J-SMITH69

i listened to his speech on the radio while iw as driving this morning and it ws pretty good

si 1

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-4xW35x0f9U i think we should stay strong with ron paul, mccain's running out of money so is huckabee, and since romneys out i always have hope.

J-SMITH69

mathatically ron paul cannot win the nominaton. and practically he... whats worse than can't win? dunno...

juan mckennedy already has it locked down. another liberal in office

TorganFM

All we can hope for is he has a head on his shoulders and picks Paul as his vice pres over nutjobs Romney and Huckabee... then proceeds to die a month into his term.

si 1

Even stephen colbert is showing that no ones listens to ron paul http://youtube.com/watch?v=og4eCQlRxXE

jinxy

My econ prof was explaining how Ron Pauls economic stance doesn't work in practice to me and it makes a lot of sense. He even showed me data and information pertaining to it. The simple run down is, that when you have a gold standard, you don't have a currency that can grow or contract with your real GDP. When the currency stays the same and doesn't keep up with real GDP it chokes the economy out and you end up not producing anywhere near your production potential. He even showed me graphs and evidence pertaining to this on how our GDP was being throttled back out of it's production potential until the federal reserve was created. There were a few slipups, but in the long term banks have no interest in inflating the ---- out of currency, since the federal reserve makes money off banks making money, they don't want to run the currency into the ground because if they do, they're not getting their reserves back. He also showed me a lot of information related to the economy seriously smoothing out and becoming so much more efficent since the fed figured out what it needed to do in 1979 after Carter completely fucked the currency by asking the fed to print so much money to fund an *** load of socialist programs and now the feds primary concern is just to make sure the currency doesn't inflate, rather than worrying about the welfare state/unemployment.

Another interesting thing he showed me is that when congress had the ability to print money, it didn't work efficiently at all, they had no ability to predict or read the market and only printed money when they saw fit, thus ------- the economy royally. I trust my professor a lot on this, since he's worked in very high levels of government, basically at the top as far as economics are concerned.

Inquisition

I'm not an economist in the least, but what Paul and your professor says are both true. You can't just base your dollars on the gold standard because there isn't enough gold in the world but also printing money haphazardly is absolutely retarded. Basically we need to find more gold, silver, platinum, whatever to base our currency on and then we can print more money. Honestly, I wish Paul was more moderate in his views. His all or nothing views kept me from voting for him in the primary. I'll take someone like him but I also want someone who is going to make changes over time to see if their idea is actually working. The problem with Paul, and the reason people called him nuts was the simple fact is he kept saying he wanted to get rid of all these programs yet had no time line. He was willing to keep people on welfare for a while but wanted to get rid of the EPA, FDA, Department of Education, and a number of other huge federal programs in what seemed like the day he walked into office. It's a pretty ridiculous notion. If Huckabee wasn't a religious nut and didn't agree with the war in Iraq, I probably would have backed him. He seemed more reasonable with what he thought the federal government should or should not do.

jinxy

We really don't print money haphazardly. When I get back, if I have time, I'll give you the rundown on how the economy is monitored in order to figure out how much currency needs to be in circulation to match GDP and keep the economy from going to far left or right of the business cycle. It is a pretty amazing amount of number crunching done by 3 alphabet bureaucracies and a few private organizations with no political affiliation just to make sure their numbers match. The goal is a 1%-3% inflation max or the Fed starts pulling reserves. The system really works, there's just been a few recent minor problems that no one thought would happen like the sub-prime loans, and the fact that the war time economy has made oil so expensive, that need to be addressed.

bluerex

rawr, I don't know how jacked you are about reading, but you should check out The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. I have yet to read it, but it supposedly explains how the fed operates and lays out a realistic plan on converting back to a gold standard.

And I don't understand this "there's not enough gold in the world" argument.

jinxy

I am familiar with the events on Jekyll island and how the Federal Reserve was created. I will explain the not enough gold argument as best as I can when I get back home. As for now the short answer is that when you have a gold standard you only have X amount of dollars in circulation and when X amount of dollars only circulate Y amount of times then you only have an XY potential for GDP. This gets worse when there's to many material goods and services for gold to be able to cover the price of over time. It really puts a tight endcap on the economy and stiffles any future development.