You've got it correct there! The idea of infinite growth is absolute lunacy in a finite system!

Not necessarily chaos. If you work on community supported agriculture, get a private currency for your work, then buy vegetables with it, how does that cause chaos? If you provide services to clean an elderly person's house and get private currency that allows you to pay for childcare, or help when you're sick, how does that cause chaos? If you live in an eco-village and create a private currency to pay for labor hours and for goods and services produced in the community, how does that cause chaos?

Great comment. ^'d

Yep, that's all you have to say.

What pretty language.

It's so easy to dress up aristocracy, oligarchy and class warfare with the gospel of Libertarianism.

It's all shit though.

Enjoy the oppression of labor, the atomization of society and a constant degrading of environmental and safety standards to appease the beast.

Oh, and the best part is, corporatism grows out of laissez-faire attitude. When you pull out the teeth of regulatory and policing agencies, all it takes is a little collusion with politicians and suddenly the "free market" you established isn't free at all.

This isn't my opinion, it's happened in every country where it's been tried, in multiple time periods.

Laissez-Faire necessarily turns into corporatism. It is an inevitable outcome.

Human beings preying upon human beings has nothing to do with libertarianism or a laissez-faire marketplace. I know it's popular to blame the philosophy for the wrongs of those who claim to understand it but don't and who claim to apply it but don't.

One who genuinely believes in individual liberty refrains from using physical force and/or fraud to get what they want. They do not see other people as a means to their own ends, but rather as partners deserving respect.

If libertarianism and laissez-faire capitalism don't seem to work, it's because they weren't genuinely tried.

I agree, the free market would certainly lead to corporations, but I'm certain a truly free marketplace doesn't lead to the ills you likely associate with "corporatism". A genuinely free market doesn't allow its members to coerce one another by physical force or fraud.

It does, however, allow for fair competition. It's the only economic system that does. Of course, if you can't compete fairly, stay out of it. The only way for you to succeed to play unfairly and, in a truly free marketplace, that's not allowed.

Sadly, we've never actually had a genuinely free market ... and yet it continually gets blamed for all that's wrong in the economy. What's wrong with the economy is what's always wrong with the economy - human beings who believe it right to prey upon their own kind.

That's not a free market. That's not capitalism. That has nothing to do with respect for individual liberty. That's NOT what was intended.

It is, however, what we have.

Pretty much my thinking - word for word ...

http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/capitalism/?gclid=CIDR25nZ4K8CFWcHRQodqnuj_Q

I should clarify a little...human nature being what it is today...lasseiz-faire necessarily leads to what we have right now.

No, what we have today does not come from laissez-faire - it comes from predatory human beings misusing the liberty given to them by an attempt at laissez-faire. Very different.

"A" didn't lead to "B". One gets "B" by ignoring the essential rules of "A".

Lassez-Faire by definition has no rules...if a system has no rule, then no rules can be broken. Or do are you working from a different framework for the term Laissez-Faire? Perhaps if I knew what your definition was, I would better be able to understand your premise.

As I understand its frequent usage, "laissez-faire" refers to the absence of government interference in the marketplace. I've never heard it to mean a marketplace without rules. In a genuinely free and thus civilized marketplace there are plenty of rules implied - they are what make it "civilized" versus "savage" - and yet it would still be "laissez-faire". If all participants follow the rules, there's no need of government to enforce them. Sadly, we've yet to see a human culture where everyone was consistently civilized in their behavior - hence, government. Of course, governments often begin to expand beyond their primary role and intrude in day to day operations, strategies, tactics, philosophy, values, goals, etc.

Ideally, you want people to behave themselves and avoid the introduction of government. Because the majority of human beings scarcely understand civilized values, let alone live by them, we are consistently stuck with government. The best we can hope for is to prevent government from expanding beyond its proper role - keeping human relationships free of violence, threats of violence and fraud. Unfortunately, government is all too often populated also by badly behaved human beings and human beings who, although well-intentioned, are poor thinkers. Government expands and any hope of laissez-faire - if there was any left - is lost, at least for the foreseeable future.

