Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 174

Thread: Deregulating the banks?

  1. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    The flaw in your thinking:
    You see the earth with your very flawed eyes and understanding and do a calculation.

    You cannot see, comprehend or calculate the future innovation, tools, technology, knowledge or capacity of the human race- so you ignore this.

    You run your calculator and it gives you a number to which you compare to something you ignored and discount, and become fearful.

    You take this fear and demand solutions to solve this fear that must come from the very arena you discounted above:
    future innovation, tools, technology, knowledge or capacity of the human race
    Would that what you say have any basis in fact.

    It does not.

    Innovation /> mathematics.

    And where you get fear from I know not.

    We must expand or we will go extinct, period.

    Well, eventually we will go extinct, but if we can somehow get to a timescale of millions of years instead of thousands I'd be happy enough
    Last edited by WilliamC; 03-05-2012 at 02:18 PM.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    You have not provided any premise.

    You are confusing concepts.

    You are trying to equate, two, exclusive concepts to be the same.

    Something valuable to store is NOT the same as a store of value.

    I think my letters home to my wife are valuable, so I store them.
    They do not store any value, because if one day I have to decide between them and my wife's life - they will burn.
    So the value they have changes - and therefore, you cannot store it (see grain example)
    The reason that your letters are not valuable is because value is not based on what you think, but what most people think.

    Most people throughout human history have valued gold and silver, this is not (as far as I am aware) disputed by you.

    Few people would value your letters.

    Also, gold and silver have the unique properties of remaining unchanged over timescales of thousands of years, unlike grain, so while the absolute quantity of their value (amount of some other physical object per physical piece of gold/silver) may change, the fact that they have intrinsic value over time does not.

    Again, they are not valuable outside of humans, and I can imagine scenarios where they would have no or limited value, but based on human economic history they are pretty much the definition of wealth and will likely continue to be in the future.

    Why this is in dispute is unclear to me.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  4. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
    They aren't the only stores of value, just the most enduring.
    But they aren't.

    You want to hold up 10,000 years of records - but throughout that record gold has gone from nothing to something to maybe something or nothing to nothing to something...over and over again.

    You do not live for 10,000 years.

    The thing you need to consider is that gold is valuless until you trade it – you can’t eat it for food nor burn it for heat nor wear it to protect yourself from the elements.

    So, to obtain value from it, you will at some point in time have to trade it.

    So pontifizing that it has some historical relevance is totally meaningless and irrelevant – its relevance only happens the day you sell.

    There there will be a difference between the day you bought and the day you sell.

    And if you bought in 1980 and sold in 1999, it was negative.
    Therefore, there was no store of value.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 03-05-2012 at 04:03 PM.

  5. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    But they aren't.
    So the gold and silver mined thousands of years ago is no longer valuable?

    That's news to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    You want to hold up 10,000 of records - but throughout that record gold has gone from nothing to something to maybe something or nothing to nothing to something...over and over again.
    Please show me any recorded historical period during which gold had zero value.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    You do not live for 10,000 years.
    But gold and silver can be used to pass wealth from generation to generation, unlike any other physical object. So gold and silver mined 10,000 years ago would still have value today, and assuming humans are still extant will still have value 10,000 years into the future.

    What else would you suggest would be better to hold onto that long, grain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    The thing you need to consider is that gold is valuless until you trade it – you can’t eat it for food nor burn it for heat nor wear it to protect yourself from the elements.
    You must not have read my post above where I defined the value of something as the ability to trade it for other objects. So everything you say from this point onward is based on a flawed premiss.

    /snip.

    edit: I misspoke above, land is also commonly used to transfer wealth from generation to generation throughout history, but land and control of land is a unique object in the economy in that it is not portable. Other wealth, including gold and silver, you can take with you if you relocate. Land obviously stays where it is.
    Last edited by WilliamC; 03-05-2012 at 03:44 PM.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  6. #95

    Default

    Emphasis mine:

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    They have been valuable to store - but again, they do not store value.

    How can you explain that gold was $35, now $1700, was $850 and $250... while at the same time, claiming it is storing such value?

    What does "storing value" mean?

    I store my grain in a bin - I expect to have the same grain when I open my bin at a point in the future.
    So if I store value - I expect to have the same value at a point in the future.

    But value changes all time - every second depending on your personal circumstance.

