Ron Paul blames inflation on the Iraq War:
Indirectly, it might have created some small effect because of the disruption of oil from Iraq, and security worries (though it has lately become much less fashionable to blame high prices on speculation). But spending on Iraq is, compared to our economy, very small.
Yes, just a couple trillion here and there. Its nothing compared to social security, so who cares, right?
Its not like we're deep upside down in debt with a falling dollar and constant spending & trade deficits.
We can afford a few trillion more!
OTOH, inflation is also very small right now, and has been for longer than most of his supporters have been alive, so it's not exactly clear why he's complaining.
Inflation is really low, yeah.
As long as you aren't looking to buy food, gas, a house, a college education, or some medical care.
I hear IPods and PCs are cheaper than ever. I wouldn't know, I'm too busy trying to buy the necessities.
I'm sure you can show me some rigged CPI numbers to prove that there's no inflation. Could you take that report to the local grocer? He seems to be confused, 'cuz he keeps raising prices as quantity and quality of product declines.
Just to clarify, is it your contention that the government borrowing and spending large sums of money does not impact inflation? At least not significantly?
You have to remember Paul is over 70 years old. In his life time there have been 3 monetary systems (Gold, Bretton Woods, and the Floating Exchange Rate system).
The general consensus seems to be that Bretton Woods collapsed in the 1970s because of the Vietnam War and the US's fiscal and monetary irresponsibility. The Gold system that existed prior to that collapsed because of irresponsible actors in World War 1.
Paul's stance on Monetary Policy, like his stance on the War, like his stance on immigration, like his stance on every other conservative policy must be taken in the context of his age. His ideas are not crazy, they're just dated. Nothing he said is out of touch with say Von Mises's Theory of Money and Credit. The Austrians were always critical of state-managed monetary policy and the neoclassicalists seemed to heavily doubt its relevance. Considering both movements influenced economic thinking in Paul's formative education years, and then later when he was entering government, makes him a sort of throw back. And the ideas these people spouted weren't out of touch with their time. The Bretton Woods monetary system collapsed because the US abused the system. The Austrians, just like Keynes, were pointing out that the return to the "Gold Standard" in the 1920s was deeply flawed and would lead to speculative attack and gold flight.
Paul's argument for sound monetary policy and abolishing the fed, these are arguments that make sense in context 40 years ago-When he was first entering politics and the BW system was about to collapse. The problem is that economic theory has advanced in 40 years, Von Mises hasn't.
This isn't to say that Paul's general idea and message are bad. The idea of abandoning Monetary Policy as a means of managing our economy would be the first and necessary step towards trans-nationalizing our currency. Perhaps a North American Dollar? Ironically, Paul's anti-fed message could create precisely the necessary monetary environment to propel this country into a greater North American Union he opposes.
Megan - request from a long-time reader: can you lay off crazy old Ron Paul for a while so that his legions of fanatics can go elswhere to spew their unique combination of suicidal monetary policy and black helicopter conspiracy theories? The comment threads of this blog were so reasonable before you poked that particular hornets' nest (even if they were more argumentative than those on your old blog).
Come on Megan, you know that's not going to fly here.
That's like the people who argue that Iraq is just peachy because in terms of deaths per thousand, our soldiers are dying at a much smaller pace than people living in D.C. so what's the problem?
The problem isn't just the relative amount of the spending. It's also the opportunity cost of that spending. You should know that.
request from a long-time reader: can you lay off crazy old Ron Paul for a while so that his legions of fanatics can go elswhere to spew their unique combination of suicidal monetary policy and black helicopter conspiracy theories?
Why? When a good show pulls into town, you don't run it out on a rail; you provoke it into putting on a really good act, then make popcorn.
I think I'm going to post Paul's comment right up next to Alan Greenspan's opinion that the reason for the real estate bubble was the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
anonymouse - Fair enough. But this particular show is, I think, getting a little repetitive. And I'm out of popcorn.
Oh, and in terms of inflation, you're right, Ron Paul is full of it. He's just looking for an issue to bolster his anti-Fed rhetoric.
Since he's toast in a few weeks anyway, despite his "huge support," I wouldn't worry too much about him.