At any rate, I think it a distraction to get caught up in the term rather than focus on the premise - the marketplace should be free of the use of violence, threats of violence and fraud to gain value and the role of government in the marketplace should be limited to eliminating that behavior from human relationships.

Would you agree with that premise?

Ron Paul just runs his mouth. He never has and he never will actually propose specific legislation matching his big talk. So even if you believe his shit, why do you believe in him?

"Listening to the like of Krugman has got us to this disasterous economic point."

WHAT?!!!! Do you just say anything that pops into your head, regardless of whether it has any foundation?

Krugman is spot on about RonP and Libertarianism in general.

Not even close. George bush is responsible for the current state of affairs. Although he's damn proud of what he did, he pretty much assured his more competent brother will never old the reins of power in this country.

The problems with this economic system date back much further than George W. Bush.

Obama has been president for the past 3.5 years. He is responsible for the current state of affairs.

180 degrees incorrect.

The government has been engineering the economy for decades and this is what we have. If you continue to do what you have always done you will continue to get what you have always got.

O

Back to ronnie-raygun, yes you're correct!

I don't think anyone would remove such a relevant video.

But, just for future consideration, posters of a story can't delete comments in a thread they posted. Only mods can do that.

Hey I'm glad you posted the video since it didnt pop up in my post. I hope everyone that commented actually took the time to watch it.

I think it's a huge exaggeration to say Keynesian spending turned those economies around, but I do agree that the Austrian/supply-side school is completely full of shit.

Their dogmatic views have historical precedents. All you need to do is look at those societies to see what they look like. And they were fucking awful. They're practically the reason Communism blossomed in 20th century, because people hated so-called "free markets" so much.

They're unhinged. They're more interested in their dogma than whether or not people are starving in the streets.

Agreed!

Well if anyone would come in and put a few more restrictions on the corporations and a few less restrictions on the common man....

.... Oh wait, Paul legalizing, or maybe rescheduling of weed would do just about that that.... Maybe we can talk him into clamping down on the corporate kleptocracy...?

Anything but Obamney...

Why doesn't Obama break out the trusty pen and reschedule it?

Haha, you think Paul will legalize weed?

He's just going to wipe out the Federal government.

You better hope your state likes its jails being empty, because it would be *their* call in Ron Paul's world.

That's an odd prediction considering that it has been the individual states who have been more pragmatic and less draconian with drug laws and policies than the Federal government.

Well and truly stated! DEATH to laissez-faire!

Like any mass media effort, it just needs some sexy hip shows and some scandal and gossip. Politics, economics, religion. Dull dull dull. but if it were to become an activist coordinating center, and young idealists could actually participate in progressive change through this media, then they would have something unique and an audience worth selling to advertisers. they just need a visionary to wander into their corporate offices. Not a zombie from East Texas.

c,mon barilla you think you know so much. Let's rumble

I never said such a thing. I stated interest in seeing how many people would actually debate the economics or just regurgitate the zings from Krugman because that's all they know to do. I'll give it a shot. I don't completely agree with Ron Paul on market theories but I do agree with him on the weaknesses of our monetary policy so I would rather talk about that than take time explaining market theories I don't necessarily agree with (I don't agree with either Krugman or Paul entirely on market theory).

In your comment below, you say: "What Ron seems to always miss is that money is a contract, a debt instrument; ENFORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT ISSUES IT.

Ron thinks it has its own life, and its made of gold. And that never was anywhere in recorded history."

Money is not a debt instrument. It is the accepted medium of exchange for repayment of goods and services or the payment of debts. There are different types of currency (money) that do exist and have existed throughout history. FIAT money is what we currently have for the majority of the world economy at this point in time. Fiat money is money without intrinsic value. You are correct when you say the value of money is enforced by the government that issues it in regard to fiat money.