    So how can you possibly say that you are storing value - keeping it the same for the future - when it is never the same in the future?

    You have a conceptual contradiction.
    No, you have a conceptual misunderstanding yourself - one that happens to be shared by many.

    Let's explore that part I put in big bold above, shall we? Especially the question of what, precisely, is being stored for the future, which should never change.

    Let's say that you do store your grain in a bin. That particular "store of value" is only the intrinsic (NOT MARKET) value of the grain, which is:

    TEN SILOS, 10 METRIC TONS EACH, HARD RED WINTER WHEAT

    That is the intrinsic store of value, having nothing to do with demand, desirability, or prices (exchange rate with anything else) it will fetch on the market at any point in time - which are indeed extrinsic and cannot be stored into the wheat.

    The only thing that you should expect is that the same amount of grain will be in each silo each time you return to it. That "store of value" (Wheat x 100 Tons) is FIXED, and easy to verify.

    "Well, hey, look at all that wheat!" Joe says. Light bulb.

    Joe buys your 100 tons of wheat, and your 10 silos. He has a novel idea, and wants to build a company around that wheat. So Joe incorporates and issues 10,000 shares, which represents 100% of Red Wheat, Inc., with the silos and wheat as assets. I and three others buy 2,000 shares each, or 20% each of Joe's company, while Joe retains 20% for himself. Five parties total, each 20% owners.

    What can we all now expect?

    We can expect that our shares will represent 20% ownership in that company at all times. Nothing anyone does, inside or outside of the company, can change that percentage of ownership, which is FIXED -- allocated to each of us. With one exception, as stated further below.*

    Strictly speaking, our company shares represent ownership of TWO SILOS, 20 METRIC TONS OF WHEAT to each major shareholder. In fact, it is even written in the corporate bylaws that if the board of director decides to dissolve the company before the wheat is touched, and assuming that all other debts are paid, each shareholder will have the option of taking possession of a proportional amount of silos and wheat, or TWO silos and 20 tons of wheat total for each major shareholder, rather than liquidate that part of the company.

    *If anyone shows up with a identical silos full of wheat of their own, they can be admitted into the company, and issued shares of their own. That will dilute our shares, of course, but not the quantity of assets each shareholder has a claim on. That remains constant.


    Well, as misfortune has it, while diddling the mistress nobody knew about, Joe has a heart attack and dies.

    A meeting of the board of directors is called, and all share holders convene to decide on what to do next. Well, surprise, surprise, because TEN 20% shareholders show up to the meeting - each in possession of 2,000 shares! Joe indeed kept 20% for himself, but he sold 20% to TEN separate parties, or 200% of the company, not including his shares, which are still in his desk. 10,000 shares declared, 22,000 issued, 20,000 of which were sold at the same time to investors who did no wrong, but bought them in good faith.

    The wheat was not stolen, nor is it gone. It's still there in the silos. We can all see it, measure it, count and verify that the "store of wheat" (the very meaning of "store of value") is there. But it was sold more than once, and Joe's mistress has long since spent that money and disappeared with it to South America.

    Strictly speaking, I have a claim on two silos, each containing 10 metric tons of wheat. But nine others have the same claim. Ten parties have a claim on twenty silos full of wheat, but there are only ten silos total. Joe's estate has nothing besides shares in his desk - which are naturally invalid, and forfeited. Issuing 200% of the shares in the company was no different than going into my silo and removing 50% of the STORE OF WHEAT.

    The only solution at this point, of course, is for everyone to recognize that we all took it up the ass. We must acknowledge one another as fellow victims with equal claims, and take our 50% haircut like men. So big deal, where I thought I owned 2 silos at 20 metric tons of wheat, I now own 1 silo and 10 metric tons of wheat.

    Not so fast. Screw that, say some. They want full value for their claim, will not recognize anyone else as a victim, and especially not themselves. For all they know the others could have been in on the scam. So we go to the courts to get this nonsense adjudicated properly. The judge will see it all clearly, and in the absence of proof of wrong-doing on any investor's part, the haircut will just move forward.

    Well, surprise surprise again, because all of the victims are about to get yet another reaming, this time by the court.

