I am being urged, in comments and email, to ignore the fact that Ron Paul is a no-hoper because after all, he's an honest man who stands by his beliefs.
The same, of course, could be said of the lunatic who sincerely and with great conviction declares himself emperor of France and uses all the asylum's plastic sporks to map out his conquest of Russia.
Ron Paul has some beliefs that I like, such as his opposition to eminent domain abuse. But he also has a number of beliefs that are, not to put too fine a point on it, utterly insane. The gold standard is one; the belief that NAFTA is a trojan horse for the North American Union is another. Much of his persona, sincere or not, seems to boil down to "Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."
Megan,
If you really believe Paul's position can be summed up in that simplistic way, perhaps you should leave political analysis to the big boys - isn't it time to bake some cookies for the Christmas party?
What? People who like foreigners are plotting to take away all my stuff? To the barricades!
The gold standard is insane?
This must be news, seeing as how some of the greatest economists to ever live supported the gold standard, as well as our previous two Fed Chairmen (Greenspan and Bernanke)
"Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."
Um... our current government is killing millions of "foreigners" in Iraq and Afghansitcan over the past few years, and you present Ron Paul as the one that doesn't like foreigners? He would save more foreign lives than any other candidate.
Which is a perfect fit for the Republican base.
Unfortunately, he doesn't talk about Jesus enough. Next.
"Megan,
If you really believe Paul's position can be summed up in that simplistic way, perhaps you should leave political analysis to the big boys - isn't it time to bake some cookies for the Christmas party?"
- bwhahahahahahahahaha!
Gold standard: legalizing competing currencies, backed by material assets is not "insane" by any stretch. Its an investment alternative that's currently illegal and subject to government seizure of private property.
The SPP (http://www.spp.gov) and NAU are things we should be discussing, because it seems like only the critics aren't allowed to talk about it and whether you are in favor of increased cooperation and union or not, we have a duty and right to be part of the debate. The ones who are in favor write essay after essay, commission study groups, and these recommendations are making it to the hands of the respective presidents and discussed at their meetings. Anyone who is critical of this is considered "crazy."
I didn't know that Ron Paul was a "no hoper". Based on the available facts he's a serous contender.
Are you suggesting conspiracy theory? That he won't be allowed to win? That in either the Republican Convention or the General Election the will of the majority will be overruled?
The same, of course, could be said of the lunatic who sincerely and with great conviction declares himself emperor of France and uses all the asylum's plastic sporks to map out his conquest of Russia.
Do you ever get tired of being so urbane and above-it-all?
His craziest beliefs are not insane at all. They are eccentric. Sometimes misguided. Not insane. Perhaps pay a little more attention to the things he actually says (I happen to know a site called youtube that has many clips of him speaking) and less time trying to assure your fellow sophisticated bloggers that you're not one of those libertarians.
"Megan,
If you really believe Paul's position can be summed up in that simplistic way, perhaps you should leave political analysis to the big boys - isn't it time to bake some cookies for the Christmas party?"
Did you just really say that?
Some of Paul's supporters are fanatical. So, you're going to get attacked for making fun of him. A few have been telling me that Paul "really schooled" Ben Bernanke, possibly the world's leading expert on monetary policy.
As Thomas Sowell pointed out, any good idea can become a fetish. That government's main responsibility is to safeguard our liberty is a good idea. But this is a kind of fetish:
We already have passports and social security card, so a national ID card would hardly be a great imposition. And this too is a fetish:
An independent central bank is the best guarantor of sound money. That's why we've had relatively low inflation for the last 25 years. Why fix what ain't broken? And how, exactly, is Bernanke a threat to my liberty?
"Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."
Have you heard anything Ron Paul says about Free Trade and travel? I suppose you think that war supporters aren't scared of foreigners and actually like them.
Megan just wants to post about Paul so she'll get alot of hits to her scrub column. That's all. Nothing more.
megan, please. you don't believe the gov. is trying to secretly push us into the NAU obviously. well, have you even done research on this stuff? try to google the SPP. after you do, explain to me why the leaders of Mexico, the U.S., and Canada held a top priority meeting in Waco. explain to me why the gov. is trying to get a super highway built here in texas that would begin in the Rio Grande Valley and to the Texas/Oklahoma border? why are there so many diplomats north and south of us that speak of a union of sorts? i see people on television and online ridicule ron paul because he states facts. what kind of crap is that? if you don't know, don't say anything. i hear the same negative comments about him and his monetary policies. i guarantee you that he know more about economics that all the other candidates combined. even more so than all of the writers, editors and bloggers. surely more than you do megan. you are intitled to your opinion of course, but...research please.
I am encouraged by your article. You see I have been blindly following Ron Paul in hopes that people wouldn't look at the fact that he is a no-hoper. I wouldn't have known this little known fact had it not been for your insightful article illuminating same. I'm encouraged to know that it is ok to say out-loud that the greatest economists of our times are outright loonybirds because they espouse the return of the Gold-Standard. You have obviously done your homework. Much like Stephen Colbert, you must have confirmed these "facts" with your gut! Don't you dare go and read a book on the subject, worse yet, don't Google anything, because there is a lot of ignorance out there that will only confuse you with, uh, "other facts". Other facts are incredibly dangerous, they challenge the very conclusions you have so conveniently concluded. I am sponsoring a bill right now that will eliminate the need for an election this year, we have no need for anyone to vote, you already have decided who our next President will not be. "Start the Presses"!
So, why is the gold standard insane? You don't get any points for saying it's scary to you because you have no experience within such a system. You also don't get points for claiming there isn't a way to monetize our current system based on the value of gold available on earth, since that isn't the plan which Ron Paul has put forth to move towards such a system.
Ron Paul isn't scared of foreigners, he just wants to let them sort out their issues, which do not involve us directly, without us being involved. Why should we be insert ourselves in other countries internal and external problems which we are not involved?
Given I could define a "free trade agreement" in about two paragraphs, why is NAFTA over a thousand pages long? Is it really free trade?
"'Much of his persona, sincere or not, seems to boil down to "Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff.' Which is a perfect fit for the Republican base."-liberalrob
That's the problem with Ron Paul. He allows leftists like rob to caricature Republicans as isolationist nuts hoarding gold and fuming about flouride in water. But Ron Paul isn't really even a Republican--no more than David Duke was. He's a Libertarian who switched for convenience.
The Republican Party is the party of Condoleeza Rice, George Schultz, Jim Baker and Henry Kissinger. It's hard to make he case that these people are isolationists filled with parnoia and hatred toward foreigners.
"An independent central bank is the best guarantor of sound money. That's why we've had relatively low inflation for the last 25 years. Why fix what ain't broken? And how, exactly, is Bernanke a threat to my liberty?"
Relative to what? Since 1971 alone (the year we left the pseudo-gold standard) the dollar has been devalued 80%. The dollar is worth 4% what it was in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was instated. Furthermore, since the imposition of a central bank, we've seen the largest depression in the United States history. This blog post is too small to go over the details of how this occurs... but I assure you, not all economists are Keyensians and Monetarists, and also, there is a vast intellectual tradition that argues against interventionism. Read the work of Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Hazlitt, Kirznir, etc, and then argue when you have a comprehensive view of the situation.
I love it when non-economists can dismiss a system like the Gold Standard by saying its 'utterly insane'. Thanks for your expert commentary Megan - but this type of incompetence is what we have the mainstream media for.
If Megan's point boils down to emotional reactions to ideas she is unfamiliar with... then yeah, baking cookies and listening to 'light and airy favorites from the 60s and 70s' is probably a better use of her time; that, or writing for the New York Times.
Look forward to your inputs on other fields you know absolutely nothing about.
Megan is just another MSM's paid shill. Where is the ignore button?
Megan,
Well, I didn't email you. I just posted an entry or two. And by what you wrote, I'd think either you didn't even read it---or---read it and don't care and/or think I'm lying.
I realize it's your blog but a lot of the comments on the previous thread, mine comes to mind, that talk about being accurate (or caring to be accurate) about his positions and being realistic about how his views stack up in real world policy seem to have gone in one hear and out the other with you.
Didn't some people explain his so-called Gold Standard position? Didn't some people talk about his main views and what they mean in terms of real policy?
It seems like you just glanced at them and posted the the exact same thing as before.
Not cool.
So what are you saying? You'd be more drawn to a candidate who generally holds a lot of views you disagree with but at least has inconsequential opinions that you like?
I'm getting tired of reading ill-researched pontificating by so-called journalists or bloggers. If you want to know the truth you’ll have to do some work instead of just acting like you know what you are talking about.
If you actually listen the man himself, in in-depth interviews and writings, as opposed to what other media spoon feeds you, you would know that most of Ron Paul’s views are actually . Even when he talks about the NAU type think he does it in an ideological, non-conspiratorial way. This issue isn’t about conspiracy, it’s about the government doing whatever it wants because the people have no attention span and an inability to deal with long terms trends and planning.
And your rush-to-label-bigotry toward foreigners comment is totally out of place. This is the man who says that we are just scapegoating illegals because our economy is bad, and wants to trade and have diplomacy with everyone including Cuba and Iran, AND is willing to stand for those positions amidst mass boos from the people who are closer to fitting your description.
Shallow opinions like this are exactly why we have vapid and /or over-politicized frontrunners and leave real, intelligent candidates, like Paul, Kucinich, Dodd, or Richardson out to dry.
To rwe and others apparently unschooled on monetary policy:
Money as Debt
A quick 47-minute video on the nature of fiat currency. In cartoon format for easy consumption.
megan, please. you don't believe the gov. is trying to secretly push us into the NAU obviously. well, have you even done research on this stuff? try to google the SPP. after you do, explain to me why the leaders of Mexico, the U.S., and Canada held a top priority meeting in Waco. explain to me why the gov. is trying to get a super highway built here in texas that would begin in the Rio Grande Valley and to the Texas/Oklahoma border? why are there so many diplomats north and south of us that speak of a union of sorts? i see people on television and online ridicule ron paul because he states facts. what kind of crap is that? if you don't know, don't say anything. i hear the same negative comments about him and his monetary policies. i guarantee you that he know more about economics that all the other candidates combined. even more so than all of the writers, editors and bloggers. surely more than you do megan. you are intitled to your opinion of course, but...research please.
Calm down or we'll take away your spork, emperor.
So, why is the gold standard insane?-MikeB
I wouldn't say "insane," just outmoded. The gold standard only provides currency stability if gold itself is stable in price (or relative price). But it isn't. That's why, during some periods, the rising price of gold led to deflation.
Because prices are "sticky," especially downward, deflation can be extemely painful. It was, as nearly all economists agree, a major contributor to the Great Depression.
Read Milton Friedman's work. Or Ben Bernanke's. The contraction of the money supply caused prices to fall which led to a severe contraction in aggregate demand. At the bottom of it all was gold.
Learn something about the value of currency and the current value of currency in the US and then you'll change your mind concerning the gold standard.
Its easy to dismiss Paul's views because our system has been run by socialists and liberals (including the "Republicans") for the last several decades. They have indoctrinated you well. Unfortunately, their ideas don't work, which is why our country is in several crises regarding the economy and immigration.
Where did the "Foreigner's are scary" nonsense come from? That's an incredible statement considering that he wants peace and free trade with all nations. The neo-cons have a "foreigners are scary" attitude... that's why we think we need to have a military presence in half the nations around the globe.
and here is the Google Video of Money As Debt.
Wow... I can't even begin to find it within myself to argue or disect what this stupid "nitwitt" has said in her article. But hey... I guess ignorance is bliss.
Don't go into detail, whatever you do.
You are presenting your argument that indeed, because Ron Paul is a "no-hoper" (despite more money than any other Republican running) that I somehow shouldn't support his campaign or give him my vote? If that is the case, am I to vote for someone else? Why bother? All the other "front-runners" want to 1) continue the occupation of Iraq and the rest of the globe using my tax dollars. 2) Debase our currency with runaway debt 3) Strip away my civil liberties 4) grant welfare to corporate interests under the veil of "domestic spending programs".
If Ron Paul is truly a "no-hoper" then we are even worse off than I thought. Let's keep electing the same people who will to say and do anything to get elected and then continue the same policies that have gotten us into this mess.
"An independent central bank is the best guarantor of sound money. That's why we've had relatively low inflation for the last 25 years. Why fix what ain't broken? And how, exactly, is Bernanke a threat to my liberty?" -rwe
No, an independent central bank (i.e. banking cartel) exists to loan money to the government at below market rates and prop up the fractional reserve banking system at the expense of sound money. It is exactly the reason that our money is not sound that it needs management (manipulation) by a banking cartel. Sound money needs no management. If the Federal Reserve does not create inflation, where does it come from?
By continually setting the interest rates below the market rates, the Federal Reserve creates inflation. The below market prices to borrow money benefit those borrowers at the expense of loaners and savers. This fact encourages consumption and the accumulation of debt at the expense of saving and investment. This erodes liberty because it forces you to either participate in the fraud by over-consuming and accumulating debt - or to not engage in the fraud and effectively subsidize those who are willing to participate in it.
Unless you don't think its a fraud, but then I would ask, why do we pay interest on money created out of thin air?
Relative to what? Since 1971 alone (the year we left the pseudo-gold standard) the dollar has been devalued 80%. The dollar is worth 4% what it was in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was instated.-Leon Kassab
Leon, I said inflation has been low in "the last 25 years," not the last 36 years. Since Volcker took over, the Fed has understood the danger of an inflationary monetary policy and has kept monetary growth at reasonable rates.
What has the CPI grown at in the last 15 years or so? 2.5% per annum? Is that really so bad. A little inflation is actually good, because of wage and price rigidities. Moreover, the CPI is likley overstated, becuase it fails to fully account for quality improvements.
I'll say this for Ron Paul's supporters though. At least they stick up for themselves. I agree with her this time, but I've noticed that Megan McArdle goes into hiding when her positions come under serious criticism... So I give them credit for intellectual courage, even if I disagree with them on some points.
To the person that wrote these things:
Paul didn't "school" Bernanke, he simply demonstrated what inflation is to everybody, it's a tax. Bernanke knows this, he just won't admit it. When Bernanke said that inflation only affected people that bought foreign products and so it shouldn't really affect people holding dollars, I actually burst out laughing.
Bernanke, I'm certain, understood what a lie it was, but to hear him say it. It was outrageous.
We aren't required to have a passport, and a social security card is also not actually a requirement, and who carries their Social Security card around? Is anybody stupid enough to do that?
A national ID card is a bit different from these, because it's being made a requirement for everybody, period and it's being built into driver's licenses, which is yet another intrusion of state's sovereignty - and yes, state sovereignty is a good thing.
Between 1800 and 1900, we had negative inflation - i.e. deflation. In 1800 what cost $100, cost $50 in 1900. We also had our greatest period of growth between 1800 and 1900, so in fact, deflation isn't as horrible as people make it out to be - when you have sound money and not everybody is up to debt to their eyeballs.
Between 1900 and 2000, since we got an "independent central bank" which you claim is "the best guarantor of sound money", what cost $100 in 1900 cost $1,995 in 2000.
So, either the Federal Reserve is the most incompetent central bank in the world, or central banks don't do what you think they do - and they don't.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
That's from the government's own statistics. The role of the Federal bank as stated may be to preserve the dollar, but all they've ever done is destroy it.
What's tiresome is that people are so lazy, they'll never ever bother to do the research to find out that Paul has actually done the research. When people say he's "crazy" - what that simply tells me is how crazy our society has actually become and I worry about that. Nazi Germany went crazy as a society, we deprogrammed them after WWII, who is going to deprogram you guys?
"Because prices are "sticky," especially downward, deflation can be extemely painful. It was, as nearly all economists agree, a major contributor to the Great Depression.
Read Milton Friedman's work. Or Ben Bernanke's. The contraction of the money supply caused prices to fall which led to a severe contraction in aggregate demand. At the bottom of it all was gold." -rwe
The contraction of the money supply was a direct result of the expansion of the money supply following the creation of the Federal Reserve. If gold were allowed to be used as money, it would not contract as fast because it cannot be expanded as fast. It's easy to blame monetary deflation for the problems, but money socialists like keyenes always forget that it is the expansion of the money supply made possible by fiat monetary systems that create the possibility of drastic contractions.
You can do better than this. How much research did you do before you post this blog entry?
I challenge you to substiate your claim that:
Much of his persona, sincere or not, seems to boil down to "Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."
The gold standard itself has some advantages and some disadvantages, but the current outspoken proponents of the gold standard are generally not given to careful discussion of the pros and cons, as we have seen above.
What the gold-standard supporters don't appear willing to understand is that gold itself does not contain any intrinsic value. In many ways, gold is fiat money, with the simple difference that it can be used to make jewelry and plate computer boards, as well. If no one tried to persuade themselves that someone else would want gold in the future, just because it's gold, not because it has practical value, the price of gold would drop precipitously. Gold is a bubble commodity. It's natural industrial value is notably lower than the trading value, because the prices are driven up by speculation.
It's easier to write on a dollar bill, of course.
The best recent book on the subject is Terry Pratchett's Making Money. Much better than the stuff economists write.
rwe,
I don't even know where to begin in addressing that post. Gold not stable in price? Nearly all economists agree it was a major contributor to the great depression?
I do not have the time or space here to debunk those, but I am sure the others here will try, as they should.
Congrats Megan. You've unintentionally helped prove a point I was making at dinner the other night - that the Ron Paul phenomenon has proven that the time and energy of passionate but misguided college students needn't only serve the causes of the left.
The far left has for years been able to mobilize uninformed college students to attend impotent protest marches and wage continuous internet chat room battle with the "mainstream" (against free trade, capitalism, the Iraq war, etc).
