Most of my libertarian friends seem to love Ron Paul. Their descriptions of his presidential campaign have a wistful "If only . . . " quality to them that I haven't seen in a political discussion since the write-in campaign by the girl's field-hockey team to elect Christian Slater president of the student council.
After my much-regretted decision to vote for George W. Bush in 2004, I've kind of been sitting on the political sidelines. I'm pretty sure I'll hate whoever gets elected. Rudy might be funny just to see the ACLU get all misty and nostalgic about the current administration, but that probably won't make up for having to wear uniforms and go to bed at 10 o'clock every night. John McCain lost me at the execrable McCain-Feingold finance reform, and has not exactly covered himself in glory since. I'm not even sure what one calls his peculiar politics: popuwafflism? Mitt Romney's specialty seems to be a blandness so total that I have difficulty recalling what he looks like, broken by inexplicably revealing stories about, for example, his penchant for strapping dogs to the roofs of cars.
Vote Democrat, you say, then. John Edwards teeth sure are pretty, but his economic polices sure aren't. Hilary Clinton . . . even if I were disposed to vote for her vintage 1967 earnest technocratic policies, I'd be more than a mite uncomfortable with a political lineup that went Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Which means I'm probably going to end up voting for Obama just because I like his senior economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee . . . and then regretting it as soon as he actually starts doing things.
But I digress. The point being that, having pretty much opted out of paying attention to politics, I've just kind of assumed that I would like Ron Paul to be president, if only the thing weren't totally impossible.
But then every time I hear about his actual policies, I'm pretty thoroughly appalled. He voted against CAFTA and wants us to withdraw from the WTO. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he's also hardline on immigration. He favors the stupid Cuba travel ban even though the Communist Menace evaporated almost two decades ago. And last week, sitting with one of his supporters at a wedding, I found out that he wants to move America back onto the gold standard. I cannot, in good conscience, even entertain the hope of electing a man who wants to outsource our monetary policy to Anglo-American.
"I'd be more than a mite uncomfortable with a political lineup that went Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton."
That's my favorite line from people that voted for Bush in 2004. Hilarious.
I'm not a Ron Paul backer by any means, but in his defense:
My sense is that Paul's opposition to CAFTA and the WTO is rooted in constitutional objections -- surrendering sovereignty, etc. This, of course, is a view shared by many paleolibertarians, a lot of whom (most of whom) favor unilateral free trade.
The case against preferential trade agreements like CAFTA, etc., strikes me as fairly strong, and is often made by ardent free traders like Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya. (There is the unrelated but strong objection that CAFTA imposed a lackluster set of IP rules and other measures that were tilted too strongly towards US interests, but that is another matter.)
I tend to think that PTAs are acceptable if they help us achieve some broader geopolitical objective (e.g., entrenching a democratic transition, managing migration, etc.), but in the abstract PTAs are clearly inferior to multilateral free trade or, better still for the sovereignty-obsessed, unilateral free trade.
The gold standard stuff is, of course, totally nuts.
Re: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, I've had the same problem even though I suspect she's the most qualified candidate currently in the field (on either side).
But it seems less troublesome with Hillary than other recent dynastic candidates (i.e. Bush or Gore) as the spouse rather than the child. I think my own distaste for this comes from the idea that they are raised/groomed to be politicians - I'm certainly (mildly) less disturbed when someone becomes famous as an adult and uses that as a springboard to politics.
As to Ron Paul, there's a lot of benefit to libertarian ideas by him remaining prominent in the race, even if a few of them are a bit off course (i.e. gold standard). I wonder if your libertarian friends aren't just excited by the fact that someone who (at least partly) agrees with them is getting some exposure. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Oddly enough, both McArdle and (chortle) Kevin Drum dislike Ron Paul for similar reasons:
digg.com/political_opinion/Kevin_Drum_Ron_Paul_is_barking_mad
No doubt both would also take issue with these:
house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm
house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm
This is kind of the difference between libertarians and capital L Libertarians. Capital L Libertarians take their ideas to a kooky extreme, unblemished by reality. Paul tends from time to time towards the kooky wing, like the national Libertarian party. It drives off libertarian leaning people.
The question is, even if you don't want Paul to be president, given the lack of palatable alternatives, to what degree does it make sense to support Paul as a "message" to the GOP that there's a market for more libertarian thinking? I think there's an argument that it's a different calculus than voting Libertarian in the general election, when the vote means more, and grownups have to choose the lesser of two evils.