    The judge's solution: Lock up all the wheat -thus CONFISCATING even the remaining valid 50% claims each had - because the source of the problem, in the judge's mind, was that there was not enough wheat to go around, but plenty of shares. So he places all that wheat into a public trust, so that nobody can touch it or fight over it. Henceforth, nobody is permitted to liquidate or take ownership of what was their rightful proportional store of wheat, even after the crime was uncovered.

    The judge decides that all shares must be equally valid. He got that part right, but somehow the only way to accomplish this, in the judges oatmeal and manure mind, is by declaring that what was once shares in a fixed store of wheat now represents not a STORE OF WHEAT, but rather a store of collective belief in the value of the shares. After all, nobody was using the wheat anyway. The vast majority were content to trade only shares amongst one another before, so why should that not continue?

    Furthermore, the TEN OTHER INVESTORS who had contracted with Joe to buy an additional 20% (which would have meant 400% of the company) -- well, they gave Joe money, but hadn't received their shares yet. But they have notarized receipts, which are as good as shares. Can't expect them to do without. Their claims need to be considered as well. So the judge appoints a trustee, who is in charge of issuing additional shares. Oh, and Joe's widow - her shares are as valid as anyone else's now, and need to be honored as well. Pull those out of Joe's desk and put a court seal of approval on them.

    None of this is a problem, now that the pesky STORE OF WHEAT is out of the way. There wasn't enough to go around anyway, but obviously there was demand for the shares. The wheat was just a fiction anyway. The shares are the key - the reality. Obviously, people valued shares, not wheat. And they don't fight over shares. They only fight over wheat. So remove the wheat, and all is well!
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 03-05-2012 at 07:34 PM.

  7. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Sir, your graph shows only that its price in reference to the US$ changes regularly.

    This has NOTHING to do with value.

    Hmm... which actually was a consequence of Nixon closing the gold window in 1971.
    Your graph does not go back to when gold was $35/oz....
    I didn't post the graph to prove value, I posted the graph to prove that YOUR claim that because its price in dollars has changed up and down means it doesn't have value is BOGUS.

    If you measure Gold's value compared to almost anything else on average, has maintained its value. It has been one of the only things in history to maintain its value. Gold has maintained its value with oil, with food prices, etc. That is the point.

  8. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MooCowzRock View Post
    I didn't post the graph to prove value, I posted the graph to prove that YOUR claim that because its price in dollars has changed up and down means it doesn't have value is BOGUS.
    Comprehension and reading skills are short on this topic....

    I did not say it did not have value.

    I said it is not a store of value.

    You showed that example perfectly.
    It has been one of the only things in history to maintain its value.
    That is absolutely not true - based on your own facts.

    The inflation rate went up - which means prices went up - and gold price was flat.

    That means the value of gold went down since it took more gold to trade for other goods

    To claim that it "maintains value" in the face of direct fact to the contrary which you provided yourself is mind numbing.

  9. #98

    Default

    PS:

    As a short survey, who here is an "Austrian" or "Chicago" or "Keynesian"?

  10. #99
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wallingford, CT & Eastern Shore, VA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Grain has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's edible and tastes good).

    Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's scarce, divisible, visibly attractive, doesn't oxidize, conducts electricity, etc.)

    Gold and grain are valued by people for their intrinsic properties. They do not have intrinsic value to themselves. How much people value those properties, relative to the intrinsic properties of other items, may change over time, depending on people's needs and wants.

    Yes, gold has always been valued by people. But people determine the value based on their desire for its properties, the value is not intrinsic to gold. For example, let's say today you could trade 1 ounce of gold for either 10 barrels of oil or 20 bushels of grain. A year from now there is a massive famine. A year from now you could still trade 1 ounce of gold for 10 barrels of oil, but 1 ounce of gold only can purchase 1/2 of a bushel of grain. It's the intrinsic properties that people desire, in this case, something edible, which give things value.
    "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
    Ronald Reagan, 1981

  11. #100
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wallingford, CT & Eastern Shore, VA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    PS:

    As a short survey, who here is an "Austrian" or "Chicago" or "Keynesian"?
    You aren't going to find anyone to admit to being a Keynesian on this forum. And since I think almost everyone on the forum sees the major difference between Austrian and Chicago as the existence of a central bank inflating the currency, you aren't going to find any anyone willing to claim that label, either.