Underground said: "Its not like we're deep upside down in debt with a falling dollar and constant spending & trade deficits."
Yeah, but at least the politicians who got us in this fiscal situation weren't CRAZY.
Not only are our soldiers dying at a much smaller pace than people living in DC, but they're dying at a smaller pace than they would be if they were Stateside.
That is to say, the rate of traffic accident fatalities of soldiers on training or liberty in the States EXCEEDS the rate of fatalities in Iraq.
The real point to keep in mind when talking about spending for the war in Iraq is that the spending figures INCLUDE the costs which would have been incurred even in the absence of the war, e.g., military salaries, supplies which would have been used in training, etc.
That makes it difficult to compare apples to apples or oranges to oranges.
Patrick,
Economic theory has advanced so much in 40 years that government-backed paper money, which can be printed at will, is now seen to be more sound than money backed by a stable commodity and kept separate from the fiscal irresponsibility inherent in government policy? Is this kind of like how art has advanced from Michelangelo to Piero Manzoni?
dsr,
Don't worry, soon she'll return to quasi-conservative complaints about the latest government-created outrage, and continue to miss the bigger picture. It like, sucks, that hairdressers have to be licensed, right?
As much as I enjoy writing letter after letter about Mr. Ron Paul, the fact remains that I am flat-out tired of Ron's psychological bullying. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Ron's particularly inimical form of revanchism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of cuckoo politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. I'm willing to accept that none of what he says carries any weight. I'm even willing to accept that a vivid realization of the caducity of life is what motivates me to encourage the ethos of exchange value over use value. But if I seem a bit chauvinistic, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with him on his own level.
By the bye, the scores of goose-stepping lie-virtuosi who comprise Ron's lynch mob must all be held accountable for helping Ron replace law and order with anarchy and despotism. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that I want you to know that it is apparent where his loyalties lie. Knowing, as they say, is half the battle. What remains is to unmask Ron's true face and intentions in regard to fanaticism. There is one crucial fact that we must not overlook if we are to perceive our current situation as it is, rather than in the anamorphosis of some "ideology" such as Bonapartism or animalism. Specifically, Ron insists that all it takes to start a rabbit farm is a magician's magic hat. In the long run, however, he's only fooling himself. Ron would be better off if he just admitted to himself that it's unfortunate that he has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped.
I, hardheaded cynic that I am, can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: Even if one is opposed to apolaustic, unstable phallocentrism (and I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am), then surely, Ron drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes him sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that Ron's faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. The whole premise of Ron's plaints is false, and his arguments are specious at best. We must lend a helping hand. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that Ron's catch-phrases are devoid of any intellectual substance. For proof of this fact I must point out that the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to oppose evil wherever it rears its spleeny head. Now that you've heard what I've had to say, I want you to think about it. And I want you to join me and grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. No, I'm serious here.
Megan:
In the past your libertarianism has gotten to me--you are still wrong BTW--but what you have been saying about Paul needs to be said. So, I thought I would give some positive feedback. Good job.
"That is to say, the rate of traffic accident fatalities of soldiers on training or liberty in the States EXCEEDS the rate of fatalities in Iraq."
That's a fascinating claim. What's the source?
Travis - actually, that's what I read this blog for. Fine grained discussion of individual policies. I don't always agree with Megan's conclusions. Nor do I find all of her chosen topics interesting, but I generally think "big picture" discussions are a matter for cloistered philosphers.
What I'm starting to find boring is heated argument with blind fanatics about why returning to the monetary policy of the 19th century would be a disaster.
I wish every candidate's fiscal and monetary policies were held up to this kind of scrutiny. We might actually have a real election about issues.
Unfortunately, the other candidates' fiscal policies can be summed up with "We haven't spent enough on _________." As far as monetary policy, well, I don't think I've even heard another candidate address the sinking dollar.
Worrying about these things must be crazy.
One thing I really respect about Paul is that he doesn't pander to appearances, or try to play politics. And he can really defend himself about that.
Check him out on Neil Cavuto when Neil asks Paul about a $500.00 donation from a white supremacist. His answer says so much about why Paul is far more rational than the people who keep calling him "crazy" or try to point to a few crazy supporters as somehow representing him
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrRtZaG63o8
Sorry I don't know how to put hyperlinks in the comments, but here's the reference for the relative fatalities in the military for peacetime vs. wartime. There are two factors which drive the difference. First, the "occupation" of military (in peacetime) has a larger fatality rate than most civilian occupations. Second, the vehicle accident rate of servicemembers drops dramatically when at war; no more liberty runs home or to a party.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
U.S. Dollar's Credibility Being `Stretched,' UBS Economist Says
By Thomas R. Keene and Joe Richter
Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. dollar's credibility as the world's benchmark currency will be put to the test as it loses value against other major currencies, said George Magnus, senior economic adviser at UBS Investment Bank in London.
``We're clearly at a point where credibility is being stretched, and we don't really know what comes afterward,'' Magnus said in an interview.
Magnus said that while it's unlikely governments and companies in emerging economies in Asia and the Middle East are ready to ``ditch the dollar'' and price assets in other currencies in 2008, the dollar is being ``severely tested.''
Sovereign wealth funds are one example of institutions that are avoiding the falling dollar in favor of assets that will preserve their wealth, he said.
The dollar has lost value as traders bet the Federal Reserve will continue cutting interest rates to keep the housing slump from triggering a recession. It was down 7 percent against a trade-weighted basket of currencies from its biggest trading partners in the 12 months ended in November, based on Federal Reserve data.
``This is not something which we'll get closure on in three weeks,'' Magnus said. ``It takes a long time for reserve currencies to be born and to disappear, but we can see a stretching of credibility.''
Central banks have been trying to restore liquidity since the market for assets backed by U.S. subprime mortgages collapsed in August as foreclosures rose. Today, the European Central Bank added an unprecedented $500 billion to the banking system as part of that effort.
``For the moment, it seems to have had some effect,'' Magnus said. ``Clearly, the status quo was not tenable.''
Still, the move may fuel concerns about excessive growth in the money supply, he said.
The ECB ``will want to drain a substantial proportion of these funds,'' according to Magnus. ``They have to be really worried about what the money-supply implications are for inflation'' after today's operation, which will add about 2 percent to the euro-region's money supply, he said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Thomas Keene in New York at tkeene@bloomberg.net Joe Richter in Washington at jrichter1@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: December 18, 2007 14:34 EST
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=arfPcg8g2Qo4&refer=home
I can't imagine printing billions of dollars in US currency and flying it over to Iraq so their economy doesn't collapse would affect inflation at all. Nope, not at all.
Those US Dollars will flood back into the United States when they purchase American exports.
Those statistics are interesting, thanks. The number of acidental deaths during the 80s is surprising. It does seem to be safer to be a soldier in Iraq than it was to be a soldier in peacetime during the 80s. For whatever reason, it did get a lot safer in the 90s, though, and I don't know that accidental deaths today would be more like the 80s than the 90s if there was no war on terror.
All that said, those statistics do put into perspective how low the actual death rate for U.S. soldiers actually is in Iraq compared to conflicts a few decades or more ago. We are gaining on Vietnam and Korea in terms of wounded soldiers, though -- thanks in part to good medical care that is preventing the death rate from being higher.
Phil,
don't be so readily cheered, the 'improved' med care received creates more severely disabled soldiers that survive their traumas.
I'm not saying that they would be better off w/o the chance at continued life, but their numbers are, typically, glossed over in comparisons, as above.
I wonder if many of the folks here who so swiftly dismiss Ron Paul's arguments (I really enjoyed Megan's oh so snarky slashing of the "Congressman" moniker in favor of "Dr." in the last post) have read half of the numerous blogs and articles he has written for Lew Rockwell and other publications. I wonder further if for want of reading these materials, they make these vitriolic remarks about a candidate who, while I support, am sure will not make it to the nomination based solely on his speeches on c-span and the recent campaign soundbites. I also wonder why the intense fury over what is bound to be a campaign for naught on what is an ostensibly libertarian blog. Indeed, Paul's policy prescriptions have numerous flaws. I would say even an ardent supporter with some intelligence would concede this, but it is a principle that unites many to his side. It is what I feel a growing discontent that today's society, and most iniquitously our government views capitalism and free markets, as Janice Rogers Brown once said, to be a necessary evil begrudgingly accepted in order to feed the "insatiable maw of socialism". I would hope that libertarians view the necessary evil to be, on the contrary, government, rather than the instruments of our liberty. And in regards to those who say that Paul's followers are so-called tinfoil hat wearers, some - perhaps many may indeed be, but his red-faced detractors, many of whom have reared their frantic heads on this post sound to me just as fanatic and suspiciously militant. To wit,
"For proof of this fact I must point out that the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to oppose evil wherever it rears its spleeny head. Now that you've heard what I've had to say, I want you to think about it. And I want you to join me and grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. No, I'm serious here."
--- Eliza
Eliza, are you really a random comment generator? Or are you just a human being pretending to be a random comment generator?
Personally, I think a Ron Paul presidency is a done deal. When the Ukrainian mafia sets its mind on something, it generally gets what it wants.
Watching the ignorant write and comment about Ron Paul is truly something to behold. Megan McArdle appears not to have the faintest idea what inflation is or how it is created. The Federal Reserve creates inflation (primarily to support government spending - thus Paul's reference to Iraq war spending). Does Megan even understand the difference between monetary inflation and price inflation?
...and the people commenting... just regurgitating the government's "low inflation" numbers..lol
No serious observer believes the government numbers. The feds have a MAJOR interest in reporting low inflation and high growth numbers. The economic stats are HEAVILY manipulated (do you people ever read anything of substance?)
On Economist John Williams' site Shadow Government Statistics, he cuts through the government BS and reports that current CPI is over 10%. I hear people in the financial industry say ALL THE TIME that the government numbers on CPI, PPI, GDP, etc. are way off - yet the media continuously ignores this story.
As I look at my own costs in this economy, the idea that price inflation has been running at 2%-3% for the last few years is preposterous.
Ron Paul is waking up a lot of people. Maybe one day, Megan's alarm clock will go off, but I'm not holding my breath.
Ron Paul sees only a small part of the big picture. Why does the Fed oppress the people? To make us work more, so that we have little time for ourselves. Why? So that we don't go rabbit hunting. If you don't believe me, read through every speech of every Fed chair in history, as I have. Not ONCE have they encouraged people to hunt rabbits. And who is the REAL power behind all this? Rabbits, of course. If you want to know the real truth, walk around until you see one, and look at it. Really look, casting aside all preconceptions. Then ask yourself: would anyone look so cute and harmless if they didn't have something to hide? Something big?
It is once again startling, I must repeat, Ron Paul's detractors' passionate rhetoric belies their insistence that he is to be dismissed as a bumbler and a fool.
I, for instance, can say simply and without much more than the most cursory contemplation, that Dennis Kucinich is a non-threatening crypto-socialist boob. End of story. I would not say he is evil, conjuring some mustache twisting villain, and urge everyone to rise up in arms against him. He defeats himself already when he talks about feeling a warm fuzzy love in his heart when being visited by aliens.
So why does a candidate who is so ridiculous, he is essentially self-defeating, require a counterrevolution?
For whatever reason, it did get a lot safer in the 90s, though, and I don't know that accidental deaths today would be more like the 80s than the 90s if there was no war on terror.
A bit off topic, but I can answer this one. The Army (and I think the rest of the military) looked at the stats about how many Soldiers they were losing in accidents, and starting placing an almost psychotic emphasis on safety during off-duty hours. I wish I could post a link to the TRiPS website so you could all see the glory--it's behind a password wall--but lets just say that I managed to go on road trips for many years before joining the Army and never had to have a web page harrass me about how often I stop for rest breaks (every two hours is the standard, btw).
Another example: leadership can get in trouble due to the rate of DUIs among their subordinates. I had a battalion commander threaten to put the entire battalion (800+ people) on a seven-day work week after a period of time with about 2 DUIs every weekend--because then nobody would have time to go out drinking and drive. (It irked me when he made that threat, since I rarely even drink, but I'll be damned if it didn't work. DUI rates fell off a cliff after that, even though he never carried his threat out.)
Sometimes Ron Paul says things that show a fundmental misunderstanding of economics. For instance, he tells Bernanke that we can only maintain our capital stock despite a low or negative saving rate because we "steal value from the existing currency". That's one of the most bizarre economic accounts I've ever heard.
We can maintain relatively high rates of investment and relatively low savings because we are running large current account deficits, not because we have (a little) inflation.
S - I = NX (savings minus investment equals net exports)
So what the hell is Ron Paul talking about?
He does get to the current account deficit, mind you, and explains that a large current account deficit means that "our productive jobs are going overseas."
Again, what the hell is he talking about? This is mercantilist nonsense. I would have expected a man who calls himself a liberarian and a capitalist to have taken in the teachings of the greatest libertarian capitalist of them all--Adam Smith, who debunked mercantilism for all time.
rwe,
that doesn't make any sense. I think that quote about jobs going overseas is misrepresented or being taken out of context.
Paul would never say something that conveys mechantilism.
John V,
I was surprised myself. Just watch the video link from youtube provided by Megan. He says:
So, I've given the quote and the context. you may check for yourself. I got it all from Megan's link. There are two main ideas running through his argument--one is that money creation somehow enables us to invest more than we save; and the other is that the current account deficit is somehow linked to the loss of productive jobs. Both are wrong, but I want to focus on the latter.
The United States has the highest productivity in the world (excluding some very small countries with special situations). It's not hard to find that out. GDP per capita is a very easy statistic to find. And our productivity has been rising steadily for a long time. It has been rising especially quickly in the last 15 years or so. So what is the problem?
Unemployment is low and prodcutivity is high. Moreover, the other problem Paul addresses--the current account deficit--is best addressed through a gradual currency depreciation, a policy Paul opposes.
"And how long can we continue to fool the world--how long can we continue with a current account debt--deficit--of 6% if we're not--if our productive jobs are going overaeas?"--RP
"the current account deficit is somehow linked to the loss of productive jobs"-rwe
rwe,
I hear Paul asking a Q: "how long can we continue...if our productive jobs are going overseas?"
Paul's problem is that he isn't a very polished stem-wider, are you sure he's linking he's linking the trade deficit to job loss?
On a side note, I think it's a bit of a dome-scratcher/really funny that these Congressman only get 5 minutes, 300 seconds, to ask, and hear the answer, their Q's... we waste more time than that on commercials during a half hour of TV Programming..
Okay Mark. It sounded to me like he was implying some sort of causal link there, but maybe not. Anyway, America isn't losing productive jobs. Pat Buchanan says that all the time, as do many Democrats, and it just ain't so.
rwe,
You say, "The United States has the highest productivity in the world (excluding some very small countries with special situations). It's not hard to find that out. GDP per capita is a very easy statistic to find. And our productivity has been rising steadily for a long time. It has been rising especially quickly in the last 15 years or so. So what is the problem?"
The problem is this: If the GDP number is not accurate, all your assertions go out the window. It's not that difficult to show that the government has been underreporting the inflation numbers for a long time and that the money creation was rocketing up for a number of years. So, if you calculate GDP using the proper GDP deflator, you get a lot lower GDP. In other words, that "especially quick" rise in GDP for the past 15 years or so, has been a lot of price inflation counted as growth.
- rwe
Like France?
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/7/29880166.pdf
Sorry, the above comment should have referenced:
"The United States has the highest productivity in the world (excluding some very small countries with special situations)." - rwe
"Inflation is really low, yeah.
As long as you aren't looking to buy food, gas, a house, a college education, or some medical care."
You didn't suggest a solution. I hope it wasn't some sort of government intervention - I very much doubt it's just a coincidence that those are the parts of the economy most affected by government regulation, tax policy, and/or spending. (This isn't counting just the USA federal government. The last time I looked it up, the nine largest oil companies in the world were owned by other governments. Local regulations influence the price of housing even more than the federal mortgage exemption.)
brooksfoe,
Actually, I was referring to GDP per capita, which, though it is chiefly determined by worker productivity, is not quite the same thing.
So let's use output per worker. As the AP reports:
So I stand by my initial claim that American workers are the most productive in the world (more even than the French, "aide-toi, le ciel t-aidera").
If the GDP number is not accurate, all your assertions go out the window. It's not that difficult to show that the government has been underreporting the inflation numbers for a long time and that the money creation was rocketing up for a number of years.
I just don't agree. If anything the CPI still overstates inflation, despite the Boskin fix.
I also diasagree about money creation. Since 1995 M2 has risen at (roughly) 5% per year. If real GDP growth is 3%, that implies an inflation rate of 2%, which is not exactly hyperinflation. I just don't know where these ideas about runaway inflation come from. Certainly not form a careful analysis of the data.
I guess people look at the prices of a few commodities, erroneously conclude that these reflect overall price level changes, and then construct conspiracy theories abotu M3.
rwe, do the statistics you cited take into account that Americans work more hours per week than the average French worker? If not, that would seem to be relevant.
rwe, do the statistics you cited take into account that Americans work more hours per week than the average French worker? If not, that would seem to be relevant.-Matt Scharf
Matt, that's a good question. I was expecting brooksfoe to raise it, but you beat him to it. The answer is "no." The figures cited above are output per worker.
But let's look at output per worker hour. As the same AP article linked to above tells us:
It goes on to say that France is third but France's numbers are artifically inflated. The French have such a high enemployment rate that their least productive workers are shut out of the labor force. That raises average worker productivity, but noone thinks it's good for France.
Anyway, the idea that somehow good American jobs are going overseas and we're becoming a nation of hamburger flippers is so far from the truth that it's laughable. Our productivity is the envy of the world.
Thanks for the update. I was actually wondering about the way that a lower US unemployment rate factored into those stats as well. Sorry to take the discussion a little off track though; I'm sure there's a lot more that could be raised.
The "most productive per hour" title bounces around between France and the US from year to year and report to report. The OECD says France's workers are more efficient per hour of work than America's. American workers produce more because they work more hours. The ILO thinks US workers are slightly more productive in the 2006 figures than France's, but says that overall "The difference in rankings [of productivity by country] can be explained by the fact that annual working hours per person employed are considerably higher in the United States than in the majority of European economies."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04output.html?pagewanted=print
Long-term, since 1980, productivity per worker hour has grown 2.2 percent in France and 1.7 percent in the US.
So why does a candidate who is so ridiculous, he is essentially self-defeating, require a counterrevolution?
Because some of his ideas, or the root theories from which they are derived, are just popular enough to merit a detailed inspection under high-intensity lighting.
Look brooksfoe,
If you are trying to persuade me that France is doing better economically than the United States, you aren't likely to succeed. The unemployment rate there is about 9% (almost double ours) and GDP per capita is about 3/4ths of ours. And it's been falling further behind, with GDP per capita growth of 1.3% from 2002 to 2006, compared to 1.7% for the U. S.
They have been plagued by lethargic growth, labor market rigidities, strikes and urban riots.
Is everything there bad? Of course not. It's one of the richest countries in the world, but it has some serious problems we don't have. And it's workers aren't more productive than ours.
Economist Paul Romer explained one of France's many problems here:
In which country would a young, enterprising person rather grow up? I think the answer is clear.
anony-mouse,
"Because some of his ideas, or the root theories from which they are derived, are just popular enough to merit a detailed inspection under high-intensity lighting."
I feel that the main thrust of his platform is his free-market, release us from the shackles of collectivism, etc. message, which is what has galvanized most of his more sane supporters. Assuming you find that to be a destructive impulse, and that I'm inclined to disagree strongly with you (or not), one thing which I do feel attracts a fringe to his campaign is his border protection, immigration super-highway paranoia. This is something that I disagree with and to be at odds with a truly Libertarian philosophy. That being said, it is, I feel a movement that exists with or without Paul, and certainly gains more steam under demagogues for protectionism like Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs. I do feel this fastidiousness regarding the movement of labor is a drawback for Paul, however, his heart may be in the right place in not wanting a North American Union, let alone a world government, not that that would be in the cards any time in the next millennium. Aside from that, the purity of Paul's pragmatic and yes, principled abhorrence to the welfare state is refreshing in a world of politics where even Republicans, the so-called small government avatars, would gladly nominate a former liberal progressive if he were in full support of the war. What interests me, and so many more younger conservatives and Libertarians are the dilemmas of a growing state, whose last true Cassandra, Milton Friedman, died recently. Ron Paul is the heir to that legacy of agitating on behalf of what Amity Shlaes redubbed the "Forgotten Man", and for that matter those who want more personal liberty, economic and personal (medical marijuana, eminent domain, FCC abuses, gun control, regulation of business, light bulbs, etc.).
Further evidence that France is not such a good place for the young:
Very funy guys and gals... Really!
If by any chance, in order to vote, you will be required to pass an IQ test whith minimum 70 points ( the same as Forest Gump), I'm wondering how many of you will be allow to vote...50%?...30%?...
Nah!...I'm not so optimistic...
rwe - I basically agree with the thrust of your point, which is that US workers are extremely productive, and that's why people continue to invest money here and our jobs aren't going to dry up and blow away. I just have this thing about the reflexive "American x is the greatest x in the world" meme when, on a particular stat, it's either not true or not clearly true. In some years, American workers come out as the most productive in the world except for Norway's. (Why we get to ignore Norway is never entirely clear to me.) In other years, American workers come out as the third most productive behind Norway and France. I just wish people would avoid that impulse to say "USA #1" when "USA very good" or "USA just fine" would do.
I not that "In 1999, to protect the value of gold as a reserve, European Central Bankers signed the "Washington Agreement," which stated they would not allow gold leasing for speculative purposes, nor would they "enter the market as sellers" except for sales that had already been agreed upon."
Gold speculation...hum... Assume that we abolish the Fed. I would assume those that profit from the current system could figure out a way to game the new system. I could imagine the rise of a new George Soros who would find a way to "break" the dollar and in the process make huge amounts of money.
I could imagine the rise of a new George Soros who would find a way to "break" the dollar and in the process make huge amounts of money.
Back before we had the Fed, that "new George Soros" who had the power to break the dollar was named J.P. Morgan.
I agree that the gold standard is and should remain long gone. Basing monetary policy on the value of a commodity which can rise and fall at any time, and which is likely to fall a great deal in the next 50 years as space travel makes huge reserves of gold in the asteroid belt feasible and cheap, is NOT a good idea.
That said, I still like Ron Paul on the whole. Sure, he has a few crazy ideas . . . but so does EVERY candidate. Most people KNOW the gold standard idea is crazy - but most people DON'T understand how insane the ideas proposed by the other candidates are. That means those insane, very harmful policies might actually get adopted - which is not at all likely in the case of the gold standard.
I was surprised that one commenter, Eliza, said that Ron Paul would replace law and order with anarchy and despotism. Has she failed to notice that the United States is ALREADY suffering from a sharp decline in the rule of law, and is ALREADY experiencing a sharp increase in despotism? Far from being the cause of this, Ron Paul is about the only congressman who has steadfastly refused to vote in favor of laws that are clearly against the supreme law of the land, either because they are explicitly disallowed or because the Constitution did not give Congress the authority to make such laws. Far from being an anarchist, Ron Paul is the only consistent supporter of the Rule of Law among all the candidates. That alone counterbalances a few eccentricities of his.
For the sake of dropping some bombs; here are some facts. The Constitution of the United States states in Article 1, Section 10:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
We can of course leave the gold standard or whatever we want, but it needs to be legalized in the Constitution through the "Amendment" process; rather than ignored like it has been for years.
Now all those that keep imposing the "gold standard" in regard to Ron Paul's platform. You are distoring it. Ron Paul states that Gold is the legal form of tender and he is 100% correct. His platform argues competitive currency, such as we do with foreign nations, except nationally to instill a free-market; rather than government-guided policy. If this were to happen, it would technically require a constitutional amendment.
You can argue and jump and make whatever claims you want in opinions, but the Constitution, which regulates Congress states clearly what we are and are not allowed to use to pay debts.