Now Ron Paul has (an albeit smaller number of) his own rabid student supporters turning out for rallys and prowling internet message boards to defend the idea of a return to the gold standard.
Apparently all you need is to position yourself as sufficiently anti-establishment and hordes of well meaning but ultimately naive twenty-somethings will dedicate their lives to fighting battles on your behalf, regardless of whether your ideology is looney left or crazy right.
"The gold standard only provides currency stability if gold itself is stable in price (or relative price). But it isn't. That's why, during some periods, the rising price of gold led to deflation." -rwe
The Federal Reserve does not provide price stability or currency stability. The Federal Reserve makes sure that the government can borrow money at below market rates and props up the fractional reserve banking system.
It is the fractional reserve banking system, which is the source of the instability in the banking system and the system of credit. In effect, all banks are insolvent, since they are unable to meet their current demand deposits. This form of credit instability caused banking failures. Instead of outlawing fractional reserve banking, the government decided to take advantage of it for its benefit and entered into a deal with the banks to form a fascist cartel called the Federal Reserve. The banking cartel makes money off of inflation and fractional reserve banking, and in return the government borrowes money at below market rates. American citizens get screwed.
"In many ways, gold is fiat money, with the simple difference that it can be used to make jewelry and plate computer boards, as well." -freelunch
Gold does not have intrinsic value, but it cannot be created without significant use of real resources. You cannot print gold. that is why the supply of gold is relatively inelastic, and why it doesn't need (mis)management by a government or banking cartel.
But the issue isn't gold. I don't care what people want to use for money. I just don't want the supply of it to be too elastic or determined for political purposes. The value of money and interest should be controlled by the market. Gold, silver, platinum, molybdenum, copper... all make for sound currency and represent free-market money. Money is a commodity and should be treated as such.
So let's just trash the constitution then...after all according to GWB, "it's just a damn piece of paper".
GWB said: "You're either with us or against us".
I say "You either follow the constitution, or you don't".
Why ignore the document that made America great?
What do you have against the constitution?
In effect, all banks are insolvent, since they are unable to meet their current demand deposits
This has been true since the first bank opened its doors, or at the very least since the invention of double-entry bookkeeping, whose entire purpose is to balance the asset of a loan against the debt of a deposit. Where is the money for credit supposed to come from, if not depositors?
MM, you have successfully provoked the gold bugs and anti-fractional-reservists. With a little effort you can take this to the next level and bring on the UCC lunatics and the "they sold my birth certificate to the Jews" redemptionites. We'd all like to see you make it happen.
Megan knows talking negatively about Ron Paul will get her blog attention. I'm calling this one a troll. RP2008
Your comment on the gold standard leads me to believe one thing - you have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about....ding...back to your commie-college education for some more schoolin on monetary policy. It probably really isn't your fault you're socialist, we forgive you!
Freelunch said "What the gold-standard supporters don't appear willing to understand is that gold itself does not contain any intrinsic value. In many ways, gold is fiat money, with the simple difference that it can be used to make jewelry and plate computer boards, as well."
You're leaving out the key difference that is the whole reason that gold standard proponents want gold. It's not because gold has "intrinsic value." It's because the supply of gold is not controlled by a private organization, and frequently adjusted in arbitrary ways.
In other words, the value of gold is market driven and not arbitrarily controlled by any private or governmental actor.
Why is there such opposition to market forces in this one area by people like Megan, who generally prefer a free market?
It seems like the media, especially the Left, are entirely too prepared to dismiss as "utterly insane" any policy issue that hasn't been blessed by them as part of the mainstream debate.
Why?
Fools And Their Rights Are Soon Parted.
This Author has obviously not been following the financial articles. The Golden Fiat Monetary System Is Collapsing. The effects of "Thin Air" Money are coming to fruition.
I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul.
The others are owned by the system.
Meghan,
I usually wouldn't post such a base and immature comment, but this would just be simplest way to state my opinion of your base and immature comments without going into a lengthy diatribe of education for you.
Simply put, you're pretty dumb. Please look into it.
"This has been true since the first bank opened its doors, or at the very least since the invention of double-entry bookkeeping, whose entire purpose is to balance the asset of a loan against the debt of a deposit. Where is the money for credit supposed to come from, if not depositors?" -Rob Lyman
No, you are incorrect. Balancing the asset of a loan against the debt of a deposit does not create insolvency. The insolvency is created by the fact that the debt of the deposit is greater than the asset of the loan. That is what fractional reserve banking is. It is easy to fix. Make banks maintain reserves sufficient to accomidate the liqidation of their demand deposits. This would decrease the supply of money and would rebalance with demand at a higher interest rate. This might sound bad, but it would encourage saving, investment, and it would effectively stop inflation. With less inflation prices would remain lower and less money would need to be borrowed, so while interest rates would be higher, many things would be cheaper.
This would help the poor, and not hurt the rich. As a result we would be a wealthier nation.
Wanting a return to a gold standard makes you insane? Here's a panel of economists on CNBC, including Don Luskin and Steve Forbes endorsing Ron Paul's plans for a gold-backed currency:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cilwld5fj48
Make banks maintain reserves sufficient to accomidate the liqidation of their demand deposits.
Your understanding of the meaning of fractional reserve differs from mine. As I understand it, banks loan out the money deposited with them, but must maintain some fraction of their deposits unloaned in order to meet the daily demands of depositors. They cannot pay all depositors at once--that's why bank runs happen, and why the FDIC exists--but they can pay everyone who comes in on the average day.
Suppose we adopt your system, in which banks have 100% cash reserves so that all depositors could withdraw everything on a single day. How will the banks make loans? What money will they use?
Gold standard insane??
Yeah let's leave monetary policy to a private group of individuals called the FED, and allow them to create money out of thin air, whenever they want ...
This is sound monetary policy
rwe: obligatory reading:
Murray Rothbard: What has government done to our money.
Murray Rothbard: The Great Depression
Both books available online free of charge. Unless you have read it, you don't know Paul's position and you cannot criticize him. If you want more criticism of current mainstream economic policies including stabilization of price level, look into:
Murray Rothbard: Man, Economy State.
(I am sorry that I am pointing you just to this one author, but his books are very good start into austrian economics)
megan_
do you actually believe in what you are saying. because if you do than there truly must be crazy pills available in the USA. I concur with other posts, get back to baking cookies and remember to grease the sheets.
This is the second set of blog posts in a row insulting the intelligence of college students. I agree that college students can be reactionary and idealistic, but stupid they are not.
Unlike the typical working-class adult, the typical college student is engrossed in research and current events nearly year 'round. I think I trust a young, active, open and critical brain to choose the fate of this country over the stubborn, jaded and cynical views of middle-aged America.
This may be the most childish political analysis I have ever read. Are you on staff? Are you being paid for this?
So we want our money supply under the control of lucky miners or foreign countries with stockpiles of gold (or whatever other mineral we choose to base our money on)? Is that really sane?
In looking through Ron Paul's issues, I see some good stuff mixed with stuff like this:
The NAFTA superhighway is a road. It's a ribbon of concrete on the ground. There is a HUGE leap from building a road to combining the US, Canada, and Mexico into one nation. Where does he get this?
And this
This one is inaccurate and simplistic. Saddam was supporting terrorists and had links to Al Qaeda. The rest of his foreign policy is a list of silly statements that ignore a relatively complex history of world events.
While I agree that taxing on tips that may not have been earned is wrong, I'm not so sure this is a major issue that should be a focus of the President. Why is this even on the same list as foreign affairs, social security, and abortion?
I doubt this is a workable solution to many of our pollution problems. Can you imagine a court system clogged up with lawsuits by every environmentalist against every SUV driver who drives by his house? What about cases where victims of pollution find out after it's too late? Or how do you identify which plant that pollutant came from? In Houston, we have many chemical plants. Which one would I sue for the chemicals that land in my back yard?
From his writings:
Um... is he going to wait for the bomb to go off to quantify the threat? He really believes Iran isn't going to be a nuclear threat and that a nuclear Iran isn't a great danger?
I see that he's willing to sacrifice Israel for his ideals... I'm sure that a consistent and idealistic foreign policy will be a nice thing to point to while the Jews are slaughtered wholesale.
I really like some of his positions and generally agree with his idea of reducing the federal government and getting it out of our lives. But he periodically goes off the rails with some of his extreme positions.
His idea of pulling all of our troops back to US soil and not getting involved in foreign affairs is naive and dangerous. We can't afford to disengage. The world is too connected and if we withdraw, someone else will take over while we're not looking. Like it or not, that person will then have the power to influence us.
EI
"They cannot pay all depositors at once--that's why bank runs happen, and why the FDIC exists--but they can pay everyone who comes in on the average day." -Rob Lyman
Yes this is fractional reserve banking. This allows a ank to increase the money supply through the creation of credit. As the supply of money goes up, people buy things with this credit, which is partially responsible for price inflation.
"Suppose we adopt your system, in which banks have 100% cash reserves so that all depositors could withdraw everything on a single day. How will the banks make loans? What money will they use?" Rob Lyman
Only people with demand deposits would be able to withdraw on demand. The bank would only loan out money that is in Certificates of Deposit. And the interest rate on these would be higher, since interest rates would be higher under the system proposed. In fact, under a system without fractional reserves, bank demand deposits would be assets to the bank since they would probably charge customers a fee to hold a demand deposit, but most people would keep only small amounts of money in demand deposits and greater amounts of money in CD's where the return would be higher.
Ron Paul thinks much differently about nuclear bombs than the Neocons do. Israel has around 200 nuclear bombs. Only an idiot would think Israel is going to sit around and get slaughtered by its neighbors. No Mideast country is going to attack Israel. Sure, maybe a few terrorists throw a few bombs around but Israel can take care of itself.
Israel would nuke the aggressors in a heartbeat.
Here is something the neocons do not tell the innocent overworked taxpayers- there are approx. 20,000 nuclear warheads unaccounted for from the former Soviet Union.
We have not spent a lot of time , money or energy in retrieving all the missing nukes- but want to spend billions killing innocent Iranians because they just might build one nuclear bomb someday somewhere sometime.
With so many nuclear warheads floating around the world unaccounted for I sure am glad George W. has all our troops protecting other countries borders.
Guys, it's your fault for listening to the "mainstream" media, if it makes you upset.
I quote the word mainstream, because the mainstream media is looking increasingly like the telegraph, now that the Internet is mainstream.
Megan,
As a Ron Paul supporter I run into this atitude all the time...
"He wants to dissolve the FED and the IRS?!?!?!"
"Yes."
"Well thats just crazy!"
"Why?"
"Because its imposable!!!"
"Why?"
"....Well....You can't fight City Hall."
"Who told you that?"
".......City Hall"
My point is that when one advocates something that the public has been lead to believe is "Imposable" their first reaction is to assume that you are unbalanced. On the other hand I have found that all it takes is a bit of education to show them that they have been misled. And then they tend to get angry and join your cause.
Also, truthseeker, a quick Google search shows that various people have estimated that 20-100 nukes are missing in the former U.S.S.R. But you have a point that this is more worrisome than Iran. Actually, it doesn't make any sense at all that Iran is a threat, logically speaking. However, I'm sure we've all noticed that politicians have stopped using logic, in the U.S.
most people would keep only small amounts of money in demand deposits and greater amounts of money in CD's where the return would be higher.
OK. Under your proposed system, the money in those CDs is now available to create credit. By hypothesis, most of the money currently in demand deposits is moved to CDs. How is this any different from the current system in terms of money creation and inflation?
Andrew: Perhaps the best response to "abolishing the Fed is crazy" is to point people to the "Income tax in the United States" Wikipedia page, because they are clearly ignorant of history. Then perhaps they'll notice that the income tax was 1% in 1913, and 0% for much of the nation's history before that.
Merry Christmas!
Gosh, looks like I got to the party late. With the growing army of Paul's revolutionaries, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. After all, this article has been up for a couple of hours aleady. Since they seem to be taking care of the issues, um....are the cookies ready yet?
I am from Arkansas. Mike Huckabee decided to combine the Arkansas Dept. of Health with the Department of Human Services. He said it was to save money in the budget. He brought in his college buddy from Georgia to oversee this combine and then made his buddy the new head of the new Dept. of Human Services. A lot of people at the Health Dept. lost their jobs. The current Governor of Arkansas has reversed this and now the Health Dept. is back to the way it was before.
Mike Huckabee brought in a software package from Germany called "Aesis". State employees did not receive their paychecks on time for months. This was one of many nightmares associated with this terrible software. I am afraid that Mike Huckabee would try to combine the Federal Government into one giant building to consolidate the budget. That is a weird quirk that is engrained in his head. If he becomes the president then we all are in deep trouble. Research this.
In case anyone is following my line of reasononing:
I want the gold standard because I don't want the banks and government increasing and decreasing the money supply through the manipulation of interest rates. But, without changes to the fractional reserve system, a gold standard is incomplete, because fractional reserve banking is unstable. You can allow a gold standard and fractional reserve banking, but the instability of fractional reserve banking and the inelasticity of the gold standard create a high probability of moderate to massive banking failures. This is not the fault of a gold standard.
The Federal Reserve was brought in to create a malleable money supply to mitigate the instability of fractional reserve banking. This has allowed politicians to spend us into 9 trillion dollars in debt with no end in sight. We must move back to sound money. When we do that, we must also eliminate fractional reserve banking. We won't have easy credit anymore, but we will have the safest, most honest and productive economic system the world has ever seen. The streets of America will once again be paved in gold and all investors, the world over, will see the US, US corporations, and US currency as the gold standard in value and honesty.
Actually, it was 1% to 7% in 1913, depending on one's tax bracket. Still rather insignificant compared to today's income taxes.
You'll also notice that every time a war came around, the government jacked up the income tax significantly. (That's why the income tax was created in the first place, to finance the Civil War; I've always held that the Civil War was unethical, although it would've been ethical if the North had freed the South's slaves and then let them go their separate way if they still desired).
War has always been the health of the state, through the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the modern era. Probably before the Middle Ages too.
Not that I get too starry-eyed if someone waves a flag and hums the national anthem... but ideally isn't this what our democratic system SHOULD be about?
A true grassroots movement, independent-minded citizens forming a movement to protect Constititional rights and individual freedoms...
Is this now considered unrealistic, crazy, and without hope?
Should we the people acquiesce to the fact that our leaders will be chosen for us by the wiser forces of Big Media, Big Industry and Big Government?
Why should we vote?
Why should we take part and why should this country even consider it has a pale shadow of the ideals it was founded on if this is the way it is?
"How is this any different from the current system in terms of money creation and inflation?" -Rob Lyman
This is a HUGE question. Here is a stab and two 30min audio lectures about the nature of fractional reserve banking and the gold standard.
Without the instability of the fractional reserve system, we will no longer need a Federal Reserve to manipulate the money supply. Without fractional reserve banking, we can move to a gold standard. These two moves would eliminate inflation, except when massive gold mines are found within easy (read cheap) reach of miners. Without inflation, we could eliminate the way in which savings and investment is discouraged as well as cause Congress to actually raise taxes to run a deficit. This would decrease our national debt and encourage true inovation and capitalism - the good kind that makes our lives easier, safer, and happier.
It is so huge, I can't describe the profound effects that it could have on our future. It is the core of what Paul means when he talks about sound money and real banking.
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2007/06-Reisman.mp3
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/ss05/ss05-Herbener.mp3
The foreigners are going to take all of our stuff??? Holy moley....call the troops...oh wait..their in Iraq defending foreigners...
Ahhh well. These crazy ideas of Constitutional values are a thing of the past...We need change! More power to the president...less to the people...right? Just tell us what to do...where to go...and how to get there..."I look to stressed to fly today MR TSA officer? I can't go on the flight to see my grand kids? My papers giving me permission to travel and identifying me? not sure where I put them, I haven't needed them since the 30's when I was living in Germany..."
God help us...
Go Ron Go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency
When you do your research you will begin to understand the meaning of his "crazy" ideas. Finally someone that is crazy enough to say out loud that the emperor has no clothes!
Give me crazy any day of the week. Almost every great mind has been called insane.
This is a HUGE question.
No, it's a simple one. Banks currently lend money from demand deposits, up to limits imposed by the FDIC. You propose to forbid this practice, while simultaneously moving most money in banks out of demand deposits and into CDs, which under your system could then be loaned out.
So the total quantity of money available to be loaned out is not expected to change much, nor is the practice of "creating money" by loaning out deposits. Only the demand nature of the loaned funds will change, which for the doesn't matter anyway unless there's a bank run.
Again: functionally speaking, how is this different from the current system?
Is this blogger a complete idiot... Are you involved with the crazy bible thumpers? Do your homework on baking and the central bank. The gold standard is how this country became a "THE COUNTRY" of the new world... MORON
The use of the word "insane" in a platitude is insane.
Actually, the use of the word "insane" is stupid, because it doesn't describe anything but the writer.
Idaho,
Its not that your voice doesn't matter its that your lead to belive that your voice doesent matter. You really want to know why 49% of Americans don't vote?
They are lead to believe that its over and done with long before Nov.22 by this constant and insipid polling.
Consider this; Why is Ron Paul no where in the polls? You have to consider who they are asking. All current Republican polls are based on the voting records from the 2004 Presidential election.
That mean that the only Republicans that they are getting opinions from are those that bothered to vote for Bush in 2004 when his approval numbers where in the crapper and they are only polling the voters that bothered to show up in 2006 when the Republicans got trounced....They are polling the DIE HARD NEO-CONS!!!
Okay Megan. We'll go on printing money like mad. When you retire, and your money has lost most of its value to inflation and massive recession of the market which our national debt and trade deficit with China will definitely cause, it will be too late for any of us to complain.