What's funnier than the potential B/C/B/C string is the reflexive disavowel of the gold standard. Can anyone make a cogent case For the Federal Reserve and our current schema of virtually unlimited Fractional-Reserve banking?
As for RP, his ownself, he's the best of what's going 'round. I know that adherence to a set of well thought-out beliefs is quite a change of pace for us 'Caines, but maybe we should understand where he's coming from before we get more of the same (that works for way too few at the expense of way too many).
disavowel=disavowal (sorry)
Megan: I think the fondness for the gold standard is tied to a belief in a tight monetary policy. There's a sort of inherited memory of pre-Fed America as having a tight money policy based on the gold standard, and of the withdrawal from the gold standard coinciding with a much looser policy. A lot of people think the withdrawal from the gold standard was a major cause of the looser money (or was done to allow the looser monetary policy); but as I understand it, we loosened monetary policy before we went off the gold standard, and that's why the Great Depression was so bad. So I don't agree with the gold standard position, but I understand it.
For the rest of Ron Paul's positions, I don't always agree but I understand where he's coming from. He voted against CAFTA but he'd unilaterally kill all import tariffs and restrictions; he just doesn't like the extra baggage of free trade agreements. He wants to close the border, but primarily to keep illegal immigrants from drawing welfare benefits. I disagree with him on both issues, but I understand his positions.
But most importantly, as wph pointed out, if Ron Paul attracts attention that's a good way to convince the GOP that we're worth listening to, and that we actually have usable political power. I think the odds that Ron Paul will get the nomination are quite small; but if he attracts attention to libertarian positions, and convinces policymakers that there's a reasonable-sized libertarian block worth catering to, he can change the national debate for the better (insert boilerplate about the Socialist party here).
Mark E Hoffer: read the link I put earlier in my post. It's an essay I wrote a while back arguing that the gold standard won't really accomplish what its supporters want it to any more than the Fed would.
I don't like many of Ron Paul's issues either, but I would vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat for two reasons. 1) There's no way any of his platform could get passed. 2) He's the only candidate that I expect to respect federalism, respect civil liberties, halt the expansion of executive power for the time being.
As for the gold standard: Anyone who thinks returning to the gold standard is a good idea should take a look at the following graph.
http://www.rba.gov.au/PublicationsAndResearch/Bulletin/bu_apr07/Graphs/rec_rise_com_prices_long_run_pers_graph6.gif
Gold is not as stable as one might think. Predictable money is a public good, so it's totally reasonable for the government to provide it.
What kind of readership do you think you have that you namedrop Anglo-American without any link or reference that it's a mining company and not a dangling adjective?
After my much-regretted decision to vote for George W. Bush in 2004, I've kind of been sitting on the political sidelines
I just can't get over this. It seems to me you picked a pretty weird profession, if this is where you're coming from. Why aren't you in investment banking?
I mean, to clarify: it's one thing for people who are sitting on the far Socialist left of the political fringe to continue to engage in political debate, even though they perennially decry every actually available candidate as a corporate sellout. At least such people, being leftists, believe, in principle, in the efficacy and importance of politics and collective action. They engage in political discussion because they think it's the noblest human pursuit, even if they despair of their views ever gaining the upper hand. Or even the middle one.
But a libertarian is someone who doesn't really believe in politics or collective action -- who believes that politics is only a necessary evil to keep collectivism at bay, so that individuals can pursue their own visions of the good. So...if you believe this, and you also believe that your views are confined to such an elite minority that no actually existing candidate could possibly merit even your tepid approval, then why do you bother talking about politics? Why do you bother engaging in this degraded activity of working through speech towards a group consensus on ideals and actions, when, on your view, group consensus and collective action are only a necessary evil? Why aren't you out pursuing your own interest in the commercial, or at least the scientific, world? Why do you spend your time writing about politics if you don't like it? Let alone make it your career?
I just think this is really weird. I can't really understand why someone who holds the beliefs you hold would do what you do for a living.
Jadagul: I read your post, thought that D. Friedman's comment, afterwards, was spot-on.
If the Federal Reserve's product, the FRN, was any good, why would they need "Legal Tender" laws?
