Bill Still criticizing Ron Pauls idea about sound money

I want to see a political cartoon.

The USS Fedtanic - it's foundering, but surrounded by hundreds of competing currency lifeboats of every conceivable shape and size, each filled with passengers. Gold, silver, platinum, copper, bitcoins, wampum, shells, you name it - all separate boats, all floating just fine. The bow of the sinking Fedtanic is finally going down, but Captain Bernanke and First Mate Geithner are not on board. Instead, Skipper Bernanke and Gilligan Geithner can be seen peering from a lookout perch atop a tall Fed building on a nearby Island. Bernanke looks to Geithner and says, "___ CAPTION THIS ___".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onlyrp

Is it partially true Paul wants to go back to a gold standard? How about GE Griffin? P Schiff?

---

Here is what is on Ron's Campaign issues page:

Quote:

---

TIME FOR SOUND MONEY

As President, Ron Paul will work for passage of comprehensive audit legislation, and he will also fight to legalize sound money so Americans will have alternatives to the Fed’s inflated paper money.

Ultimately, he will lead the charge to end the dishonest, immoral, and unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, enabling America to take a giant step toward economic security, financial responsibility, and lasting prosperity.

---

Judging from that, I would think that Ron would seriously entertain the idea of immediately printing US Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes as part of a transition to competing currencies.

The biggest caveat we have with this whole idea is that the government can not set exchange rates of any kind. Never. The market must decide exchange rates between currencies. No price fixing either! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven Douglas

Debts can now be PAID in full, in those fully devalued (actually, finally correctly valued) notes.

---

Pwned! :D

Well, I think the issue is between a strictly gold backed dollar/gold standard VS. Greenback dollar....

Competing currencies were never brought up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nedomedo

Well, I think the issue is between a strictly gold backed dollar/gold standard VS. Greenback dollar....

---

No, that is how Bill Still would like to frame it, because all of his arguments are in FAVOR of paper money, in FAVOR of centralized control of collectivized money supply. The ONLY thing he is opposed to is having it in control of the bankers. He wants that ever-trustworthy and honorable benefactor, The State, in charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nedomedo

Competing currencies were never brought up.

---

Incorrect.

Quote:

---

From 1:01:00 of the video (emphasis mine)

"All the Austrians, and the Ron Paul folks and all that, have correctly identified the problem. That's why I call them my friend. But they have misidentified the solution... They believe a return to gold-backed money, or commodity-backed money or some combination of commodities for backing money will effectively control the quantity and break the back of the Fed. It's just not true.

What I show in the film and in the book, that time and time again throughout American history we've gone to a gold-backed money. It does nothing but further empower the banker class. Gold is concentrated money. Do you have any gold in your pocket? No? Neither do I. But I have some silver coins in there, gold is the rich man's money, it's not the middle-class guy's money. For money to be effectively out of the hands of control by the banker class, by the richest people in the country, it has to be valueless. It has to be (holding up a five dollar bill) this."

---

He knows that Ron Paul is in favor of competing currencies, not a return to a "gold backed" paper anything. Still would be a liar if he didn't acknowledge that, but he tries to imply it anyway, so that he can have an effective argument in favor of a "valueless" currency, controlled by government and out of the hands of bankers. Why? Because his argument is valid that gold is "concentrated money", and an argument can be made that gold can be manipulated, especially by bankers under a monetary regime where conflicting, contradictory counter-party claims and fractional reserve lending are tolerated.

It is ironic, however, that Still rails against gold as "exclusive" rich man's money, but to hammer that point home he points to the SILVER in his pocket! Silver, not gold, is the ORIGINAL US Dollar! Bill Still argues that gold is the rich man's money, but never mentions that silver (the PM, not the shiny worthless base metal crap in his pocket) is a more "diluted" form of money (historically, in relation to gold) - has always been the "common man's money", nor does he address why some "combination of commodities" (which he does bring up) cannot be as easily controlled as gold alone - or any single form of currency.