When you say Ron Paul "thinks money has its own life and is made of gold," I am not exactly sure what you mean or that you understand what Ron Paul is talking about. When Ron Paul speaks of a gold-backed currency he is talking about a commodity based currency which is different than fiat money and you are completely wrong in stating that is has never existed anywhere in recorded history. Hell, it is humanity's oldest type of money.

Now, would you like to talk about the advantages and disadvantages to each type of currency?

Okay, lets you and I try a civil debate. Let's take it piecemeal. You agree with Ron Paul that we have a "weak" monetary policy. Can we start with you enumerating what you feel are weak points and how we can do better by applying Ron Paul policy?

First, fiat money itself...The strengths and weaknesses of fiat money are one in the same, essentially, due to its flexibility and ability to be manipulated for short term purposes to help mitigate panics and collapses. This flexibility and ability to be manipulated is a great advantage of fiat money for the money creators and controllers (government). The disadvantage is that the same flexibility and ability to be manipulated allows the benefits to be unfairly distributed.

This brings me to the actual policies and record of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve knows when its rates and policies are going to devalue the dollar or revalue the dollar. They, a private banking cartel granted authority to control the nation's money supply by the government, have complete control over the value of the dollars you and I carry in our pocket. With this ability, comes the ability to force wealth into the hands of a few in combination with other economic policies deployed by government. From 1913 (when the Federal Reserve began controlling the money supply) to now, the dollar has lost more than 95% of its value. That is not a statistic that describes monetary policy designed to strengthen and protect the currency. When one learns the history of the Federal Reserve and the economic history of the United States since it began it becomes painfully obvious that the monetary system has been used against the better interests of the general population to devalue the currency while concentrating more and more wealth into the network of the ruling elite, leaving us where we are currently at now with the largest wealth gap in American history. Where the opportunity to abuse power exists, it will almost always occur. Fiat money will almost always follow this path and lead to eventual economic collapse. One of the easiest ways of doing this (on purpose or not) is continued devaluation of the currency. This is what Ron Paul was referencing when speaking about other times in history where economies were collapsed by devaluation of the currency.

Ron Paul's preference to create a competitive commodity-based currency to compete against the current fiat currency is an obvious threat to the monopolization of the entire money supply by the Federal Reserve and the ruling elite. While a gold-backed currency is less controllable, it's a more honest currency. Employing Ron Paul's competitive currency would result in one of three things, in my opinion:

1) People would choose the gold-backed currency over fiat money and the Federal Reserve's charter to control the money supply would be revoked

2) The more honest competitive currency would force the Federal Reserve to become a more honest and less corrupt institution and bring to light the main source of our country's economic reality and growing wealth and power disparity

3) Monetary concepts will take on innovation and perhaps a new type of currency will be developed - perhaps a hybrid featuring the best of both worlds

"Fiat money is money without intrinsic value."

This is the one of the core fallacies that prevent most people from outright dismissing Ron Paul. Because people actually believe this incredibly stupid notion.

***ALL money is without intrinsic value. They very words "intrinsic value" are a paradox, a direct contradiction.***

Value is derived from human judgment, there is no such thing as objective value.

It is a representation of REAL goods and services that exist in the ACTUAL economy.

Whether you use gold, paper or seashells, money is totally worthless. It only ever works at all because people trust its ability to get the the things that they want.

Don't believe me? Let's try this. You trade me all the property, goods and services in the world for all the money and legal title in the world, and who's really been impoverished by that transaction?

You, of course. Your money won't buy you *shit* because I own all of the actual stuff, and your money no longer represents that. I'd be a fool to accept it from then on.

It's like Libertarians were never read the story of King Midas as children.