This: "Predictable money is a public good, so it's totally reasonable for the government to provide it." by jsalvati, is curious. Is s/he making a normative statement?
Excuse me, but there are other things then economics to worry about. We currently are in an existential fight to the death with Islamic nihilism. The next president must, first, last, and foremost, be a war leader. This means that no Democratic Party candidate should be even considered for this most important role. Deep in their guts, the typical Democrat believes the war on terror is a con job to increase the power of the "nefarious" neoconservatives.
Someone here said going back to the gold standard is nuts.
Actually allowing the federal reserve to create paper currency out of thin air with nothing backing it is nuts. It's also why we have this huge disgraceful national debt.
Perhaps those of you who think the concept the gold standard
is radical should read Ron Paul's book on the issue.
Dear Megan,
"After my much-regretted decision to vote for George W. Bush in 2004, I've kind of been sitting on the political sidelines."
"Much-regretted?" Compared to what? Bush, for all his real or perceived faults, was, and remains, deadly serious about fighting the GWOT. Conversely John "Did I ever tell you I was in Vietnam?" Kerry was, and remains, not serious.
Accordingly, I'm convinced that most who voted for Bush in 2004 are quite comfortable with their choice. I daresay a quick Lexis-Nexis review of Kerry's goofy, patrician musings since the election would quickly validate their feelings.
Megan, look at it this way: thankfully we'll never know for sure, but had you voted for Kerry, with his total unseriousness about Islamic fascism, instead of knocking it out on a PC, you might have written your piece with a portable typewriter...while sitting amidst the glowing remains of your office.
Know what I mean?
I had the same reaction Ms. McCardle had to Dr. Paul a few months back when I looked into his positions.
Jagadul, many people "explain away" Paul's anti-CAFTA, anti-WTO stance by saying, "well, he'll just unilaterally eliminate tariffs." Such people seem to think that the president is a dictator. (Kind of odd, coming from a libertarian!)
The president does not have the power to unilaterally eliminate tariffs. Lacking CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO, etc. congress would have even less interest in eliminating tariffs than they do today. Therefore, in the absence of free trade agreements, and a president in favor of unilateral free trade, we would have more trade restrictions, not less.
At the end of the day though, these treaties don't impact our sovereignty. Suppose we institute a regulation that the WTO doesn't like. They hold a hearing and determine that we are at fault. What can they do? Arrest the Sec. of Commerce? Send him to the ICC? I don't think so. They merely have the power to legitimize retaliatory action by another country. Such retaliatory action would be possible anyway, even without a WTO ruling, becuase, as I stated earlier, the WTO lacks a strong enforcement mechanism.
Megan,
In fact, Anglo-American (AAUK), along with every gold company in the world, has come out full-bore, 100% against going back on the gold standard. I think that's partially because the people who run understand economics, but also because they don't look well upon people who try to fix the price of their product.
I don't know where this idea that the Federal Reserve "prints money" or just issues new currency whenever it wants to came from. I don't know where the idea that the Fed has anything to do with the national debt came from. Look, anyone who thinks these things, please, before your argue with me, read an economics textbook or just look up the Fed on wikipedia. I'm not being condescending here, it's just that you can see the facts there, if you don't believe them, before you start arguing, find some facts of your own to support your position.
The fed has lots of money. The fed also buys and sells lots of bonds (U.S. treasuries) on the open market. They don't issue treasuries, so in fact, they have nothing to do with our government's debt. Here is what the Fed does: it buys and sells bonds on the open market, using its big pile of money, until the buying expands the money supply such that interest rates go down to the target federal funds rate, or the selling of bonds causing the money supply to contract, until rates go down to the target rate. By doing this, the Fed keeps inflation down to a 1-3% range--they're not comfortably with anything over 1-2%%. This is called monetary policy.
News Flash: if we had the gold standard, and allowed large outflows or inflows of gold/currency, we would have no control over monetary policy. That means, in fact, that we might well get even more inflation than we have now. And there would be nothing, absolutely nothing, we could do to stop inflation. How's this happen? If people buy more gold in the U.S. or foreigners want to invest in any of our assets (which they will always do), then that increases our money supply and causes... lower interest rates and higher inflation. In order to have monetary policy and a gold standard, it would have to be illegal in many, perhaps most, circumstances to buy or sell foreign currency or gold. Any economist will tell you this is true: you can't have a gold standard, monetary policy, and free inflows and outflows of capital. You can have any two of the three, as long as you don't have the other one.