    That being said, there are some people here who do want state intervention in the economy. A few people want the government to inflate the currency, rather than a bank (don't ask why they think that will make a difference), and a few more want things like high import tariffs. Both positions are a minority view.
    "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
    Ronald Reagan, 1981

  12. #101
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wallingford, CT & Eastern Shore, VA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
    I would say the greatest threat, and the difference between now and other times in human history (up to ~100 years ago) is overpopulation and the fact that humans have essentially run out of places to migrate to.
    As wealth increases the and the survival rate of offspring increases, the rate of population growth slows down. This is the US population growth rate, from census to census:



    As the wealth of the world increases, you will see the same effect.
    "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
    Ronald Reagan, 1981

  13. #102

    Default

    Government regulations are written for big business. Banking regulations help the banks, medical programs help the insurance and big pharma companies, media regulations are written by the communications industry etc. Lobbyists and corporations literally write the regulations today.

    The market is a stronger regulator than the government.
    For Liberty!

  14. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    You aren't going to find anyone to admit to being a Keynesian on this forum. And since I think almost everyone on the forum sees the major difference between Austrian and Chicago as the existence of a central bank inflating the currency, you aren't going to find any anyone willing to claim that label, either.
    There are actually a few Voluntarist Chicago School Economists.

  15. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    As wealth increases the and the survival rate of offspring increases, the rate of population growth slows down. This is the US population growth rate, from census to census:



    As the wealth of the world increases, you will see the same effect.
    To an extent I agree with you but just because there is a correlation between wealth and decreased childbirth in some populations does not mean that this will be true for all populations.

    I would like to hope that there is a way that individuals can be given enough resources and freedom to rationally decide to limit their fecundity for the good of the entire species, but that sort of ethical thinking is many levels removed from the mentality of most people on Earth today who are worried about having enough to eat or clean water or the ability to survive whatever war or disease is currently killing off their neighbors.

    More likely is that governments will do what they always do and kill large numbers of their own citizens. After all, it's what has worked in the past
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  16. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    Grain has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's edible and tastes good).

    Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's scarce, divisible, visibly attractive, doesn't oxidize, conducts electricity, etc.)

    Gold and grain are valued by people for their intrinsic properties. They do not have intrinsic value to themselves. How much people value those properties, relative to the intrinsic properties of other items, may change over time, depending on people's needs and wants.

    Yes, gold has always been valued by people. But people determine the value based on their desire for its properties, the value is not intrinsic to gold. For example, let's say today you could trade 1 ounce of gold for either 10 barrels of oil or 20 bushels of grain. A year from now there is a massive famine. A year from now you could still trade 1 ounce of gold for 10 barrels of oil, but 1 ounce of gold only can purchase 1/2 of a bushel of grain. It's the intrinsic properties that people desire, in this case, something edible, which give things value.
    I simply say that the intrinsic value are simply those intrinsic properties which people assign a value to. What makes gold unique is that while the trade value of gold, measured against other objects, changes through time, gold always has a non-zero intrinsic value over any arbitrary length of time, unlike most any other economic commodity. I am not aware of a culture or society in human history during which possession of gold was not equated with possession of value or wealth, but I don't know everything.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  17. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    As wealth increases the and the survival rate of offspring increases, the rate of population growth slows down. This is the US population growth rate, from census to census:



    As the wealth of the world increases, you will see the same effect.
    This is an interesting chart, because each plot point is based on a percent of change relative to the previous total, rather than just raw number increases. The population is actually increasing - just not exponentially, as many truly moronic fear-mongering academics like to project - which enables these idiots to project and predict that "at the current rate of growth" (by percent of previous totals, as if that was possible) we should all be standing shoulder to shoulder, covering the entire earth in a ridiculously short period of time. I don't have the chart now, I'll look for it later, but if you just look at raw numbers, you see a relatively linear, not exponential, increase in the population. That's what you're really looking at with a chart like this reads in a way that implies a reverse of exponential growth, or a decline in the population, when it's really just a linear increase, and not very dramatic at all.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 03-06-2012 at 10:52 AM.

  18. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    Austrian and Chicago.
    Not claim "Chicago" I assume - meaning most would align with the Austrian arguments?

    So I'd be wondering about those who claim to follow Austrian theory while at the same time hold non-Austrian definition of money and value.... since it is these very definitions that are the fundamental root of all Austrian theory.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 03-06-2012 at 11:12 AM.