I agree with what you've said here. Hell, I would prefer the elimination of money altogether but that isn't a reform you can make overnight. When discussing the difference between the two currencies, there is a difference. With the gold-based currency, it is not the value of the dollar which is left to human judgement, it is the gold which is. If the human value of gold changes then the dollar value changes. With fiat money, the currency is not attached to anything and its value is ultimately controlled by policy. Sure, in the highest order all value is left to human judgement. But in discussing the differences between currencies it is a significant distinction. The distinction matters only in formulating monetary policy.

fiat money doesn't exist.There is only money. what is in your wallet. is it different from what's in my wallet? If you don't want it I'll take it.

You skipped my question to you. I'll ask an easier one. Name the one Ron Paul money related proposal that you consider to be his best work and we should adopt immediately? I'm going to get to the rest of your response in separate blocks. I would appreciate you telling me what you think in your own words and not regurgitating boiler plate buzz words.

you bought it up, so tell me about the difference between fiat money and the money i have in my pocket. You claim to know the difference, so explain, argue. you have the floor.

You asked: "Can we start with you enumerating what you feel are weak points and how we can do better by applying Ron Paul policy?"

I explained the weak points of our monetary policy by explaining how easily susceptible it is to manipulation and corruption. That is a weakness, in my opinion. I also then explained what the benefits would be to enacting the proposal Ron Paul makes in the video with a competitive currency.

There is no difference between fiat money and the money in your pocket because the money in your pocket is fiat money. I am not understanding the reasoning behind asking that.

The money in circulation now is subject to "manipulation and corruption" and therefore weak? What are the effects (give me just one) of this corruption and manipulation, and how do we fix that ,so we have a strong monetary policy. What would Ron do?

What are the effects? Most recently, the way the elite had the government react to the 2008 meltdown. It would have been cheaper to bailout the homeowners in the mortgage crisis but then it would have been the Wall Street fat cats who suffered instead of the people. Not to mention, the specific policies since then have resulted in 93% of the post-recession gains going to the wealthiest Top 1%. To compare this "recovery" to that of the one under FDR is a crock. The income gains went to the lower and middle classes in that recovery. We got ripped off. Face it.

" It would have been cheaper to bailout the homeowners in the mortgage"
Does Ron Paul support bailing out the homeowners?

No, he does not, on the basis that he is against any type of bailouts. What does that change about what I said?

" Not to mention, the specific policies since then have resulted in 93% of the post-recession gains going to the wealthiest Top 1%."

That's what we progressives want justice for. Ron Paul doesn't support putting these crooks in jail. Ron Paul is in their pocket. These bankers are using him to fight the FED, not because they believe all his economic voodoo. They want to attack the REGULATORY functions of the FED, so they can keep on doing the fraud.

You brought up the plight of the homeowners as part of a response to a question about Ron Paul and his policies. What legislation has Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored that you think was worthy of your admiration?

You have clearly not listened to much of what Ron Paul has had to say about crony capitalism. Do your research on that and then get back to me.

"This brings me to the actual policies and record of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve knows when its rates and policies are going to devalue the dollar or revalue the dollar. They, a private banking cartel granted authority to control the nation's money supply by the government, have complete control over the value of the dollars you and I carry in our pocket."

We have monetary policy and we have fiscal policy. The majority in Congress, whether Republican or Democrat, in the past decided it was a good idea to have an independent agency set monetary policy. If this agency didn't do it then Congress would have to respond in the heat of a Panic. If congress didn't do it, then there would be no monetary policy or bank regulation.

This agency has functioned quite well. Ron Paul thinks he's the Einstein both monetary and fiscal policy. Everybody else is wrong. We should just throw out our system and start over with a gold standard. Its stupid. I know its stupid because I completed my study of banking, credit, insurance and money at a university. My professors know its stupid. The people who don't know its stupid haven't completed their education yet; or have been duped by propagandists into thinking their own professors are actually fifth column Bolsheviks.

I've given you the floor. You flopped. you haven't presented one argument.

The plight of homeowners was in response to you asking for an example of the effects of monetary corruption and manipulation. As for the latest question, I am going to paste some from Wikipedia for you...

Coinage Act of 1983. Called for new legal-tender gold and silver coins. Ahead of its time, this Act anticipated the successful Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985, which led to the minting of American Gold Eagles.

Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. H.R. 1207

Social Security earnings limit repeal (cosponsor): Repealed the earnings limitation on Social Security. Seniors now continue working after retirement without being penalized.

Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. H.R. 161, 2009-01-06, originally H.R. 2723, 1997-10-23. Repeals the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits.

Social Security Preservation Act of 2009. H.R. 219, 2009-01-06, originally H.R. 219, 1999-01-06, cosponsored since H.R. 857, 1997-02-27. Invests the Social Security surplus "trust funds" in marketable interest-bearing obligations and certificates of deposit, essentially insuring the integrity of the surplus.

Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act. H.R. 162, 2009-01-06, originally H.R. 4790, 2002-05-22, cosponsored since H.R. 761, 1999-02-12. Makes Social Security and Railroad Retirement Board payments nontaxable.

Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2009. H.R. 220, 2009-01-06, originally H.R. 220, 1999-01-06 (Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act). Protects Social Security number confidentiality, prohibits uniform national identifying numbers, and prohibits imposition of federal identification standards.

American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007. H.R. 3835, 2007-10-15. To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Proposes to "bar the use of evidence obtained through torture; require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements; repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees; prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad; protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch; and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists."

Term limits, 1970s: Paul was the first member of Congress to propose term limits legislation in the House, one of several bills considered "ahead of their time" by Texas Monthly magazine.

To repeal the Military Selective Service Act. H.R. 424, 2007-01-11, originally H.R. 1597, 2001-04-26, cosponsored since H.R. 2421, 1997-09-05. Abolishes the Selective Service System, prohibits reestablishment of the draft, and forbids denial of rights due to failure to register

Cures Can Be Found Act of 2009. H.R. 1654, 2009-03-19, originally H.R. 3444, 2005-07-26. Provides tax credits for qualified stem-cell research or storage and for donation of umbilical cord blood.

Opposes federal use of capital punishment.

Energy Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Automobile Tax Credit Act of 2009. H.R. 1768, 2009-03-26, originally H.R. 6441, 2008-07-08.

Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act. H.R. 5842, 2008-04-17, cosponsored since H.R. 2592, 2001-07-23 (States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act). Protects authorized medical marijuana patients and protects state-legal farmers against federal raids. Lets states choose their own stances on medical marijuana regulations, and permits further study, regulation, and use by reclassifying the plant medically.

Health Freedom Protection Act. H.R. 2117, 2007-05-02, originally H.R. 4282, 2005-11-09. Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regarding health claims of foods and dietary supplements. Authorizes specific health claims to be made about saw palmetto, omega-3 fatty acids, glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, and calcium. Establishes government burden of proof in false advertising cases.

By what indicators/results do you conclude this agency has functioned quite well? I gave two results to support my claim that it has not (the devaluation of the currency and the largest wealth gap in American history). You can't ignore what I say and then say I didn't present an argument.

Fiat money, by it's nature is NOT a representation of "real goods and services." At BEST you could say it is a representation of the POTENTIAL (or likely) value of real goods and services. Else there would never be inflation.

I'd also like to see people stop calling the Fed a government agency. It is more REGULATED than any other private institution, but it IS a private bank, and NOT a government bank.

The entire banking system in the United States (and throughout the industrialized world) Is entirely based on debt. That IS EXACTLY what fractional reserve lending creates when it allows for debt to be collateralized. It is a house of cards that has only ONE possible long term outcome. That is collapse. I am not a doomsday guy, so I can't say for certain when it will occur, or how rapidly the decline will be..but I do know this..it WILL collapse.

Now where I differ with Ron Paul is I am ABSOLUTELY against a Lassiez Faire market. We HAVE tried that and it was a disaster.

The most INSANE notion is to believe that it takes a degree in economics to understand economics.

The merits of having a Gold based monetary policy can certainly be questioned, and I understand what Saladin was saying about the subjective value of nearly everything on Earth.