"So the total quantity of money available to be loaned out is not expected to change much, nor is the practice of "creating money" by loaning out deposits. Only the demand nature of the loaned funds will change, which for the doesn't matter anyway unless there's a bank run." -Rob Lyman
Okay, ignore the most excellent audio lectures I just posted. But I don't have time to tell you everything if you are unwilling to educate yourself.
If the demand nature changes, then there will be no need to protect against bank runs, which is the entire rationale for the existence of the Federal Reserve. That 'small' change would make moot our entire system of protection for the fractional reserve banking industry - namely, the Federal Reserve System.
Without the Federal Reserve System, there is no need for an elastic money supply. And there is no need for Federal Reserve Notes. Gold would work just as well.
With gold and 100% reserve banking, inflation would all but vanish, and real savings and investment would skyrocket. In addition, the US would be the investment standard for the world since every other form of government in the world is less free. Our governments income would fall, but our society would be the richest in the world.
Megan --- are those cookies done yet?
The intellectual arguments for socialism ended with J.M.Keynes. Capitalism is king. Check out my links to understand the core of Paul's argument. He talks about all this other stuff because people don't understand the links I posted.
Let me tell you, Paul is a banker. He understands money - the most powerful force. The military people don't understand. Without money, there are no guns; there is no military; there is no defense.
"Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws." -Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"The pen is mightier than the sword" -Edward Bulwer-Lytton
If you don't believe the power of the government (the law - the pen), then you don't understand the battle we fight for Paul's nomination. Force youself to understand. We are at a crossroads. Once the pen writes, it is doubly hard to erase.
rhys-
Please tell me if this what you are saying at a retail level:
I would no longer have an interest bearing checking account to maintain the liquidity to cover my various expenses from payday to payday (for the median household approx $3600 per month/ $1800 every two weeks/ $900 per week depending on pay cycle - an self employed /contractor type people even more irregular and variable)
So my $10K in checking to cover 3 mo expenses goes from earning 1-2% a year to cost 1-2% a year( and I think $10-20 /month I think is undercutting what bank fees would be)
Is this really better? And will people really put stuff in more illiquid CD's then liquid demand accounts? You know, people who actually need money to by groceries and dwelling expenses and such?
And also: there is already a limit on "demand deposits" per se: if you have stuff in a savings account, vice checking account you are limited in the number of withdrawals in a period. Only the savings account IIRC count toward the reserve requirement, but this is also why they in fact do pay a higher interest rate.
The two things that have many hacks calling him crazy are:
1)That he raises issues many politicians consider to be already decided (the Fed, the power of the Federal Govt., interventionism, globalism...).
2)That he doesn't compromise.
and maybe one more--lazy reporting.
Paul simply wants competing currencies and transparency in the Fed (or no Fed at all.) Nothing insane about that if you believe in free markets.
If you do not know that there is a NAFTA superhighway being implemented (I-35 is being expanded as I type this in order to handle the traffic) you are burying your head in the sand. I mean, it's not a secret. I was watching an extreme engineering show on Natl. Geo. channel where they were showing the building of the NAFTA superhighway. And guess what, I didn't call it the NAFTA superhighway. That's what everyone calls it with knowledge of it, because, well, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
Meghan, there are certainly women in this world capable of great analytical political thought, obviously you are not one of them. You may be in a perpetual dumb blond moment, I don't know enough about you to make that decision. I do know this. Ron Paul has more commitment and loyalty from his supporters then any other candidate in the political arena. How foolish of you to believe those silly "polls". In my opinion the only way he could loose is if the vote is tampered with as it has been in some of the straw polls. All Ron Paul supporters know that the Federal Reserve in neither federal nor is it a Reserve, merely a cartel of private bankers who have hijacked our monetary system for their own private gain. Returning to the gold standard would restore the value to the dollar and stop costing the American people the interest being paid to the Feds for the money they create out of thin air.
Who is this Megan MacArdle? A student writing for the high school newspaper? This is an incredibly naive article.
I thought the Atlantic Monthly was a reputable publication. I guess that was in the past.
Megan,
Unlike previous posters who question whether you have the necessary skills to write for The Atlantic I think you've got a bright future ahead of you. You have the two most vital traits necessary to succeed as a "journalist" in the mainstream media: ignorance and arrogance.
Oh, and if you bake cookies with the same care and attention you give to your journalism I'd change the batteries in the smoke alarm first.
Hard as it is to believe, but λibertarian trolls (neither of the Latin 'L's fits here) can give the lefty hordes a run for their money!
And those college students probably also think they know how to drive, drink and write software. Even at the same time. Bwahahaha!
Wow, this is my first (and last) time to your blogsite. You are the only insane one here. None of your readers aggree you. Thats pretty funny!
You have a sad life.
"Oh, and if you bake cookies with the same care and attention you give to your journalism I'd change the batteries in the smoke alarm first."
BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
The cookie theme in this thread is awesome...can't stop laughing.
Megan, no offense but I guarantee you cannot accurately describe Paul's views on economic policy, what the gold standard really is, or even how the Federal Reserve works.
I will wait for you to make even one response to the many criticisms of your hack post, but I wont hold my breath.
Next time try to at least have a basic understanding of what you are trying to criticize before you call someone insane, otherwise you just look stupid and ignorant.
Predictions are wishes pretending to be wisdom and it's a lie to call a prediction a fact.
Calling the gold standard "insane" is insane and suggesting that Ron Paul is xenophobic is a really facinating lie, given that his foreign policy is to welcome trade and friendship with all nations and merely avoid dropping pre-emptive bombs on them. He even wants to open up trade with Cuba.
Megan diagnoses his "persona". Watch out people, we have a psychobabbler here.
I am impressed by a writer that can pack that much dishonesty and ignorance into such a short blog. Truely, nonsense on stilts.
"I would no longer have an interest bearing checking account to maintain the liquidity to cover my various expenses from payday to payday (for the median household approx $3600 per month/ $1800 every two weeks/ $900 per week depending on pay cycle - an self employed /contractor type people even more irregular and variable)" -Kolohe
You would no longer have an interest bearing account within the FDIC insured bubble. You could speculate with various bond/money market schemes, but for true protection, you would have to pay a modest fee. But really, do you expect something for nothing? Is that what you promise your customers?
"So my $10K in checking to cover 3 mo expenses goes from earning 1-2% a year to cost 1-2% a year( and I think $10-20 /month I think is undercutting what bank fees would be)
Is this really better? And will people really put stuff in more illiquid CD's then liquid demand accounts? You know, people who actually need money to by groceries and dwelling expenses and such?" -Kolohe
I don't know how it would effect you. This is just the ultimate end of Paul's arguments. Not the political reality. But, what if 6 month CD's where a percent or two higher. You might be able to make money against your income tax payment be putting it in one of these instead of witholding. Also, I think more people will accept six month illiquidity when the bank pays an extra 100-200BP. In addition, it might become worth the inconveinence for you to plan a few more months ahead if interest rates were higher - right. After all, I am not suggesting something easy. I am claiming that the end of Paul's arguments are pure capitalism and free-market economics. But, come-on, you would have to pay for the Bank storing and accounting for your money - you want everything for free?
"And also: there is already a limit on "demand deposits" per se: if you have stuff in a savings account, vice checking account you are limited in the number of withdrawals in a period. Only the savings account IIRC count toward the reserve requirement, but this is also why they in fact do pay a higher interest rate." -Kolohe
There is no limit if you can 'demand' the entire contents of your account at once. I am not claiming that banks are evil. They take advantage of the laws, but they want to serve customers. I'm sure your accounts are good. But, the interest rate on your savings account are held down by the Federal Reserve. You would make more money off these accounts in a pure capitalist system - if they are truly for savings. Capitalism ecourages savings - encourages loans - encourages production. Our current system encourages debt - encourages consumption. I don't care if you want to save/spend your money, but Americans want prosperity, and the inflational, fiat, fractional reserve system, interfers with our prosperity. Of course, it is encouraged by our politicians who gain from this socialist system. I want REAL WEALTH.
Some businesses - the least profitable ones - will falter. yours may falter. But if it does it is because the government was propping it up. You don't want that. You want to succeed on you own account. True capitalism, true money, true banking will tell you if you are a real business that benefits customers or if you are on the government dole. It is impossible to tell when the Fed manipulates the interest rate.
Dear Megan,
Please consider writing for Seventeen, Oprah or Martha Stewart magazine. Leave political discussion and analysis to those that do research before they write. You have not just missed the point, you missed the boat.
The constitution says that Congress shall regulate trade.NAFTA puts trade in the hands of unelected officials who conduct trade policies behind closed doors.
Also Greenspan agrees that a currency not backed by gold will cause inflation.See his recent interview on youtube titled " Alan Greenspan on FOX Business Network " Forward to the 5 1/2 minute area to see him say that.
Ron Paul once again makes sense.
There is nothing crazy about the gold standard.
The gold standard forces discipline on the government:
“In the 34 years before Nixon closed the gold window, the money supply in the U.S. grew less than two fold. In the 34 years after Nixon’s action, the money supply expanded 13 fold. “
Since Nixon took the US off the gold standard in 1971, median wages have barely increased. For the 25-34 demographic, median wages are actually lower today than they were way back in 1972, 35 years ago.
That median wages were higher in 1972, in a time before multi-GHz processors and the internet, than they are now is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS.
Getting off the gold standard means the government can expand money supply to pay for big budgets that make politicians and their friends (Halliburton, Pharmaceuticals) rich.
It should be noted that it was Nixon's decision to take the US off the gold standard in 1971 that prompted Ron Paul to run for office. Prophetic as he is, he predicted this move would lead to an expansion of government spending and disaster for the economy.
Speaking of Ron Paul being prophetic:
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
February 26, 2002
Before We Bomb Iraq...
The war drums are beating, louder and louder. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have been forewarned. Plans have been laid and, for all we know, already initiated, for the overthrow and assassination of Saddam Hussein.
There's been talk of sabotage, psychological warfare, arming domestic rebels, killing Hussein, and even an outright invasion of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of US troops. All we hear about in the biased media is the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein, with little regard for how this, in itself, might totally destabilize the entire Middle East and Central Asia. It could, in fact, make the Iraq "problem" much worse.
The assumption is that, with our success in Afghanistan, we should now pursue this same policy against any country we choose, no matter how flimsy the justification. It hardly can be argued that it is because authoritarian governments deserve our wrath, considering the number of current and past such governments that we have not only tolerated but subsidized.
Protestations from our Arab allies are silenced by our dumping more American taxpayer dollars upon them.
European criticism that the United States is now following a unilateral approach is brushed off, which only causes more apprehension in the European community. Widespread support from the eager media pumps the public to support the warmongers in the administration.
The pro and cons of how dangerous Saddam Hussein actually is are legitimate. However, it is rarely pointed out that the CIA has found no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States. No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children.
Iraq's defense of her homeland can hardly be characterized as aggression against those who rain bombs down on them. We had to go over 6,000 miles to pick this fight against a third-world nation with little ability to defend itself.
Our policies have actually served to generate support for Saddam Hussein, in spite of his brutal control of the Iraq people. He is as strong today- if not stronger- as he was prior to the Persian Gulf War 12 years ago.
Even today, our jingoism ironically is driving a closer alliance between Iraq and Iran, two long-time bitter enemies.
While we trade with, and subsidize to the hilt, the questionable government of China, we place sanctions on and refuse to trade with Iran and Iraq, which only causes greater antagonism. But if the warmongers' goal is to have a war, regardless of international law and the Constitution, current policy serves their interests.
Could it be that only through war and removal of certain governments we can maintain control of the oil in this region? Could it be all about oil, and have nothing to do with US national security?
Too often when we dictate who will lead another country, we only replace one group of thugs with another- as we just did in Afghanistan- with the only difference being that the thugs we support are expected to be puppet-like and remain loyal to the US, or else.
Although bits and pieces of the administration's plans to wage war against Iraq and possibly Iran and North Korea are discussed, we never hear any mention of the authority to do so. It seems that Tony Blair's approval is more important than the approval of the American people!
Congress never complains about its lost prerogative to be the sole declarer of war. Astoundingly, Congress is only too eager to give war power to our presidents through the back door, by the use of some fuzzy resolution that the president can use as his justification. And once the hostilities begin, the money always follows, because Congress fears criticism for not "supporting the troops." But putting soldiers in harm's way without proper authority, and unnecessarily, can hardly be the way to "support the troops."
Let it be clearly understood- there is no authority to wage war against Iraq without Congress passing a Declaration of War. HJ RES 65, passed in the aftermath of 9/11, does not even suggest that this authority exists. A UN Resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq, even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution. We must remember that a covert war is no more justifiable, and is even more reprehensible.
Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.
We must understand that the American people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial interests and not constitutionally authorized by Congress. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.
Megan, seriously... you embarrass yourself with these comments.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the gold and silver thing is in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 10.
INSANE!
You must have missed the 6000 times Ron Paul said he wants to trade and be friends with all nations instead of invading and killing people. Also, being against NAFTA is not being against foreigners. It is being against the people in our country who want to erode our sovereignty. Yeah, he is a lunatic, huh? (rolls eyes)
"he..has a number of beliefs that are, not to put too fine a point on it, utterly insane. The gold standard is one"
Deep and meaningful argument there. You really have me convinced. Profound.
Megan,
How much are you being paid to write such a PIECE OF TRASH? Do you not have any love for this country & for your fellow Americans? Don't you see that Dr. Paul's message is of Peace, Love, Freedom, and Prosperity? STOP trying to use your publicity to influence the masses because it is NOT WORKING anymore and all you are achieving is gaining the DISGUST of ANYONE who wastes time to read your TRASH...
It is time for people like you to WAKE UP & to FINALLY do something to deserve to be called an American....PLEEEEASE!!!!
i am undecided about the gold standard because, as of now, i don't know enough to make a judgment. it is very annoying, however, to see people who apparently know even less, dismiss the idea as crazy.
so, dear megan, if you think that gold standard is not a good idea then explain yourself, like some people here tried. but do not mistake your ignorant dismissal for a sophisticated opinion. just because you know that gold standard is not cool doesn't mean you should be writing on the topic.
Section 10 covers things the states can't do. It doesn't bar Congress from making anything it wants legal tender.
Paulbot, there is another post up on this very subject. Have I been linked by some Ron Paul mailing list, or what?
Ron Paul dose not need sporks to map out his support. All he has to do is look at his map on ronpaul.meetup.com. 82440 members and 1395 active groups in 29 countries. When you combine all of the Republican and Democratic candidates, Ron Paul has 84% of all members. Mike Huckabee is second with 6047 members and 286 groups, followed by Barack Obama with 3630 members and 65 groups. I should also add that creating a Meetup group is not free. It is a monthly subscription service that runs between $12-$19 depending on how long you join.
To say that Ron Paul is a no-hope is just to stick your head in sand and ignore the reality of what is going on in every means to judge Ron Paul support other then the so called scientific polls. But its seems like you like to stick your head in the sand. You seem to like paper money that has no real value and is controlled by independent bankers. You seem to ignore Ron Paul's call for fair and free trade with all nations and ignore why he is against NAFTA. Why because it is neither fair nor free. You ignore Ron Paul when he states that the resentment against immigration is created by the federal governments forced mandates on state government to provide benefits for illegals paid for by US citizens. You ignore that one of the major causes of the influx of Mexicans into the US is NAFTA and the US policy of farm subsidy. What Ron Paul objects to is US policy creating a problem then forcing the average citizen to pay for it.
Its just a farce for you to even suggest that Ron Paul thinks "foreigners are scary". He is the only person running that will not buy into the "we need to be at war because the terrorist are all out to get us" philosophy.
I guess in the end you just do not understand what freedom, liberty and peace are all about. Go sick your sporks in a map and pretend like they mean something. I will stick with Ron Paul!
the voices tell me if you dont support ron paul you will ---- have horrible ax i dent
if you are referring to you "did paul school barnake" post that is hardly a serious discussion. why don't you read comments your own blog - both those criticizing and defending the gold standard are ten time more intellectually demanding than your lazy, unjustified speculations. you merely stipulated that that ron paul was incorrect without giving any reason whatsoever.
and, no, you are not being linked by some grand ron paul mailing list (there is no such thing). the mystery lies in a secret device known as 'google news'. when you type 'ron paul' into it, you get (")relevant(") links. which means that, if you don't like interacting with ron paul supporters, there exists a really easy way to avoid that.
Try this: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/why_is_the_gold_standard_crazy.php
yep, I learned something too:
http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&hl=en&ned=us&q=ron+paul
your weblog comes up under 'relevant'
Hi Megan,
Your article was crap.
I, along with everyone else, can plainly see that you have no journalist training.
Next time try using quotes and then agruing your case for or against what you have previously quoted. That tip is for free.
Try taking a class or two before you decide to write more.
BTW, Are the cookies done yet?
As a woman I feel the democrat women's pain. The injustice of a time long lost. Our suffrage, has come and gone, we vote! No need to play this any longer. I see a man on the page says go bake some cookies, as a woman, who is self educated in politics and have spent many hours looking over all the folks who are running for president, I have to say, in all sincerity, from the bottom of my heart, the depths of my soul, PLEASE MEGAN, GO BAKE SOME COOKIES!
de
Megan,
I found your site by googling Ron Paul and clicking on news and there you are. I was reading about Ron Paul in the news while I'm waiting for 80 copies of a letter I wrote for the "no party" voters of Iowa to print. I'm including it in Christmas cards I'm sending. They have to get in the mail tomorrow.Yep, about $40.00 in stamps just to send a card to people I don't know in Iowa and tell them about Ron Paul. Guess I'm a nut too. Actually I'm tired of politics as usual. I'm tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils". I'm tired of people getting elected and not doing what they said they would do. My meetup group consists of people between the ages of 17 and 86 and from all walks of life. For those out there that think we are a passing fade... beware... we are not. Our meetup group is already planning on getting involed on the local and state level. Now that we have found each other this is just the beginning. No more apathy.