Another thing Still does, which is nothing but question begging, is try to frame Austrians as wanting commodity BACKED money. He repeatedly uses the word "backed" for his own reasons, as Bill Still wants everyone thinking in terms of PAPER as money, the only question remaining "what backs it"? To which he would then argue that nothing even needs to back it. That it should be intrinsically valueless, so that only the issuer (the government) can be the only one to control it.

Ron Paul and the Austrians don't argue for commodity "backed" by anything "as money". There is no "as" or "like" to it. Commodities ARE money - not a representation thereof. As such, they ARE backing, in and of themselves, and require no backing. Backing, and especially FALSE backing, is the original problem the Austrians correctly identified - one that Bill Still does not see as a problem, as he wants to put on government controlled crack.

Bill Still, with his twisted, naive suppositions, is the geolibertarian's fiat currency counterpart. Just as the geolibs don't want land to be considered "ownable", the Bill Stills and all their ilk don't want money to be considered "ownable", but only "controllable" -- by the State. They object to theft when it is in private hands, but ADVOCATE that same form of theft, but only so long as it is (rightfully in their progressive, collectivist demented minds) in PUBLIC, or State controlled, hands. Then, somehow, counterfeiting and manipulation of the aggregate supply is OK, because "it's fer da gud o-da peephole."

Meh, I don't think he is a bad guy. He seems to legitimately believe in what he is saying. I know that Ron Paul wants competing currencies because the market is best to decide, but personally he endorses a Gold Standard.

You are wrong about silver I have heard him discuss silver in many interviews and in his original documentary.

If we only had a choice between Stills system and a gold standard, there are equal negatives to both systems. Gold standard would not be the answer in this situation. As a leyman I can tell you that we probably are not the biggest holder of Gold as reported. When was Fort Knox audited last? Was it even a true audit?

Just like Ron Paul said in last nights debate, don't blame the pill, blame the immorality of our society....or.....don't blame the guns blame the criminals....

So why doesn't the same train of thought continue to paper money.....don't blame the paper, blame those print too much of it or who mismanage it etc.

Even with bankers in control of paper money, we have still built immense wealth in the last century.

How much gold is there even left in the world?

I agree with competing currencies though 100%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nedomedo

You obviously know your stuff, but couldn't we all technically hold gold and precious metals as a hedge against the inflation anyway?

We know that milk used to cost 30 cents a gallon back in the day when our money was backed by gold, but today it costs $3.50. Every normal person would see the devaluation of our money in this example and why fiat currency is bad. However, back in the day our hourly wages were only $1.00 per hour, and today its $10.00 per hour....its still the same. It takes about 1/3 of an hour of labor to earn enough money to buy a gallon of Milk. So what is the difference if it says milk costs $3.50 or $3.5 million dollars a gallon if our wages and earnings are still proportional? If it costs 3.5 million, then our wages would be $10 million per hour.

Obviously you couldn't inflate that much, there would have to be some control, but steady inflation wouldn't be that bad. Sure it would affect savers etc. but those people can just buy gold or anything else that is valuable and use it as a hedge against the inflation.

Without eliminations of the federal debt, what is another way we can pay it off without doing this? Looking at our debt its clear that no cuts will be enough. They can cut everything completely and we could still not pay down our debt.