What people are failing to see, and I suspect Ron Paul does as well or he would not be such a zealot when it comes to gold, is that when you peg your money to a traditional commodity with "intrinsic" value (yes, I understand that "intrinsic" is a contradiction, but we are quibbling over semantics now, because I think most people are fully aware of what is MEANT when we use the term "intrinsic.") An item that has a relative inherent value on it's own. Though it would be ideal to peg your money to an item that has an ACTUAL "intrinsic" value (yes, there actually ARE items that have a TRUE intrinsic value) like corn, or wheat..that would create market fluctuations all on it's own as they are perishable and seasonal. However, the concept is sound, the reason why Gold is considered to have an "intrinsic" value is because never in the history of humanity has it NOT been in demand. It's also good to note that it has a number of industrial uses which lends it value outside of a Fiat system.

Just my two cents on that particular topic...even though I think a Gold Standard is not a good idea. But maybe not for the same reasons as everyone else.

If you think that the Banks all want to end the Fed, then you are NOT paying attention at all!!

What's the difference if a Board of Directors has to respond in a crisis or Congress has to respond in a crisis? Aren't both made up of people? The difference is that (theoretically at least) Congress is supposed to work in the best interest of the People, while the Federal Reserve is actually REQUIRED to make decisions that are in the best interest of their SHAREHOLDERS.

Do you honestly not see the difference?

Did you follow the debt ceiling hostage taking Tea Party tactics last summer. You know the one that cost my 401K another big hit. Do you remember their disastrous initial response to the Lehman collapse. Thank god for the adults at the FED.

Try and follow the thread, hamhock. I said the banks want to declaw the regulatory powers of the FED, so that they can continue their fraudulent unregulated activities that nearly collapsed our economy, without fear of prosecution. they are using the stooge Ron Paul. They put him on the banking committee to do what he usually does---waste everybodies time with all this Austrian economics bullshit. This way they can delay implementation of Dodd Frank and keep the FED busy, so it doesn't have time or resources to continue its investigation into the BIG FRAUD.

Gold was useful for early coinage. It is malleable, inert, and relatively rare. Money derives its legitimacy from the picture of the king, emperor, or seal on its face--- Money is not the medium carrying the seal. I can refute any example you bring to the contrary.

Here's a question for you. Who rules; those who have the gold, for example the Incas; or those who have the cannon to take it from them; for example the Conquistadors? Can you feel the subtext here. If you still think the gold has any intrinsic value as money; then bring-it on. Let's debate.

I'll keep it simple, at first. We can get into more detail if you like. Were you born after World War II; after Bretton Woods? Has America ever been more powerful and prosperous. the system was working fine until Phil Gramm and his Goldman Sachs allies went and broke it---so they and their cronies could steal from us and line their pockets. You want to discuss details. Start with a non gobbledygook list of examples of FED failure. Give me just one concrete example of failure and why Ron Paul's method (whatever that is ) would work better for most Americans.

Did you read what I wrote?

I'll be glad to take this glued together gobbledygook apart. Well go one step at a time.Step one.

"Coinage Act of 1983. Called for new legal-tender gold and silver coins. Ahead of its time, this Act anticipated the successful Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985, which led to the minting of American Gold Eagles."

An act of Congress (the government) created the money. The gold itself is not the money. If they'd have enacted the coinage of turnips act of whatever, than that would be our legal tender.

Actions speak louder than words my friend, He's in bed with the bankers.

"How many of you actually understood any of the economic theory being discussed and are discussing those or just posting Krugman's talking points without understanding the economic theories being discussed?" I stated interest in seeing how many people would actually debate the economics or just regurgitate the zings from Krugman because that's all they know to do.

YOUR WORDS. FEELING LIKE THERE COMING BACK TO HAUNT YOU AFTER POST YOU JUST MADE REFERRING TO A GOBBLEDYGOOK FILLED WEBSITE?