Oh, while I'm waiting on the 80 copies... I think I'll go google SPP and I'm going to see if I can see the imaginary Nafta superhighway on Google earth. The Ron Paul Rider said he passed it on this way from California thru Texas. I'll let you know if I see it. I do like to fact check my information for "truthiness"
:)
BTW... Let Freedom Ring in 2008
Please expand further and show us your in depth reasoning why the gold standard is crazy. Explain the difference between a fiat currency and hard currency. Explain the differences between economists Hayek and Friedman. If you know who Hayek is...remember was a socialist/near communist...socialist/communist centralized economies work well?
If you cannot delve into the above subjects...and trust me...Ron Paul supporters can in depth...maybe you need to do some reading. I mean that with no disrespect...at one time I was in your position and believed the same. Question, research, learn...I implore you...for the sake of everything good and decent...for our country, our neighbors, our children, and our childrens children. This is very serious stuff...take it serious...dig deep my fellow American.
Goodnight and Cheers!
You're right, a gold standard is insane. More insane than making money out of the thin air whenever you need it for new programs and shiny weapons. Good thinkin.
Sometimes I think we don't deserve Ron Paul...
haha silly little article. you are as much real news as thw wwf's tv wrestling is a real sport. ron paul doesn't believe in going back to the gold standard. ron paul doesn't believe in a nafta superhighway conspiracy theory. he wants freedom. that's it. bottom line. since you enjoy oversimplifying, that should be easy enough for you to swallow. do whatever you want to, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of someone else. oh, and the federal government doesn't steal all your money. you're right, this is american, which makes those believes totally insane! my apoligies to the neo-con establishment. lmfao. do your homework.
When you say:
"I am being urged, in comments and email, to ignore the fact that Ron Paul is a no-hoper..."
it makes me question whether you understand what a fact is. You clearly understand what a conclusion is, without a given basis, but still a conclusion.
Still, grats on the traffic. I can't imagine you have anything interesting to say that would draw, what? even a tenth of the traffic you got from this cheap, thoughtless hit piece? Am I right? I bet I'm right.
And in case there was any doubt, here's one more former Rush Limbaugh fan (hell, I bought both of his first two books) who is voting for Ron Paul come hell or high water.
Uh, how did this meaningless juxtaposition of verbs, nouns and other miscellaneous words get past the Spam filter?
Anyways:
Happy holidays everyone and a prosperously peaceful New Year with the ones you love....
I've been responding to the Ron Paul media smear campaign (search google news, you'll see it coming) for the last number of hours, but you seriously must be a mindless fool who hasn't been through enough schooling to have been taught to read between the lines. NAFTA good idea? PLEASE READ BETWEEN THE LINES! (Or go back to school and learn how to)
It is really sad and tragic that some of the overzealous Ron Paul supporters end up lending their image to his.
If you just listen to Paul talking and filter out the incessant chatter of many of his loonier supporters, you'd realize that unlike the conspiracy theory believing bunch that take him for the reincranated Messiah, his proposals are actually quite grounded in reality and that he has made some very intelligent considerations over how to implement his more radical (to present-day ears) ideas.
Whenever I listen to some of his more daft supporters claiming to speak for him, I start having doubts, but every time I listen to the man himself, my faith is restored. Paul is is a very astute public servant whose proposals are all quite sane, and who also happens to possess genuine humility.
120 posts? Is that all? Megan?
I thought, I’ve told you, I want "Pure Dirts" not this. That's it, you’re so fired.
Due to lack of efforts, I can not pay you for this poorly written piece. Sorry...
Help Wanted!!!
As a writer, no critical and/or logic experience require. Please inquire within The Lunatic.
Friends, countrymen, people who hate Ms. Megan McArdle, lend me your ears; I come to bury Ms. McArdle, not to praise her. In the first place, Ms. McArdle coins polysyllabic neologisms to make her tracts sound like they're actually important. In fact, her treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. However, I indeed hope you're not being misled by the "new Ms. McArdle". Only her methods and tactics have changed. Ms. McArdle's goal is still the same: to ensure that all of the news we receive is filtered through a narrow ideological prism. That's why I'm telling you that Ms. McArdle wants to prohibit any discussion of her attempts to project a stream of counter-productive images of death, sex, disaster, material goods, celebrities, and other fixtures in a mock-Olympian firmament. While it is clear why she wants that to be a taboo subject, Ms. McArdle's more than conceited. She's mega-conceited. In fact, to understand just how conceited Ms. McArdle is, you first need to realize that there are three fairly obvious problems with her roorbacks, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to call for a return to the values that made this country great. First, she and her faithfuls are puppets of what I call malicious agitators. Second, neither she nor her accomplices, who are legion, have dealt squarely or clearly with the fact that from the very beginning, gruesome delinquents have labored to recruit into their ranks the sons and daughters of the powerful, famous, and rich. And third, the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.
I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like Ms. McArdle strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. She is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. I am on an important mission to appeal not to the contented and satisfied, but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented. If I don't accomplish that mission, Ms. McArdle's plans to fleece people out of their life's savings could well succeed. Ms. McArdle has convinced a lot of people that a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation.
For one thing, all of Ms. McArdle's views about life come straight out of "Teach Yourself Teetotalism in 30 Minutes". But more importantly, Ms. McArdle has already been able to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue. What worries me more than that, however, is that if Ms. McArdle ever manages to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds, that's when the defecation will really hit the air conditioning. Given her record of shady dealings, we can say that anyone willing to study and ponder my position on most current matters will doubtlessly find that Ms. McArdle's attempts to deflect attention from Ms. McArdle's unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen are just a game to her. I challenge her to move from her broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.
Ms. McArdle wants to embark on wholesale torture and slaughter of innocent civilians. Is this so she can promote solipsism's traits as normative values to be embraced, or is it to seize control of the power structure? You be the judge. In either case, if she had even a shred of intellectual integrity, she'd admit that it's debatable whether she is one of those irritating, vainglorious anthropophagi who quotes the Bible but never reads it. However, no one can disagree that if Ms. McArdle's thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, she wouldn't consider it such a good idea to brand me as pharisaical.
As stated earlier, Ms. McArdle somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that her paroxysms epitomize wholesome family entertainment. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. If you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, the truth of this is by no means limited to the field of general culture, but applies to politics as well. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, nothing would make Ms. McArdle happier than to see me wander around in a quagmire of self-pity and depression. From this anecdotal evidence I would argue that Ms. McArdle wants to devise litigious scams to get money for nothing. It gets better: She believes that cameralism is a wonderful thing. I guess no one's ever told her that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to unmask Ms. McArdle's true face and intentions in regard to onanism.
Well, Ms. McArdle, we're all getting a little tired of you and your kind messing up the world and then refusing to accept responsibility for what you've done. We're fed up. And the day is coming when you'll be held accountable for your politically incorrect rantings. With this in mind, I, speaking as someone who is not a brazen scaramouch, must sound the bugle of liberty. She appears to have found a new tool to use to help her mute the voice of anyone who dares to speak out against her. That tool is negativism, and if you watch her wield it, you'll obviously see why she has commented that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to deplete the ozone layer. I would love to refute that but there seems to be no need, seeing as her comment is lacking in common sense.
Ms. McArdle's true goal is to hamstring our efforts to deal stiffly with the worst types of unprofessional, conscienceless gadflies there are who compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing. All the statements that her understrappers make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to balkanize Ms. McArdle's self-pitying little empire into an etiolated and sapless agglomeration. I'll try not to dwell on this, but my position is that our situation is snowballing. She, in contrast, argues that the future of the entire world rests in her hands. This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Ms. McArdle. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for her to admit that if we empower the oppressed to control their own lives then the sea of plagiarism, on which she so heavily relies, will begin to dry up.
Reckless dweebs are born, not made. That dictum is as unimpeachable as the "poeta nascitur, non fit" that it echoes and as irreproachable as the brocard that Ms. McArdle has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever she thinks that means) to prove that I'm too unconscionable to place blame where it belongs -- in the hands of Ms. McArdle and her impetuous, noisome cronies. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that if Ms. McArdle sincerely believes that she is the way, the truth, and the light then she must be smoking something illegal. Ms. McArdle has no innate compass for judging what is proper behavior and what is unacceptable. An equal but opposite observation is that if I recall correctly, Ms. McArdle operates on an international scale to guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to discuss the relationship between three converging and ever-growing factions -- obscene nymphomaniacs, soulless clods, and gutless, vulgar rumormongers.
Doesn't Ms. McArdle realize that she harbors a sense of entitlement and an expectation of success beyond reason? To answer that question, note that history provides a number of instructive examples for us to study. For instance, it has long been the case that Ms. McArdle refuses to come to terms with reality. She prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. I will stop at nothing to make her obstreperous, inarticulate self-fulfilling prophecies understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike. My resolve cannot fully be articulated but it is unyielding. As evidence, consider that Ms. McArdle and her dupes are addlepated scoundrels. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis.
Ms. McArdle would have us believe that merit is adequately measured by her methods and qualifications. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Ms. McArdle is surrounded by termagant drongos who parrot the same nonsense, which is why her outbursts always follow the same pattern. She puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. To summarize my views: Everything Ms. Megan McArdle tells you is a lie.
Michael Ruppert (Investigator/Author): The Federal Reserve is no more 'federal' than Federal Express. I've never seen a full list of ownership for the Fed -- I don't think anybody has.
Franklin Sanders (Author/Tax Honesty): Why did we give a monopoly, of creating money out of thin air, to a private corporation?
Peter Gibbons (Tax Attorney): There is no constitutional basis for a tax on the wages of Americans living and working in the 50 states of the union. Period, end of argument.
Michael Ruppert (Investigator/Author): The Federal Reserve is no more 'federal' than Federal Express. I've never seen a full list of ownership for the Fed -- I don't think anybody has.
Franklin Sanders (Author/Tax Honesty): Why did we give a monopoly, of creating money out of thin air, to a private corporation?
Peter Gibbons (Tax Attorney): There is no constitutional basis for a tax on the wages of Americans living and working in the 50 states of the union. Period, end of argument.
****From Aaron Russo's Freedom to Fascism****
FTLOG SEE IT!
Paul Warburg, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and architect of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. The quote is from Warburg's speech to the US Senate, 17 February 1950:
"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent".
How cowardly of you to attempt to sabotage the only hope for fighting the special interests who are destroying our Country.
Oh my Mr. Russom :) I believe you just scored one for the home team. BRAVO!
............
Surprise. Since the 1913 founding of the Federal Reserve, the intentions of the Constitution's authors have been the laughing stock of the secret societies from Skull and Bones, to the CFR, to the Trilateral Commission, to the Bilderberg Group. Americans are way out on the edge of the near-future Owellian world government.
The central bankers knew, from their approx 220 years experience with the Bank of England and other European central banks prior to 1913, that American indebtedness would grow so large that the central bankers would eventually own the American nation.
http://ddrevival.blogspot.com/2006/11/russos-freedom-to-fascism.html
I'm disappointed to see that some posters here aren't giving Megan due credit for her accomplishments. I mean, an MBA from the anti-gold University of Chicago Business School, for one. Certainly that would explain her trashing of the gold standard. Whether her word-generation of "no-hopers" reflects her Ivy League degree in English Lit is perhaps more difficult to discern.
There was a time, it seems long ago now, when literary journals like the Atlantic would seek out fresh minds from the middle of the country to offer new perspectives on the world emerging around us. But now, all you can find outside of Manhattan and the DC Beltway are losers and no-hopers, isn't that right, Megan? Like this experienced professional, Air Force veteran, ten-term Congressman Ron Paul.
Megan and her hip, latte-sipping friends are well-served by our shared conviction that Ron Paul has no hope. Gotta get that message out - Ron Paul and his supporters are "no-hopers."
quote from David Rockefeller, a member of The Council on Foreign Relations-
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.
"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
"But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.
"The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
Somebody take this silly wenches computer away from her! Clearly she doesn't have the wherewithal to be writing of politics and economics.
You craft an argument like a 6th grader which makes this quote sort of relevant:
"I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel our ties with the Saudi family, and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he FUCKING said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds? "
-David Cross
The Gold Standard is insane. Obviously you are an ignorant about economics. By the way, Ron Paul wrote a book about the Gold Standard. Perhaps you should buy it and educate yourself before writing absurdities.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=America-Freedom-To-Fascism&hl=en
****Watch America- Freedom to Fascism by clicking Link Above-
With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm
Somebody forgot to tell the Swiss that the Gold Standard is crazy. Oddly they have a better standard of living than we do. Makes you think.
Megun has said this to get hits by jumping on Dr. Paul.
You guys have done what Megun wanted and that is attention.
Megan, thanks for explaining how horrible Ron Paul is. And to think I almost fell for what he was saying. I don't want to vote for a no-hoper. Well, now that I won't be voting for Ron Paul, who do you recommend?
I have got it. The Pauliticos should band together and offer a ONE MILLION dollar reward to anyone who can show us the US LAW that states, we the people, must pay an income tax.
:)
Wow, I've never read a more uninformed blog post. You're really a no-hoper. Ron Paul is better off without your understanding or endorsement (Andrew Sullivan is the smart one around here, I gather). Next.
" A DECISION WAS MADE- LETS GET THE DEBT WAY UP, LETS MOVE THE JOBS ABROAD, AND INSTEAD OF RE-ENGINEER YOUR SKILLS, LETS DUMB DOWN AMERICA SO THE MIDDLE CLASS WILL DISAPPEAR. "
-Former. Assistant Secretary of Housing
Please note, just like Kerry said, the upper class consists of about 1-2% of the population
***PAULITICOS ARE THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE---HELL THE WHOLE WORLD***
Our friends overseas and abroad are watching this happen and they hope we will achieve our goal of saving this country. The WORLD is on our side.
Future Oligarchs of the World, Not so much. :)
Ron Paul has no chance? Didn't he raise more than 6 million in one day breaking John Kerry's record? The more I see of the rubbish that is out there the more I like Ron Paul.
What amuses me the most is all of the lemmings repeating "Ron Paul Can't Win". The string pullers hate him. If I was a string puller that controlled the media I would hate him also.
hi megan,
i read your other blog. i apologize for assuming that you were ignorant.
i was inclined to think that the main problem is in government monopoly on currency and not whether the currency is gold or not, and you seem to be suggesting that. regardless, as i understood some people here, they were not talking about 'gold standard' in which we would still be using paper money that is backed by gold, but rather gold as a medium of exchange (as a competing currency or, alternatively, government issued currency). so that would be a response to your claim that government will always drift away from 'gold standard' - if it is using gold (which is presumably beneficial because its supply is much harder to manipulate) then it can't.
while i am here, the thing that confuses me a lot is the following, so i would appreciate your comment or a comment by anybody else here:
i used to live in a country that had a problem with inflation - in fact, at some point, we had an inflation of 100% a day (i still have bills from that time that are in hundreds of trillions and with which you could could not purchase a loaf of bread). what confuses me is that, there, there was always a very strong correlation between exchange rates and prices. the two measures were interchangeable, and for a long time i thought inflation was about a change in exchange rates. so, what confuses me here, is the fact that dollar is falling but prices are - allegedly - stable. in that exchange with paul, barnake made the point how only those who rely on imported goods will be affected with the fall of the dollar - but aren't we all dependent on foreign goods; and besides, why would domestic producers keep their prices low if imported goods' prices are rising?
"The gold standard is one"
Dr. Ron Paul has advocated allowing a competing currency that is asset-backed. Megan can choose to use the ever-sinking Dollar, and others can choose to use a currency backed by something more tangible than hot air (gold, silver, or a basket of commodities).
A competing currency will let the market to choose which currency is most viable.
Megan, if you don't like a competing currency, then tell us in what other areas you believe state-sponsored socialism (command and control by government) is useful.
rwe said: "An independent central bank is the best guarantor of sound money. That's why we've had relatively low inflation for the last 25 years."
Wow. If by sound money, you mean money that has been devalued by about 96% in less than a century, independent central banks such as the Fed produce the soundest money possible.
If, however, you have even the most elementary knowledge of monetary policy, and define sound money as money that keeps its purchasing power, then independent central banks are a disaster for sound money.
The Fed creates inflation. It doesn't keep it under control (just look at the dollar's purchasing power since the Fed was created). It creates a way for government to tax people with little political repercussions. The idea that the Fed creates "sound money" is laughable.
Hmm, I like the insanity analogy. Isn't the popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results?” Well, Ron Paul is only candidate willing to do things differently. Refreshing, isn't it? Vote for any of the other candidates of either party and you will end up with same old policies that go nowhere. I call that Losersville! By the way has anyone else noticed that when the opposition party assumes power that they continue the same old policies that they were supposely opposing? I suppose if their programs and policies had to be constitutional, the party would over for both parties. Ron Paul represents the end of greed and the rebirth of true liberty in America.
For anyone who defends the Fed, just know that they are a PRIVATE institution, made up of major PRIVATE banks. Yet, the actual banks represented are not disclosed. The meetings they have are in secret, and the minutes are not released for weeks (and this is an improvement from before 1994).
Ask yourself this, assuming they wanted to do something 'evil', completely driven by ulterior motives, what would be the check and balance preventing or deterring them from doing so??? Congress, the creature from which they were created, has no idea what goes on there and why, or even how. Anyone who truly believes in our current system must inherently have a blind faith that these people are always acting in the nation's best interest because there is no mechanism directing them to either side.