Note well: inflation is NOT a measure of the decreasing value of a dollar relative to things you might purchase that's caused by the government borrowing or printing money. Inflation is a general rise in overall price levels, which does result in a decline your purchasing power. But think here: prices will increase even if we're on the gold standard. Oil, gas, energy period, are on track to keep increasing for a long time, and that means long-term inflation even if we're on the gold standard. If we go back on gold, we wouldn't have the fed to raise rates by decreasing the money supply, which decreases inflation.
One more point: the declining value of the dollar relative to foreign currencies is not inflation, and though there's some interplay between these two things, one should not be confused with the other.
In light of these facts, not opinions, I don't see the appeal of the gold standard. If you have facts that refute these facts please provide them and maybe I'll change my mind.
Those of you who like the gold standard, if you can't find facts to refute mine, please consider changing your minds?
The Communist menace isn't over if you live in Latin America. Definitely not in Colombia. Castro has a lot of blod on his hands, he doesn't need more money in his pockets.
Choosing between the current slate of candidates is like choosing between hitting your shin with a hammer or your face with a 2X4.
brooksfoe you said
Libertarians and fiscal conservatives are highly interested in the political debates because they are well aware of the vast amounts of damage well intentioned but poorly thought out government policies and collective action can cause..
An example of that can be found here
.
What about the land?
.
Good intention: subsidize environmentally friendly substitute for petroleum
.
Bad result: Oops there goes the remaining Orangutan habitat.
.
Libertarians and fiscal conservatives are involved in politics to help prevent and minimize problems like the one listed above.
The problem with a gold standard, there isn't enough gold to back up the quantity of currency proportional to the other assets in circulation.
In other words, in a "true" gold standard, the current owners of gold would have to be paid (or owed) all of the remaining aggregate assets of the world.
When done right, fiat monetary policy is as sound as a mythical gold standard. Fiat monetary policy allows assets in circulation to be proportional to currency in circulation.
If you read what Ron Paul has to say about the gold standard, or watch some of his Youtube clips, his views are close to what the late Jude Wanniski had to say about the Fed and gold. The truth of Ron Paul's view are very different than what has been suggested in many of these comments.
To Chris Mason - I notice you leave out all consideration of demand for money in your analysis. Why is it wrong to look to gold as a market signal that tells us whether or not the money supply is expanding or shrinking relative to demand?
To jsalvati: I see your chart and raise you one: Gold vs Oil
Here is a piece by Paul for those who want to see for themselves: Flawed Fed Policy"
mockmoot says "When done right, fiat monetary policy is as sound as a mythical gold standard."
Isn't this also true of dictatorship?
And to add to TXJim's comment, Chris Mason's comments were centered on 'price' inflation which is a result of prior credit expansion. As one readily witnessed in recent weeks, when the collective banking establishment closes the virtual vaults to borrowers the result was a nasty drop in stock prices. Mortgage credit tightened recently, and voila, house prices caved. Simplistic examples, of course, but this is a comment section, not a financial seminar. Credit expansion fuels price inflation. Credit contraction leads to price deflation. The Depression of the early 30's has debatable causations, but one of the primary of them was the collapse of credit. As the lyrics of Simply Red go..."money's too tight to mention."
It's not that gold standard is magic. It's that seeing the abuse of fiat currencies by nations dealing with their 'crises' pertaining their own nation's welfare, and in doing so creating huge global economic waves, which brings those desiring a less volatile monetary and economic climate to believe that underpinning currencies with a physical asset such as gold would serve that purpose in lieu of having faith in central banks who at best are chartered to protect solely their own countries monetary units. One need only to say the words Yen carry trade to grasp the magnitude of the impact of just one major nation taking their loan rates to near zero.
Whether a gold standard would accomplish this purpose of reducing volatility is questionable. Particularly when the human mind is extremely facile in the ways of circumvention. And not to discount the introduction of brute force by those so inclined.
How many times has the candidate slate of both parties been a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea? Way too often have I, and I'm sure others, considered a one-way ticket to....where is it any better?
In picking the best of the bad, I can never go for an autocratic socialist who lies, which is the most charitable description I can conjure for Hillary. Even if most of the Dem candidates are or lean to socialist views, Richardson being the exception IMHO, let's look at the experience factor.