LOL....might have a valid point there on the gold standard...especially since we have billionaires talking about mining platinum from space....

You asked me which types of legislation Ron Paul has introduced or co-sponsored that I would admire. Why are you arguing about what the Coinage Act did? I am well aware of what it did.

I don't have time to pursue a greased pig; or try to catch a slippery eel. You answer questions with other statements or questions about the questions. It seems clear to me that you either can't or don't want to discuss what it is that Ron Paul has to offer.

Everybody is entitled to their religion; but it appears you don't know what this guy is about; what he's really saying in plain English; or or why you are following him.

"One of the easiest ways of doing this (on purpose or not) is continued devaluation of the currency. This is what Ron Paul was referencing when speaking about other times in history where economies were collapsed by devaluation of the currency.'

THE ROMAN EMPIRE DID NOT COLLAPSE BECAUSE THEY DEVALUED THEIR CURRENCY. Ron just made that up on the spot.

The Wiemar Republic collapsed because they had a WEAK government and NO FED like organization. It collapsed because of austerity (burdensome war reparations) internal divisions, no cooperation and hostage taking of the streets caused by the conservatives (NAZIS).

1) People would choose the gold-backed currency over fiat money and the Federal Reserve's charter to control the money supply would be revoked

2) The more honest competitive currency would force the Federal Reserve to become a more honest and less corrupt institution and bring to light the main source of our country's economic reality and growing wealth and power disparity

3) Monetary concepts will take on innovation and perhaps a new type of currency will be developed - perhaps a hybrid featuring the best of both worlds

WHY WOULD THE RESERVE CURRENCY PROVIDER OF THE WORLD TRY TO REINVENT THE SUCCESSFUL WHEEL ON THE BASIS OF SOME BABY DOCTORS UNTESTED UNPROVEN FRINGE MINORITY OPINION (INTERPRETATION) OF ECONOMICS?

He offers a competitive currency. I explained what that would entail. Why are you choosing to just ignore that and pretend I did not?

Again, why do you continue to describe that the current system and policies employed by the Federal Reserve as a "successful wheel"? What specific results thus far do you base this on?

We're not getting anywhere. I think the reason is that I'm seeking a well thought out integrated solution from Ron Paul and all that's really there is a "collage of crap"---just a bunch of individual actions that sometimes are justifiable and even laudable; but most of the time they are pointless, time wasting , obstructionist, or way off key.

He's going nowhere. He can't even win statewide office in Texas---much less a national contest for the Presidency.

Personally he is a small parochial man from an East Texas culture that would still have a sign that says the Ku Klux Klan welcomes you to Vidor if the rest of the US hadn't progressed well past his creepy (described in his newsletters) vision.

You want to keep on posting nonsense about Ron Paul's momentum, traction, mass appeal, and Lyndon Larouche style cult politics. Well enjoy. But every once in a awhile expect a "brick" through your glasss house.

I am surprised the conversation has now shifted away from discussion about monetary policy and the Federal Reserve to a Ron Paul smear (end sarcasm).

"Historians and economists have shown that the Roman economy suffered from significant monetary inflation, particularly in the latter half of the third century. This inflation was primarily due to the devaluation of currency. Moreover, the Roman Empire paid for its army partially through inflating the Empire’s currency. The practice of absolving military debt through inflation significantly contributed to, if not directly caused, the eventual collapse of the Roman economy."

http://www2.gcc.edu/dept/econ/ASSC/Papers2010-2011/Botting_inflationmilitary.pdf

That's cherry picking the account to fit your point.

Inflation, by itself, has never destroyed any country. Moreover, inflation is almost always the symptom of larger problems.

For Rome, it was Imperial overextension. Devaluing their currency was just a tactic to deal with the price tag of that. Claiming it was inflation that destroyed them is putting the cart before the horse.

Same with the Weimar Republic. Their hyperinflation wasn't even substantially caused by the government printing money to pay back war reparations, it was caused by a six month shut down all of industry in the Ruhr industrial region to protest the French occupation.