The problem with Ron Paul is that he is proposing to radically change the way the government and the economy works. I have read through his proposals and like many of them. However, most of them require the consent of Congress (they have to pass the laws). This is, um, unlikely. I would like to see more on HOW Ron Paul is proposing to make all of these changes, covering both how he intends to persuade Congress to pass the laws and how he intends to transition from our current system to his proposed system without causing massive economic hardship.
Also, in the one area where the President does have direct authority (foreign affairs/the military), I happen to totally disagree with him. If he were more realistic about the threat of terrorism and the need to remain engaged in world affairs, I'd be more willing to consider voting for him.
I'm afraid that if he were elected, he'd fail to enact any of the domestic programs/policies that I like while withdrawing our troops and retreating from the world, which I don't like.
I don't really like ANY of the current Presidential candidates, unfortunately. I think I'll vote for myself.
EI
Ah, so Ron Paul won't win the nomination? Let's look at the numbers and do the math. All the big scientific polls use a pool of "likely Republican voters". That means they voted in the last election, right? Okay, well and good, except that only 5 to 6% of the Republicans voted in that election. The other 95% were either disgruntled, or too lazy to vote. Now let's do some math. Take the Huckster who is polling at 20% somewhere. 20% of 5% is equal to 1%. Look at Ron Paul. In NH he's polling at 8%. 8% of 5% is equal to 0.4%. Now the difference that you media outlets say is so very big is really only 0.6%, which is just about nothing. Add in the Independents and those who switched partys so they can vote for Dr. Paul and I'd say that changes the equation greatly. Yes sir, now we have an authentic Variable (with a BIG V) in the equation. So, think about it, with Guilianni, the Huckster, McCain and Romney you get 4 more years of Bush. Hence there is no enthusiasm for those candidates, and as such, there is no groundswell of support for any of them. So, only the 5% who voted in the last election are going to vote for them (minus the Paul support, of course). With Ron Paul, there is a VERY active base of support as judged by signs everywhere you look, supporters everywhere you look (1000's of people came to hear him speak in Philly), and money coming into his campaign from everywhere you look (more numbers here, 6 million of them). Obviously, you gentlemen who say he will not win are just not doing the math. If I was a teacher, I would give you all a "D" in math, and I'd fail you in the course of Political Proficy.
Did you do this hit piece just because you know that Ron Paul has such huge support and you just want the ad revenue? Don't worry if that's the reason, a lot of people are starting to realize the huge marketing benefits of bringing such a large percentage of the population to your site.
Foreigners are scary? What part of "Let's trade with Iran and Cuba," makes you think he is afraid of foreigners? Don't you think, "Let's take over Iraq, bomb Iran, and implement an embargo against all countries that don't think like us," sounds a little bit more xenophobic?
Must've gotten a link on a Ron Paul site somewhere, eh? Heh.
Hey guys, why stop with the gold standard, let's dust off William Jennings Bryan and go back to the SILVER standard!
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Must be that 'silent majority' I've heard so much about...
Wow - rarely have I seen an issue that so clearly separates the wheat from the chaff in the field of reporters and political commentators; their depth of comprehension is shocking. For example, if gold is such a useless financial instrument, why did the European Central Bank choose to make that new 21st century currency partially backed by gold? Are European central bankers rubes and this guy writing for The Atlantic is really the clever one? And one might also ask why has gold risen markedly against (translation: kicked the snot out of) every other currency for the past 5 years? Again, because it is a useless relic? Stunning what constrained lemmings these journalists are.
"Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."
...I suppose that's why he's so eager to trade with them, so they can swindle all his stuff?
Dr. Paul's position is closer to "We should create no unnecessary conflicts with foreigners and should not invade their countries and slaughter them. Anyone who thinks he is a xenophone is surely illiterate.
I have to say that among the hundreds of blogs and other jottings about Paul on the internet, this is the most ignorant.
liberalrob, thank you for your incite, it is very enlightening.
Thanks Megan, I'm sighing in relief that there are still people like you still fighting the good fight. I have to admit, I hadn't been this worried since the 1770's, but it's good to know I can keep counting on people like you.
Sincerly,
Tyrrany
Megan, Sad to say, it is you who is insane if you do not look into the evidence regarding the North American Union and many other issues. It is a good thing that the dumbing down of America is still incomplete, however it was close to being finished. Thank God forthe internet and homeschooling, without these mediums we would certainly be doomed. It is you who cannot comprehend the monetary system and policy of the private Federal reserve creating money from thin air and being backed by nothing. Those dear, are the insane ideas meant to make the richest richer and the poorest poorer. I wish I could just print tbills and csell them for fiat cash. Imagine that, abiding by constitutional limits on government action is another crazy idea? What are you a commie or a fascist. Wake up lady and join us, you will soon be in the minority. Americans are fed up!
hey megan i disagree with you but i still thoroughly enjoyed your article. it made me laugh, reminded me of chesterton's style of humor. hope to hear more from you.
Hey liberalrob, nice to see a familiar face. Or tagline. Whatever. Come, let us set aside our deep ideological differences and unite against the invading Paulanistas!
Or ignore them.
Apparently Megan has no intention on educating. She only intended on alienating herself. If she feels the gold standard was such lunacy, at least offer one supporting argument.
Mainly, this writer is ignorant. Ron Paul has never advocated "going back" to the gold standard, only that we never should have left it. What he advocates, is allowing other currencies (gold/silver)to compete alongside the dollar.
The Atlantic is a good publication. I don't see why they diminish their integrity with such lousy writers.
You seem to take an ounce of truth about Ron Paul and turn it into a pound of lies. Ron Pual is not an isolationist unless you define it as someone who does not want to attack other nations. He is a supporter of free trade. You clearly no nothing about the gold standard or the federal reserve. One of the biggest problems with those like you is you write before you think. Perhaps this country should make every voter pass a test on economics BEFORE they can vote.
Advocating a return to the gold standard makes you worse than insane-- it brands you as economically illiterate and damn proud of it!
The only reason you would have to oppose a gold standard, to oppose real money backed by a commodity instead of the "faith" of the US government is if you were completely ignorant of monetary economic theory.
Oh wait... you probably are.
I realize that most people have spent their entire lives thinking that our monetary system is secure and they have placed the feelings of such security in the "full faith of the United States Government" however, there is something that we really should consider about the entire system as it was implemented in 1913 and evolved through the 30s and then in 1971 with Nixon.
Dr. Paul is not calling for another government contolled "gold standard" because the government will only do what it has always done: screw up. Dr. Paul is calling for a competitive currency system using commoditiy specie and convertability.
Besides, the FED has had a pitiful record when it comes to actual stabilization of the economy and has, through its polices, created far more recessions and depressions then ever occurred under the sound money system of the 1800s. I believe I counted a total of 27 shallow, moderate and deep recessions, including 2 moderate depressions and of course the Great Depression. In the 1800s there were only 5 notable “panics”.
You neglect one cardinal point that apparently few people recognize or understand and that is the entire fiat monetary system is completely collateralized by debt making debt the asset upon which the complete monetary and economic system rests.
Every single dollar in circulation, whether digital or physical, has been borrowed into existence. All growth within the economy is totally sustained by the expansion [inflation] of the money supply and the money supply is totally dependent upon the equal expansion of debt. The debt is irreversible and because on top of the principle debt an interest obligation is attached, the debt must continually be multiplied exponentially. Now, I could provide the equations to show that under such a system there is a mathematical termination point, but I will simply explain what is happening with the system at the present.
Since Nixon cut all ties between our fiat currency and the underlying commodity specie, the system must totally rely upon the creation of credit/debt for its viability and economic sustainability. The problem arises when the system begins, as it has, to reach its practical possible lifespan where the debt becomes so huge that it begins to require more service than the economy can actually produce in growth. Due to the multiplication of the debt, which includes the periodic principle and periodic interest, the debt, as we are now seeing is expanding far faster than the rate of economic growth.
Eventually, the entire system will reach what can be called it’s maximum possible lifespan or terminal point where it reaches the point that all profitability within the economy begins to be siphoned off by the service requirements of the debt [principle and interest] and the economy will no longer be able to tolerate even minor disruptions, such, as we have seen, small interest rate increases. At one time, the economy could sustain much higher disruptions and keep growing; that is no longer the case and it now struggles to maintain itself.
We are in a classic Catch 22 because we must expand the money supply to keep the economy going, but by expanding it we hasten the day when the debt demands much more service from the economy then the economy can provide. Everything that is built upon this system will suffer the same fate as the system itself. We tend to hear politicians state that we are yoking our children and grand children with a massive debt; unfortunately it is not that simple or pretty.
The truth is that our children and grand children will only be left with the broken pieces of a society crushed by system that will break down everything we now know and recognize as society. Everything we know, everything we now trust in is built upon a system with an inherent terminal point where the entire system collapses under the weight of the debt that it relies on for its existence. All investments, currencies, pensions, insurances, government programs, IRAs, 401ks, mortgage securities, etc., everything we know that makes our society what it is today will follow the fate of this monetary system.
Under such a fiat system the outcome is completely unavoidable; it continued existence is a mathematical impossibility. It would require a complete reversal of mathematical law in order for it to continue perpetually and that is impossible.
If the truth be known, the only reason for the fiat monetary system is to allow the progressive income tax and the only reason for the income tax is to maintain a degree of social control, redistribute the wealth and that's about it, it has little or nothing to actually do with revenues since revenues are a moot point under a fiat system of debt collateralization. If you don't believe me then read the writings of some of the former Fed governors and chairmans, particularly back in the 40s when they started to brag about the marvels of the fiat system.
Now, concerning Ron Paul’s position on interventionism, I would suggest you read a very good book that was just published titled A Shattered Peace about the Treaty of Versailles and why we are, after almost 100 years, still paying the price for our intervention into WWI. There is a great deal of difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Ron Paul, contrary to many of the comments, is not an isolationist, but he is most definitely a non-interventionist. For the last 109 years this country has intervened in over 200 countries around the world; the question is has it made us any safer or produced results that could actually be considered in the best interest of the American People or this nation. Most of the beneficiaries have been big business, from the Sugar Magnates during our intervention into Cuba, Central America and the Philippines during the Spanish-American War to the build up of the military “contractors” that started to become wealthy from war during WWI. If you look at the results of those interventions you will quickly see that the consequences of those interventions still cause of many problems we are contending with today.
In WWI, before the U.S. entered the war, both sides of the conflict were drained of resources, tired of the war, which was growing extremely unpopular and both sides were ready to sue for peace until the U.S. entered. With our entry the power was shifted and there was a victory declared over the enemy and with that victory, the harshest reparations were imposed and were meant to humiliate the Germans in particular. The Treaty of Versailles and its severe harshness set the stage for the rise of Hitler. Hitler, by the way, had a policy of intervention without respect to the national sovereignty of other nations, so did Japan; how were their intervention any different as seen from the nations they invaded then from the ones we either invade or “set-up” bases by “invitation”?
The former Soviet Union had a policy of intervention, remember Afghanistan? What was different? Could it be that we actually think we have a right to do it and other nations don’t? That is perhaps one of the most idiotic ideas of all time and stems from a self-righteousness that will betray us eventually, actually it already has!
Had we not entered WWI, the world would be a totally different place. Hitler would have never been able to gain popularity or power; millions would not have died, including 6 million Jews. Without the death of the European Jews, Israel would have never been imposed on the Muslim countries of the Middle East. The Soviet Union would have never gained control over Eastern Europe and the artificial borders within many countries of the Middle East would have been totally different. Iraq, for instance, would not have existed in its present form; neither would Iran or a number of other countries.
Interventionism is a dangerous game and unfortunately we don’t have the foresight to understand that such dangerous actions can and usually do affect our future in ways that are beyond our comprehension.
There is another extremely important thing that we need to seriously consider about our intervention into the various regions of the world. There are other nations that may wish to begin imposing the same policy as we now do. There are a number of countries that may begin to intervene to “protect” their “interests” just as we have, will we condemn them for their actions when we are doing the same thing? China may wish to put bases in Mexico; Russia may think that it is in its national interest to put bases in Canada? Based upon the mentality that says we must intervene, establish bases in other countries I would assume that those who hold such views would also think it would be fine for other countries to do the same. If we think we have that right then it must be an international right as well, otherwise our policies are based upon something other than logic and reason.
Every single dollar in circulation, whether digital or physical, has been borrowed into existence.
You know, I've seen this sort of assertion a lot. What the hell does it mean? Borrowed from whom? I thought the problem with fiat currencies was that they were just created out of thin air, but now apparently they're borrowed from someone or something, and must be paid back?
I'm curious about the argument that gold is not sound. There is one good thing about gold which makes it much better than paper is that the FED or whatever bank is in charge, they will not be able to manufacture it out of thin air right? There are not endless supplies of gold, correct? Wouldn't that alone change everything. That's what causes inflation, printing up money. Inflation is like 10% in America. There is one thing I can tell you, I've seen more Chase banks, Bank of America and Citibank buildings going up all over my town, so someone is making a lot of money.
It means that every single Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation, in other words an IOU. The act of printing does not create money, only the instrument of exchange. The actual act of creating money comes when someone, whether a private individual, corporation or government takes out a "loan".
A "Note" is exactly that, an obligation to pay and every Federal Reserve Note is a legal evidence of a debt or obligation. It is a promissory note that has been crafted in a circular system of credit/debt and nothing else.
So I'm a dork...lesson...do not write at night while drunk and messaging...I said...
"Please expand further and show us your in depth reasoning why the gold standard is crazy. Explain the difference between a fiat currency and hard currency. Explain the differences between economists Hayek and Friedman. If you know who Hayek is...remember was a socialist/near communist...socialist/communist centralized economies work well?
If you cannot delve into the above subjects...and trust me...Ron Paul supporters can in depth...maybe you need to do some reading. I mean that with no disrespect...at one time I was in your position and believed the same. Question, research, learn...I implore you...for the sake of everything good and decent...for our country, our neighbors, our children, and our childrens children. This is very serious stuff...take it serious...dig deep my fellow American.
Goodnight and Cheers!"
Hayek was not a socialist...I meant Keynes, but I was just typing away...while drunk...and messaging friends at the same time. Woke up this morning and went...'oh...that was incorrect'...anyhow...we all have our moments. I still suggest that you read up!
Cheers
Rob,
The FED gets money at the value it is printed at. In other words if it costs 10 cents to print a $100 bill that's the price they pay.
They then sell the bills AT FACE VALUE PLUS INTEREST TO US TO USE by buying government bonds.
We then OWE the fed the face value on the bonds plus interest.
Hence, all the money we use is DEBT.
It's skilled money laundering that makes any mafia or other organization look pale in comparison.
Take a few hours to read the history of how the Federal Reserve legislation got passed. Read who was behind it. READ.
Hmmmm... such vitriol directed at MM!
On the whole I agree with MM: quite a few of Ron Paul's positions accord with my own (I am basically a pro-life libertarian). And I also agree that a return to the gold standard, while pleasant to think about, is only realistic if one ignores the behavioral econ evidence against it--i.e., gentle, prolonged deflation is (for whatever reason) intrinsically enervating for many people.
I would disagree about one point: Europe's experience has shown that an attempt to facilitate trade (the EEC) can elide into an effort to harmonize economies (the EC) and culminate in "ever closer union" (the EU). Thus, a trade agreement can, at least in this example, lead to a decrease in national sovereignty. Whether this is actually the intent of NAFTA supporters is debatable; my guess is no.
Of course, to oppose this because it would allow Mexicans to flow north in larger numbers is not a particularly libertarian view.
Chris,
I have read all about the fed. I have also read that the Uniform Commercial Code has supplanted the Constitution and become the "supreme law of the planet," as well as the fact that there is no legal obligation to pay the income tax. So forgive me if I don't regard "reading" as the solution to this conundrum.
The problem with your account is that 1) there's a heck of a lot more money in circulation than there are bills, and 2) there's a heck of a lot more money than there are government bonds. So that can't be a complete explanation of where money comes from.
And while a "note" can be a debt obligation, a "bank note" shows a debt of the bank owed to the bearer of the note. The term FRN is a tad quaint here, given that we are not using a gold standard, but it isn't sinister at all.
Actually C T Johnson...
Keynes was a Fabian Socialist
Are the cookies ready yet?
Who are you again? And why is your opinion relevant? Maybe you should spend your time praising whoever could do a better job then Ron. Oh that's right, there isn't one.
"the belief that NAFTA is a trojan horse for the North American Union is another."
Perhaps it is a stretch, however, when NAFTA tribunals (unelected, extra-governmentally appointed) supercede our state and national laws, that is a Trojan horse-like threat to our national sovereignity. Add the WTO, CAFTA, and other extra-governmental entities, along with the "NAFTA Superhighway" (here in Texas we call it the Trans-Texas Corridor), and you have a certain Trojan Horse threat. Pile all of this together, and you have a de facto North American Union.
Just because Faux News doesn't announce the formation of the NAU, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that the slow erosion of our sovereignity isn't happening. Tell me, why would Governor Good Hair (Perry of TX) tout this eminent domain nightmare if it were just to run from our southern border to OK? Perhaps it is because his buddy is a partner in the law firm representing the Spanish company that will build this road (Rudy, Cintra-Zachry). Why is the Mexican government working so hard to finish their own deep-water port in the Pacific? Maybe, just maybe, it is in the effort to boost this "fictional" superhighway?
Rob,
Since we are in a FRACTIONAL RESERVE system and since we have computers, it has enabled banks to create new debt out of thin air.
They can create additional credits out of thin air by having other debt on their books.
As to your comments about UCC, I have no idea what you are talking about.
As to paying the income tax... that's tough since we have an inalienable right to property and our ability to work is our property. However, I personally wouldn't mess with the IRS or the Federal Courts and therefore pay taxes even though I think it's wrong.
Since we are in a FRACTIONAL RESERVE system and since we have computers, it has enabled banks to create new debt out of thin air
Again with the fractional reserve thing. Fractional reserves are how banks have worked since there have been banks: borrow short, lend long, hope your depositors don't all show up at once. Yes, it means that a bank can hand you cash and balance its books by showing your new debt as an asset. Why is this a problem? Your promise to pay is an asset to the bank, just as the bank's promise to pay its depositors is a debt to the bank. That's perfectly ordinary finance and perfectly ordinary double-entry accounting, goes back at the very least to the de Medicis, long before the Fed or even before the United States.
My main point being, that's how things worked when we were on a gold standard, too.
Megan,
Please leave the political analysis to experts and professionals. It seems the place for a simplistic woman like you is in the kitchen. Is that boiled down enough for you?
yes, are the cookies ready yet?
Just boiling it down for ya!
@ RWE
Quote:" An independent central bank is the best guarantor of sound money."
Great said. Did you know that the FED, the central bank is a private bank? It is so "federal" as federal in FedEx. If you printing your own money out of thin air (and causing inflation) then this is very lucrative, as long as you are the first person to get the hand on the cash. It is not so nice for the people living on wage jobs an becomming poor because inflation is eating your salary!
QUote: "That's why we've had relatively low inflation for the last 25 years."
What is low? 10% per year? Look at the exploded real estate, gold and raw material prices. This is a kind of inflation. You get something like 2-3% if you measure inflation against certain goods (basket of goods). If you take the increase of money supply as an indicator then you have 10% inflation what is IMHO a more realistic number. If housing prices increase 5fold over the last 10 years where I live, how can the inflation be 3%? (Even if you average it over the whole country).
QUote: "Why fix what ain't broken? And how, exactly, is Bernanke a threat to my liberty?"
He is not. He is only a threat to your money. Every paper money in history has collapsed. Due to the behaviour of the FED (more caused by Greenspan than by the poor guy Helicopter Ben) the FED has now two solutions: Print money without end, make many people poor by inflation and hope that inflation eats the bubble. Or: Increase interests but then several of the big banks would have to file for bancruptcy!
Again @REW: You seem to have little to know understanding what money is. I would start by reading books about economic. Hayek has written a nice one.
Concerning ROn Paul: All he wants is to allow private competing currencies like the Liberty dollar. Ron said he does not want a gold backed curreny but let the market decide if he wants. Hence a currency could be backed by gold, Real estate, pig halfs or thin air.
A last sentence is a quote from Greenspan: " Central banks can issue currency, a non-interest-bearing claim on the government, effectively without limit. They can discount loans and other assets of banks or other private depository institutions, thereby converting potentially illiquid private assets into riskless claims on the government in the form of deposits at the central bank.
That all of these claims on government are readily accepted reflects the fact that a government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency. A fiat money system, like the ones we have today, can produce such claims without limit."
This is at least true for FIAT money. But FIAT money will sooner or later reach it's inner value: the value of paper.
One of the first posters asked: "How, exactly, is Bernanke a threat to my liberty?"
Although it is effective for controlling the business cycle and ought to keep inflation low in theory, the Federal Reserve stirs up problems for the American people.
Recently it has kept interest rates pathologically low. What does it mean when the Fed "lowers interest rates"? That means banks can borrow from the Fed at a cheaper rate to make new loans. This is how money is created. (Read an economics book if you don't believe me)
Very low rates induce banks to make bad business decisions, issuing loans to customers who are less likely to pay the money back. But when banks make these loans, they can still write it up as profit! These short-term gains outweigh the fact that the decisions might come back to bite them.
In this way, the Fed has created the housing bubble. This is causing all kinds of trouble because too many people took out cheap loans and bought houses that they couldn't really afford. Now they're defaulting on their mortgages and the banks have to raise rates and deny some loans even to good customers! This affects everybody.
In response, the Fed is lowering rates again. This might make banks want to issue more loans, but it compounds the problem of inflation in the short term and only delays the inevitable! People who can't pay their mortgages will eventually lose their homes.
Meanwhile, the dollar has lost more than a third of its value in international markets. A third of its value! The Fed has lowered interest rates, "fighting inflation with more inflation" in Paul's words. This robs people who are on a fixed income, such as the working poor and those on Social Security. This is stealing!!
Decisions made by a small group of people have resulted in a loss of purchasing power for the most vulnerable among us! Without the Fed, interest rates would remain more stable and banks would make loans judiciously. But alas, the Fed wouldn't be able to supercharge the economy for short and unsustainable bursts.
Few people in Congress understand monetary policy. Is that very surprising? Despite the fact that we could be heading for a sudden, MASSIVE economic crisis we have most of our candidates talking fluff. Only Ron Paul addresses this serious concern. I thank God that some people are paying attention!
Alan Greenspan became Chairman of the Federal Reserve on August 11, 1987 — exactly 17 years (to the day) after a trademark application for the word “spork” was published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Coincidence? You decide…
Consider this fact, today it takes over $20,000.00 in Federal Reserve Notes to purchase waht $1,000.00 Greenback Dollars bought in 1913. In 1913 a Dollar was valued at 1/20th of an ounce of gold, today the value of a Federal Reserve Note is approximately 1/796th of an ounce.
Now what happened to all wealth? It was the value of our money that has been siphoned off by the banking cartel and the government through the hidden taxation of fiat inflation.
There was a time in our country when our money was our property. It was more than just a medium of exchange or an economic instrument; it was, in a very real sense, property. When a man labored he received compensation in value equal to his work, his produce or his creativity; the money he earned was his property, just as anything else he owned. He could be assured that his money was a store of real value, he could spend it as he pleased, he could store in a bank, stuff it in his mattress or bury it in a mason jar in his back yard and it was no ones business but his own. He could be confident in the value of his money, that he could dig that Mason jar from the ground years later and still have money that kept an equivalent value as when he buried it, it was real money, sound money and it was his private property. He could be assured that his government could not confiscate it, track it or regulate it once it was in his hands; it was real property, his property. He need not worry about whether he carried a suitcase full of it from city to city, state to state or country to country because it was, without any equivocation, his property to do with what he wanted.
In our Constitutional Republic, the Founders were well aware of the potential dangers involving the nation’s currency and with that knowledge they gave us with some extremely strong admonitions concerning the value of money as property. They had experienced the results of unsound money and knew that monetary instability would not only threaten the nation’s economic freedom, but all freedoms and liberties enjoyed by the people.
In the preliminary draft of our Constitution the following words were considered: "To borrow money and emit bills [fiat currency] on the credit of the United States." The wording however, was struck from the final document and for good reason. Due to the Founders knowledge of history and even their experience with the “Continentals”, they knew the danger that emitting such bills posed to the nation and the value of the monetary property of the People. Indeed, it was more than just the monetary property Rights, but all Rights of the People that concerned the Founders; for they were aware that if the monetary system was ever corrupted that the entire system could be corrupted.
In fact, there were some in the Constitutional Convention that believed that it would be better to discard the entire Constitution instead of allowing “and emit bills” to remain. The passion concerning the ability of Congress to “emit bills” was so powerful because the Founders knew that such ability had the potential to undermine the Republic.
The cardinal rule of money as real property is essential for a Free People; absent that cardinal rule the government assumes powers that will always infringe upon the Rights of the People. As we have seen, when money is little more than an impotent instrument of exchange, monopolized and regulated by the government then the government is; apparently, free to treat it as such. The government can debase it, confiscate it, control it, track it and basically manipulate it to benefit any agenda it pleases.
Is it any wonder why the Founders were so concerned about taxation without representation? Such taxation allowed the King's government to tax the fruit of the people’s labor indiscriminately. It totally ignored their property rights and amounted to open robbery of the people’s private property. Today, we have the semblance of representation, but in reality those we elect rarely consider our consent when crafting legislation. Perhaps if we actually considered what has taken place over the last century we would once again raise our arms in revolution and cast out those who should be considered nothing more than common criminals acting for their own benefit instead of that of the people.
Through the years our financial privacy has been invaded through a system that has completely eliminated not only the property rights of our money, but also the value of our money and indeed the essence of our money itself has been detrimentally altered. Today, our money has been transformed, by certain factions in both the banking cartel and government, as an instrument of a government. A government that no longer places value upon the Rights of the People to keep their property and to use that property in ways that should be considered private and inviolate is a government operating outside the Consent of the People and the Law of the Land. Along with the Central Bankers, such a government seeks to use unsound money for purposes other than the real benefit of the People.
This government began to follow the path toward unsound money the moment it bowed down to the power of the bankers by passing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Since that time we have witnessed some of the most heinous acts against the People and their property in the history of this nation. Under the watch of the Federal Reserve, this country and its people suffered numerous depressions and recessions, including the Great Depression. These financial crises served the bankers and the government well, it provided opportunities to both bankers and the government unparallel in our nations history. The scope and power of the government was immensely expanded in the wake of the Great Depression and although the Federal Reserve was intended to avert such economic panics, it was the major contributor to that economic catastrophe and, indeed, as it turns out, a prime beneficiary of the economic disaster. During the Great Depression there was a tremendous amount of wealth that was transferred into the hands of not only the Central Bankers, but into the coffers of the government itself.
The Great Depression provided the government with an opportunity never before seen in this country’s history; the Crash of 29 and the ensuing depression followed the natural progression of monetary debasement and control. It also proved to be the impetus for the destruction of the property rights associated with money. It gave the government the rights over the people’s money, making it nearly impossible for a man to control or maintain his money as private property. FDR’s confiscation of gold and the government’s decision to renege on its promise to redeem its Liberty Bonds marked the beginning of the end of private money property in this country; it also marked the end of the full faith of the United States government.
By 1971, the goal of destroying private money, and the rights associated with it, was completed when the government quietly achieved a total fiat currency coup d’état and their banking partners, the Federal Reserve now had free-reign to control the monetary interests of this nation through a complete monopoly. This effectively ended all property rights the people retained in their money. Since that time, we have witnessed a drastic confiscation of the wealth of this nation by the government and its banking cartel. This confiscation is hidden from the masses of people and takes the form of inflation, draining away the purchasing power of the nation’s money and the ability of the majority of the people to maintain a stable livelihood.
Alan Greenspan once said: “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.” He should know, for under his tenure at the Federal Reserve, the people of this country have been victimized and seen their wealth robbed through that insidious form of theft called inflation. We have seen our standard of living stolen from us and with the complicity of our own government we have witnessed the demise of our property rights, and indeed all our rights. The fruit of our labors are being siphoned off by those who are no longer worthy of being called our Representative Government, they have long ago abandoned good government for abusive powers and what amounts to little more than blatant highway robbery. They have replaced our Liberty and Rights with something that is totally contingent upon our compliance under the illusion of freedom. They have transformed this nation from one of producers, manufacturers and good labor into a debt-dependent serfdom created to increase their own real wealth and powers while reducing the actual standard of living for millions of hard-working Americans.
How many times did our Founders clearly warn us of the potential for deceit and corruption associated with the unsound money, but through trickery and overt deception this nation was lead down a path that will, ultimately, prove its undoing? The Father of the Constitution, James Madison stated that unsound fiat money would destroy the necessary confidence between man and man, in public councils, industry, the moral standing of the people and the complete character of the republican government.
The last century saw a progressive disregard for the Constitution and authority, in many cases it is simply ignored by government. Such disregard should not be considered anything less than criminal, a breach of contract between the government and those who have consented to be governed under that agreement.
The people must come to understand that one of their fundamental rights is that of money property and the only way to have money property is for money to be a sound store of value, untouchable by government, separated from the influences of a monopolistic Central Bank, free of the threat of confiscation or undue taxation without appropriate Constitutional Representation. It is a Right that must be restored to the People, without it restoration there is little hope of us maintaining the few vestiges of freedom left to this People.
We stand at a time when this nation will face a great turmoil, the next few years will determine the future of our nation as the fiat monetary system follows all fiat systems before it and collapses. The fiat monetary system is on the verge of reaching the terminal point within its lifespan, it struggles under minor disruptions and small interest rate hikes; chaos that ensues during its collapse will either end in a return to sound money or overt tyranny as the government seeks to control the collapse of society.
The Right of Money Property is a revolutionary right; it stands as a bulwark against those who would assume authority over us and our future. The Right to produce, to labor in exchange of just and sound compensation without the interference of government or the overt monopolistic control of the Central Bankers is essential for a good and prosperous future. We must repudiate all extra and un-Constitutional usurpations and hold those within government accountable for such crimes.
The People must once again take an offensive stance against all those within and without the government who continue to seek to overthrow the remaining remnants of our Constitutional Republic. Our call to sacrifice is no less vital as that of our Founders, our call to defend this Constitutional Republic is no less essential for the survival of this nation.
It goes to show that only a person like Ron Paul could generate the kind of informative discourse that has emerged from such an initially banial statement like the one Megan made. Only good people who support a guy like Ron Paul and who not only feel strongly about his positions but who have done their own research will actually take the time to attempt to educate someone like Megan who up until now has shown very little inclination to get it. As they attempt to educate her, she will continue to ignore... yet others who read what is written here might learn a thing or two. Who knows, maybe Megan might learn something as well. I wonder if she has the humility to accept her lesson.
"An independent central bank is the best guarantor of sound money. That's why we've had relatively low inflation for the last 25 years. Why fix what ain't broken? And how, exactly, is Bernanke a threat to my liberty?"
mbe -
The problem, but simply, is that our central bank is privately owned and creates a totally unnecessary economic burdern on Americans. Ever heard that the national debt is irrelevant because we owe it to "ourselves"? We owe to the private banking interests behind the Federal Reserve - and all of that interest we have to pay is a complete waste of money.
The fact is that we are experiencing significant inflation right now, and a lot of it has to do with overspending enabled by the Fed.
As for Bernanke being a threat to your liberty - if you're a conservative, I would remind you that taxation is itself a form of physical coersion. If you're a liberal, I could remind you that that the poor and indebted can't enjoy their freedom as fully as the rest of us.
Megan,
I'm sorry that your lack of a Y chromeosome has left you so intellectually dysfunctional.
Megan is afflicted with Midol induced cerebral hypoxia characterized by sub-standard writing...ahem..."skills" (Sullivan charitably corrects her errors) and intensely masochistic statist boot licking. D minus! Toodles!
In 1913 a Dollar was valued at 1/20th of an ounce of gold, today the value of a Federal Reserve Note is approximately 1/796th of an ounce. Now what happened to all wealth? It was the value of our money that has been siphoned off by the banking cartel and the government through the hidden taxation of fiat inflation.
I used to think stuff like this made sense, when I was eleven years old and I heard it on a Lyndon Larouche commercial.
Brooksfoe...
How wonderful that you have now grown up, too bad you still believe in the FED Santa Claus though. Since you don't believe that makes sense anymore then I would assume that you and your family are probably deep in debt and have completely "bought" into the whole credit/debt cycle.
However, on a more serious note...
Since you don't understand [you said it doesn't make sense to you, so that equates to no understanding, or knowledge on the subject], tell us what you do understand.
Pandemic inflation is a part of economics of the fiat system, there are plenty of books on the subject.
Megs - It's surprising to see you offer up some of the same cliche anti Paul stuff. You should know its mostly lies.
Not only is he not anti foreigner, he is rather cosmopolitan compared to most Republicans and most Dems too.
As a Dem, we won't vote for Paul - But we are so disappointed when we see fellow Democrats, such as yourself, play this propaganda game that some feel is necessary to be accepted by the mainstream media.
I'm opposed to the Gold standard - but it's not insane.
Megs - would you have mocked the more intellectually fashionable Milton Freidman for holding the same beliefs as the less fashionable Ron Paul?
You are entitled to your Fiat money commodity fetish, but don't use that as an excuse to deny support for Paul.
Good grief. The gold standard is insane? The finest, most thoughtful, economists of our era would disagree. Here's a Christmas present for you. www.mises.org
For those who are interested or are in need of a bit more information on the subject here are a few books that are essential:
Economics of the Free Society by Wilhelm Rpke
International Order and Economic Intergration by Wilhelm Rpke
Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure by Roger Garrison
The Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig Von Mises
The Positive Theory of Capital by Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk
Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles by Huerta de Soto Jesus
"the belief that NAFTA is a trojan horse for the North American Union is another. Much of his persona, sincere or not, seems to boil down to "Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff." "
I believe in the so-called "NAFTA Superhighway." I'm from Minnesota, and my mom was born in Mexico, so we've taken MANY vacations where we've driven I-35 at length...down exactly to the town my mother is from, Manzanillo, Colima (though it's a different highway in Mexico). (It's a 3 day drive...and it SUCKS!). A Canadian GOVERNMENT site has the route listed as, surprise, the NAFTA Superhighway!!! It's not hard to believe that they want to use eminent domain to widen that thing out...it gets BUSY, especially around the cities.
I also believe that unprotected borders are really unsafe and just a lose lose situation all the way around. Why should the U.S. be forced to take in illegals who could have a negative economic effect. Let's worry about Americans first, and then we can share our prosperity with whomever else AFTER. This isn't isolationist, it's patriotic. And remember, I say this as a Hispanic American. There's nothing racist about not wanting to curb the tide of illegal immigration. (I do, however, feel it is wrong to want to send these people back. I totally support amnesty for those who are currently here -except for felons and convicts. The Mexican prison system can take them off our hands because we don't need to be paying for 'em).
brooksfoe, thank you for confirming that 12 year olds are smarter and more reasonable than 90% of America.
A NAFTA superhighway is a good idea - But it's still somewhat of an advanced concept, so it should be soft peddled for now.
In fact, the idea - (implicit im Megs critique) that we should NOT have a highway with our neighboring nations, is absurd.
Most people I know that oppose Paul bring up this highway idea - But when I ask them about it, they all claim to favor the idea of a NAFTA highway themselves (as do I)
Implicitly - they think there is some secret plot to NOT build a highway between neighboring nations.
Years from now - it well be regarded as a bizarre debate.
The gold standard is "insane?" Really? Tell that to Alan Greenspan who defended it eloquently in this essay:
http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm
Megan McArdle doesn't appear to be listening to the same Ron Paul that I have been listening to. In fact, she doesn't appear to understand his positions at all. Perhaps she should educate herself before criticizing. Who is next on her list of people to criticize, some physicist who has "crazy" ideas about the nature of our universe, which she "just knows" are insane? Apologies to John Stossel, but.......give me a break!
Propaganda at its finest.
I can't believe a magazine that published Nock has this flimsy excuse for a writer in employ.
Doesn't the National Enquirer need a new writer?
"Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."
First off, I just love how you wrote that as a quotation. Care to provide a source?
Most importantly though, which part of freedom do you not understand?
Of course those are both rhetorical questions. It is obvious you know what you are doing, being just another hired gun, carrying water for the criminals who are set out to destroy what is left of the constitutional republic known as the United States.
It is interesting though, watching your desperation in trying to prevent the people from reclaiming their alleged birthright, freedom from tyrannical government, as promised by the founding documents of this country.
Why is this? What are you so fearful of?
While you may choose to live in fear, we will always choose love. These attacks on Dr. Paul you precipitate, though seemingly overwhelming in the MSM (aka tabloid) media, always fail, and serve to further empower Dr. Paul's message of love.
So I'd just like to say thanks for your inadvertent support of Dr. Ron Paul by providing this space for love to grow.
Central banking enthusiasts:
When you can demonstrate that you can create a larger house by measuring it with a smaller ruler, you will have successfully answered all criticism.
Ron Paul is a threat to the corrupt special interests. If Paul is elected these criminals stand to lose hundreds of billions of dollars.
Megan is part of the corrupt, immoral, unethical status quo that will not tolerate a Paul victory.
Shills like Megan will do all they can to prevent keep corruption and immorality ingrained in our government.
Thanks Megan. As Bush would say, "You're doin' a helluva job!"
I am a huge advocate of being diplomatic in writing comments on blogs and such. You'll never win anyone to your way of thinking by being antagonistic. But this is just ridiculous.
"Much of his persona, sincere or not, seems to boil down to "Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."
Are you kidding me? That takes the cake for the absolute stupidest criticism of Ron Paul that I have ever heard. I'm not gonna waste my time trying to explain anything to you. I'm not sure I'd want you on my side.
Grow up Megan. The world has too many trolls for you to join their rank and file.
If Ron Paul is scared of foreigners why does he repeatedly state in his speeches that we should stop going to war with and killing them and stick to our roots by trading with them instead? Why does he state up front that he would have clear communication with even the most distasteful heads of state? Diplomacy is not the hallmark of the fearful.
If you are a shill for someone and just trying to forward their agenda by speaking negatively of the opposition, you should at list disclose the puppeteer prompting this sort of garbage to come from your hands.
This is easily the most embarassing piece of analysis I've ever read from this publication. I would expect this sort of shallow analysis at Newsmax or American Thinker. I don't expect such shallowness from the Atlantic.
Looking forward to this publication getting back to the deep end of the pool.
I'm opposed to the Gold standard - but it's not insane.
Actually, I am opposed to a gold or any standard out of pure principle: People should be free to trade in any currency or commodity of their own choosing, and a gold "standard" as understood by many implies an imposition from above. What Megan does not understand is that the principle of freedom implies people can choose their medium of exchange and that it does not have to be the same medium chosen by the government.
Regarding her diatribe, it is clear to me the "writer" (and I mean no disrespect to writers our there by saying she is one) has little understanding or cares little to understand the ideas and principles that drive Mr. Paul's positions: Non-interventionism is NOT hating foreigners, quite the contrary. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true: Non-interventionism comes out of respect for other people's business. This is hardly "hating" foreigners.
This is my opinion, but I believe Megan McArdle is nothing more than a neo-con hack, a peddler of misinformation and vile. You can disagree with a person, Megan, but to tell lies about a person of principle like Mr. Paul is not good writing, it is just crass and vulgar.
Something else, Megan: Paul's opposition to NAFTA comes not from a supposed hatred of foreigners or other nonsense like that, but comes from the very fact that NAFTA is NOT a free trade agreement, but rather a conditioned trade agreement with pages upon pages of needless regulations, provisos and conditions. For Mr. Paul, a free trade agreement should be able to be written in a postcard that says: We welcome your business, please come in.
This is why he is opposed to anything that looks and feels like managed trade, because such is detrimental to the freedom of the people to trade with whomever they like.
Wake up, America. Ron Paul is a reptilian shapeshifter.
I am deeply disappointed in The Atlantic Monthly for allowing such an ignorant and mean-spirited post. It's quite evident that there was no real research done in preparation for this article.
You could not possibly be referring to the same Ron Paul that I have been listening to for the last 8 months. To label Congressman Paul insane is to label our Founding Fathers insane as well. The wonderful thing is that Ron Paul is so far above all of this.
This is not journalism, it's shameful schoolyard name-calling and beneath Atlantic Monthly. Provide your readers with some real journalism for a change.
We support Ron Paul for President 2008. Find out why: www.ronpaul2008.com
How does trying to imitate the lying, smearing, GOP attack machine bring anything but shame on Megan McArdle and The Atlantic?
Come on, Megan. This is 2007. You can't get away with such laziness and/or dishonesty anymore.
Before you go around and calling people insane who advocate a gold standard, perhaps you should read what Alan Greenspan himself said about it:
http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html
I believe that what Paul actually favors is for the government to get out of the way and allow for competing currencies.
Even though he was not an advocate of the gold standard, you should also read what Milton Friedman had to say about the Federal Reserve. He essentially advocated a system that would imitate the gold standard.
BTR
I mean no disrespect to Meghan - In fact, unlike some commenters, I think she is fine writer. But I do think she is not being serious with readers when she brings up Ron Paul's gold standard.
As has been noted by many - People far more likely than Ron Paul to actually affect change in monetary policy (Greenspan, Friedman, et al) have been in favor of the gold standard.
Many of the writers you see mocking Paul for the gold standard, do not mock others who have the same view - even though or perhaps because Paul's monetary views are irrelevent.
Opposition to Ron Paul among the pundits is more complicated. It has little to do with Paul's views.
There are many pundist who dislike Paul for a variety of reasons that are hard or unconvienient to explain - So faux-concerns about Ron's monetary policy or his abortion policy , fill the vacuum
An independent central bank is the best guarantor of sound money. That's why we've had relatively low inflation for the last 25 years. Why fix what ain't broken?
Posted by rwe | December 19, 2007 5:17 PM
Holy hell you've got some dumb commenters, Megan.
Talk about caught napping! Megan's distillation of Ron Paul is on the order total stupidity.
To boil Ron Paul's message down to a nationalist jingoism is about the most negligent prose I've seen this election cycle. (Has she ever even heard Ron Paul? Or better yet, read him?)
Paul's message is so obviously the least xenophobic of all the candidates of both sides, it's hard to imagine that anyone smart enough to make their living writing would miss this.
Noninterventionist foriegn policy is nothing more than a neutral policy of peace and commerce. 4th graders can understand it. It's funny to watch pundits struggle with this simple concept.
Megan- you ain't very smart.
Megan, your ridiculous "analysis" of Ron Paul can be nothing other than a desperate need for hits. You, and the Atlantic should be very embarrassed for posting such poorly laid out rhetoric against Ron Paul's ideology and candidacy. You must not have the mental bandwidth to understand and report on politics or economics. Please turn in your keyboard and get a job in a government bureau where you belong.
"Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."
Megan, all due respect, this above comment is absurd. Ron Paul is the one who is saying we should talk with the world and trade with it. Ron Paul is the one saying that illegal immigrants are being unfairly scapegoated. Ron Paul is the one who wants to end wars around the world that we started and or are continuing.
Your analysis is factually incorrect.
We should report Megan to the chief editor of this site for misconduct and libel.
What is it Megan, you don't care for the Constitution of the United States anymore..............?
Wow. You are so deep.
You are seriously uneducated.
What are you smoking?
"Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff"
Ron Paul never said that or anything like it in his entire career. Those words belong to you, Megan. They came from your arsenal of flawed reasoning and underscore your own xenophobic world view, and biased political opinion.
Sure, the one Republican candidate who does not agree that preemptively nuking a country is an option is the insane candidate. Always remember with politicians, what they are willing to do to others they are willing to do to you. The Gold Standard is not insane. It is in fact for more sane than the oil/military standard we use now to give value to our currency.
i knew there was a reason i dont get the atlantic monthly,
Your last line indicates you do not know Dr. Paul's positions very well. He advocates free trade, negotiations with other nations, and the ending of embargos. Honestly, when has Dr. Paul EVER dissed foreigners?
Hey there, stupid bitch!
EAT SHIT AND DIE!
Why not do some research so that you can actually understand Ron Paul, the American constitution and therefore the concept of America itself? Your article is pure laziness and just further ensures a stronger,larger Ron Paul turnout.
I don't always agree with everything Paul says, but at this point a vote against Ron Paul is a vote FOR Komrad Rodham and big more government. The fake Republicans (Romney,Giuliani,McCain,Huckabee) don't stand a chance against the democrats. Their views lost in the midterm election and they will lose in the presidential election. America needs a change of course, a return to constitutional government, and that is what Ron Paul represents. Lets face it the radical fringe ideas are coming from the so called "top tier" candidates in the Republican party. Gearing up to bomb a country that has done nothing to you, is a pretty radical/lunatic idea. America following the constitution, in other words America acting like America is not an unusual or lunatic idea. Ron Paul can and will win, there's just no two ways about it. The support for ACTUAL conservatism in this country is too strong. Everytime I see writers try to bash Paul,the American constitution, and therefore America it just simply re-affirms for many that Paul is probably going to win. The poll numbers are simply flat out wrong.
Congrats, Megan!
With a handful of days left in 2007, you have vaulted to the top five of moronic anti-Paul commentators...an impressive feat!
Here's to an equally blognaramus-filled 2008!
John Galt, eh?
Maybe you'd be happier with the girl who runs www.janegalt.net
Then the rest of us could go back to arguing with brooksfoe in peace.
Thank you. With enemies like you and Ann Coulter, Doctor Paul doesn't need any friends.
Ron Paul loves foreigners who desire honest free trade and peacable movement over sovereign borders. NAFTA and the very real plans for a North American Union are corporatist hijacking of government power for the benefit of private interests.
Wow. How totally irresponsible of the editor to let this simpleminded moron post such drivel.
I agree with the other posters, just a ploy to get all the hits from RP fans.
Anyone who thinks that price inflation is REALLY running at 2.5% per year should do some very simple research on how the BLS has changed how CPI has been calculated over the past 25 years. Futhermore, anyone that thinks that the money supply has been growing at 'reasonable rates' has a little digging to do as well. I don't know if double digit growth in M3 would be considered 'reasonable'. This country needs to stop wasting critical resources on non-productive parts of the economy (government) and start investing in productive assets (private sector). First we need to cut the spending and reverse the debt death spiral.
I would also like to comment that when I hear middle aged people say how dumb college kids are it is pretty disturbing considering that it is the generation 'in charge' right now that created this entire mess we are in. So who are the idiots? I'm well out of college (12 years) but just like our open minded college students it is easy to see what we (my generation and theirs) are inheriting as a nation and it is even easier to recognize how it all happened.
Reading Austrian theory and what Ron Paul has been writing since 1974 is such an amazing thing to do. It never ceases to amaze me how everything this school of thought has predicted and been warning about for years has come to pass. Further, Ron Paul's foreign policy speeches collected in his book, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" is an incredible demonstration of how wisdom and common sense are one and the same. I am dismayed I only learned of him three years ago! He has been speaking the same way since 1974 yet nobody listened (certainly not Congress). Then when you ask yourself why "nobody" listened the answer is even more disturbing.
"Leon, I said inflation has been low in "the last 25 years," not the last 36 years. Since Volcker took over, the Fed has understood the danger of an inflationary monetary policy and has kept monetary growth at reasonable rates."
How Much things cost in 1982.................2007
Average Cost of new house $82,200.00......$207,800
Average Monthly Rent $320.00...............$610.00
Cost of a gallon of Gas 91 cents.............$3.20
New Car Average price $7,980.00............$23,600
US Postage Stamp 20 cents..................41cents
Average Income per year $21,050.00......$36,200.00
Pct Change
New Home=252.8%
Rent=190.6%
Gas=358.8%
New Car=295.7%
Stamps=205%
Avg. Salary=172%
Yeah The Fed is doing a marvelous job at price stability, IN THE LAST 25 YEARS, no less. Just look the average income has almost kept up with the increase in rent over the last 25 years. Now thats something to be proud about!
"Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."
Of course Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate advocating normalizing relations with Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran. Must be because little brown people are scary.
Anything else your feeble, statist minds would like to argue?
Now I remember why I stopped subscribing to The Atlantic!
Megan - You're wrong about not preventing Congress from making anything into money. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress only the power to COIN money. Congress's powers are ENUMERATED: There is nothing regarding the power of printing paper money, and therefore there is NO power granted to the Congress to print money.
(Make sure they're not too gooey or burned on the bottom.)
I would post an intelligent comment in response, but I can't because that would require me to have some intelligent points to actually comment on.
"Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."
Wasn't that essentially the Bush doctrine? Islamic fundamentalist extremist terrorists are plotting to take over America and eliminate your freedoms.
And those who still follow the Bush doctrine routinely boo Ron Paul at debates when he suggests such anti-foreigner, extremist, isolationist positions as lifting sanctions in Iran, talking to Venezuela, and removing the embargo on Cuba.
Scary!
Megan, I don't want to assume that you're just that ignorant of what Ron Paul has been stating for 30 years about trading with and talking to the rest of the world. But, if you're not ignorant of what he has believed for so long, the only other assumption I can make is that you just don't know who Ron Paul is to begin with.
Perhaps somebody should let the foreigners know. Because for some reason, on whowouldtheworldelect.com, they are overwhelmingly choosing Ron Paul.
HOLY COW!! Dubya and his folks have slaughtered God-only-knows how many innocent Iraqi and Afghan people in the last few years and the current sad sack crop of GOP candidates (except Ron Paul) go nicely along in lock-step, and you criticize Dr. Paul, claiming that somehow you think he's saying "foreigners are scary". That's certainly a different Ron Paul than I've been listening to and reading all these months. Is George Orwell ghost writing your stuff?
The year is 1932. Gasoline is $0.18 per gallon. You have a $20 paper bill, with which you can buy 111 gallons of gas. Cool! Alternatively, you can decide that you don't need gas just now, but you might in 75 years, so you are going to save the $20.
Being the thrifty sort, you decide to save the cash for a rainy day 75 years hence. If you put it in your mattress to spend 75 years with the dust mites, you can trade it in 2007 for a measly 6 gallons and change. Nice going, genius.
If you were slightly smarter, you put the $20 into an interest bearing savings account. 75 long years later, you are pleased to discover that your account has grown to $312! Better than the mattress, eh! Except that now you can only buy 104 gallons of go juice. Bummer. I thought technology and markets made useful items more abundant. Good thing you didn't have to pay taxes on that bank account all along the way, or your results would have been worse.
If, on the other hand, you were a kooky tinfoil hat wearing moonbat libertarian monetary crank who distrusted paper money, you did something a little different. You took that 1932 $20 bill and bored your local bank teller with your nutty theories about the evils of central banking and paper money. You demanded that the poor boob behind the counter take this worthless scrap of government paper and hand you a $20 double eagle gold coin... yes the dinged up one with no numismatic value will be just fine. 75 years pass, and guess what? Though you'll lose a little in transaction costs, you find that you can now be the proud owner of a whopping 270 gallons of petrol! You scratch your head in wonderment when you hear the grumbling down at the local fuel mart. High gas prices? As far as you can tell, gasoline is about as cheap as it has ever been. But what do you know... you're just a stupid gold bug.
Ugh. This kind of stupidity is exactly why women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Even the one's who are supposed to know better don't have a clue.
This really shows complete and utter ignorance.
It is the neocons that are using fear of foreigners to expand government power and profit from their wars. Paul stand is completely the opposite.
As for the gold standard, we will see how this all turns out - but in all of history, no fiat currency has ever lasted more than about 50 years without totally collapsing. We went off the last link to gold in 1971 and it looks like our currency has begun it's terminal crash. When this happens, and it will, the US will resemble a bananna republic.
The dollar is now worth 4 cents in purchasing power since the Fed was formed. All of this is a theft of wealth and nothing more.
I suggest that you google Alan Greenspan's paper, "Gold and Economic Freedom" and educate yourself a bit about our monetary system and monetary history.
Congratulations on your "most ignorant Ron Paul Smear" award. "Foreigners are scary" sums up most of the other GOP candidates' positions. Ron's point is that illegal immigration is a problem because of our current welfare state, not that immigration is bad. And as for your take on his economic views, it would do you good to get a clue on economics. Dr. Paul has studied Economics for years and his knowledge is much more sound than yours. If there's a nut here, it's you.
REW...
It appears that you have a very outdated view of economic history especially considering the actual events that facilitated the Crash of 29. The Crash had absolutely nothing to do with the gold standard although that is the common boogie man blamed for the events that led up to the Crash. The real culprit was the lose money polices of the FED in the early 20s and the fact that we provided far too much assistance to the Bank of England attempting ; something that even Bernanke owned up and admitted was the case. The FED has had a pitiful record when it comes to actual stabilization of the economy and has, through it’s polices created far more recessions and depressions then ever occurred under the sound money system of the 1800s. I believe I counted a total of 27 shallow, moderate and deep recessions, including 2 moderate depressions and of course the Great Depression. In the 1800s there were only 5 notable “panics”.
For years the assumption has been that deflation somehow caused all the economic dislocation and thus the Great Depression however, it was the effects of a massive boom created by the FED policies combined with massive government intervention during that period that set the stage for the Crash and subsequent Depression. However, we should all consider this; that if there is a downturn in the economic that it is far better for consumers if it is deflationary instead of inflationary since the prices of goods and services decrease relative to the purchasing power of the currency.
Under a Sound Money System the cycles of inflation and deflation are usually shallow and represent corrections in markets however, just the opposite is true under a fiat system since the cycles are manipulated by the central bank to the point that no real correction can occur. We are witnessing that today as we see the FED seeking to placate markets, banks, consumers and government in their attempts to regulate the economy through rate manipulation; basically all that does is delay the day of reckoning instead of allowing a manageable correction to take place in the economy. Another important fact about recessionary corrections during the period of Sound Money was that they were short lived and provided a necessary balance to economic growth.
If you look at history inflation charts you will readily see that inflation was steadily low until the point that the FED was created, it remained at a level rise until FDR devalued the currency by almost 50%. The rate of inflation continued to rise at a relatively slow pace until Nixon cut the ties completely with the underlying commodity base; at that point the rate of inflation has rapidly increased and drained a tremendous amount of purchasing power from the currency; approximately 95%. That is real wealth that has been, for no other word: STOLEN. After the last 3 decades prices have more than quadruped in relative CPI. Of course, if you remember the decade after Nixon’s trick you will recall the major disruptions during that period.
One of the things that I find fascinating is that there has been research done at the FED itself that has noted the economic advantages of commodity [gold] backed currency, so why would they resist the system?
Read the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Bulletin, May 1981 issue. It notes that price levels and real economic activity were much more stable under the classic gold standard then the fiat system. Read it for yourself, obviously there are those at the FED who understand that the advantages of sound money far outweigh those of the fiat, but it is not profitable to the FED or its members and therefore it is not promoted.
1) RP is not advocating a return to the gold standard; he is advocating free competition amongst currencies.
2) I bet McCardle has no clue in the world how the gold standard and the current monetary system compare; she just is told by others that the gold standard is crazy.
3) "Foreigners are scary": Yeah. The one Republican candidate whose is *against* bombing the crap out of foreigners is the xenophobe!
Among mainstream media types - whether Dem leaning like this blog or the variety of neos - painting Paul as anti foreigner is standard.
It's odd - Ron Paul could legitimately say his media enemies are xenophobes because they tend to approve of bombing foreigners.
Think about how many people have been killed in Iraq since Bush stated the war - It's a bit easier to blame Ron Paul for that , than to accept responsibility for being pro war.
Megan,
Are you as ignorant as this article makes you appear, or are you just acting like you know nothing?
--dawg
go back to being daddy's little girl... 'cause writin' and clear thinkin' is not yer callin'
You win Megan. The article on Ron Paul with the
least amount of research performed by the MSM.
Do you have any pride in your work and facts?
Astonishing.
We live in the most xenophobic era in American history, and the author describes the least xenophobic candidate as paranoid, presumably because he favors our nation policing its borders.
This is a popular view for leftists who are jealous of Dr. Paul. No reality required.
Hey Megan, when you start predicting recessions, then tell us how kooky it is to want competing currencies.
For your viewing pleasure, here's Dr. Paul predicting the recession of 1987, in 1983.
"..as we drive the economy this year and for next year's election you will see conditions improve, but sure enough you will see the consequence of the inflation that we have today; in a couple of years you will see the recession, if not the depression of '86 or '87. So it is for this reason, out of humanitarian concern for our people, that we must reject the notion of central planning in money; just as we reject the ideas of central planning in agriculture or steel manufacturing."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hMeNnbSqkk
Rather than blather, please seek more information before you spew.
we must reject the notion of central planning in money
On the one hand, some people object to central planning in money. On the other, some people object to private banks "creating" money by lending out deposits, because such a task is too important to be controlled by private intersts.
I'm glad both sides have found their candidate.
Just because some people at the Atlantic are opposed to affirmative action doesn't mean they have to ridicule it by pulling someone from McDonalds and handing them a computer. This is pretty sad. I hope feminist groups catch on and protest this satire. Just because you don't like a concept doesn't mean you should use hyperbole to make your point. These are peoples' lives here and you have completely disgraced this woman by taking the peter principle too far. There are plenty of hard working women who want to be journalists and bloggers and ones that can outdo the boys by miles, hire them. Putting this woman into a job that she cannot handle that deals with concepts she does not have the intellect to grasp helps neither the Atlantic nor this poor unqualified women, nor women as a whole. You sexist chauvinists at the Atlantic will pay for this.
Dear Megan McArdle,
Please take the time to inform yourself of the many arguments in favor of a gold standard and against NAFTA (as opposed to free trade, which Ron Paul strongly favors) before you embarrass yourself again.
Ron Paul vs. The Philosophically Bankrupt
After reading the name-calling and other non sequiturs from the anti-Ron Paul crowd, I am of the view that their hostility arises less from his opposition to war, or the direction American foreign policy has taken for decades, or any of the other specific programs he has criticized. What troubles them the most is that Paul has a philosophically-principled integrity in what he advocates and that, to challenge him, one must be prepared to deal with him at that higher level.
But modern political discourse long ago gave up on principles, in favor of the pursuit of power as a sufficient end. There is an intellectual bankruptcy exhibited by writers and speakers on the political "left," "right," or "middle." Competing ideas and values that once engaged the minds of thoughtful men and women have given way to little more than pronouncements on behalf of narrowly-defined political programs; the validity of a proposition no longer depends upon reasoned analysis, but upon the outcome of public opinion polls.
Ron Paul's campaign interjects an energized, principled inquiry into the political realm, an undertaking for which men and women with no philosophic center or rigorous minds find themselves woefully ill-prepared.
Looks like you're running the plays directly from the "The Official Media Guide to Attacking Ron Paul"
http://www.libertymaven.com/2007/12/19/the-official-media-guide-to-attacking-ron-paul/
Wow - You fail. Maybe you should read something before making up things about Dr. Paul blindly. You just made yourself look SOOOOO stupid.
After reading the name-calling and other non sequiturs from the anti-Ron Paul crowd
I'll see your anti-Paul name calling and raise it by 200 times for the pro-Paul name calling and bizarro sexism right in this here thread.
What troubles them the most is that Paul has a philosophically-principled integrity
Yes, integrity. I'm sure that's exactly what bothers our gracious hostess, whose posts on abortion and gay marriage have won praise from both sides of the debate for their thoughtfulness.
As long as you newbie Paulistas are jumping on Ms. McArdle for being "ignorant of Paul's beliefs," you might take a moment to read some of her beliefs before demanding that she bake cookies.
Um, Milton Friedman became convinced of the SANITY of a gold standard in recent years. Is he "insane", too?
Have you even actually perused and reviewed Ron Paul's views? Foreigners are scary? Where do you come up with this stuff, and why won't you own it yourself instead of attempting to suture it to Ron Paul?
Times must truly be tough at the once venerable Atlantic. And to think I have subscribed several years since 1990...
Reading further I have become convinced that the problem here is not with what the vacuous and lazy Ms McArdle says, but that "pro Paul" supporters are name callers. NOT.
I can not vote for Ron Paul, because I am Canadian; I can, however tell you, that as a member of the media who covered the NAFTA story, PROPONENTS of it in Canada supported it BECAUSE it was and is viewed as a preface to North American integration. Ditto the allegedly "kooky" claim that there is a North American "Super Highway" in the works: right now, two cities in Western Canada, Calgary and Winnipeg, are not so quietly jockeying to ensure their respective metropolises become the hub for the coming transcontinental corridor to bisect our continent. Is Ron Paul crazy, or is the MSM in the US really that clueless??
Ms. McArdle:
You have an MBA, and that qualifies you how, exactly, to pronounce upon economics?
If you DID know anything about economics, you would grasp the concept of inflation, as in degree inflation, as in what has happened to MBAs. Not that an MBA confers knowledge of economics in any case.
The more I learn about you, the worse I feel about previously favoured publications in my life, notably the Economist, and now, sadly, the Atlantic.
Yikes.
In practice, having a fiat currency just means that the dollar deflates by 4% or so per year (more when Congress wants to spend more). Is this significant? Well, working class people pay 6% or so of income for Social Security. The employer pays an 6% additional of the employee's income. Then local and state taxes might add up to 30%-40%. Next there's sales tax, which is often around 10%. Where I live, property tax is $8,000/year on a $300k house. The economy is not doing well, plus there is globalization, which means greater job competition. And then you have to factor in deficit spending; U.S. federal debt and intra-governmental debt is $9 trillion, or $30,000 per person, if none of the welfare programs are included. With welfare programs, the debt is $59 trillion, or $197k per person.
So maybe 4% currency deflation alone isn't a big problem. But on top of all these other problems, it starts to look wasteful.
If you want to have your currency worth 4% more per year, then Ron Paul is being reasonable. The only people calling him insane for this are as far as I know politicians who don't want to cut that 4% out of their budgets.
Or maybe the argument that Megan was alluding to was that gold backed dollars are an old fashioned thing, and all old things are wrong, therefore one should do the new thing. Oddly enough, this didn't occur to me as an argument, because I'm of a somewhat logical bent myself. In any case, it's clearly fallacious and uninteresting.
Ditto the allegedly "kooky" claim that there is a North American "Super Highway" in the works:
Granting for the moment that such a highway is planned or under construction, why is it a problem, again? I thought internatinal trade and robust transportation infrastructure were generally regarded as good things.
"Granting for the moment that such a highway is planned or under construction, why is it a problem, again?"
Well, the 10-mile-wide highway will be built on the backs of seizing all houses and private property along the planned route by eminent domain-- that's how it's said that they'll get all the land, because it's not currently all publicly owned.
Houses seized by eminent domain are rarely given the full market value, and of course, if they are, the taxpayers will be on the hook for the cost while private companies take the profits from this venture. It's supposed to be privately run.
This summation of Ron Paul can only be described as imbecilic. I just wish I were surprised.
re: 12/22/2007, 3:22 am/12:29 pm
.
"...internatinal trade and robust transportation infrastructure were generally regarded as good..."
.
conspiracy alert: canada and the state of arizona are truther sympathizers
http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/710.htm
http://www.canamex.org/
yes, doc's official platform declares foreign trade at all costs, constitution be damned... but seriously, those are secondary to the goal of having international authority usurp our tired, obsolete u.s. constitution...
kinda like the foundation being laid for the international codex alimentarius to control [read: outlaw] private access to non-prescription vitamins, herbs, and organic food.
Megan looks like your out numbered 99 to 1 here! If you would just go look at your reflection you could see that you have "I'M STUPID" tattooed on your forehead.
A 10 mile wide highway from the Rio Grande to Canada would have roughly 2200 lanes in each direction and require the concrete and asphalt of about 1.6 million miles of 4-lane interstate.
There are about 46,000 miles of interstate in the US. If you think the government is planning a highway with 34 times the capacity of the entire interstate system, then yes, I think you're crazy.
And although I didn't like the abusive use of eminent domain in Kelo, road construction is the very defninition of legitimate use of eminent domain.
.
"...the 10-mile-wide highway..."
.
"...if you think the government... then... you're crazy"
.
first off, i'm just wondering if, when the debate over the nafta superhighway takes a shift from being conspiracy, the domain of "truthers," to an acknowledged federal highway corridor plan, will the enlightened-ones shift the attacks to 'we told you your 10-mile highway was crazy - it's only four?'
in the preliminary selection phase it's a minimum 1/2-mile wide corridor, but generally 4-miles maximum in width, though "some" areas may exceed 4-miles...
the authority for transportation planning is the environmental document (eir). if anyone still doubts the planning of the texas portion (which doc referenced in the debate) of the "trans-texas corridor," here's a link to the texas dept. of transportation - put up by truther conspiracists. dated, nov 2007, the draft eir is available for download:
http://ttc.keeptexasmoving.com/projects/i69/deis.aspx
of course, in any planning protocol, you have the standard "do nothing" and "upgrade existing" alternatives. it is possible that some stretches of existing facilities could be expanded to the minimum required widths.
bonus round: here's the minimum criteria of what's planned for the "limited access" corridor.
3-high-speed passenger vehicle lanes in each direction
2-truck lanes in each direction
3-railway tracks for commuter, freight, and high-speed passenger in each direction
1- or more (minimum 2- likely) dedicated utility corridors for pipelines of oil, natural gas, electrical, water, data (fiber optic), and other utilities tbd.
that ron paul, what a maroon... and quite the imagination...
.
I still think you're crazy. Your link leads to a forest of links such that I couldn't find the basis for your 4-mile claim, but you could fit everything you describe into 1/2 mile. Highway lanes are about 12 feet wide; rail lines can fit in that or less. Furtermore, there is not the slightest need for a 10 lane highway with commuter rail next to it in the middle of Nebraska, or wherever the alighment is supposed to go eventually, so why would anyone want to build it?
But even if the government plans a major Mexico to Canada transportation corridor of some reasonable width, what the *(^*% does that have to do with destroying the sovereignty of the US? I-5 runs Mexico-to-Canada, and nobody thinks it's going to bring us down. If you're a free trader (and Ron Paul is, or so I'm told), then efficient transportation networks are a plus, not a minus.
.
my response is apparently waiting approval from this site to be printed...
-number9
.
the atlantic is yellow journalism
.
chitchat [at] gmail ]dot] com
.
for response
.
Megan,
You are an embarrassment to both yourself and The Atlantic.
See:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017920.html
"Foreigners are scary,..."
Ron Paul never said anything of the kind. On the contrary, he always advocates trade with foreigners and traveling to foreign countries. I would suggest you actually read something about Ron Paul, not just regurgitate mainstream media slanders.
"Gold Standard ..."
Mr. Paul said several times that he "wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard," because it is impractical today. Again, I would suggest you get some first-hand information.
"An independent central bank is the best guarantor of sound money. That's why we've had relatively low inflation for the last 25 years. Why fix what ain't broken? And how, exactly, is Bernanke a threat to my liberty?"
Best guarantor of sound money? You sound like Woodrow Wilson. Inflation and deflation can occur naturally, but with small variances (that are mostly self-correcting) in a true free market economy. Under a control economy, in our case one controlled by the private bankers of the Federal Reserve, inflation occurs at much greater degrees of variation. The swings up and down are far more pronounced. Inflation is a product of government borrowing, the printing of more fiat money that is injected in to the system bringing the value of other dollars down.
Let me attempt to make it simpler for you so you can see how this central bank system is based on debt. Mind you this is not a very complex issue at all; it is easy to understand if you read a few books and you don't have your head up your ass.. but I'll try to illustrate it with a very simplistic example to show you how it basically works. When the federal government borrows, let's say, $100 billion from this bank, the Federal Reserve prints the money and lends it to the government with interest. The government then spends that "money" and it is circulated in to the economy. Inflation is the result, which is usually accompanied by higher prices. Remember a few things: 1)the Fed has a monopoly on printing money, 2)the money they lend has to be paid back with interest, 3)they only printed and circulated the original amount of the loan. Thus, the interest on the loan was never printed and circulated... so it can NEVER be paid. That's why we have a $6 trillion debt, increasing by some estimates at $1 billion a day. The "money" just doesn't exist.
The US government basically has a "line of credit." Our wealth is gauged by borrowing instead of productivity. Personal income taxes go directly to pay off the debt to the Federal Reserve. It is unapportioned direct taxation, explicitly denied Congress by the Constitution. But, y'know, those rich bankers have to get their interest payments somehow. Why not take it out of middle-class paychecks?
Look, people in this country work more jobs and switch careers more often than ever before. There was a time when a single bread-winner could provide for an entire family and now most people have to work two or more jobs just to provide for themselves! And I'm factoring-in the cost of health care and insurance in addition to the inflation tax when I make that statement. The dollar is worth a fraction of what it was when Wilson passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. The last 30 years has seen unprecedented inflation and the national debt is soaring daily. Our purchasing power is being reduced to spit because inflation is steadily rising. And you say that we have "sound money" because inflation is kept relatively low? That's the fucking point! Rates are kept artificially low. If you know anything about economics you should understand the concept of price control. Even an introductory college course will teach you this. If you mandate either a minimum or maximum price on anything, which the government does regularly, the result will always be a lesser supply. You can apply this to the price control on wages or oil or sugar. The same goes when the Fed controls the price of borrowing essentially.
All this and I haven't even begun to discuss fractional reserve banking yet. Well it's probably not necessary. I doubt most of you will have gotten this far without scratching your heads. There is no wild conspiracy theory about the operation of central banks. It is fact. Wealth is changing hands, friends. Capital is never lost, only transferred. As the middle and lower classes lose more and more money (and have less purchasing power) wealth is being consolidated in to fewer and fewer hands. Wake up and do some damn research. To read the history of the Bank of England, the three central banks of the US, and fractional reserve banking would take two hours at most to comprehend to a great extent.