  19. #108

    Default

    I'm a sound money guy. Liberty, Peace, and Prosperity.

    Bankers have no business running governments.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  20. #109
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wallingford, CT & Eastern Shore, VA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    The population is actually increasing - just not exponentially, as many truly moronic fear-mongering academics like to project - which enables these idiots to project and predict that "at the current rate of growth" (by percent of previous totals, as if that was possible) we should all be standing shoulder to shoulder, covering the entire earth in a ridiculously short period of time.
    A math problem I had in school a long time ago:

    There are 5,280 feet in a mile
    There are 27,878,400 square feet in a square mile

    Alaska has 586,412 square miles
    Alaska has 16,348,228,300,800 square feet

    There are 6,998,683,681 people in the world.

    Dividing...

    If every person in the world lived in Alaska they would have 2,336 square feet each. And the rest of the world would be empty.

    Overpopulated, indeed.
    "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
    Ronald Reagan, 1981

  21. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    I'm a sound money guy. Liberty, Peace, and Prosperity.

    Bankers have no business running governments.
    Government has no business running banks or anything else, actually.

  22. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Government has no business running banks or anything else, actually.
    Apologies for calling you Roy, then. That is definitely a thing he would never, ever write.

  23. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    Grain has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's edible and tastes good).

    Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's scarce, divisible, visibly attractive, doesn't oxidize, conducts electricity, etc.)

    Gold and grain are valued by people for their intrinsic properties. They do not have intrinsic value to themselves. How much people value those properties, relative to the intrinsic properties of other items, may change over time, depending on people's needs and wants.

    Yes, gold has always been valued by people. But people determine the value based on their desire for its properties, the value is not intrinsic to gold. For example, let's say today you could trade 1 ounce of gold for either 10 barrels of oil or 20 bushels of grain. A year from now there is a massive famine. A year from now you could still trade 1 ounce of gold for 10 barrels of oil, but 1 ounce of gold only can purchase 1/2 of a bushel of grain. It's the intrinsic properties that people desire, in this case, something edible, which give things value.
    +1

    People take the "intrinsic value" argument completely out of context & conflate "value" & "intrinsic value"
    Not everything has "value" because it's a subjective concept while anything that gets it's value out of its properties (as opposed to government decree) has "intrinsic value"

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    You aren't going to find anyone to admit to being a Keynesian on this forum. And since I think almost everyone on the forum sees the major difference between Austrian and Chicago as the existence of a central bank inflating the currency, you aren't going to find any anyone willing to claim that label, either.

    That being said, there are some people here who do want state intervention in the economy. A few people want the government to inflate the currency, rather than a bank (don't ask why they think that will make a difference), and a few more want things like high import tariffs. Both positions are a minority view.
    So why do they think that that will make a difference? Do they think that honest, uncorrupt, angelic politicians & bureaucrats won't abuse the money-issuing power as opposed to evil banksters?
    This is being peddled by people who are trying to nudge people towards communism/socialism & by giving them a little bit of truth about Fed & the monetary system Centralization of credit in the hands of the State is one of the planks on communist-manifesto

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Apologies for calling you Roy, then. That is definitely a thing he would never, ever write.
    May be not but he's just as self-righteous & thinks that anyone that can't see his "self-evident & objective truth" is either an idiot, evil or has a "crackpot economic theory"
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  24. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Government has no business running banks or anything else, actually.
    Governments don't run banks. Governments get their authority from ratified constitutions. That, along with legally ratified amendments, is all the authority they possess.

    Quote only the constitution or legally ratified amendments to prove that governments have the authority to own a bank. I have not been able to find where they got their authority.

    BTW... I do know that TV, radio, government school teachers, and 99% of the people believe that governments run banks. That is irrelevant to me. What I am asking for is legally documented proof of their authority.

    BTW II... it is my opinion that banks run governments illegally. That the bankers took over the United States government in a coup in 1861 starting with paper money and war.

    Just because they did it does not mean they had the legal authority to do it. The Khazars have taken over governments all over the world for centuries.

    What I am asking for is: "Why do you believe that governments run banks?" Just because TV says it? Or is there a basis in fact?
    Last edited by Travlyr; 03-07-2012 at 05:40 AM.