Shutting down your economy for six months sound like the kind of thing that might fuck up your currency?

The disgusting thing is, Ron Paul's concern over inflation is just elitist manipulation of currency itself. What destroys countries and economies isn't inflation, it's DEFLATION. Deflation is always the danger, inflation is just a massive inconvenience.

Of course, inflation is cast as the bugbear because inflation is bad for rich people because it devalues their investments. And rich people don't care about deflation because they can ride out the recession/depression and buy up all the cheap property and wipe out their weaker competitors.

Don't believe me? Take Krugman's advice. Look at the late 19th century. That's *exactly* how the economy worked, with constant depressions caused by the continued deflation caused by the gold standard.

"At BEST you could say it is a representation of the POTENTIAL (or likely) value of real goods and services. Else there would never be inflation."

That's true of all money though. It's not true that there wouldn't be inflation without it though. Inflation is just the process by which a money supply expands. So long as there is fractional reserve loaning, there will always be inflation, since every loan is, by definition, inflation.

"That is collapse. I am not a doomsday guy, so I can't say for certain when it will occur, or how rapidly the decline will be..but I do know this..it WILL collapse."

The way I see it, why is there such a rush to privatize everything? Why are we replacing real wages with credit cards? Why are we replacing public education with education via student loans? Why are cutting taxes and starting new wars based on debt? Why are people getting so heavy into derivatives (or subprime loans, for that matter) and other financial nonsense?

Total debt in this country so outweighs real money, and so much of it based on totally strenuous, barely functional returns, you have to wonder if that collapse isn't far off.

Do you not think our current devaluing of the currency and imperialism mirrors that of Rome?

I agree...but I try to be optimistic..lol..despite all the evidence that says it is imminent.

I also agree with this comment. We're much closer to complete financial disaster than the elite want us to know. THAT is why there has been nothing but power grab after power grab for the last decade along with rapid transfer of wealth to the top. They know what is coming.

Which is why money should never be pegged to Gold alone. That is an inherent problem with a limited commodity, and thus creates a problem for pegging a nations money to ANY commodity.

However the opposite is not a viable answer either. In our current system Deflation only affects corporations and the affluent..so of course most economists would decry the evils of deflation. To an extent they are right to fear it. However, for the past 35 years or so, we have had the costs of goods and services VASTLY outpacing the rise in real wages. My personal experience has shown that wages have roughly doubled in the past 20 years or so..while the costs of goods and services have quadrupled. Inflation is caused by ONE thing, and increase in the money supply without a commensurate increase of goods and services. In other words, if the money supply is doubled and goods and services increase by 25% we end up with more dollars competing for less products. This raises the cost of goods and services, while providing a minimal increase in the purchasing power.

This nation has had a CONTINUAL decline in purchasing power for over 30 years. Without addressing this issue in the form of wage increases, then we will continue to have increasing debt, increasing inflation, and decreased purchasing power.

I'm not a fan of Paul so I am not defending his stances...but Krugman's are equally destructive in the long run. Bailing out the banks caused inflation (I define inflation as a decline in purchasing power.) without putting any money into the hands of consumers. The problem is, we try to pump money into the economy by issuing loans, this creates debt, and thus more inflation. ONE part of the solution would be to increase actual wages, and NOT to loosen credit.

Ultimately the problem is systemic, as the entire banking system used throughout the world is entirely based on creating debt out of debt. It is unsustainable in the long term. Now while it may take smarter people than me how to fix this without causing a global economic collapse, but it does NOT take much intelligence to understand that the system is in FACT a house of cards.

I agree. But I have a financial background, so I understand what Krugman is saying. The major problem with the ordinary citizen is that they have no idea what either one is talking about so they base their views on which side of the fence they sit on instead of what the impact of eliminating the Federal Reserve Bank would have on the economy and the country. Besides if Paul wants to go back to the Gold Standard, then he shouldn't be going around the country saying that Fort Knox is empty.