---

What you need to take into account is the fact that milk production should be much more efficient and thus you shouldn't have to work the same number of hours to buy the same amount of milk you could when it was nominally cheaper. All inflation does is many instances is erase productivity gains. Wages rise with inflation, but even though people are more productive than they were back then, they are not able to afford more of the same products relative to those productivity gains. It's like saying adjusted for inflation a car costs the same amount it did 50 years ago, lets just assume this was true, that means that owning a car is just as expensive for lower income people than now than it was back then. That isn't a good thing, even those who are considered "poor" should have a higher standard of living than poor people 50 years ago were able to enjoy. Inflation doesn't mean that prices can not fall over time, inflation is simply an increase in the money supply which tends to result in higher prices, but in the case of something like a TV, which is more affordable today than it was 10 years ago, prices are falling at a slower rate than they would if there wasn't inflation (an increase in the money supply) So if you think a 46 inch TV is more affordable today than it was 10 years ago, just imagine how much cheaper it would be if the federal reserve wasn't debasing our currency. This is precisely why inflation is nothing more than a hidden tax that hurts poor people the most. A loaf of bread shouldn't cost 2 dollars, a gallon of milk should not cost 3.50, poor people shouldn't have to "keep up" with inflation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juslen

What you need to take into account is the fact that milk production should be much more efficient and thus you shouldn't have to work the same number of hours to buy the same amount of milk you could when it was nominally cheaper. All inflation does is many instances is erase productivity gains. Wages rise with inflation, but even though people are more productive than they were back then, they are not able to afford more of the same products relative to those productivity gains. It's like saying adjusted for inflation a car costs the same amount it did 50 years ago, lets just assume this was true, that means that owning a car is just as expensive for lower income people than now than it was back then. That isn't a good thing, even those who are considered "poor" should have a higher standard of living than poor people 50 years ago were able to enjoy. Inflation doesn't mean that prices can not fall over time, inflation is simply an increase in the money supply which tends to result in higher prices, but in the case of something like a TV, which is more affordable today than it was 10 years ago, prices are falling at a slower rate than they would if there wasn't inflation (an increase in the money supply) So if you think a 46 inch TV is more affordable today than it was 10 years ago, just imagine how much cheaper it would be if the federal reserve wasn't debasing our currency. This is precisely why inflation is nothing more than a hidden tax that hurts poor people the most. A loaf of bread shouldn't cost 2 dollars, a gallon of milk should not cost 3.50, poor people shouldn't have to "keep up" with inflation.

---

I agree, but you have to recognize that in the proper system that Still is pushing we would not have any interest on our debt, nor would we have any debt whatsoever. Federal Reserve would be gone. So all of those variables you brought up would not completely apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty

The constant rhetoric is that Ron wants a gold standard. That is not necessarily true.

---

He usually says that because he doesn't get the time to explain competing currencies & besides, it's easier for regular people to understand "gold-standard" than "competing currencies"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty

If you watched the whole video, he addresses the idea of hyper-inflation at the very end. He said it's a possibility, but how is it much different from what we have right now? If the US Fiat currency was in competition with other currencies, they would have to limit how much they create, otherwise it would become worthless, and it wouldn't be used. Now wouldn't that be a tragedy? :p

---

But WHY have government in the money-business AT ALL, that's not it's function; it's like saying - yeah, we should have private school system but we should still have government schools too - NO, their very existence in a market, undermines it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty

Getting government out is always good.

"Force"?! Who is advocating force? Competing currencies is the basis for this whole discussion. Force would negate that.

As far as government coined bullion, I don't hear anyone complaining about One Ounce Silver Eagles. If they are competitive and desired, why not continue with them? Yes, government out of business is a good thing, but this is an example of a product that is desired. As long as it is not subsidized by taxpayers, why not continue? If people start to prefer one ounce silver rounds produced by the Sunshine Mint, then that would be fine too. Competing currencies.

There needs to be a reasonable and realistic transition period. Once competing currencies are in place, we will see whether or not a US Fiat currency or US Mint bullion program will remain competitive.

---

Firstly, how would it not be subsidized by taxpayers' money? Where will the minters' & printers' salaries come from? Are they going to work for free? It HAS TO BE at taxpayers' expense & it would unfair to make people pay for something they mayn't even want to use

I'm not against a transition at all but as soon as the alternative currencies get off the ground, ALL government currencies, be it paper or coins, should be gotten rid of, they're unfair competition; government may shove it down people's throats, may be not immediately but may be decades down the road, it's important to foresee the impacts of policies into the future rather than being content with their present understanding, this is what politians & governments don't do & that's why the country is in so much sh!t!

Just like how Lincoln shoved Greencrap down people's throats & then devalued it, then once the process of going back to gold-standard was completed, they should've IMMEDIATELY withdrawn all the Greencrap but they didn't & people weren't weaned off government-paper & therefore, a few decades down the line, establishment of Fed became more politically feasible because people had already gotten used to government-money while before Lincoln's Greencrap, there was no government currency at all because Constitution didn't allow it!

If Greencrap was nipped in the bud then it would've been very difficult to establish Fed because people would NOT have been used to government money

Lincoln's Greencrap & National Banking Act 1864, which cartelized banking, were the first steps towards a journey to Fed & everything else that has followed after it; that's why it's important to get government out of money-business ASAP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nedomedo

You obviously know your stuff, but couldn't we all technically hold gold and precious metals as a hedge against the inflation anyway?

We know that milk used to cost 30 cents a gallon back in the day when our money was backed by gold, but today it costs $3.50. Every normal person would see the devaluation of our money in this example and why fiat currency is bad. However, back in the day our hourly wages were only $1.00 per hour, and today its $10.00 per hour....its still the same. It takes about 1/3 of an hour of labor to earn enough money to buy a gallon of Milk. So what is the difference if it says milk costs $3.50 or $3.5 million dollars a gallon if our wages and earnings are still proportional? If it costs 3.5 million, then our wages would be $10 million per hour.

Obviously you couldn't inflate that much, there would have to be some control, but steady inflation wouldn't be that bad. Sure it would affect savers etc. but those people can just buy gold or anything else that is valuable and use it as a hedge against the inflation.

Without eliminations of the federal debt, what is another way we can pay it off without doing this? Looking at our debt its clear that no cuts will be enough. They can cut everything completely and we could still not pay down our debt.

---

Yes, you can hold gold & then they STEAL the purchasing-power from it through various taxes only because they are devaluing their toilet-paper-money :rolleyes:

And I don't know why people think x hours of work bought y stuff in z time in the past so if we're getting that much then we're doing ok! Should we compare with people who lived before industrial revolution too? I mean look how much productivity & technology has increased to produce more goods & services even in the past few decades, it should've drastically increased people's living-standards but it hasn't because government & banks have usurped people's purchasing-power over this time

ok, let's say milk was 35 cents under gold-standard & gold-ounce was $35 so an ounce you bought back then could buy you 35/0.35 = 100 gallons; let's say your purchasing-power wasn't stolen from you, since now it's $3.50/gallon & gold is let's say $1750/ounce, you could buy 1750/3.50 = 500 gallons; moreover, someone here had calculated that based on various estimates, if gold was money today then it'd be equivalent to somewhere between $10000 to $30000/ounce, let's for simplicity's sake take it as $10500/$3.50 = 3000 gallons

So great! We've effectively been robbed of 2900/3000 = 96.66% of our purchasing-power by bankers & government, how much better off would the masses be if it had NOT been the case?

Debt is irrelevant, it's to be paid in FRNs/electronic money, NOT in pre-fixed amounts of gold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acala

Perhaps, but Congress could undo it tomorrow if it so desired. It does not so desire. It is an enthusiastic participant in the scam.

---

This, although I would not hesitate to add that many if not most members of Congress were ignorant of the details, they full well knew they were benefiting from the corruption.

What is optimistic is that there is now a growing number of citizens who understand exactly what the problem is, and at some point that number will be big enough to replace Congress, at which point the entire sham could be brought down within an election cycle or two.

Even if Ron Paul loses the White House this could still happen over the next few years, since once someone knows how they are being enslaved by the monetary system they aren't likely to forget it.

Ron Paul needs to keep doing larger and larger speeches, until we can regularly get crowds of 10,000's of thousands shouting "End The Fed!