What has Hillary done that's noteworthy? Eight unremarkable years in the Senate? First Lady, for which I give her an "F?"
A baglady lawfirm partner (firm seemed to specialize in that) so it wasn't necessarily her fault?
Richardson has a resume; none of the others have ever done anything besides run their senatorial office, except Obama, who has done very little other than rhetorical piroueetting.
So, Meghan, maybe talking slick is what we need? I don't think so.
GASteve (and others): When done right, a fiat currency is as good as the gold standard.
When done wrong, the gold standard is as bad as fiat currency.
People want a gold standard to keep the government from playing games with the money supply, but the government will play games with the money supply whether we have a gold standard or fiat currency or something else entirely. If we're on a commodity-backed currency we'll also have market effects playing with our money supply—as PJ O'Rourke commented in Eat the Rich, it's possible that the next generation will decide that wearing gold is immoral or disgusting or something, and then the price/value of gold will plummet and we'll have massive price inflation. Or someone could discover a big new gold deposit. Or someone could find a really important manufacturing use of gold and we'll have massive price deflation. This on top of all the games the government will be playing anyway (the Gold Standard didn't keep the Fed from trying to fix exchange rates in the 20s and basically trigger the Great Depression).
So a fiat currency is (marginally) better than a commodity-backed currency. The other option is the one that Mark Hoffer raises, of multiple independent currency systems. I don't really have any problem with this; I think alternate currencies should be legal and the government should stop harassing people who promote them. I don't have a really strong opinion on legal tender laws; I suspect the results would mostly be the same with or without them. But multiple competing currencies have transaction costs; what if I own a large chunk of currency A and the merchant only wants currency B? Most stores will have to start printing prices in multiple currencies, but that makes menu costs more significant and leads to other frictions with prices adjusting to clear markets. So the market would probably settle on one or two currencies for efficiency's sake.
But moreover, "we should have multiple competing currencies" is very different from "the government should back our one legal tender currency with gold." If one of the multiple competing currencies is gold-based, that's fine, but I suspect it's not the one the market will select. If you're advocating the government to go back onto the gold standard, though, you have to answer the first set of arguments, that a commodity-backed currency isn't any less vulnerable to manipulation.
Sameer Parekh: I sort of agree with you. I like CAFTA and the WTO and such. I don't think Paul would do a good job as president, primarily because, as you say, he can't make Congress do anything Congress doesn't want to do. If I could push a button and magically make Ron Paul win the election, I don't think that would help anything. But I think his candidacy is important; and his doing well or winning would be good because it would imply a shift in the terrain of public opinion. Or in other words, a president who has no support in Congress can't do anything; but an electorate who would vote for Paul would probably also vote for libertarian-inclined candidates in other elections. Paul won't win, but the better he does and the more exposure he gets, the better positioned libertarian-inclined groups are to extract concessions in future elections.
And if by some miracle he did win, he certainly wouldn't be much worse than anyone else. He has his own sets of problems, but he'll veto a lot of bad legislation and he won't use executive authority to engage in some particularly nasty behaviors.
Sounds like one of the big problems with the gold standard is that gold itself is both useful and socially important, meaning that its value would be hard to fix at a predictable level aside from its role as currency. It sounds like we need a medium of exchange that exists in predictable amounts (preferably something difficult or impossible for counterfeiters to produce in significant amounts), and that has little value apart from its impending role as currency. Larry Niven had a suggestion along these lines a while back.
The gold standard is a deflationary standard when total output rises faster than gold output.
A deflationary standard depresses investment. It will tend to depress it until economic growth and gold growth match.
A slightly inflationary standard encourages economic growth by encouraging investment.
"I found out that he wants to move America back onto the gold standard"
And David Thompson is BACK, with no loss in quality! Hell its just like old times!
You, Megan, don't seem to realize that when most normal people hear the word "libertarian" they rightfully think "gold standard". There is such a huge cross over between the tinfoil hat crowd and the libertarian crowd that its pretty useless to make distinctions.
As it stands, no candidate really thrills me, although I might as well vote paul becuase by the time ohio has its primary it will already be decided.
I consider myself one of those "l" libertarians.
Still, conceptually atleast, I don't have a problem voting for a reform-minded democrat. The kind who may be for bigger government but atleast not biggest government and is more for making what government does more effecient and cost-effective.
