PDA

View Full Version : This was posted on a friend's facebook




gringostarr
01-12-2008, 08:31 AM
Stop supporting ron paul!

Here's a nice little article about the Gold Standard and what would happen if it were brought back:

"The US converting to a gold standard would require them to re-issue all currency in circulation as a fixed amount of gold. Since the US government doesn't have a lot of gold, it would mean a lot less currency. Thus, they would need to purchase gold — as a result, the price of gold would skyrocket. The US government would have to sell assets in order to purchase the now absurdly expensive gold, or run a deficit. Taxes would be forced to rise to finance this.

However, this would be pointless, since approximately 1 trillion dollars of goods flows out of the US economy every year. Thus, the economy would literally bled gold bullion. The only way to balance out is a recession, so deep and crippling, that it would eliminate the US trade deficit.

Okay, the regulatory mechanism for the gold standard works like this. Suppose we have two countries, A and B.

Now, for whatever reason, country A is on the gold standard. It doesn't matter what country B is on. Now, A and B buy and sell goods to one another. In order to buy and sell goods, the people in these countries need to purchase currency from one another to buy them.

When an economy buys things from another economy, they need to purchase money from the other economy to buy goods. So, for instance, country A needs to buy country B's currency (call it B$) to buy goods from country B. And vice versa.

Now, as they buy and sell, there usually will be an imbalance been how much people buy and sell in a given country. For instance, country A may be buying more from country B than it is selling. This leads to an imbalance in the currencies, because people in country A will be buying up B$ and selling A$. When it all comes out in the wash, there is a surplus of A$ on the market -- that is, the demand for A$ is lower than the amount supplied.

Now, people will work to correct this surplus, because it's pointless for them to have A$ sitting around no one wants to own. In a quasi-fiat system of freely traded currencies, the exchange rate does this. Bankers and financial dealers adjust the relative values of the currencies to make the "price" of A$ optimal. Currencies wax and wane in value based on their economies and variety of other complex mumbo jumbo which doesn't really matter here.

However, in the gold standard this doesn't happen, because A$ are linked to a fixed amount of gold -- that is, a commodity. Instead, people who hold A$ start redeeming them for gold, in order to sell them as a useful commodity. As a result, Country A's stockpile of gold, which they use to back their currency on, dwindles. In turn, the supply of money for country A falls.

Not enough money is circulation causes the economy to constrict, since doing basic business becomes increasingly difficult. It also can cause deflation, and a host of other problems. In short, the only way for A's domestic economy to come into equillibrium is for it to crash. Businesses shut down, and domestic demand for goods slows as the economy stalls.

While this is a bad thing, it does do one very good thing. If you have no money, because the economy is in recession, you can't very well afford to buy items from country B. Thus, the supply of A$ on the market falls, and people stop redeeming the excess for gold. The process brings the two markets into equilibrium again, and all is well in the world of international commerce.

Of course, the side effects are not exactly pleasant for people in country A."

END OF UPDATE



Here's why he's a fucking lunatic:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300.IH:;

This is something that Ron Paul has introduced EVERY YEAR FOR MANY YEARS as one of his core issues. In the link is the full text of the bill HR 300 (Introduced by Ron Paul).

For those of you too lazy to read it, here's a fun quote:
"(5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts"

To sum it up, Ron Paul wants to leave the protection of civil liberties in the hands of state courts, which have a terrible track record of doing so, rather than in the hands of federal courts. While a good idea in theory to prevent the federal courts from interfering in state's affairs, the state courts rarely actually defend civil liberties, which is why so many cases end up in the hands of the supreme court.

Oh also he supports sending all illegal immigrants back to where they came from, nevermind the possibility of a 10% death rate for those people. THIS IS AMERICA GET OUT YOU DIRTY IMMEGRANTS

Also, he wants to get rid of income taxes. Never mind that roughly half of the government's money comes from income taxes. Where will they get money for federal programs? WHO CARES NO MORE INCOME TAXES YEEE HAW RON PUAL


please read up on the candidate so many people blindly support because he's a raving lunatic

-----

Sorry it's so long, but I really don't know what to say to this person, and I was hoping for a little help. I'd be very appreciative if anyone were to offer me any advice. Thank you.

rodent
01-12-2008, 09:15 AM
Stop supporting ron paul!

Here's a nice little article about the Gold Standard and what would happen if it were brought back:

"The US converting to a gold standard would require them to re-issue all currency in circulation as a fixed amount of gold. Since the US government doesn't have a lot of gold, it would mean a lot less currency. Thus, they would need to purchase gold — as a result, the price of gold would skyrocket. The US government would have to sell assets in order to purchase the now absurdly expensive gold, or run a deficit. Taxes would be forced to rise to finance this.


Ron Paul does not use the term gold-standard except in the sense that he feels the currency should be backed by a commodity that has value and utility. There's no reason that existing currency can't be pegged to a basket of currencies instead of just gold.

It's a myth that there would be a lot less currency. We'd simply have to re-evaluate the value of each Federal Reserve Note in gold (or whatever basket of commodities). It's simple math -- we don't need to go back to the original equivalence of our dollar bills to amounts of gold.



