collapse of the dream of easy wealth, the poor, deceived into believing the politicians could deliver the moon are now unemployed and without a home.” Shame on the poor for being dooped into loans they were told they could afford but couldn’t. Again this is because of deceptive lending practices that are legitimately criminal, and deregulation that allowed these con operations to thrive. And that wasn’t even the cause of the collapse, it was the big banks bundling these risky debts, trading them and betting they would fail; something Glass–Steagall Act prevented. The whole tone towards the poor in this book is that they are lazy and looking for a free ride. If the poor would just work hard and get off their ass then everyone would be wealthy just like me, Ron Paul. This view is so divorced from reality it explains a lot. Ending the FED would be a great boon for the wealthy. If we could just get rid of all the social programs in society then the wealthy wouldn’t have to give up such a large percentage of what they earn for the betterment of everyone. Sh*t, next get rid of the IRS and we can just pay taxes to the nearest Lord or Lady.
Once again, if the government was not forcing the banks to make these loans this would not have happened. If anything this should show how woefully inadequate the government is at regulating anything. The free market would have worked if not for government interference


16. “Even the Bible is clear…” WOW! Really?! I want to base my banking system on desert nomads fables? I think this could have been left out. "EVEN Jesus endorsed the Austrian theory of economics…" Oh this is getting better the closer to the end I get.
Why not slam Christianity for no reason.


18. Wow! Now he is using the talking points from Faux (pronounced: Fox) News; referring to Czars (a term put into practice by the media because the prohibitively long names of key White House staff positions, and it sounds very Russian), hinting at Obama being a dictator (even though we have never been closer to a dictator as under the Chaney-Bush administration), and referring to mandatory service for all young Americans (based on really poorly edited youtube footage that, if watched in full, has nothing to do with mandatory service). He’s even using a slippery slope argument, that because we are trying to nationalize some programs that we will eventually end up with Hitler. He’s at this point in the book trying to pick up some support from the Right wing-nuts, Glenn Beck-Rush Limbaugh following, tin foil hat wearing idiots that might go for his ideas outside of the standard libertarians.
No how about this clip...
YouTube - House and Senate PASS "The GIVE Act" - Mandatory Volunteerism (HR 1388/S 277) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es_59215X-g)



20. Holy F***!! He’s for these f***ing astroturfed (fake grass root) Tea Parties, that are funded by literally the richest most greedy people in America. Where they have paid PR groups running around making up sh*t like death panels. I am truly at a loss of words. What creditability does Ron Paul have left? Is he next going to tell us he supports the save the Loc Ness/Big Foot campaign?!\
Yeah these are all "astroturfers" what with there home made signs and all (1:42)
YouTube - First Clips of My Speech on the Capitol in front 100,000+ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=182hfhGquVg)

[shenlu54]

10. Ron Paul refers to the “myth” that “…you can rob some people and give to other people and somehow magically create prosperity.” This is most certainly necessary, especially today. We have the greatest gap between rich and poor now, not seen since the Great Depression. The money gained by the most wealthy has not been because of some great increase in their work, but because of huge HANDOUTS from the government in the way of tax breaks, loopholes, no-bid contracts, and cost+ contracts. The fact is the wealthy are on welfare and the poor are the picking up the tab, that needs to be reversed so we can create some degree of prosperity for all Americans not just the Rich.


Tell your friend:"The power to counterfeit is the power to abuse"(by Murray Rothbard)

[hugolp]

Yes, and a good friend at that. I would be a very shallow person if I were to turn on somebody who has been there for me at various times in my life when I needed help, just because I changed my political views.

I can't believe some of the comments on this thread.

Hahaha I can feel you. I am in the same position but worst, because here libertarianism is not even a known political option. Imagine my family was worried I was turning into a radical when I started talking about Ron Paul. :D

[tremendoustie]

My friend just finished reading “End The Fed”, and he sent me the following email contesting some of Ron Paul’s observations. I haven’t responded back to him yet, but I wanted to first share with all of you his thought provoking rebuttals.

: “Hi Isaac,

I just got done reading “End the FED”. Below is a list of problems I see with it. I think after reading this book as well as Allen Greenspan’s book that I would classify myself as a Keynesian, as opposed to following the Austrian or Chicago economic schools of thought.

Some of my comments may seem emotionally charged, but only because I wrote them as I was going through the book and that was my reaction at that time.
According to End the FED:

1. By removing the Federal Reserve the government would no longer have an elastic monetary system. This means it could no longer maintain its “welfare programs” that have made the Americans lazy (I think that was the word he used, if not close to it)??? WTF? So we would not have to have programs like food stamps, social security, and financial aid removed by a radical right wing government, they would just fail due to lack of funds. Not to mention, no Health Care. I could imagine the top 5% richest people in the US love this idea.


"Elastic monetary system" is a euphemism for debt and inflation. Inflation harms the poor most of all -- those living check to check and on fixed incomes, and debt harms us all in the long run.

Welfare programs have harmed the poor over the years. Everything the government touches turns to crap. Poverty has increased since the "war on poverty", drugs have increased since the "war on drugs", social security wastes people's money, rather than saving it, we pay more for education than any other country, and it's godawful -- fully 20% of high school graduates can't read -- and because of the government's mountains of regulations designed to benefit the lobbyists, medicine has become outrageously expensive.

The government is funded by force, and is almost entirely unaccountable. They exist to enrich themselves, and their corporatist buddies. Anyone who really cares about the poor would never funnel more wealth and power to the government.



2. Banks, having to stand on their own would not make any risky loans. So I, along with most poor and lower middle class people would not be able to purchase a home. Because of a lack of buyers the housing market it would collapse even worse that it has already. Houses, lacking any buyers would be snatched up cheaply by the wealthy, who would in turn rent to us at a higher price per month then a house payment would be (as is true in most rental markets). Talk about “On the Road to Serfdom” (which is probably another book I will read).


Things getting cheaper helps the poor, you've got it bass ackwards. Currently, they bid up the prices so high that no one on a low income can afford it, and then loan them the money so they're continually in debt. That is what you are proposing -- the poor as debt slaves to the banks.

No, we NEED prices to come down, so the poor can own homes free and clear, and so rent prices will go down (cheaper homes=cheaper rents).




3. If a bank fails, any money you have deposited there would be lost, making saving accounts as risky a proposition as trading stocks or commodities. That might be good for bed manufacturers; they could sell more mattresses as places to keep your money.


That's right, banks would have to actually show that they're being responsible with your money, instead of reckless with it, to earn your business. The lack of this kind of accountability was a major cause of the financial crisis.Take from responsible people and subsidize recklessness, and what do you get? Recklessness.



4. If we didn’t use a fiat money system, what would we move to? Gold? Silver? Again, there’s not that much out there… so the gold and silver would stay concentrated in the hands of those who already have it, the rich. We have discussed before that maybe currency could be based on some other backer like energy, but Ron Paul argues that gold is “…the most important guarantor of money” because “…gold has all the qualities that we associate with good money.” So wouldn’t that be faith just like a fiat money system like we have now. Our current system is backed by the solvency of the US government (like owning stock in a company) instead of the old system of being backed by an industrial metal (like a commodity). If gold were to lose its value (like China starts to mine massive amounts of Gold out of Africa or we bring back a solid gold asteroid from the asteroid belt) we would be in the same pickle.


Gold's good because it can't be manipulated by the corporatist, banker, and government classes. It guarantees much more effectively that the poor and middle class can save without having the value of that savings wiped out. The dollar's worth about 3cents of what it was in 1913. Gold's worth just as much, in terms of buying power.

But, people should be free to use whatever currency they want, because it's their money. If you want to start an energy currency, you should be free to do so. Currently, the bankers force us to use their funny money, so they can have control over our savings and commerce.



5. If we just got rid of the FED and let smaller banks take over coinage and banking, that would be the equivalent of getting rid of an organized mob and giving all the guns from the mob to street gangs. If we think banking is corrupt now, just wait until you need to ask for a loan from the bank of John Gotti and Sons, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. As he used as an example a few times, think of “It’s a Wonderful Life”, I couldn’t agree more. You can’t buy a home unless you’re wealthy or a Good Samaritan helps you out.


That's 100% baloney. The FED is systematic corruption. Get rid of them and there would be real accountability. I guess since there's no central control of computers, you can only buy them from street gangs or John Gotti, and because there's no central control for department stores, John Gotti and Sons is the only place to shop. You're making complete nonsense up out of nothing.



6. I am paraphrasing here so please excuse me “The ideology of socialism and welfare are easier to sell because the majority gets something for free”… wait… for FREE?! Is he F’n kidding me? Taxes are PAID for systems like this to work. Just like how we have roads and bridges or the Mail, though not guaranteed in the constitution, still working together as a group for the greater good of all.


I support voluntarily working together, as communities used to in this country before the government took everything over. I don't support extorting money from my neighbors to pay for stuff I want, which is what you propose.




Only a wealthy person who felt all the money belonged to them


Yes, what you make with your own hands and resources does belong to you. Nice try theif.



and did not need, nor could sympathize with someone who needed these programs could even make such a comment.


I give hundreds of dollars a month to charity. I just don't want to give my money to the corrupt, wasteful POS that is the federal government, to pay for some bureaucrat or lobbyist's retirement. Legit charities have at least 80% efficiency. You'd be lucky to get 20% from the government, and most of that is distributed in the worst possible ways. I'm happy to help those who need it, I just don't want to pay for your B.S. excuse for a charity. Unfortunately, if I don't pay, you'll throw me in jail or take my house. Nice racket you have going there.



“But when the people realize that these are only a temporary situation, they will become more open to the suggestion that freedom offers more once the bankruptcy of stateism is acknowledged.” Only a temporary situation?? Only if it is actively derailed. And yes we are running up a huge deficit now only because of bad governance on the part of the Right and the NeoCons who deregulated the banking industry (which, yes, Bill Clinton signed, but it was a Republican bill from congress). If we rebalance the budget, cut a lot of the crap that W put into place, reinstate strict banking regulation like the Glass–Steagall Act (see wiki: [/URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act) ) and reinstate Paygo (see wiki [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO) ) our system would be sustainable again. Think Bill Clinton Years.


You're really brainwashed aren't you. You think we're bankrupt because of the Republicans? Both parties have been running us into the dirt for decades. And, the government is best buddies with the banking system. The regulations are all for their benefit. Heck, when they got in trouble they straight up stole our money and gave it to them. But you apparently still think the government is on the side of the little guy, which is denial to the extreme.




7. He argues that an elastic monetary system that can be corrupted to allow for unsustainable wars causes those wars by giving the politicians that option. That’s like faulting a hammer used in a murder instead of the murderer just because it gave the murderer that option. The argument doesn’t work.


Uh, yes it does. If a murderer funds himself using the checks you send him every month, maybe you should stop sending him checks.



8. He faults the monetary system for building “killer weapons of mass destruction.” Again, just because it makes the funds available does not make it the responsibility of the monetary system. It is the responsibility of those who wield the economic tools at their disposal who are to blame, namely the politicians.


See above. Also, you think you can create institutions with absolute power over their fellow man, and not attract the most power hungry and corrupt among us? Do you think such power will not make these men even more corrupt, once they obtain it? You are a utopian.



9. He also blames the monetary system for “…the construction of a huge welfare state that covers all classes in society.” Oh wait, how is this bad? Again this is what I am championing, government working for the people of all classes in society, not just the wealthy.


Your proposal is government stealing money from everyone, spending 80% of it on themselves and their buddies, and spending the remaining 20% on people in the most destructive and inefficient ways possible, destroying families, education, etc. What you're championing is extortion, corpratism, and the destruction of accountability. You think the businesses are evil? At least you have to choose to buy from them/work for them. At least they are vulnerable to boycotts and strikes. The government can do whatever the @#$#@ it wants, and somehow you think they're going to magically be the good guys?

Oh, and by the way, the big business are all in bed with government. That is how they stifle competition and become abusive.




10. Ron Paul refers to the “myth” that “…you can rob some people and give to other people and somehow magically create prosperity.” This is most certainly necessary, especially today. We have the greatest gap between rich and poor now, not seen since the Great Depression. The money gained by the most wealthy has not been because of some great increase in their work, but because of huge HANDOUTS from the government in the way of tax breaks, loopholes, no-bid contracts, and cost+ contracts. The fact is the wealthy are on welfare and the poor are the picking up the tab, that needs to be reversed so we can create some degree of prosperity for all Americans not just the Rich.


Wow, government works for the rich lobbyists, and corporations? Ya think? Oh, but I guess the solution is to give them more power. Brilliant.



11. “With a collapse of the dream of easy wealth, the poor, deceived into believing the politicians could deliver the moon are now unemployed and without a home.” Shame on the poor for being dooped into loans they were told they could afford but couldn’t. Again this is because of deceptive lending practices that are legitimately criminal, and deregulation that allowed these con operations to thrive. And that wasn’t even the cause of the collapse, it was the big banks bundling these risky debts, trading them and betting they would fail; something Glass–Steagall Act prevented. The whole tone towards the poor in this book is that they are lazy and looking for a free ride. If the poor would just work hard and get off their ass then everyone would be wealthy just like me, Ron Paul. This view is so divorced from reality it explains a lot. Ending the FED would be a great boon for the wealthy. If we could just get rid of all the social programs in society then the wealthy wouldn’t have to give up such a large percentage of what they earn for the betterment of everyone.

Nice euphamisms for extorting money from people, thug.

And no, the Fed, just like the rest of the government, works for the rich corpratists, not against them. Heck, the Fed is OWNED by the banks!! It creates money out of thin air, loans it to its buddies at 0.25%, and then reams poor people at 6% or more. You really are a sucker aren't you?



Sh*t, next get rid of the IRS and we can just pay taxes to the nearest Lord or Lady.

How about we get rid of the IRS and the other wannabe theives too? Heck, if we're powerful enough to get rid of the IRS the nearest "Lord" will be no problem.



12. “Although there’s no admission by treasury I’ve always been convinced that the exchange stabilization fund is involved in stock, commodity and currency transactions by manipulating prices.” And next is the proof…… no. No proof, just a one liner that can’t be backed up. There’s quite a few of these in the book. These are just jabs that are not backed up by proof, or at least some reference to where we can find out more. It makes the whole manuscript very “conspiracy theory” like. Even if their true, he needs to back up his assertions.


The fed has said that they buy and sell Gold in response to market pressures.




13. As proof of the evils of a central bank, Ron Paul states that “Carl Marx’s fifth plank of the communist manifesto is clear, centralization of the credit in the banks of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” So by this comparison he is saying we are becoming a communist state. He doesn’t mention that the tenth plank of the communist manifesto is “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form.” (Carl Marx) This must also mean we are a communist state. I guess next we should repeal the child labor laws as an alternative to education. He did state earlier in his book how he had worked at like 10 cents an hour when he was a young child, and how he had learned more there then in most classrooms. Perhaps this will be his next goal if the "End The FED" campaign is successful?


I don't advocate hard labor for children, but public education is crap, just like everything else the government touches. Charter schools, and other independent schools, can do a great job for $1,500 a year, while the public schools take $15,000 and accomplish jack squat. Again, there is no accountability. No one can stop paying if they don't like the service, so there is no motivation to improve.

In extremely poor countries, dirt poor people still send their kids to private schools, who charge a few bucks a month, rather than use the public schools, which are corrupt and wasteful as they are here.

People beg to get into voucher programs that pay out 1/3 or less of what public school costs, because people know they can get far better service if they get to choose where to spend their money. Of course, the teachers unions shut those down. No one cares about the kids, they just care about their fat checks.

How exactly you think funding something by force and making the people involved totally unaccountable is a recipe for sucess is beyond me.




14. He keeps stating towards the end of the book that the biggest argument against the fed is that the creation of additional funds by inflating the currency is immoral… the definition of moral is “concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.” Since this action is legal and within the rules, it by definition is moral.


Great, so slavery was moral when it was legal? How about segregation? How about the holocost, that was legal in Germany -- heck it was more than legal, it was a government program! I guess the mass murders by Stalin and Mao were ok too -- it was approved by the government!

How about you grow a moral principle or two, instead of defining right and wrong by whatever mommy government tells you?



He even admits that on the house floor the weakest argument that can be made is a moral argument, and exactly because you are arguing that the issue is against a set of rules, but the question is who’s rules. Since the currency is based on the liquidity of the of the US government, this works just like it does with traded stock. Businesses do this all the time, they will create additional shares of stock which they introduce into the
market and thus devalue the individual stock price. The then use the new funds created or you could look at it as borrowed from the individual holders of the stock for some new venture. The hope is that this newly created liquidity will be used in a way that will be beneficial for the shareholders as a whole. The board of directors acts as the regulator to make sure the company is not embarking on a fools errand. In time when the venture is successful the company will then the buy stock back and the shares of stock will be even more highly valued. The problem is the last eight years has seen a lot of non-value added activity. The bush years constitute a wholesale theft from the United States as a company. The difference between Bush spending money and Obama spending money is that Obama is adding value to the company and using that money to save money we are already spending. This is like a company spending the money to replace inefficient equipment. There is a first an initial investment, but the total savings over time more than makes up for the initial cost. It just came out not too long back that the medical industry wastes 300 billion a year due to inefficiencies. No wonder the Obama administration is working first on such an inefficient piece of equipment.


Nothing government does is value added. They steal money and spend it on their buddies and themselves. They, in their ignorance, and corruption, create regulations which mainly benefit the lobbyists, and protect them from real accountability in the market. No one, or practically no one in government swings a hammer or drives a nail -- they just leech off of the productivity of the rest of us.




15. “If the problem was seen as a moral problem and the people demand morality in money from their representatives in government, the process would end. But the people endorse the system because they have requested and expect government to provide benefits that can’t be provided in any other way.” He hit the nail on the head right there! He got it, he’s on the wrong side but he got it. The benefits that he condemns as welfare programs are not possible unless we work together to ensure are prosperity as a group. People would be against our current policies if they rigidly adhered to a doctrine which the feds policies violated.


"By work together" you mean place total control over our money in the hands of a bunch of unaccountable bureacrats, who work for the benefit of the banking industry? Just getting used to your latest euphamistic magic, which calls tyranny cooperation. Boy, I just loved all that cooperation under King George. If only we could hand all power over our lives and finances to the rich elite in washington, then we would really be working together. Am I getting it?



16. “Even the Bible is clear…” WOW! Really?! I want to base my banking system on desert nomads fables? I think this could have been left out. "EVEN Jesus endorsed the Austrian theory of economics…" Oh this is getting better the closer to the end I get.

Fine, if you don't like the Bible, ignore that part. Apparently this was not for your benefit.



17. Ron Paul argues that all religions are basically on the side of gold based “sound”money… ok, there’s a direct argument against his proposal: “In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.” Thomas Jefferson


I'm glad to know that you realize gold based "sound" money is equivalent to liberty.



18. Wow! Now he is using the talking points from Faux (pronounced: Fox) News; referring to Czars (a term put into practice by the media because the prohibitively long names of key White House staff positions, and it sounds very Russian), hinting at Obama being a dictator (even though we have never been closer to a dictator as under the Chaney-Bush administration), and referring to mandatory service for all young Americans (based on really poorly edited youtube footage that, if watched in full, has nothing to do with mandatory service). He’s even using a slippery slope argument, that because we are trying to nationalize some programs that we will eventually end up with Hitler. He’s at this point in the book trying to pick up some support from the Right wing-nuts, Glenn Beck-Rush Limbaugh following, tin foil hat wearing idiots that might go for his ideas outside of the standard libertarians.


Don't worry, Bush was moving us towards tyranny too. They're all the same -- bent on aquiring more power for themselves -- they just have different rhetoric. The republicans don't really shrink government, and the democrats are just as big warmongers. The secret prisons aren't shut down, both wars are still going strong, we still are protecting the people who participated in torture, we still have executive signing statements, we still have the patriot act, etc, but I guess none of that matters because the guy in the white house has a D next to his name.

You've been lied to, and duped, man, as have the republican cheerleaders.



19. The Constitution Argument – Article 1 Section 10: No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin, a tender in payment of debts. “So there you have it, plain and simple. Paper money is unconstitutional period. ” ~Ron Paul. Not so… he even said leading up to this point that it was the states that had made a mess of printing their own money. This article was meant to keep STATES from not minting their own money!! Not the Federal Government. Benjamin Franklin had been trying to get the federal government to mint paper currency even before the Constitution was written. Ron Paul’s watertight case is turning out to be more of a sieve.


Yeah, paper money worked out well for them. Ever heard of the continental?



20. Holy F***!! He’s for these f***ing astroturfed (fake grass root) Tea Parties, that are funded by literally the richest most greedy people in America. Where they have paid PR groups running around making up sh*t like death panels. I am truly at a loss of words. What creditability does Ron Paul have left? Is he next going to tell us he supports the save the Loc Ness/Big Foot campaign?!


Yep, you're brainwashed. Go blue, go blue, gooooo blue!!

It's all a game man, both sides steal our money to pay off their rich buddies.



21. There are a lot more points made in the book which we can discuss at length later, but most boil down to:

a. All problems, no matter their actual origin are the fault of monetary policy


Um, no, it does not say that. You're being completely intellectually dishonest here.




b. Only the truly rich should have any degree of security or quality of living


Another swing and a miss. The Fed is run by these rich people, for the benefit of the banks. They create all the money they want for themselves, and then use it to bury poor people in debt, who will spend the rest of their lives paying them off.




c. Capitalism should have no regulation whatsoever, the market will regulate itself (i.e. all money should flow up to those who are crafty to take it from the poor and who have it already. Anyone who already has the misfortune to not be rich is shit outa luck). He stated that even things like FDIC insurance are a bad thing. Any regulation is bad.

These regulations protect the rich people. If there were no government involvement, all these POS banksters would be out of business. The only reason JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, etc, are still around to steal your money, is because the government bailed them out, with your money.

You still think big corporations want a free market, and the government is going against them. You've got it completely backwards. The big corporations only maintain their power through the government. They could never survive real competition, in a situation were people were truly free to use their money as they choose. Look at the top donors to Bush, McCain, and Obmama sometime. They're all banks.



22. He does make some points, and like I said before I am not for the FED, I am sure they are evil. But Ron Paul’s arguments are increasingly, as you get toward the end of the book, illogical. It almost feels as if I am listening to the explanation of faith from a character from a Mitch Albom novel (Yes, I have read a few) or the Chewbacca defense from south park. I look forward to reading the other book you are sending me!! I am sure it is more coherent then this book.

The FED is probably, as stated in the book, nothing more than a puppet of the banking cartels. These people have no one but their own interests in mind and the hell with the little guy. The problem is the current system allows the little guy to live out their lives in some degree of comfort with the hope that they might be able to own their own home, have a decent standard of living, and retire someday. I agree that the system we have now is F’d up beyond repair, but just getting rid of the FED… in favor of what?


Freedom. A system not run by the rich corpratists you supposedly oppose, but one in which people are free to make their own decisions about their lives and finances. One in which they can actually by a home, rather than morgaging their lives to the bankers for 30 years. One in which their savings maintains value, and is not stolen by the bankers and government.




It’s like finding out an airline uses its money to try and take over the world, kill puppies, senior citizens AND you overpaid for your ticket. You don’t just jump out the plane mid-flight without a parachute.


I'm glad you agree they should be shut down. You're right, we should shut them down in a way that causes the least amount of disrution. I think letting people choose what money to use would be a good start, rather than forcing them to use the bankster's FRNs.



If you are talking about auditing and reforming the current system, I am for that kind of. The problem with that is that most politicians now are corrupt, so we would probably get a more corrupt system then we do currently. If we end the FED we will end up with a system more corrupt then what we have now again because of corrupt politicians.


That's why we need to end central control. Power corrupts, and attracts the corrupt. As long as the power is in the hands of bureacurats, politicians, and bankers, that power will be bought and sold. We need to let individuals be free. Then, it won't matter how corrupt politiicans are -- they won't have the power -- we will.

[awake]

"Ron Paul refers to the “myth” that “…you can rob some people and give to other people and somehow magically create prosperity.” This is most certainly necessary, especially today. We have the greatest gap between rich and poor now, not seen since the Great Depression. The money gained by the most wealthy has not been because of some great increase in their work, but because of huge HANDOUTS from the government in the way of tax breaks, loopholes, no-bid contracts, and cost+ contracts. The fact is the wealthy are on welfare and the poor are the picking up the tab, that needs to be reversed so we can create some degree of prosperity for all Americans not just the Rich."

In a currency collapse, this man would be the first one holding a gun to some one else and demanding that since they have more than him he is entitled to it more than they.

[Southron]

I don't think this person can be persuaded. Its obvious he is a State-worshiper

. Maybe you can do a little bit at a time but realize most people think like that.

[ClayTrainor]

tremendoustie FTW :D

[silverhandorder]

Yes, and a good friend at that. I would be a very shallow person if I were to turn on somebody who has been there for me at various times in my life when I needed help, just because I changed my political views.

I can't believe some of the comments on this thread.

Then I suggest your friend give your political views more attention than he has given this book. At the end he goes on full blown liberal rampage on the issues of Ron Paul talking about Tea Parties and Czars.

It's like is this what he really wants to discuss as opposed to the ideas?

[lester1/2jr]

thanks to mitt romneys sideburns and tremendoustie for their responses.

[Harris4LarouchePAC]

He makes several decent points. I don't agree that the policies of Obama, economically or otherwise, are doing anything but worsening the situation.

He talked a lot about "elastic monetary systems" which is basically a floating exchange rate monetarist sytem. Which I believe in eliminating the monetary "curve" which would be the "elasticity" or the "floating exchange rate" of the financial system. We then break the chains of the evil Monetarist System that is about to blow up the planet. Ron Paul is such a champion of the constitution but doesn't realize that the federal government has the authority over the Credit uttered for this nation. They have authority over FIXING weights and measures as well. So what FIXED monetary policy exists within the CREDIT System is to be controlled by Congress. He has so many problems with the "national bank" idea and "centralizing credit control" but doesn't remark on Article 1 section 8. The Treasury itself operates, or constitutionally should operate, as a National Bank under the authority of Congress. The fact is we need to declare bankruptcy as a nation, absorb the federal reserve system(through glass-steagal standards) into a National Bank and purg our nation of this garbage. That includes the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul and Larouche need to sit down and work that out, Immediately. Ron paul needs to understand that a "free market/free trade" as described by heyek and Adam Smith is not what the Constitution mandates. "Monetary Value" is not real, it is a conventional value.

The person who wrote the response to end the Fed obviously doesn't understand the REAL issue with Obama's Healthcare policy. Especially on the Senate Side of the "bills" are IMAC board which are "cost efficient" finding boards that will dictate "cost effective measures" to Congress in regards to medicare/medicaid/ and social security. Last week Congressional members stated themselves "its time to take this out of the political spectrum." Yea so lets give it to commission like the NICE/NHS boards in Britain. Seriously...the man who created those boards under the PM Tony Blair administration is now CEO of United Health Group, Simon Stevens is his name. This idea of having "health boards" first came from Hitlers T4 program in 1939. He killed germans FIRST, that is FACT. These sort of "boards" are very unconstitutional, period. That is THE issue. The policy is fascist. The issue isnt "socializing medicine" or "is healthcare a right!" These things are the traditional arguements for the healthcare issue. Frankly, they are bullshit and have not a lot to do with reality. It is institutional insurrection. We need to eliminate the HMO system and return to a hillburton standard of FDR in regardsto healthcare.

Most people here don't understand that either.

[djinwa]

Yes, and a good friend at that. I would be a very shallow person if I were to turn on somebody who has been there for me at various times in my life when I needed help, just because I changed my political views.

I can't believe some of the comments on this thread.

What kind of comments did you think you'd get on a Ron Paul site after posting "emotional" attacks on Ron Paul's book?

[american.swan]

YumYum,

If he is really a good friend, he should respectfully analyze your new political views carefully out of respect for you as a person, rather than quickly criticizing it on broad emotional grounds. He should try to put himself in your shoes and try to understand what your trying to tell him and the new found knowledge you've gained. His attacks of the book shows his disrespect of you and what you've learned. He isn't asking questions. He should weight carefully what you've learned in an attempt to learn something himself. For example, I believe you've studied the Fed for a few years, so, though I don't know what you said is correct or not, but I took it seriously. He should do the same.

I'm going to guess your friend cares about people like the poor. I cared about the poor when I was a liberal, and still do. I'd ask your friend something like, "Do you care about the poor? Do you think there could be another better way to help the poor outside of government?" I'd do the same with education and whatever else the dude finds important.

There's also an outside chance your friend is currently mentally unable to rationally consider these views. Mental exercises may be needed to correct this. Some people just don't know how to doubt themselves. Remember this quote, "rational thinking is thinking about your thinking while your thinking to make your thinking better". Some can't do this. They focus on emotional needs. I'm sure with proper effort you're friend could be an awesome addition to the Ron Paul Conservative bandwagon.

[amonasro]

As an aside, I'd say that friends don't have to be loyal to your own political viewpoints. A friend is a friend.

I have many conservative and liberal friends and I don't let politcs get in the way of our friendship. Sure, when the time is right I'll bring out the truth hammer of liberty, but I don't unload the whole platform when someone passively mentions how the economy will probably turn around. That's just obnoxious. You have to introduce ideas slowly.

[YumYum]

Exactly



Why do you inherently need to own a house? I dont own a jet ski either. The "American Dream" used to be that you could make your own future and do whatever you wanted and be what you wanted, no matter your background. Then somewhere along the line, you and everyone else were suckered into thinking the American Dream was home ownership.



So what? Why do we need the housing market at its current levels? Why is the housing market collapse any more relevant than the collapse of tech stocks? Or the collapse in Tickle-me-Elmo sales from their boom highs?



Your speculation. Nobody is buying up the cheap houses now. Why would they in this speculative future?



Yes. It does a good job of serving its intended function. It also has the benefit of historical validity. The world only recently moved off the gold standard. This is important because in the event of a serious effort to return to a commodity based currency, it would be a tough sell getting the entire world on board with some new commodity. They know gold. They had gold before. It would be an easy task to convince the world to return to it.




You seem to think the wealthy horde currency in Scrooge McDuck style vaults of gold coins.



This statement is so nonsensical, I dont know how to respond. . .



Its entirely possible to have a fiat money system that functions exactly like a commodity system. But the entire point of a fiat money system is so that you can manipulate the amount of money in the system and direct monetary policy.



Ticking time bomb argument all over again. A nonsense hypothetical scenario. "If theres a nuke in NYC, and you have the terrorist, and the bomb is about to go off, and he has the code, do you still say we dont torture?"

Though the ticking time bomb is entirely more plausible than golden meteors raining down from the sky.



In what way are local banks "street gangs"? I already get my loans from my local bank. With the Fed gone, my bank is going to turn evil overnight?



Yes. For free. The taxes the lower class workers pay is far outweighed by their benefit gained.



I fail to see how the Bill Clinton years were any less delusional than the Bernie Madoff years. None of that was real. You have to understand this. Just like the 14000 DOW wasnt real, and the housing prices wernt real.



How is a huge welfare state good?

And what government are you talking about? You keep bringing up some mysterious government that helps the wealthy and ignores everyone else. This government is a fictional creation in your own head.



How does transferring wealth create prosperity?



I dont think economic equality even matters. If I have a color TV, it makes no difference to me if my neighbor increases the gap by moving up from owning 100 TVs to 10,000 TVs.



I completely agree. Though, by eliminating this situation, does that not answer the dilemma of all the previous questions you just asked?



why do you need to go as far as reversing it? Why not just end the corporate welfare?



This goes beyond bankers and deregulation. This is really an underlying concept that seems to have taken hold of the entire American society. This idea that we need to buy a bunch of stuff. 40 pairs of shoes in your closet, and a new purse every month, and a sports car parked in front of every home.

Find me a politician that will stand in from of the debate podium and say "I want to put less Americans in homes. The party is over. Time to be responsible and buckle down." He would be laughed off the stage.



You just fucking said that the wealthy get wealthy because of their government welfare and tax breaks. How on earth do you then think that by ending this supply of corporate welfare, they are possibly going to benefit?

You just arnt making any sense.



wtf are you talking about?



Fair enough.



wait, what?



What exactly is Obama investing the money in that adds value to the country?



Everyone can agree that this is true in a literal sense. Only the government can provide such a system. Yet this says nothing of the argument that such a welfare system does anything to increase prosperity.



Im an atheist. I agree, the bible argument is dumb.




I dont think Ron Paul really knows anything about the Teaparties. I imagine he assumes that they are something similar to what happened to his presidential campaign, which truly was 100% grass roots.




then what the hell are you talking about? Your not for the Fed, but your still for a centralized bank running monetary policy?



This entire paragraph made no sense



another nonsensical analogy



What the hell are you even trying to argue?


MRS,

I received this evening an email from my friend and he has reponded to your replies that you made to his orginal email that he sent to me:

"Well Isaac, please thank the few people who actually took the time to post responses to what I wrote: Mitt Romney’s Sideburns, WClint, and tremendoustie. For the rest…what kind of group have you got yourself involved in? I’ve been accused of not reading the book and being brainwashed, nice. It’s apparent that most of the people commenting on this thread not only didn’t read what I wrote, but have never actually read Ron Paul’s book themselves. Watching video mash ups of Ron Paul speeches on YouTube is not a substitute.

I will address “Mitt Romney’s sideburns” first since he was the first to make an actual response.

Sideburn’s made the statement “Exactly” in response to a partial quote in my first issue where I stated: “By removing the Federal Reserve the government would no longer have an elastic monetary system.”

My response? Well, at least Mitt and I agree on this point and I would like Sideburns to address the actual overall point I was trying to make, and that is without an elastic monetary system, the programs I mentioned along with many others: would not be possible. We can discuss another time the quality of each of these programs, but does Mitt disagree that what I said is true? The reason I ask is that I, along with many Americans, see the loss of these programs as a major step backwards.

I made the assertion that without a central bank: “Banks, having to stand on their own would not make any risky loans. So I, along with most poor and lower middle class people would not be able to purchase a home.” Sideburns replied: “Why do you inherently need to own a house? I don’t own a jet ski either. The "American Dream" used to be that you could make your own future and do whatever you wanted and be what you wanted, no matter your background. Then somewhere along the line, you and everyone else were suckered into thinking the American Dream was home ownership.”

My answer to Mitt: You have to acknowledge that there is a difference between a need and a want. Humans need shelter, and a sense of security which is necessary for ones wellbeing. Having ownership of the dwelling in which you reside fills that need within our society. Comparing home ownership with that of owning a jet ski is like stating that I don’t drink champagne so why do I need to drink water. There is a difference between a want and a need.