Like what Clinton promised to be..and was in 1996 or thereabouts (line item veto, welfare reform)..and squandered in his second term (there was some talk of partial privatization of social security, which would've been great to do when the bubble economy was booming..and then, well, then everything else happened.)
In this vein, I can't believe that this is the best that the Democrats can offer. None of these "frontrunners" have the minimum in qualifications to even be considered. That was my complaint with George W. Bush..he hadn't spent enough time in politics to gain the skills needed for this office.
But, since we're already used to lame Democrat candidates, there is a real problem when they actually have some so pre-eminent who is just waiting for the call. His name is Ed Rendell.
District Attorney of Philly after Arlen Specter...so prosecutor--tough on crime, etc. Mayor of philly who had arguably just as much success--probably more-- as Giuliani had in NYC.
Then he did something that Giuliani didn't do: he ran for a higher office: Governor of Penna. Remember that if Giuliani gets the nomination: he had a chance in 2002 AND 2006 to try to demonstrate that he could work with a legislature and "reform" ny state like he did _first term_ with NYC. What has he been doing since: giving speeches?
I don't live in PA to know how successful Rendell has been, but atleast he's trying. He is trying like mad to lease the penna turnpike which is a typical govt-run patronage cesspool. That might be a policy proposal that could've came out of REASON--wait it did.
You can also add that he isn't charisma-challenged like the past few democrat nominees.
It makes things dicey that Bill Clinton appointed Rendell's wife to the federal bench--so he can't exactly challenge Hillary _now_.
But if when his term is up in 2010...and Specter retires or he runs against him and so follows his boss again, this time into the Senate...and gains some foreign policy experience there...the Democrats will have a formidable candidate regardless of whatever turkey is elected next year.
The problem is that the most experienced candidate on the dems side is being ignored.... And I´m not talking about Hillary...
I feel like people who "regret" their decision to vote for Bush in 2004 should be disenfranchised. It makes more sense to do that than to disenfranchise nonviolent drug offenders.
I mean, what exactly about Bush surprised you that you didn't know about from 2000-04? That he valued loyalty and power over competence? That his administration constantly tests the water of how authoritarian he could get? That he supported torture? That the war was wrong? Going to end up in civil war?
Exactly what was unpredictable between 2004 and today, other than Katrina? And you didn't really think we'd make it through his presidency with at least one more major issue where competence was important?
"Excuse me, but there are other things then economics to worry about. We currently are in an existential fight to the death with Islamic nihilism. The next president must, first, last, and foremost, be a war leader. This means that no Democratic Party candidate should be even considered for this most important role. Deep in their guts, the typical Democrat believes the war on terror is a con job to increase the power of the "nefarious" neoconservatives.
Posted by David Thomson | September 1, 2007 9:01 AM "
Do you do stand-up? If Bush was really serious, we would have caught Osama by now. Bush would also have instituted the draft to get the hundreds of thousands of troops we would need if we would be able to pull off the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, that would politically spell the end of public support for the wars. As a result, we get bs like this from weirdos on blogs.
"However, that would politically spell the end of public support for the wars."
You obviously don't believe that the war on terror is for real. Islamic nihilism is just a myth to help the neoconservatives increase their power. Sadly, there is little doubt but that you speak for perhaps the majority of Democrats---and even a few Republicans like . I also sense that you are a self-hating American who believes our country deserves the violent "blow-back" from the Muslim extremists because of our alleged screwing them around. Am I right about this?
I was discussing Ron Paul with my brother (unfortunately a conservative and not a libertarian) and he described Ron Paul, not as libertarian, but as a "strict constitutionalist" and due to that, he is anti big goverment and against goverment interference in people's lives. As such, his views on many issues overlap with the views of libertarians. However, he is not a true libertarian and does not believe in libertarian ideals. Looking over Ron Paul's record and public statements, I am inclined to agree.
Seems we have one of Progressive thoughts in Libertarian clothes. But, given the REALLY BIG, if chaotic, Tent for the Libertarians, you gotta understand the breed. It's more than a little 'squishy.'
Megan, what libertarian policies has Obama supported?
This: "I cannot, in good conscience, even entertain the hope of electing a man who wants to outsource our monetary policy to Anglo-American."--is cute, and, while, filled with fancy, is devoid of fact.