However, this would be pointless, since approximately 1 trillion dollars of goods flows out of the US economy every year. Thus, the economy would literally bled gold bullion. The only way to balance out is a recession, so deep and crippling, that it would eliminate the US trade deficit.


Under the current system, some nations have artificial pegs to our fiat currency. In a commodity-backed currency situation and under free-trade, a currency not pegged to a basket of commodities would have a fluctuating value with respect to a commodity-backed currency. This isn't unlike the fluctuating value of the dollar with respect to gold now. The fluctuation in value would be a regulating force in trade itself.




Okay, the regulatory mechanism for the gold standard works like this. Suppose we have two countries, A and B.

Now, for whatever reason, country A is on the gold standard. It doesn't matter what country B is on. Now, A and B buy and sell goods to one another. In order to buy and sell goods, the people in these countries need to purchase currency from one another to buy them.

When an economy buys things from another economy, they need to purchase money from the other economy to buy goods. So, for instance, country A needs to buy country B's currency (call it B$) to buy goods from country B. And vice versa.


Now, as they buy and sell, there usually will be an imbalance been how much people buy and sell in a given country. For instance, country A may be buying more from country B than it is selling. This leads to an imbalance in the currencies, because people in country A will be buying up B$ and selling A$. When it all comes out in the wash, there is a surplus of A$ on the market -- that is, the demand for A$ is lower than the amount supplied.

Now, people will work to correct this surplus, because it's pointless for them to have A$ sitting around no one wants to own. In a quasi-fiat system of freely traded currencies, the exchange rate does this. Bankers and financial dealers adjust the relative values of the currencies to make the "price" of A$ optimal. Currencies wax and wane in value based on their economies and variety of other complex mumbo jumbo which doesn't really matter here.

However, in the gold standard this doesn't happen, because A$ are linked to a fixed amount of gold -- that is, a commodity. Instead, people who hold A$ start redeeming them for gold, in order to sell them as a useful commodity. As a result, Country A's stockpile of gold, which they use to back their currency on, dwindles. In turn, the supply of money for country A falls.


The flaw in this analysis is this: Why would B-people who hold A$ redeem the commodities to sell them? Unless the commodities were needed for industrial uses, there is no real need for redemption. They (B-people) would only get what the commodities were worth. There's no advantage to selling the commodity, since the exchange rates on currencies would only net you A$ worth of 'value'. The flawed analysis is one-way. There's a two-way issue here.

Country B buying A$ would require that country B pay in its fiat currency to hold A$ at some fixed exchange rate. If country B's currency were fiat, A would end up holding this excess fiat currency that would have some floating value within the framework of country B. In order to maintain its money supply, country A could rapidly redeem its commodities or services or goods from country B. In trade, if country B had some comparative advantage, B$ would have some utility to citizens of A -- A citizens could use B$ to redeem commodities within the economy of B.

There's no problem. Deflation could be addressed by simply making a controlled and precise adjustment to the basket of commodities used to back the currency. There's no problem here. Commodity backed systems are advantageous in that they place a check on inflation, and consumers could make the appropriate swaps for commodities if they felt that the government was out to destroy their accumulated wealth.

heath.whiteaker
01-12-2008, 09:29 AM
good analysis... I was about to start typing and then read yours...

Chester Copperpot
01-12-2008, 09:33 AM
Stop supporting ron paul!

Here's a nice little article about the Gold Standard and what would happen if it were brought back:

"The US converting to a gold standard would require them to re-issue all currency in circulation as a fixed amount of gold. Since the US government doesn't have a lot of gold, it would mean a lot less currency. Thus, they would need to purchase gold — as a result, the price of gold would skyrocket. The US government would have to sell assets in order to purchase the now absurdly expensive gold, or run a deficit. Taxes would be forced to rise to finance this.

However, this would be pointless, since approximately 1 trillion dollars of goods flows out of the US economy every year. Thus, the economy would literally bled gold bullion. The only way to balance out is a recession, so deep and crippling, that it would eliminate the US trade deficit.

Okay, the regulatory mechanism for the gold standard works like this. Suppose we have two countries, A and B.

Now, for whatever reason, country A is on the gold standard. It doesn't matter what country B is on. Now, A and B buy and sell goods to one another. In order to buy and sell goods, the people in these countries need to purchase currency from one another to buy them.

When an economy buys things from another economy, they need to purchase money from the other economy to buy goods. So, for instance, country A needs to buy country B's currency (call it B$) to buy goods from country B. And vice versa.

Now, as they buy and sell, there usually will be an imbalance been how much people buy and sell in a given country. For instance, country A may be buying more from country B than it is selling. This leads to an imbalance in the currencies, because people in country A will be buying up B$ and selling A$. When it all comes out in the wash, there is a surplus of A$ on the market -- that is, the demand for A$ is lower than the amount supplied.

Now, people will work to correct this surplus, because it's pointless for them to have A$ sitting around no one wants to own. In a quasi-fiat system of freely traded currencies, the exchange rate does this. Bankers and financial dealers adjust the relative values of the currencies to make the "price" of A$ optimal. Currencies wax and wane in value based on their economies and variety of other complex mumbo jumbo which doesn't really matter here.

However, in the gold standard this doesn't happen, because A$ are linked to a fixed amount of gold -- that is, a commodity. Instead, people who hold A$ start redeeming them for gold, in order to sell them as a useful commodity. As a result, Country A's stockpile of gold, which they use to back their currency on, dwindles. In turn, the supply of money for country A falls.

Not enough money is circulation causes the economy to constrict, since doing basic business becomes increasingly difficult. It also can cause deflation, and a host of other problems. In short, the only way for A's domestic economy to come into equillibrium is for it to crash. Businesses shut down, and domestic demand for goods slows as the economy stalls.

While this is a bad thing, it does do one very good thing. If you have no money, because the economy is in recession, you can't very well afford to buy items from country B. Thus, the supply of A$ on the market falls, and people stop redeeming the excess for gold. The process brings the two markets into equilibrium again, and all is well in the world of international commerce.

Of course, the side effects are not exactly pleasant for people in country A."

END OF UPDATE



Here's why he's a fucking lunatic:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300.IH:;

This is something that Ron Paul has introduced EVERY YEAR FOR MANY YEARS as one of his core issues. In the link is the full text of the bill HR 300 (Introduced by Ron Paul).

For those of you too lazy to read it, here's a fun quote:
"(5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts"

To sum it up, Ron Paul wants to leave the protection of civil liberties in the hands of state courts, which have a terrible track record of doing so, rather than in the hands of federal courts. While a good idea in theory to prevent the federal courts from interfering in state's affairs, the state courts rarely actually defend civil liberties, which is why so many cases end up in the hands of the supreme court.

Oh also he supports sending all illegal immigrants back to where they came from, nevermind the possibility of a 10% death rate for those people. THIS IS AMERICA GET OUT YOU DIRTY IMMEGRANTS

Also, he wants to get rid of income taxes. Never mind that roughly half of the government's money comes from income taxes. Where will they get money for federal programs? WHO CARES NO MORE INCOME TAXES YEEE HAW RON PUAL


please read up on the candidate so many people blindly support because he's a raving lunatic

-----

Sorry it's so long, but I really don't know what to say to this person, and I was hoping for a little help. I'd be very appreciative if anyone were to offer me any advice. Thank you.

I thought FACEBOOK was supposed to be for smart college kids or something.. Looks like they aint too bright.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-12-2008, 10:31 AM
Stop supporting ron paul!

Here's a nice little article about the Gold Standard and what would happen if it were brought back:

"The US converting to a gold standard would require them to re-issue all currency in circulation as a fixed amount of gold. Since the US government doesn't have a lot of gold, it would mean a lot less currency.

Whoever wrote this doesn't seem to know much about currency at all.

Jason726
01-12-2008, 02:50 PM
They act like RP wants to instantly switch to a gold standard. He wants to transition into a commidity backed currency and let the currencies compete. I don't have a rock-solid understanding of RP's monetary ideas, but I do know that I don't want private bankers earning interest off THE PEOPLE'S money.

For that fact alone you would think people would all agree that RP has the best answers.

ambiguousscion
01-12-2008, 03:14 PM
presuppositions...

Goldwater Conservative
01-12-2008, 03:41 PM
Overlooking the shoddy economics I don't even feel like getting into, Paul has repeatedly said his position is to remove taxes on gold and silver and allow competing currencies. Wow, how frightening. It'd be like a crazy world where people could choose what currency to rely upon and businesses could choose what currency to accept. *cough*sorryweonlyacceptVisa*cough* Seriously, what's ridiculous is the idea that a monetary system can exist where "wealth" is created out of thin air - that is, working class people and the poor are effectively taxed for every dollar they possess without even knowing it.

And I love the assumption that state governments are evil fiefdoms that want to enslave their people, but the federal government is a magical and benevolent nanny figure we can always count on. Since the federal government is run by people from the various states, I wonder how it manages to aggregate all that darkness into something so holy? Anyway, how dare the people not trust more distant government, government where they have less of a voice, more corporate-influenced and foreign-influenced government, and government where "one size fits all" and no room is left for regional policy preferences, economic differences, or democratic experimentation.

I'd like to see the immigrant charge backed up. Does Paul really support a coordinated effort to round up illegal aliens and deport them? Does such mass deportation really result in a death rate of 10%? Last time I checked, Paul supports deporting people who are here illegally, but not a nationwide manhunt. Why shouldn't we tell people who are breaking our laws of entry to leave and try again the right way? It's our safety and our economy at risk. We have every right to and should make sure no criminals get in and nobody is going to be taking more out of our system than they put in.

As for the income tax, like with all other things Paul isn't going to do anything overnight. He has consistently said he wants to transition away from our global military empire and our welfare state before reducing or cutting off the source of revenue for them. For the record, the income tax doesn't pay for most of the welfare programs anyway, the payroll taxes (SS and Medicare) do. Also, the states and localities could pick up the slack if they so chose, because there would be that much more potential revenue and the people would have greater political power.