Mitt’s response to my comment “Because of a lack of buyers the housing market would collapse even worse that it has already”, Sideburns replied: “So what? Why do we need the housing market at its current levels? Why is the housing market collapse any more relevant than the collapse of tech stocks? Or the collapse in Tickle-me-Elmo sales from their boom highs?”

My answer: This is again an issue of want vs. need. We don’t NEED Tickle-me-Elmo’s, and purchasing stock is a known risk which we take in the hope of getting a return (hopefully made with money we have to invest). We NEED shelter. Most Americans don’t purchase a home for any other reason than that of shelter, a place to raise their family. A collapse of the housing market, worse then what it is already, would put millions more of Americans upside-down in their mortgages. This would then lead to more foreclosures and more Americans losing their homes. If it did collapse, you are right, real estate prices would be much less then they are now. The problem is the reason for the collapse. It wouldn’t matter if prices were a third of what they are now, average Americans couldn’t get loans to take advantage of the cheaper prices. The prices would be cheaper, but at the expense of average Americans.

Response: In a retort to my assertion: “Houses, lacking any buyers would be snatched up cheaply by the wealthy, who would in turn rent to us at a higher price per month then a house payment would be (as is true in most rental markets). Talk about “On the Road to Serfdom” (which is probably another book I will read).” Sideburns said: “Your speculation. Nobody is buying up the cheap houses now. Why would they in this speculative future?”

Answer: I have to admit this is just speculation, but based on what I think is sound reasoning. I am not sure about where you live, but since the housing bubble burst house prices plummeted to only about the level they were at 5 years ago. My house is still actually worth more than when I purchased it 7 years ago. I am talking about a total freeze on home loans to the majority of the country. A drop in home prices that would make this last housing crisis look mild.

Response: In response to “If we didn’t use a fiat money system, what would we move to? Gold?” Sideburns states “Yes. It does a good job of serving its intended function. It also has the benefit of historical validity. The world only recently moved off the gold standard. This is important because in the event of a serious effort to return to a commodity based currency, it would be a tough sell getting the entire world on board with some new commodity. They know gold. They had gold before. It would be an easy task to convince the world to return to it.”

Answer: Yes, Gold!! This magical substance that does not adhere to standard market forces. It’s said to cure cancer and bring people back to life, I stand in awe.:rolleyes: Consider:

i. Gold cannot be the answer, there’s simply not enough. National Geographic in 2009 put the total amount of gold in found in all of history at only 161,000 tons, barely enough to fill 2 Olympic sized swimming pools. Based on a 2007 estimate there are 6.67 billion people on the planet, you do the math. In 1950 the world population was only 2.52 billion, and in 1900 the number was 1.65 billion. There are simply too many people now.

ii. Currently because of thinking like this people have been buying up gold as the ultimate safe investment. The problem is we are creating a Gold bubble, which could run gold up as high as $5000 an ounce by some estimates. And as with all bubbles, they will eventually pop. All of these Cash-4-gold commercials on TV remind me a lot of the get cash out of your house commercials Country Wide was running.

iii. Even Martin Armstrong, a proponent of gold “…as the ultimate hedge against government mismanagement of the economy.” has said that a gold standard is implausible and useless. (See: http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-armstrong-explains-why-the-gold-standard-is-implausible-and-useless-2009-11 ) From the article: “…governments will still find a way to manipulate the money system, even if money is ostensibly backed by gold.” He goes on “Many people believe that somehow if we had a Gold Standard that this will solve all of our problems. The Longest running world currency was that of the Byzantine Empire known as the SOLIUS – a gold coin of incredible pride so it was maintained for hundreds of years without debasement. When the state began to run out of funds, it too began to be debased during the Great Monetary Crisis of 1092.” “A Gold Standard is only as good as the integrity of the political ruling class”

Response: “You seem to think the wealthy horde currency in Scrooge McDuck style vaults of gold coins.”

Answer: Well as you can see from my previous answer I don’t think that, or if I did I could only imagine 1 to 2 Scrooge McDuck’s since there’s not that much gold. (I loved Duck Tails, which was a great show)

Response: In response to “We have discussed before that maybe currency could be based on some other backer like energy,” Sideburns said “This statement is so nonsensical; I don’t know how to respond. . .”

Answer: It is nonsensical because this email was never intended for its current post on a forum. This is based on other conversations between me and Isaac. I am sorry if this confused you.

Response: “Its entirely possible to have a fiat money system that functions exactly like a commodity system. But the entire point of a fiat money system is so that you can manipulate the amount of money in the system and direct monetary policy.”

Answer: You kind of lost me on this one. Please elaborate.

Response: In response to “we bring back a solid gold asteroid from the asteroid belt) we would be in the same pickle.” Sideburns says: “Ticking time bomb argument all over again. A nonsense hypothetical scenario. "If there’s a nuke in NYC, and you have the terrorist, and the bomb is about to go off, and he has the code, do you still say we don’t torture? Though the ticking time bomb is entirely more plausible than golden meteors raining down from the sky.”

Answer: This was only one of the two scenarios I posed, and yes this was the comical and far-fetched example. Again this email was originally intended only for Isaac, who got the joke, who knows that I am Space Exploration Advocate. The second “… China starts to mine massive amounts of Gold out of Africa …” is a real possibility. China has been massively developing central Africa in exchange for access to its natural resources. Africa’s current diamond, gold and steel mining operations are primitive at best, if China was to come in and modernize African mining and transportation… this WILL be real threat.

Response: “In what way are local banks "street gangs"? I already get my loans from my local bank. With the Fed gone, my bank is going to turn evil overnight?”

Answer: John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton said “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely…” In the void left by ending the FED, the smaller banks that are now top dog (absolute power over their customers) and without regulation or oversight would most defiantly become more corrupt.

Response: In response to my comment: “I am paraphrasing here so please excuse me “The ideology of socialism and welfare are easier to sell because the majority gets something for free”… wait… for FREE?! Is he F’n kidding me? Taxes are PAID for systems like this to work.” Sideburns says: “Yes. For free. The taxes the lower class workers pay is far outweighed by their benefit gained.”

Answer: So let’s just say I purchase a car, and I get a good deal of course, and I get much more use out of that car then the manufacturer had intended. By your reasoning that car was free? Wow!! I wonder if that argument would work on my wife. Yes, the poor pay less per person, but there is a lot more of them. And let us not forget, the lower classes ARE the ones who make our prosperity possible. They’re the ones who actually build things, carryout services, clean the bathrooms…unless you are talking about the imaginary wealth we create. The wealthy are just in a position to benefit from the labor of the lower class.

I will respond more tomorrow, I am tired and need to go to bed.

Regards,
Irving"

[lester1/2jr]

"For the rest…what kind of group have you got yourself involved in? I’ve been accused of not reading the book and being brainwashed, nice. It’s apparent that most of the people commenting on this thread not only didn’t read what I wrote, but have never actually read Ron Paul’s book themselves. Watching video mash ups of Ron Paul speeches on YouTube is not a substitute."

touche

[Epic]

The economic ignorance is absolutely stunning

This is what you get with public schools

People who think that economic calculation via central planning is possible

[torchbearer]

"For the rest…what kind of group have you got yourself involved in? I’ve been accused of not reading the book and being brainwashed, nice. It’s apparent that most of the people commenting on this thread not only didn’t read what I wrote, but have never actually read Ron Paul’s book themselves. Watching video mash ups of Ron Paul speeches on YouTube is not a substitute."

touche

he didn't respond to post 15.
why does he hate poor people?

[YumYum]

he didn't respond to post 15.
why does he hate poor people?

I'm going to make sure he addresses your question. I have been discussing the tax burden that the Fed has left us, with him, and we talked last night about inflation. I could give a brief overview of his position, but I he wants to respond to the comments on this thread. I told him last night, (and he is reading this:)), that when is fully educated on the issue of the Fed he will agree that it should be terminated.

BTW torchbearer, you mentioned on another thread that Ron Paul is not for the gold standard. Since Irving is reading posts on this forum, would you give me some info where Dr. Paul has said this? Irving will bring your comment up, and I want to be prepared to answer it.

Yum

[NYgs23]

BTW torchbearer, you mentioned on another thread that Ron Paul is not for the gold standard. Since Irving is reading posts on this forum, would you give me some info where Dr. Paul has said this? Irving will bring your comment up, and I want to be prepared to answer it.

Ron Paul, like, I believe, F A Hayek, advocates competing currencies. He says so here: Let's Legalize Competing Currencies (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul434.html). I think there's a big difference between having the government enforce a commodity standard and a truly free market money. While a government-enforced commodity standard is preferable to government-enforced paper standard, it's inferior to simply leaving these questions to the free market. It's important to remember that money is not a government creation; it develops organically in a free society. Like language, etiquette, units of measurement, and common law, it tends to standardize naturally. But I think most of us believe that free market money would develop naturally towards some commodity-based standard because it's most efficient way of doing things.

[NYgs23]

I know this was meant for someone else, but I just want to make a few points.


You have to acknowledge that there is a difference between a need and a want. Humans need shelter, and a sense of security which is necessary for ones wellbeing.

That's true, but one doesn't have to own a home. One can rent a home. The foolish thing is this obsession with ownership over rent. As Peter Schiff points out, renting is more convenient for many people.


Gold cannot be the answer, there’s simply not enough. National Geographic in 2009 put the total amount of gold in found in all of history at only 161,000 tons, barely enough to fill 2 Olympic sized swimming pools....“A Gold Standard is only as good as the integrity of the political ruling class”

Supply of the commodity is unimportant so long are prices as free to fluctuate. You could have each gram of gold worth a million dollars, and it wouldn't make any difference. Currency denominations are arbitrary anyway.

It is true a government-enforced commodity standard would be subject to problems. There should be no government-enforced standard; people should be free to trade using whatever medium of exchange they wish. Competition, as with everything else, would weed out inefficient means of trade in favor of more efficient means. This is where money came from in the first place.


John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton said “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely…” In the void left by ending the FED, the smaller banks that are now top dog (absolute power over their customers) and without regulation or oversight would most defiantly become more corrupt

This is an argument against statism not for it. A monopoly of "regulation" causes this problem by giving all power to the regulators. In a free market, however, competition prevents this problem. Rotten banks would lose depositors to better ones. Competition is the only way to deal with corruption and inefficiency. The accoutrements of "oversight"--standards, regulations, licensing, accreditation--exacerbate the very things they are intended to solve by eliminating competition in favor of monopoly.

[TCE]

This argument should be a sufficient insert:

The Fed is so powerful, that if they wanted to, they could raise interest rates to 10,000% and print trillions of dollars (ahem, trillions MORE dollars) and there is no check on their power. why do we want to let 9 men sit in a room and make all of these decisions in complete secrecy? they could be giving billions to Iran and we would never know. Why should these un-elected people have more power than the President and Congress combined?

[YumYum]

Ron Paul, like, I believe, F A Hayek, advocates competing currencies. He says so here: Let's Legalize Competing Currencies (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul434.html). I think there's a big difference between having the government enforce a commodity standard and a truly free market money. While a government-enforced commodity standard is preferable to government-enforced paper standard, it's inferior to simply leaving these questions to the free market. It's important to remember that money is not a government creation; it develops organically in a free society. Like language, etiquette, units of measurement, and common law, it tends to standardize naturally. But I think most of us believe that free market money would develop naturally towards some commodity-based standard because it's most efficient way of doing things.

What Ron Paul advocates is to allow private mints to operate. He said:

“The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints.”

He says that the law that was enacted that prohibits private mints from operating was when:

“the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency.”

My question: Section 8 of the Constitution says:

“To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;”

So, can the government following the Constitution assign the minting of coins to a private firm and not violate Section 8?

[RevolutionSD]

The problem with "End The Fed" is that it is way too clear that getting rid of the Fed will almost certainly result in giving the power of money creation directly to the government, in the form of another agency or several agencies- and would likely end up in an even worse situation than the horror that is the Fed.

We need to strike the root here. GOVERNMENT is the problem, the FED is merely a symptom.

[NYgs23]

What Ron Paul advocates is to allow private mints to operate. He said:

“The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints.”

He says that the law that was enacted that prohibits private mints from operating was when:

“the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency.”

My question: Section 8 of the Constitution says:

“To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;”

So, can the government following the Constitution assign the minting of coins to a private firm and not violate Section 8?

I don't really understand what you're saying. That the government has to prohibit private mints under the Constitution? That would mean they were acting unconstitutionally until 1864. The government doesn't need to assign anything; it just needs to not prohibit the private minting of coins.

[silverhandorder]

My response? Well, at least Mitt and I agree on this point and I would like Sideburns to address the actual overall point I was trying to make, and that is without an elastic monetary system, the programs I mentioned along with many others: would not be possible. We can discuss another time the quality of each of these programs, but does Mitt disagree that what I said is true? The reason I ask is that I, along with many Americans, see the loss of these programs as a major step backwards.

See here he is either dishonest or is very misguided. When Ron Paul says there programs will not be possible it does not mean that they can not be financed. RP thinks that without federal reserve deficit financing people would more easily see how much of their buying power is being confiscated and would vote against such measures.

So if your friend is secure in his convictions he should not fear a system that simply shows the real price of these programs.


I made the assertion that without a central bank: “Banks, having to stand on their own would not make any risky loans. So I, along with most poor and lower middle class people would not be able to purchase a home.” Sideburns replied: “Why do you inherently need to own a house? I don’t own a jet ski either. The "American Dream" used to be that you could make your own future and do whatever you wanted and be what you wanted, no matter your background. Then somewhere along the line, you and everyone else were suckered into thinking the American Dream was home ownership.”

I would also add to Mitt's argument that making risky loans is not a good thing no matter what. People who pay the risky loan get hit with higher interest and end up paying a much higher price. Risky loans are destined to fail hence why they are called risky. It is rather cruel to throw resources into a task you know will fail. If your friend's goal is home ownership for people who can not afford to buy these homes he should advocate for giving away free homes to those people. Yes I do not agree with giving away homes for free but this is what the risky loans are going to lead up to. Might as well be honest about what you are doing.

My answer to Mitt: You have to acknowledge that there is a difference between a need and a want. Humans need shelter, and a sense of security which is necessary for ones wellbeing. Having ownership of the dwelling in which you reside fills that need within our society. Comparing home ownership with that of owning a jet ski is like stating that I don’t drink champagne so why do I need to drink water. There is a difference between a want and a need.

First shelter can easily be obtained in US. We have empty homeless shelters for those that find them selves without a home. Besides that there is also an option to room with several other people. What your friend does not understand is that what he wants is for poor to have a luxury of having more living space. I have no sympathy for this. This is exactly like the people who sit on welfare but spot 200$ cell phones. For your friend to advocate forcibly taking away my money so that people will priorities in other spheres can have an additional luxury of having more living space is immoral.

Sense of security is a subjective value. No one person has the same sense of security. In any case if some one is concerned about their security they should be the ones to correct the situation not my money. If someone feels insecure renting an apartment in a bad neighborhood how is it different from some one paying a mortgage on a house in a bad neighborhood?

The worst your friend can come back with is that there is a difference in a sense of security just from the fact that person is renting and not owning their house.


My answer: This is again an issue of want vs. need. We don’t NEED Tickle-me-Elmo’s, and purchasing stock is a known risk which we take in the hope of getting a return (hopefully made with money we have to invest). We NEED shelter. Most Americans don’t purchase a home for any other reason than that of shelter, a place to raise their family. A collapse of the housing market, worse then what it is already, would put millions more of Americans upside-down in their mortgages. This would then lead to more foreclosures and more Americans losing their homes. If it did collapse, you are right, real estate prices would be much less then they are now. The problem is the reason for the collapse. It wouldn’t matter if prices were a third of what they are now, average Americans couldn’t get loans to take advantage of the cheaper prices. The prices would be cheaper, but at the expense of average Americans.

That is not true. There are plenty of people renting now that would jump on low home prices. The losers will be the people who overpaid on their house and can not afford to keep paying. However that is what differentiates us from communists. We do not encourage failure. Or at least we didn't when we grew into an economic powerhouse. For your friend to advocate defending failure is a suicide for America as a superpower and an attack on our standard of living.

Answer: I have to admit this is just speculation, but based on what I think is sound reasoning. I am not sure about where you live, but since the housing bubble burst house prices plummeted to only about the level they were at 5 years ago. My house is still actually worth more than when I purchased it 7 years ago. I am talking about a total freeze on home loans to the majority of the country. A drop in home prices that would make this last housing crisis look mild.

Yeah due to government efforts to keep the market up. The prices now are overvalued still. We have 2 million homes sitting empty owned by the banks. So if your friend reasons that the prices will still be too high he is absolutely wrong.


i. Gold cannot be the answer, there’s simply not enough. National Geographic in 2009 put the total amount of gold in found in all of history at only 161,000 tons, barely enough to fill 2 Olympic sized swimming pools. Based on a 2007 estimate there are 6.67 billion people on the planet, you do the math. In 1950 the world population was only 2.52 billion, and in 1900 the number was 1.65 billion. There are simply too many people now.

Again that is what we suspect will happen. W/e will emerge as a commodity of choice is not known. Honestly is he only reading what he wants to read? It's like he selectively blocks sentences out of the argument.



ii. Currently because of thinking like this people have been buying up gold as the ultimate safe investment. The problem is we are creating a Gold bubble, which could run gold up as high as $5000 an ounce by some estimates. And as with all bubbles, they will eventually pop. All of these Cash-4-gold commercials on TV remind me a lot of the get cash out of your house commercials Country Wide was running.

That is not true. Gold is used all over the world for market transactions. Go to any Lating American country or former USSR country. You will see that underneath there is a big exchange between gold and the country's currency. If people are making a bubble in gold that simply makes it a less attractive investment. However knowing from history that the price of gold stayed constant to other commodities.

All this has nothing to do with gold as a commodity standard or even with commodity standard in general.


iii. Even Martin Armstrong, a proponent of gold “…as the ultimate hedge against government mismanagement of the economy.” has said that a gold standard is implausible and useless. (See: http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-armstrong-explains-why-the-gold-standard-is-implausible-and-useless-2009-11 ) From the article: “…governments will still find a way to manipulate the money system, even if money is ostensibly backed by gold.” He goes on “Many people believe that somehow if we had a Gold Standard that this will solve all of our problems. The Longest running world currency was that of the Byzantine Empire known as the SOLIUS – a gold coin of incredible pride so it was maintained for hundreds of years without debasement. When the state began to run out of funds, it too began to be debased during the Great Monetary Crisis of 1092.” “A Gold Standard is only as good as the integrity of the political ruling class”

Oh I see guys let's give up on reforming the system because apparently a movement into a right direction might eventually lead to a movement in the wrong direction. Never mind the fact that Ron Paul is advocating a free market set currency in competition to a commodity standard as a national currency. Meaning if government starts to debase it;s currency we have a competitive currency on the books that can easily phase out the debased one.

I think government knowing that it has only one chance to debase the currency will be a powerful check on it's ability to do so.


Answer: This was only one of the two scenarios I posed, and yes this was the comical and far-fetched example. Again this email was originally intended only for Isaac, who got the joke, who knows that I am Space Exploration Advocate. The second “… China starts to mine massive amounts of Gold out of Africa …” is a real possibility. China has been massively developing central Africa in exchange for access to its natural resources. Africa’s current diamond, gold and steel mining operations are primitive at best, if China was to come in and modernize African mining and transportation… this WILL be real threat.

Then the market will shift to another commodity that is more static in supply. It's not like china can keep it mining gold undercover. When the supply of gold returns to static people would move back to gold. It's exactly what people do with currencies when they get debased. The difference is that it is much easier to print money to double the money supply then to double the supply of gold.
evil overnight?”


Answer: John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton said “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely…” In the void left by ending the FED, the smaller banks that are now top dog (absolute power over their customers) and without regulation or oversight would most defiantly become more corrupt.

Does your grocer become corrupt overnight? How about your plumber? What sets them apart from a bank? Are you going to contend that no one else can start a honest bank or that one of the big evil banks can undercut others? Honestly this is an economic fallacy that is taken care of in econ 101.


Answer: So let’s just say I purchase a car, and I get a good deal of course, and I get much more use out of that car then the manufacturer had intended. By your reasoning that car was free? Wow!! I wonder if that argument would work on my wife. Yes, the poor pay less per person, but there is a lot more of them. And let us not forget, the lower classes ARE the ones who make our prosperity possible. They’re the ones who actually build things, carryout services, clean the bathrooms…unless you are talking about the imaginary wealth we create. The wealthy are just in a position to benefit from the labor of the lower class.


First if all the poor pay less then everyone else into the system. If your friend was honest he would advocate for user fees that are static across the board. He would also advocate that there should be no subsidy (free ride) for those who can not afford it. This way we can see if the government can truly provide efficient services. If he is going to say but it can't simultaneously run the program and make it affordable for the poor. In that case your friend needs to realize that what he is asking is not for program that can help the poor but for a hand out. He wants something for the poor for nothing. Wealth redistribution is how that is called historically. In that case again he should come out and be honest about it.

Lastly the "wealth producing poor" is a fallacy. If that was true then there should be no difference between us and Soviet Union. The people that produce wealth are the people who most efficiently manage the resources at their disposal aka the entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs are responsible for just as much wealth as a hoard of manual labor workers. Unless your friend is going to contend that anyone can run a factory (soviet moto) he should reconcile with that fact that he is also wrong on this.

[Magicman]

I believe that he read the book. However, he did not understand it at all. This may not be his fault. The media and the powers that be are secretive about out monetary system purposefully to keep well-meaning people like him from understanding some basic truths about our society.

Have him watch "Money as Debt" and then have him reread the book. Money as Debt is good for liberals because it has a liberal bias, in a way. It really doesn't matter which way you lean, to me, so long as you understand what you're talking about, lol. It is useless to debate this guy because he has zero understanding of the basic issues here.

Have him watch Money Masters this movie will unravel EVERYTHING about the Fed and the moneychangers!

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&ei=oo0GSaOxEJLAqAKEnLmRDQ&q=The+Money+Masters)

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I made the assertion that without a central bank: “Banks, having to stand on their own would not make any risky loans. So I, along with most poor and lower middle class people would not be able to purchase a home.” Sideburns replied: “Why do you inherently need to own a house? I don’t own a jet ski either. The "American Dream" used to be that you could make your own future and do whatever you wanted and be what you wanted, no matter your background. Then somewhere along the line, you and everyone else were suckered into thinking the American Dream was home ownership.”

My answer to Mitt: You have to acknowledge that there is a difference between a need and a want. Humans need shelter, and a sense of security which is necessary for ones wellbeing. Having ownership of the dwelling in which you reside fills that need within our society. Comparing home ownership with that of owning a jet ski is like stating that I don’t drink champagne so why do I need to drink water. There is a difference between a want and a need.

Mitt’s response to my comment “Because of a lack of buyers the housing market would collapse even worse that it has already”, Sideburns replied: “So what? Why do we need the housing market at its current levels? Why is the housing market collapse any more relevant than the collapse of tech stocks? Or the collapse in Tickle-me-Elmo sales from their boom highs?”

My answer: This is again an issue of want vs. need. We don’t NEED Tickle-me-Elmo’s, and purchasing stock is a known risk which we take in the hope of getting a return (hopefully made with money we have to invest). We NEED shelter. Most Americans don’t purchase a home for any other reason than that of shelter, a place to raise their family. A collapse of the housing market, worse then what it is already, would put millions more of Americans upside-down in their mortgages. This would then lead to more foreclosures and more Americans losing their homes. If it did collapse, you are right, real estate prices would be much less then they are now. The problem is the reason for the collapse. It wouldn’t matter if prices were a third of what they are now, average Americans couldn’t get loans to take advantage of the cheaper prices. The prices would be cheaper, but at the expense of average Americans.

I did not own a home from 2005 until 2009. I couldnt afford to buy a house.

I wasnt fucking homeless. I lived in an apartment.

There is no inherent need for home ownership. I can live in an apartment, or I can rent a home. Ownership of something should be reserved to those who can afford to own it.


Response: In response to “If we didn’t use a fiat money system, what would we move to? Gold?” Sideburns states “Yes. It does a good job of serving its intended function. It also has the benefit of historical validity. The world only recently moved off the gold standard. This is important because in the event of a serious effort to return to a commodity based currency, it would be a tough sell getting the entire world on board with some new commodity. They know gold. They had gold before. It would be an easy task to convince the world to return to it.”

Answer: Yes, Gold!! This magical substance that does not adhere to standard market forces. It’s said to cure cancer and bring people back to life, I stand in awe.:rolleyes:

The difference between a commodity money and a fiat money is that under commodity money, yes, it is possible for market forces to effect the value of the money. However, under a fiat system, value manipulation is a matter of policy.



i. Gold cannot be the answer, there’s simply not enough. National Geographic in 2009 put the total amount of gold in found in all of history at only 161,000 tons, barely enough to fill 2 Olympic sized swimming pools. Based on a 2007 estimate there are 6.67 billion people on the planet, you do the math. In 1950 the world population was only 2.52 billion, and in 1900 the number was 1.65 billion. There are simply too many people now.

Too many people for what?

You could technically run the entire economy off of a single ounce of gold. You would keep track of digitally and manage transactions in quantities of nanograms and picograms.



ii. Currently because of thinking like this people have been buying up gold as the ultimate safe investment. The problem is we are creating a Gold bubble, which could run gold up as high as $5000 an ounce by some estimates. And as with all bubbles, they will eventually pop. All of these Cash-4-gold commercials on TV remind me a lot of the get cash out of your house commercials Country Wide was running.

what is your evidence that gold is in a bubble?



iii. Even Martin Armstrong, a proponent of gold “…as the ultimate hedge against government mismanagement of the economy.” has said that a gold standard is implausible and useless. (See: http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-armstrong-explains-why-the-gold-standard-is-implausible-and-useless-2009-11 ) From the article: “…governments will still find a way to manipulate the money system, even if money is ostensibly backed by gold.” He goes on “Many people believe that somehow if we had a Gold Standard that this will solve all of our problems. The Longest running world currency was that of the Byzantine Empire known as the SOLIUS – a gold coin of incredible pride so it was maintained for hundreds of years without debasement. When the state began to run out of funds, it too began to be debased during the Great Monetary Crisis of 1092.” “A Gold Standard is only as good as the integrity of the political ruling class”

As I said before, sure it is possible to underhandedly manipulate the value of gold. But under a fiat system, government policy dictates they do so.



Response: “Its entirely possible to have a fiat money system that functions exactly like a commodity system. But the entire point of a fiat money system is so that you can manipulate the amount of money in the system and direct monetary policy.”

Answer: You kind of lost me on this one. Please elaborate.

The entire point of fiat money is so it is possible for government policy to manipulate short term fluctuations in economic growth.


Response: “In what way are local banks "street gangs"? I already get my loans from my local bank. With the Fed gone, my bank is going to turn evil overnight?”

Answer: John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton said “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely…” In the void left by ending the FED, the smaller banks that are now top dog (absolute power over their customers) and without regulation or oversight would most defiantly become more corrupt.

Who said anything about regulation and oversight? Im talking about removing a central bank with the authority to manipulate short term fluctuations in economic growth. I never said anything about removing any regulations. How on earth are you equating the two?


Response: In response to my comment: “I am paraphrasing here so please excuse me “The ideology of socialism and welfare are easier to sell because the majority gets something for free”… wait… for FREE?! Is he F’n kidding me? Taxes are PAID for systems like this to work.” Sideburns says: “Yes. For free. The taxes the lower class workers pay is far outweighed by their benefit gained.”

Answer: So let’s just say I purchase a car, and I get a good deal of course, and I get much more use out of that car then the manufacturer had intended. By your reasoning that car was free? Wow!! I wonder if that argument would work on my wife. Yes, the poor pay less per person, but there is a lot more of them.


If I pay for 1 egg and get a dozen, I have received 11 free eggs.



And let us not forget, the lower classes ARE the ones who make our prosperity possible. They’re the ones who actually build things, carryout services, clean the bathrooms…unless you are talking about the imaginary wealth we create. The wealthy are just in a position to benefit from the labor of the lower class.

First off, I dont see what that has to do with the first half of the paragraph as quoted right above this one,

and second, cry me a river, emotional appeals wont work on me.

[Epic]

him: "All of these Cash-4-gold commercials on TV remind me a lot of the get cash out of your house commercials Country Wide was running."

Cash-4-gold companies arbitrate on the underside (they buy gold under spot price). This is a signal that the gold price isn't high enough, because the smart money is in the process of acquiring gold. Most people see this as a positive factor for gold, and consider the commercials where people are being told to buy gold as the commercials that could, in a contrarian way, signal a top.


And let us not forget, the lower classes ARE the ones who make our prosperity possible. They’re the ones who actually build things, carryout services, clean the bathrooms…unless you are talking about the imaginary wealth we create. The wealthy are just in a position to benefit from the labor of the lower class.

This is a marxist notion. The reality is that trade is a win-win scenario as long as it is voluntary, otherwise the people wouldn't take the actions. Study Human Action.

John Mackey of Whole Foods was once a marxist who help the same ideas as this guy. However, then he started a business and realized how hard it was to be an entrepreneur. The person who owns the capital and runs a business performs an enormous service.
----------------------------------------

To toss some more intellectual ammunition into the general argument about the Federal Reserve, I'll link to Murray Rothbard

The economic effects of inflation by Murray Rothbard
http://mises.org/money/3s2.asp


Inflation, then, confers no general social benefit; instead, it redistributes the wealth in favor of the first-comers and at the expense of the laggards in the race. And inflation is, in effect, a race--to see who can get the new money earliest. The latecomers--the ones stuck with the loss--are often called the "fixed income groups." Ministers, teachers, people on salaries, lag notoriously behind other groups in acquiring the new money. Particular sufferers will be those depending on fixed money contracts--contracts made in the days before the inflationary rise in prices. Life insurance beneficiaries and annuitants, retired persons living off pensions, landlords with long term leases, bondholders and other creditors, those holding cash, all will bear the brunt of the inflation. They will be the ones who are "taxed."


And Mary Ruwart does a good job with the destructiveness of the welfare state
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap11.html

Just how have the minority poor adapted to the country's welfare system? In 1980, more 20-24 year-old black males were on welfare than the worst-case scenarios that had been based on the atmosphere of discrimination existing between 1954 and 1961. Black illegitimate births and single-parent homes were much higher than the most pessimistic predictions. (10) In the 1940s, less than 10% of all black babies were born out of wedlock; by 1982, more than 50% of them were illegitimate. The number living in poverty tripled from 1959 to 1982.11 Easily accessible welfare payments had the same effect as guaranteed income. Individuals had less incentive to work and to maintain a family structure. Conse-quently, fewer did.

...We pay handsomely to keep people poor. In 1982, enough of our taxes went toward social welfare programs to provide every poor family of four with an income of more than $46,000! (14) Instead of the poor getting this amount, however, approximately 74 cents of every dollar went to the welfare industry! (15)

[tremendoustie]

I do suggest he read "healing our world" by Mary Ruwart, which can be found for free here: http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html

[Bruno]

I do suggest he read "healing our world" by Mary Ruwart, which can be found for free here: http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html

Thanks for the link! :)

[Bucjason]

Ummm, don't become friends with dumb-fucks.....but if you insist, don't try and take on the task of actually changing thier mind. It's a waste of time.

[Galileo Galilei]

19. The Constitution Argument – Article 1 Section 10: No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin, a tender in payment of debts. “So there you have it, plain and simple. Paper money is unconstitutional period. ” ~Ron Paul. Not so… he even said leading up to this point that it was the states that had made a mess of printing their own money. This article was meant to keep STATES from not minting their own money!! Not the Federal Government. Benjamin Franklin had been trying to get the federal government to mint paper currency even before the Constitution was written. Ron Paul’s watertight case is turning out to be more of a sieve.



Your friend sounds like an idiot.

That said, he makes one good point, about whether the Fed is Constitutional. This is the weakest part of Ron's book, and probably accounts for the sales falling below those of his last book. Most people who admire Ron Paul admire him because of his adherence to the Constitution.

The chapter on the Constitution has an error; it says that Jefferson ended the 1st bank in 1811. But it was Madison who ended the 1st bank. I hope this will be corrected in the next edititon.

More serious, though, is the fact that many leading Founding Fathers are on record stating that a national bank is constitutional. Among them:

George Washington, who signed the first bank bill.

Alexander Hamilton, who pushed for the bill.

John Adams supported the national bank.

When Jefferson was president, he did not oppose the bank, nor did he oppose the 2nd bank.

Madison re-signed the bank bill of 1816.

Most of the Founding Fathers in the First Congress supported the bank, including:

Oliver Ellsworth (also on Supreme Court), William S. Johnson, George Read, Charles Carroll, Caleb Strong, John Langdon, William Paterson (also on Supreme Court), Rufus King, Robert Morris, Pierce Butler, Ralph Izard, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, Jonathan Trumbull, Jr., Jeremiah Wadsworth, John Vining, Daniel Carroll, Fisher Ames, Theodore Sedgwick, Nicholas Gilman, and Egbert Benson.

John Calhoun supported the 2nd bank.

Henry Clay supported the 2nd bank.

Daniel Webster supported the 2nd bank.

John Marshall supported the bank.

Joseph Story supported the bank.

James Kent supported the bank.

Given all these people who supported the bank, the issue of Constitutionality should have been delved into in more detail.

The key is James Madison. Madison vetoed the bank bill of 1815, but signed the bank bill of 1816.

In those days, presidents set precedents when they signed or did not sign a bill.

Washington set a precedent that the first bank was Constitutional when he signed the bank bill in 1791.

Madison set a precedent when he vetoed the bank bill of 1815.

Veto Message on the National Bank (January 30, 1815)
James Madison
http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3626

Madison signed a bank bill in 1816 that was almost exactly the same as the 1st bank.

Hence, the difference between the 1st/2nd bank, and the vetoed bank bill, shows what is Constitutional in a central bank and what is not.

Therefore, the Fed in unconstitutional.

The Fed is also unconstitutional via the necessary and proper clause. The 1st and 2nd banks were necessary because the nation at that time was pretty much bankrupt from war debts. But ever since the time of Andrew Jackson, the nation has had a great surplus of wealth. Hence the Fed is not necessary, and the Fed is unconstitutional.

The Fed is also unconstitutional via the general welfare clause. The Fed is not in the general welfare. No law not in the general welfare is Constitutional.

I hope that Ron will provide more Constitutional and historical detail on these matters in the future.

[american.swan]

As an aside, I'd say that friends don't have to be loyal to your own political viewpoints. A friend is a friend.

I have many conservative and liberal friends and I don't let politcs get in the way of our friendship. Sure, when the time is right I'll bring out the truth hammer of liberty, but I don't unload the whole platform when someone passively mentions how the economy will probably turn around. That's just obnoxious. You have to introduce ideas slowly.

I don't think all friends have to agree, but it is not very friendly to dismiss a friends new found information. That to me is rude. If someone provides new information to me, I'm not going to assume the person is right or wrong until I do my due diligence. Education should make a closed mind open and willing to admit being wrong. People who are afraid to be wrong and stuck on errors are dangerous people.

I'm sure YumYum's friend is a great person. I'm concerned at the tone he's taking. He needs to be more respectful of YumYum's and the information YumYum's providing. YumYum's friend seems closed minded and not interested in learning something new about the economic situation he's living in. That concerns me. Even if he ultimately disagrees with YumYum, he should at leasts delay judgement until he learns enough to pass judgement. He's reading the Fed looking to discredit it rather than to "ask more questions".

[CzargwaR]

Torchbearer already said it but this has to be said again and again to people caught up in the rich vs poor world.

Inflation tax is a regressive tax
Inflation tax is a regressive tax
Inflation tax is a regressive tax

It puts more burden on the poor than the rich.

It's a fact.

If he won't believe it, then tell him to ask any economist, even a Keynesian.

So as torchbearer has said, why does your friend hate poor people?

Make sure you drill him even more on this if he calls himself a progressive. Ask him why he supports regressive taxes as and can call himself a progressive

If this won't open up his eyes then nothing will.

[YumYum]

To me it's self-evident he's a thief.

No, you are wrong. While his concern that taxpapyer dollars should be used for things like helping the handicapped and metally challanged instead of wars, he is not a thief. He makes a decent salary and he pays his fair share in taxes. He should have a right to say where his tax money goes. If he is a thief, then what was Ron Paul doing giving taxpaper's money to a shrimp company in his district? Even though it was earmarked, it was a redistribution of wealth. Ron Paul took someone else's wealth and gave it to a politcal contributor. Do you call Ron Paul a thief? I'm sure you wouldn't do that on this board, you know better.

Another thing, aren't you an anarchist/capitalist? Shouldn't you be hearding goats in Afghanistan?

[tremendoustie]

No, you are wrong. While his concern that taxpapyer dollars should be used for things like helping the handicapped and metally challanged instead of wars, he is not a thief. He makes a decent salary and he pays his fair share in taxes. He should have a right to say where his tax money goes.


You're right, he should have complete say where it goes -- he shouldn't have to send it to those scuzzballs in the first place. That way he can be sure it gets spent on the needy instead of wars -- which is exactly where I'd want it spent too.

Tell you what, how about we both support letting us keep our own money, rather than sending it to the corrupt, corporatist scuzzballs! I'll send mine to charity as well, and those struggling month to month can use it to help dig themselves out of debt. Others can invest the money, and help rebuild the economy.

Heck, anything's better than handing it to those guys, who most likely will send it to the next banking CEO or military supplier who asks real nicely, or just screams like chicken little about the end of the world while they keep writing themselves fat checks.



If he is a thief, then what was Ron Paul doing giving taxpaper's money to a shrimp company in his district? Even though it was earmarked, it was a redistribution of wealth. Ron Paul took someone else's wealth and gave it to a politcal contributor.


He didn't take the money -- it's an important distinction. The money was already taken, he was just specifying where it goes -- with an eye towards getting the money back in the hands of the taxpayers. I actually don't exactly agree with RP on this issue, but what he was doing doesn't constitute theft.



Do you call Ron Paul a thief? I'm sure you wouldn't do that on this board, you know better.


I would if I thought he was, but he's not. As far as I know, he's pretty much never voted for a general appropriations bill.



Another thing, aren't you an anarchist/capitalist? Shouldn't you be hearding goats in Afghanistan?

Don't you believe in coercive government? Shouldn't you be worshiping Kim Jong-il in North Korea?

The form of government you propose is not that of North Korea, and the form of society an ancap or voluntaryist proposes is not Afghanistan -- where, by the way, there are plenty of wannabe governments trying to rule over their fellow man, and few if any people standing up against them and for voluntary solutions. Stop constructing straw men.

You require the vigilance of the populace to maintain a limited government. We require the vigilance of the populace to keep from becoming Afghanistan. We require a lot less vigilance, however, as standing against a monopoly government which is funded by force is far, far more difficult than standing against a potentially abusive market organization which requires voluntary consumers, and has competitors.

[YumYum]

.You require the vigilance of the populace to maintain a limited government. We require the vigilance of the populace to keep from becoming Afghanistan. We require a lot less vigilance, however, as standing against a monopoly government which is funded by force is far, far more difficult than standing against a potentially abusive market organization which requires voluntary consumers, and has competitors.

The point is my friend is not a thief, and that is what Austrian Econ Disciple accused him of being. If Ron Paul had advocated overthrowing the government and flushing the Constituiton down the toilet, I wouldn't have given him two seconds of my time, nor money. Rather, he proposes that we fix the system, and stick by the Constituition, which at this point in my life, I agree with. My friend does too, but he has different views than Austrian Disciple, you, and at this point, Ron Paul. But he is not a thief. So, let me ask you this, is Ron Paul a consevative who wants smaller government, or is an anarchist/capitalist who is against any type of goverment? Because if he is an anarchist/capitalist, he needs to come clean and tell the nation the truth.

Regarding the earmarks, I understand what Dr. Paul did and because of him I now know what an earmark is. I agree with why he did it, but, however you look at it, it was his signature that allocated other taxpapyer's money, or their wealth, to other individuals. I don't want to play a samantics game with this, but either he is against redistribution of wealth or he is for it; you can't have it both ways. When the shrimp company got their grant money it was taken from the taxpayers. Wasn't Rosa Parks medal earmarked? Even though he voted 'no" for her getting a medal, Congress was determined to reward her with taxpapyers money. Dr. Paul voted "no" to make a point that the Federal government is not authorized to take the citizen's money and give it to an old black woman who championed freedom and liberty. In the same vein, he should have refused to give the shrimp company money on the same premise, and that is to make a point that no where in the Constitution does it allow for the government to force people to give their wealth to a shrimp company that is a generous campaign contributor.

[ClayTrainor]

The point is my friend is not a thief, and that is what Austrian Econ Disciple accused him of being. If Ron Paul had advocated overthrowing the government and flushing the Constituiton down the toilet, I wouldn't have given him two seconds of my time, nor money. Rather, he proposes that we fix the system, and stick by the Constituition, which at this point in my life, I agree with.
Your friend is a good example of how the constitution can be DRASTICALLY interpreted in different ways, especially by Hamilton fans(not saying he is one, i just sense it). To me, this emphasizes the importance of Ron Pauls Natural Law interpretation of the constitution. To me the principles of the Natural Law are the important part, and to me it's clear that Ron Pauls arguments stem from them.



My friend does too, but he has different views than Austrian Disciple, you, and at this point, Ron Paul. But he is not a thief.

Not on the individual level, but if he endorses and defends the functions of the FED, well... Counterfeit is a form of stealing. He's at least sympathizing with the thieves, no?



So, let me ask you this, is Ron Paul a consevative who wants smaller government, or is an anarchist/capitalist who is against any type of goverment? Because if he is an anarchist/capitalist, he needs to come clean and tell the nation the truth.

Ron Paul always argues in favor of smaller government and self-government. It's very obvious that his interpretation of the constitution is unique because of his understanding of Natural Law and Austrian Economics. You should not worry about the labels so much, and more about the principles. Why does the end-game matter so much to people?

If Ron Paul came out and said that he supports self-government to his very core (anarchist), would that change your activism in this movement? Does it really matter what the end-game or the label we apply to that end game, is? To me it's 100% about the principles, and claiming ownership of our own lives.

Ron Pauls principles are sound, whether you label him as a Christian, Conservative, Libertarian or An-cap. Labels and end-games should not matter to us, as political and religious labels are a collectivist concepts. The Ends don't justify the means. Meaning, There is no end-game (constitutional republic / anarchy), only the principles which guide us into the future.

It matters not to me what he chooses to call himself, or what others choose to label himself as. The man is who he is, and I support him for his commitment to principle.

[tremendoustie]

The point is my friend is not a thief, and that is what Austrian Econ Disciple accused him of being. If Ron Paul had advocated overthrowing the government and flushing the Constituiton down the toilet, I wouldn't have given him two seconds of my time, nor money. Rather, he proposes that we fix the system, and stick by the Constituition, which at this point in my life, I agree with. My friend does too, but he has different views than Austrian Disciple, you, and at this point, Ron Paul. But he is not a thief. So, let me ask you this, is Ron Paul a consevative who wants smaller government, or is an anarchist/capitalist who is against any type of goverment? Because if he is an anarchist/capitalist, he needs to come clean and tell the nation the truth.


Heck, I don't support anarchy, as in the absence of rules, -- there should be rules enforced against harming others or their property, and people also have a right to make rules about how others can use their property.

The question is really regarding aggressive government, or the non-aggression principle. Is it right to initiate violence, or the threat of it, against peaceful people, in order to control their lives, or finances? I think the answer is no. Thus, we must organize our society in a way that does not rely on such coercion -- we must save the coercion for those who are truly harming others.

Your friend has a right to spend his money as he chooses -- and he certainly has a right not to support a particular war if he finds it immoral.

Regarding the question of Ron Paul, I can't answer that, I'm not him. If you want me to take my honest guess, I think he ultimately believes in the NAP, but thinks the best way to achieve more liberty now is by working to restore the constitution. I agree with his efforts.

After all, if we can't get the government to obey their own rules, which they swear an oath to, good luck getting them to obey the NAP. If reform from within the government is to be successful, the constitution is the most likely tool to move in the right direction.




Regarding the earmarks, I understand what Dr. Paul did and because of him I now know what an earmark is. I agree with why he did it, but, however you look at it, it was his signature that allocated other taxpapyer's money, or their wealth, to other individuals. I don't want to play a samantics game with this, but either he is against redistribution of wealth or he is for it; you can't have it both ways. When the shrimp company got their grant money it was taken from the taxpayers. Wasn't Rosa Parks medal earmarked? Even though he voted 'no" for her getting a medal, Congress was determined to reward her with taxpapyers money. Dr. Paul voted "no" to make a point that the Federal government is not authorized to take the citizen's money and give it to an old black woman who championed freedom and liberty. In the same vein, he should have refused to give the shrimp company money on the same premise, and that is to make a point that no where in the Constitution does it allow for the government to force people to give their wealth to a shrimp company that is a generous campaign contributor.

I agree with your logic here, which is why I ultimately don't agree with RP on this point. I think the fully principled stand is the better, stronger statement, even though by taking that stand he still can't stop the government from taking the money in the first place.

If I were to defend his position on this, however, I might point out that giving money to a local industry is a lot closer to putting money back in the pockets of the taxpayers, than is handing out medals.

Of course, I'm also not going to reject the best politician this country has seen in the last half century because of one minor, not even cut-and-dried issue like this.

Euphemisms aside, your friend is currently advocating theft, there's no two ways about it. He is supporting the idea of the government taking the money in the first place.

[YumYum]

You should not worry about the labels so much, and more about the principles.

Exactly, that is why I take offense to my friend being labeled a "thief". The system is set up that it steals from one group to give to another, but my friend and many other law abiding citizens are victims of the system. That does not make them "thieves", especially if they are paying taxes. In fact, I can assure you that my friend pays enough in taxes that he is the one being ripped off, not the other way around.

[tremendoustie]

Exactly, that is why I take offense to my friend being labeled a "thief". The system is set up that it steals from one group to give to another, but my friend and many other law abiding citizens are victims of the system. That does not make them "thieves", especially if they are paying taxes. In fact, I can assure you that my friend pays enough in taxes that he is the one being ripped off, not the other way around.

He's absolutely a victim too -- he's being forced to pay for wars he doesn't support. I don't say he's stealing because he plays by the rules -- I do too -- they threaten you if you do not, after all!

The problem is, he's supporting the idea of theft, and participating in it. If I go hire a thug to extort cash from you by threatening to throw you in his cage, I have stolen from you (even if I'm going to use the money for a good purpose).

If I vote for and support a politician who promises to extort money from you in the same way, to be given to me or used for my purposes, the morality of the situation is no different.

Each of us must try to work to reduce and end the initiation of violence in society. We must respect the rights of our neighbors to make their own choices about their lives and finances.

[silverhandorder]

Exactly, that is why I take offense to my friend being labeled a "thief". The system is set up that it steals from one group to give to another, but my friend and many other law abiding citizens are victims of the system. That does not make them "thieves", especially if they are paying taxes. In fact, I can assure you that my friend pays enough in taxes that he is the one being ripped off, not the other way around.

No he is a thief. You have to seperate the different actions he is doing. Just because he puts in money into the system does not entitle him to authorize other people to come and force me to pay.

In Ron Pauls case he is against you being taxed in the first place. Your friend is not against that so there is no reason for you two compare them. It is rather self evident.

[YumYum]

No he is a thief. You have to seperate the different actions he is doing. Just because he puts in money into the system does not entitle him to authorize other people to come and force me to pay.

In Ron Pauls case he is against you being taxed in the first place. Your friend is not against that so there is no reason for you two compare them. It is rather self evident.

He hasn't forced you to do anything. He pays taxes, he takes absolutely nothing from anybody, and he gives to charities. We currently have a state system that requires its citizens to pay taxes; to which he is obedient. He didn't create this system. Our framers of the Constitution gave Congress the power to steal. So, he is not doing anything that is wrong or immoral, since he doesn't take, but only gives. This is the system he was born into. This system is not going to go away until there is either total collapse or another Revolutionary War. Given that, he wants his tax dollars to help people who truly need help.

On the other hand, Ron Paul is against taxes and against tax dollars helping the poor, even earmarks. But he has no qualms about taking tax dollars, even though they are earmarks, and giving the money to a business. Someone may say "But he is giving back their money that was taken from them in the first place." Okay, so that sends the message that taxation is alright, providing the taxpayer gets back his or her money. But is that really the case with the shrimp company? Did they get back exactly what they paid into the system, or did they get more? Or did they get less? Who is keeping track of this? The shrimp company wanted their tax money back and Ron Paul performed for them.

My friend on the other hand, didn't ask for his tax money back, but wants it to go for humanistic causes, not corporate refunds. He pays taxes, which is required by law, and he has a right to demand what his taxes are spent on. This does not make him a thief. Nor does it make him a thief that he lives, participates and pays taxes in a system that was created by the framers of the Constitution. He believes that he has a right to interpret that Constitution, which in reality, is ambiguous.

[tremendoustie]

He hasn't forced you to do anything. He pays taxes, he takes absolutely nothing from anybody, and he gives to charities. We currently have a state system that requires its citizens to pay taxes; to which he is obedient. He didn't create this system. Our framers of the Constitution gave Congress the power to steal. So, he is not doing anything that is wrong or immoral, since he doesn't take, but only gives. This is the system he was born into. This system is not going to go away until there is either total collapse or another Revolutionary War. Given that, he wants his tax dollars to help people who truly need help.

On the other hand, Ron Paul is against taxes and against tax dollars helping the poor, even earmarks. But he has no qualms about taking tax dollars, even though they are earmarks, and giving the money to a business. Someone may say "But he is giving back their money that was taken from them in the first place." Okay, so that sends the message that taxation is alright, providing the taxpayer gets back his or her money. But is that really the case with the shrimp company? Did they get back exactly what they paid into the system, or did they get more? Or did they get less? Who is keeping track of this? The shrimp company wanted their tax money back and Ron Paul performed for them.

My friend on the other hand, didn't ask for his tax money back, but wants it to go for humanistic causes, not corporate refunds. He pays taxes, which is required by law, and he has a right to demand what his taxes are spent on. This does not make him a thief. Nor does it make him a thief that he lives, participates and pays taxes in a system that was created by the framers of the Constitution. He believes that he has a right to interpret that Constitution, which in reality, is ambiguous.

He specifically supported forcibly taking money from some people and giving it to others. He does not oppose taxation, if anything, he wishes there were more of it. Stealing from some to give to others is, to quote him, "necessary".

He is not advocating the abolition of taxes, and just saying that as long as we have them it would be better to spend them on xyz. You're B.Sing blatantly. Read his posts.

And yes, he is working to hire the scumbags that extort money from people on a continual basis.

Hey, I used to be a thief too, and one of the worst kinds -- one who uses the loot for war -- so I'm not casting stones, and I certainly hope he comes around, but a spade is a spade.

[silverhandorder]

He hasn't forced you to do anything. He pays taxes, he takes absolutely nothing from anybody, and he gives to charities. We currently have a state system that requires its citizens to pay taxes; to which he is obedient. He didn't create this system. Our framers of the Constitution gave Congress the power to steal. So, he is not doing anything that is wrong or immoral, since he doesn't take, but only gives. This is the system he was born into. This system is not going to go away until there is either total collapse or another Revolutionary War. Given that, he wants his tax dollars to help people who truly need help.

I am not faulting him for ebing stuck with in a system. I am faulting him for being a petty thief. If he sleeps sound at night knowing he votes for policies that will have people forced to pay for programs they do not support he is a thief. If he is not a thief he needs to come out against forced taxation. At the very least advocate the smallest government possible. He advocates the opposite. He wants a big government. Are you refusing to seperate his stances on purpose?


On the other hand, Ron Paul is against taxes and against tax dollars helping the poor, even earmarks. But he has no qualms about taking tax dollars, even though they are earmarks, and giving the money to a business. Someone may say "But he is giving back their money that was taken from them in the first place." Okay, so that sends the message that taxation is alright, providing the taxpayer gets back his or her money. But is that really the case with the shrimp company? Did they get back exactly what they paid into the system, or did they get more? Or did they get less? Who is keeping track of this? The shrimp company wanted their tax money back and Ron Paul performed for them.

No you are inventing things here. Paul votes against this. He is against theft. However if theft is going to be done he has no problem deciding where it should go. The difference is that he is against it in the first place. Your friend is the opposite. He is for both taking of other peoples money and for deciding where it should go.


My friend on the other hand, didn't ask for his tax money back, but wants it to go for humanistic causes, not corporate refunds. He pays taxes, which is required by law, and he has a right to demand what his taxes are spent on. This does not make him a thief. Nor does it make him a thief that he lives, participates and pays taxes in a system that was created by the framers of the Constitution. He believes that he has a right to interpret that Constitution, which in reality, is ambiguous.

I could care less about his tax money. You don't pardon a thief because he gives back to the community on his dime and all his proceeds go to some charity. Theft is theft.

The Constitution is an awesome document. Unfortunately it is open to interpretation. However theft is not open to interpretation. You either support it or you oppose it. If your friend opposed theft he would side with the interpretation of the constitution that would reduce it the most. He choose to side with the side that promotes it.

[Annihilia]

That's true, but one doesn't have to own a home. One can rent a home. The foolish thing is this obsession with ownership over rent. As Peter Schiff points out, renting is more convenient for many people.


Hell, Schiff rents and he's got a good deal of money.

[tremendoustie]

Far more poor people rent than otherwise. These people would be helped hugely by home prices coming down. Some of them might even be able to buy.

[torchbearer]

Hell, Schiff rents and he's got a good deal of money.

actually, he just bought a home.

[YumYum]

That's true, but one doesn't have to own a home. One can rent a home. The foolish thing is this obsession with ownership over rent. As Peter Schiff points out, renting is more convenient for many people.

No, they don't, and neither did the serfs of Europe. They rented from the Lords, just like we will all have to pay rent when we are living in the FEMA camps. With this attitude, why bother fighting for property rights?



Supply of the commodity is unimportant so long are prices as free to fluctuate. You could have each gram of gold worth a million dollars, and it wouldn't make any difference. Currency denominations are arbitrary anyway.

So, you are saying we should be on a gold standard?



It is true a government-enforced commodity standard would be subject to problems. There should be no government-enforced standard; people should be free to trade using whatever medium of exchange they wish. Competition, as with everything else, would weed out inefficient means of trade in favor of more efficient means. This is where money came from in the first place.

Right, they have this system in Afghanistan. You can use your goat as a medium of exchange to have your appendix removed.



This is an argument against statism not for it. A monopoly of "regulation" causes this problem by giving all power to the regulators. In a free market, however, competition prevents this problem. Rotten banks would lose depositors to better ones. Competition is the only way to deal with corruption and inefficiency. The accoutrements of "oversight"--standards, regulations, licensing, accreditation--exacerbate the very things they are intended to solve by eliminating competition in favor of monopoly.

Regulations are laws. Do you want to do away with laws that stipulate that banks cannot commit crimes? If that is the case we need to do away with regulations that condemn murder and rape.

[tremendoustie]

Regulations are laws. Do you want to do away with laws that stipulate that banks cannot commit crimes? If that is the case we need to do away with regulations that condemn murder and rape.

Laws against murder and rape are moral, because murder and rape are violent acts, which violate the rights of others, and defensive force is justified against them.

"Regulations" are not moral, because they concern what a person my do with their own property -- which is none of the government's business.

[YumYum]

Laws against murder and rape are moral, because murder and rape are violent acts, which violate the rights of others, and defensive force is justified against them.

"Regulations" are not moral, because they concern what a person my do with their own property -- which is none of the government's business.

Is a speed limit on a highway a regulation? Is it moral?

[silverhandorder]

You are deliberately mis-characterizing his positions?


No, they don't, and neither did the serfs of Europe. They rented from the Lords, just like we will all have to pay rent when we are living in the FEMA camps. With this attitude, why bother fighting for property rights?
Serfs were not allowed to leave their lords lands, they were bound to it like slaves.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with renting.

So, you are saying we should be on a gold standard?

What's wrong with a gold standard if the market picks it?



Right, they have this system in Afghanistan. You can use your goat as a medium of exchange to have your appendix removed.

What does Afghanistan has to do with anything we have been saying? Historically the market keeps picking rare metals as a commodity of exchange.



Regulations are laws. Do you want to do away with laws that stipulate that banks cannot commit crimes? If that is the case we need to do away with regulations that condemn murder and rape.

Depending on what stance you take. If you are an anarchist you would advocate for market set guidelines. Like 3rd party organizations that both parties agree to trust.

However if we do have a minarchist government then laws are acceptable. However this is far from what the OP was talking about. It seems like you are trying to lead this conversation into direction that says "well since we have laws which are regulation than other regulation can work". What you don't understand is that even the laws are not the most efficient way to do this. It is called a compromise. What you want is for minarchist to compromise their position even more then they said they would.

And no, I am not advocating rape, murder or fraud here.

[Epic]

Is a speed limit on a highway a regulation? Is it moral?

Non-sequitor.

This is the tragedy of the commons. His previous comments were regarding private property not public property.

Hence, your question doesn't logically follow.

[georgiaboy]

YumYum, why do you have to hide behind this Irving fellow to write up your critique of "End the Fed"?

=O

[YumYum]

YumYum, why do you have to hide behind this Irving fellow to write up your critique of "End the Fed"?

=O

Sorry dude. I am not Irving. Why would you accuse me of being two different people?