A-A has no Monopoly on the production of Au. Even if they did, Alchemy being what it is, they would still need to Labor to produce it.
That fact lies in opposition to the "Lie to me, I promise I will Believe"-fairy-tale of our current Monetary Schema.
"You obviously don't believe that the war on terror is for real. Islamic nihilism is just a myth to help the neoconservatives increase their power. Sadly, there is little doubt but that you speak for perhaps the majority of Democrats---and even a few Republicans like . I also sense that you are a self-hating American who believes our country deserves the violent "blow-back" from the Muslim extremists because of our alleged screwing them around. Am I right about this?"
I couldn't make stuff like this up if I tried. The line about "sensing" (ESP, perhaps?) that you are a "self-hating American" is particularly brilliant in both concept and execution, and when followed by that rhetorical question - well, it rocks.
I would have thought that a useful comment policy would include deleting most of David Thompson's posts, but I guess calling someone a self-hater isn't really pure name calling, even when combined with the rest of that amazing sentence. I guess if you agree with the sentiment behind it, it isn't so bad.
No company has monopoly power in gold production. In fact no company can have such power, because a year's production even of all the producers is such a small fraction of the total amount in existence. This is exactly because of one of the properties of gold that makes it good money: once mined, it basically lasts forever.
In other words, your casual dismissal of Paul as a crank is, to put it bluntly, really stupid. There are arguments to be made against the gold standard, but the fear of monopolization of the production of new money is not among them.
In other words, perhaps you might read a bit about the real arguments pro and con gold standard, before you judge Dr. No on it.
Leonard, my dismissal may have been flippant, but it was not really stupid. Having a money supply that fluctuates fairly broadly, for reasons disconnected to the needs of the economy; and demand for which also fluctuates independently of economic need; is not a good idea. That's why economists from left to right are against it. I have read arguments in favor of the gold standard, and find them thoroughly unconvincing in the face of the massive evidence against it.
Yes it was flip. For you to say "Anglo-American" was ignorant, for the facts outlined above. But ignorance is not stupidity.
The supply of gold does not "fluctuate broadly"; it is 158000 tonnes, and cannot be lowered by almost any means short of throwing gold in a volcano. It can be raised, and is raised, only by highly expensive human effort. Contrast fiat currency, which does fluctuate broadly. Helicopter Ben could double the money supply tomorrow if he got particularly agitated. Perhaps you see this as an advantage; I do not.
As for demand, and "economic need", huh? Presumably if people demand gold they need it for something. Store of value, perhaps? Would you rather people "need" pieces of paper (or bit patterns) which are controlled by the state, or gold? Which need is more consonant with free people?
In any case, the entire argument you apparently believe in is based on the idea that the quantity of money needs to be manipulated by somebody. Au contraire. The ideal money would be absolutely fixed in quantity. The market is a great mechanism for finding price levels. The price level between money and other goods can be left to it just fine.
As for why most "economists" are against it: for the same reason that they support taxation, the welfare state, foreign interventionism and big government in general. They are the intellectual bodyguards of the state. These are highly popular positions, supported by both left and right as a marker of respectability. One does not advance in this world as a "crank".
I certainly don't know of any "massive evidence" against the gold standard, unless you mean by that the fact that it collapsed historically. Perhaps you might devote one of your big posts to a listing of your doubts.
P.S. a complaint about the new blog: your posts are scrolling off the front too fast. It does not even have a day's worth of postings sometimes. Might I suggest (a) longer time, maybe 2 days on the front page, and (b) an "older items" link at the bottom?
I consider myself a libertarian, although I've never voted for the Libertarian Party candidate. I voted for Gore in 2000 (I regret that now, even though it turned out not to matter) and for a write in candidate in 2004. I considered supporting Ron Paul, very briefly, when I heard he was running. Then I looked at his policies. Basically, he supports free markets, except when foreign people whose skin is darker than his are involved. I'm happy to vote for a candidate with whom I disagree on a lot of issues. I voted for freakin' Al Gore, for goodness sakes! But I will not vote to put a racist in the White House. That's not a legitimate disagreement over public policy, it's a major character flaw.
unsacerdotal noncontact precious conspirator pimaric dibasicity pantopelagian isocyanuric
http://www.nanakisbeach.com/ >Nanakis Beach Apartments
http://www.ifgpantry.com/