Video: Liberty & Economics - Great intro to Mises, liberty & economics. Ron P @ 13:18

[angrydragon]

Those that thirst for liberty, I think you will enjoy watching.

Mises’s battles against Communists, Nazis, and other socialists, are featured in this film, as are his ideas of Liberty. There is also the old Vienna he loved, the Bolshevik prime minister he dissuaded from Communism, and a cast of villains from Lenin to Hitler, as well as such supporters and students as Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Bettina Greaves, M. Stanton Evans, Mary Peterson, Joseph Sobran, and Yuri Maltzev.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658307639261829691

Same video, but on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpATNp5DjYI (I don't know how they got over the 10 minute limit)

A good and easy book for understanding economics is "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, though hasn't been updated for quite a while.

Ron Paul's words on the book.

Apparently no one in the administration has read Henry Hazlitt’s classic book, Economics in one Lesson. Professor Hazlitt’s fundamental lesson was simple: We must examine economic policy by considering the long-term effects of any proposal on all groups.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul21.html


I strongly recommend that every American acquire some basic knowledge of economics, monetary policy, and the intersection of politics with the economy. No formal classroom is required; a desire to read and learn will suffice. There are countless important books to consider, but the following are an excellent starting point: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat; Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt; What has Government Done to our Money? by Murray Rothbard; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan.

If you simply read and comprehend these relatively short texts, you will know far more than most educated people about economics and government. You certainly will develop a far greater understanding of how supposedly benevolent government policies destroy prosperity. If you care about the future of this country, arm yourself with knowledge and fight back against economic ignorance. We disregard economics and history at our own peril.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul311.html

I thought this was great, what Lew Rockwell (Feb. 1999) said about Ron Paul.

Doherty: How did you end up working with Ron Paul?

Rockwell: In those days, unlike today, I had a keen interest in the affairs of Congress: the members of each committee, the legislation that was being considered, and the like. Being a Congressional aide had always been a dream of mine, as absurd as that may sound today. When Ron won his first full term, he asked me to work for him.

We never saw his office as a conventionally political one. It was a bully pulpit to get the message out. We sent out hundreds of thousands of tracts on freedom, inserted amazing articles in the Congressional Record, and drafted libertarian legislation as an educational effort.

As for his voting record, Ron had a clear standard: if it meant stealing people's money, he was against it. If it gave people back the liberty and property the government had taken, he was for it. Most of the lobbyists eventually stopped visiting our offices.

He was always respected by fellow legislators, but they thought of him as a bit off-kilter. It was Mr. Paul Goes to Washington. Politicians view their job as trading votes, getting their share of pork, expanding government, and generally playing the game. They believe they are being productive when they have helped pass more spending and regulatory legislation, and the price for their vote gets high indeed.

Ron was the opposite. He was a standing rebuke, not only to his colleagues but to the entire system. He still is.

Not many people in D.C. understood what Ron was up to. I remember once when a lobbyist came by and demanded that Ron oppose foreign aid to the Philippines on grounds that people there killed dogs for food. Ron was glad to support cutting foreign aid for any reason. He introduced the bill, and overnight he was celebrated by animal-rights activists all over the country.

Of course, the bill didn't pass. It's important to remember that ideology plays a very small role in legislative affairs except as a kind of public relations gloss. If a farming bill is passed by a Republican Congress, it is called the "Freedom To Farm Act." If it is passed by a Democratic Congress, it is called the "Family Farm Fairness Act." The text can be identical; only the coloring changes.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/oldright.html

[CJLauderdale4]

Nice educational find!!
The trick is developing a process of getting the metals back into the backing of the system. Our nation doesn't have enough of these metals to back the billions of dollars our fiat system claims it is worth.

Ron has said to introduce a competing system that has a gold standard, but there's not enough gold to go around that can be represented.

How do we do this??

[angrydragon]

I'm not sure. I think it'll happen once it becomes legal.

Maybe this will help or not.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north213.html



Cliché: "There Isn’t Enough Gold"

It would appear that the reasons commonly advanced as a proof that the quantity of the circulating medium should vary as production increases or decreases are entirely unfounded. It would appear also that the fall of prices proportionate to the increase in productivity, which necessarily follows when, the amount of money remaining the same, production increases, is not only entirely harmless, but in fact the only means of avoiding misdirections of production.

F. A. Hayek, Prices and Production (1931), p. 105

What Professor Hayek wrote in 1931 was not accepted then, and it is not accepted today. Note: it would take over $1,200 to match the purchasing power of $100 in 1931, according to the inflation calculator of the U.S. government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

If policy-makers had listened to him, we might be able to buy for $25 what it took $100 to buy in 1931. That is because economic growth has continued steadily since 1931.

[Erazmus]

Ron has said to introduce a competing system that has a gold standard, but there's not enough gold to go around that can be represented.

How do we do this??

Well first thing, gold is vastly more expensive than the current dollar. This means that a gold backed dollar would be worth many current U.S. dollars. It wouldn't be a 1:1 ratio. Going to a gold/silver backed system would have to be a phased process, meaning that there would be two currencies in circulation, and all U.S. businesses would have to accept both forms of currencies. Banks would have to stop circulating the current U.S. dollar at some point throughout the phasing process. This phasing process was in the beginning phases during the Kennedy administration. He reintroduced what were known as "Silver Backs" into circulation.

I think most people have accepted the idea that we can’t just have a gold standard, that we must also incorporate silver as well. But we need something. Fiat systems just don’t work. They haven’t worked in the history of mankind. Hell, look at how long we’ve had a fiat system in this country and look how bad inflation is already.

[angrydragon]

The free-market will need to do it's work once metals and such are legal tender.

[CJLauderdale4]

Well first thing, gold is vastly more expensive than the current dollar. This means that a gold backed dollar would be worth many current U.S. dollars. It wouldn't be a 1:1 ratio. Going to a gold/silver backed system would have to be a phased process, meaning that there would be two currencies in circulation, and all U.S. businesses would have to accept both forms of currencies. Banks would have to stop circulating the current U.S. dollar at some point throughout the phasing process. This phasing process was in the beginning phases during the Kennedy administration. He reintroduced what were known as "Silver Backs" into circulation.

I think most people have accepted the idea that we can’t just have a gold standard, that we must also incorporate silver as well. But we need something. Fiat systems just don’t work. They haven’t worked in the history of mankind. Hell, look at how long we’ve had a fiat system in this country and look how bad inflation is already.

Agreed. Ok, this makes sense. We definitely need to have other metals, and yes, it's not a 1:1 ratio. The buying of metals makes sense to me, sort of like a company buying back its value by buying its own stock.

But with the inflated greenback, the way it is today, I think the extremely wealthy are in for a wake-up call when they learn that there is not $50B of metal-backed value in the U.S. BUT, their money isn't backed today with fiat money either, so it's not like they lost anything, right? Most people with that kind of money know how to invest in things of real value, so they can maintain and not depreciate.

Well, one thing's for sure, going gold and slashing the spending/printing machine in DC would spark the middle-class and stop major inflation.

One more thing: once we start buying metals and not printing greenbacks, how do we keep the foreign treasury note holders who lent us money in the past to not up and sell their notes, in fear that we may be trying to devalue what they've invested in??? (Again, China could do this today, and it already has started...)