  25. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by No Free Beer View Post
    I disagree. We need to regulate the banks.
    So you think Ron Paul is an idiot & has no clue about economics or governance???

    And by the way, whom are expecting to "regulate"? Politicians & bureaucrats, right? Yeah, that always works out well you know because it's not like they're self-interested or anything, I mean politicians & bureaucrats are usually so honest, wise & uncorrupt, aren't they?

    If you have a little time then read my post on the first page of this thread, the whole mess was caused by GOVERNMENT & OVER-REGULATION

    The black guy @4:00 keeps saying "but but regulation", "but but the derivatives" & Ron shuts him every time by bringing the issue back to government & over-regulation & Fed; he was expecting Paul to say that he'll "regulate" or ban the derivatives but obviously he doesn't understand what caused the problem & where Paul is coming from

    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  26. #115

    Default

    That was a good interview for Ron Paul, but the interviewers were just bone-headed stupid or deceptively lying greedy cheats.

    Ron Paul repeatedly says that "debt must be liquidated", which is to say that lot's and lot's of creditors will lose lot's and lot's of future income (and quite possibly go bankrupt) since the debt they hold is worthless and they refuse to admit it.

    The reporters and politicians and wealthy know the problems we are in and Ron Paul's solution pretty well, even if the average voter has little clue about what inflation and fiat currency really does to society. But these and most reporters and the people who pay them know it would cost them their wealth, power, prestige and lifestyle to actually return to a sound money system with the necessary changes in government that must come with this. That's why they are not only opposed to him, but they are so opposed to him that they will go to any lengths, including lies and violence, to keep him from gaining a wider audience.

    In how many interviews has the media been willing to lie about Ron Paul's positions, even to his face as reporters often do when they deliberately misinterpret what Ron Paul has just said to them and come back with a falsely premised, baited question. That's why most politicians including Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum would all rather the Republican Party lose in 2012 rather than have Ron Paul win.

    And whether or not most of the electorate is simply too ignorant or too stupidly greedy to figure out they are and have been being stolen from for damn near 100 years now is up for question, I tend to think it's ignorance myself 'cause if it's stupidity and greed then America will fall. Soon.

    It's either hyperinflation or liquidation, I really don't see any other long-term alternatives. Hyperinflation wipes out the middle class and makes them all poor, liquidation wipes out the entrenched empowered elite and those living off of government handouts but restores a vibrant, economically growing middle class in which motivated and talented individuals can become wealthy, which is the essence of the American Dream.
    Last edited by WilliamC; 03-07-2012 at 08:30 AM.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  27. #116

    Default

    Well said, WilliamC. We are nearing critical mass. There is no stopping us now. Even if they don't let Ron Paul be president... onward and forward.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  28. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Apologies for calling you Roy, then. That is definitely a thing he would never, ever write.
    Accepted, especially now I've "met" this Roy ...egads!

  29. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Governments don't run banks.
    Gads!

    OF COURSE THEY DO!

    It is the fundamental of every government to hold tight its grip on the heart of the economy. They command control over 1/2 of every transaction - the money - for a reason.


    Governments get their authority from ratified constitutions. That, along with legally ratified amendments, is all the authority they possess.
    hahahhahahhaha

    No, they get it from the point of a gun.

    Quote only the constitution or legally ratified amendments to prove that governments have the authority to own a bank. I have not been able to find where they got their authority.
    ....called a gun.

    It is a serious mistake to believe you can control the provider of violence by trying to bury him in paperwork.

    "Why do you believe that governments run banks?" Just because TV says it? Or is there a basis in fact?
    Fact.

  30. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Gads!

    OF COURSE THEY DO!

    It is the fundamental of every government to hold tight its grip on the heart of the economy. They command control over 1/2 of every transaction - the money - for a reason.


    hahahhahahhaha

    No, they get it from the point of a gun.



    ....called a gun.

    It is a serious mistake to believe you can control the provider of violence by trying to bury him in paperwork.



    Fact.
    That's what I thought. Nobody has been able to provide evidence that governments run banks. It is generally accepted, but it is not a fact. It is misguided. The theme is that governments are bad when, in fact, it is not the government that is the source of violence... it is the lack of government.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  31. #120

    Default

    In other words, when we enforce the rule of law, then the tyrannical police state ends.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •