What is Digg?19 Comments
- JohnFive, on 03/04/2008, -2/+28The most important, but least understood, price manipulation in the world today: the manipulation of the interest rate. Because interest rate reflects the price of money to a borrower it also affects demand for money. However, this affects prices throughout the economy in a manner less pervasive but just as damaging as direct price controls. The example of the Soviet Union should have taught us that no one person, no group of people, no matter how scientifically trained, can arbitrarily set prices and not expect economic havoc.
I'll be writing in RP in 2008 - gabulldawg79, on 03/04/2008, -2/+19You know when you hear a true patriot speak because the words stir your heart and spirit as much as they touch your mind. Our oppressers are now more powerful than before and more sinister in nature because they drape themselve in the Stars and Stripes to blind and manipulate people, but the seeds of liberty have once again been planted by Dr. Paul and the funny thing about liberty is that it tends to spread like weeds.
- veeew, on 03/05/2008, -2/+17You would have to be an idiot not to vote for Ron Paul. I don't purport him to any god-like status - in fact, it has nothing to do with him (although he is a humble, honest man of integrity, which is so rare to see), but his sound understanding of the way things work, or should work, in this nation and his message of freedom is a message that is worthy of a vote, no matter who the messenger. Not only has his competent understanding been educational but also necessary if we are to defend this nation. No other candidate in this race is a true patriot, a true man (or woman) who understands the Constitution and how it was designed to bolster individual freedom through a government by the people - not ruling the people, controlling the people, thinking for the people, etc. - no, Dr. Paul understands the very foundation upon which we were built, a foundation that has been fought for time and time again when it has come under attack. Today is no different. His message resounds with everyone because it is for everyone. A vote for any other candidate is a vote for tyranny - none other than Dr. Ron Paul would truly defend our liberty and freedom.
- macwac, on 03/05/2008, -0/+3Thank you
- thechr0nic, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3You should never support or non-support a candidate simply based on his/her popularity. You need to grow a spine and vote based on policies.
Look at my profile, I am certainly not a 'ronbot' I support him and I voted for him. I didnt vote for him because he was winning or losing in polls, I voted for him because his policy positions align closer to my own than any other candidate.
Ron Paul himself is NOT important, he is just a person.. what IS important is the message, his message will resonate here, LONG after he is gone. - BuddyDoQ, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2A quick overview of something Ron Paul can/would do would be: Cut military spending drastically. The money saved not occupying other countries with bases and soldiers would be enough to pay off the Social Security crisis (while allowing people to opt out) all by itself, while still providing for the defense of the nation.
Secondly cutting off the federal reserve and allowing congress to re-create a branch for currency issuance would eliminate the need for income tax all by itself. Why tax for money when you can print it yourself? Seems like a conflict of interest powder-keg to have a private bank be the sole issuer of currency for a major nation like the USA. Of course, your currency then has to be backed by something a little more... shall we say, real. - thechr0nic, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2our currency until 1913 was largly gold and silver pieces and until the early 1970's it was backed by gold and silver. The idea is you cannot simply print money to try to fund it, you must actually have the money in the first place.
Politicians today, dont have to worry about trying to balance our out of control spending with our national income.. this is because they can simply get the FED to print more money (out of thin air) and watch the currency devaluate due to inflation.
If we had to pay for a war upfront, we would never go to war unless it was of vital national interest. I cant help but believe that this would be a good thing.
the value of gold has pretty much remained constant since the time of the romans. a lump of gold in rome could get someone a pair of shoes a toga and a belt. that same lump of gold (transfered into whatever the value of our dollar is ~8 or 9 hundred dollars per ounce at present) you can go and buy a pair of shoes, a suit and a belt. (please understand that last sentence was an analogy)
The 'VALUE' of gold stays the same, it is the value of the dollar that keeps going lower because of inflation.
Inflation is an invisible tax on those such as the middle/lower class and people on fixed income such as our elderly.
If our paper money was at the very least backed by something of value (could be gold, diamonds, silver, platnum etc) then it would stop inflation, because we couldn't simply just 'print more money' thus increasing inflation. - TomK88, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2How would the government printing it's own money solve anything? If it's backed by gold, unless you discover more gold, how can you print more money?
- thechr0nic, on 03/05/2008, -2/+2I think the answer to a number of your questions is:
He wants to drastically cut spending and live within our means.. this means cutting a ton of spending that goes overseas for various wars and subsidies paid to foreign governments.
Furthermore, the income tax is not the only form of income the government takes in. If you eliminate the federal income tax today, our national income would roughly the amount we were receiving in the year 2000. Also keep in mind that alot of these services are provided at the state and local levels. If you paid less money to the federal government you would have that money in your pocket, to pay for these services more on your own.
As to competing currencies:
Ron Paul would much prefer a currency based on something of value, much the way it was before the 1970's. The value of the dollar in your pocket is devaluing rapidly due to inflation. For instance, that dollar in your pocket would have been worth twice as much in 1984, and if the trend continues that dollar will be all but worthless. Ron Paul favors hard currency (such as gold, silver, platnum etc etc etc) because it does not devalue in value. If you notice the price of gold is somewhere above 8 or 900 dollars an oz.. the gold isnt valuating, its that the dollar is DE-valuating.
Every civilization that has had a fiat money (money not based on things of value - like our dollar), has had that money fail, dating back to the Romans and all the way up to our own history with the continental dollar of revolutionairy times. This is a good reason why our founding fathers dictated that we use hard-currencies, they saw the failures with fiat money.
You can track the root of monetary inflation to the federal reserve (which didnt even exist until 1913 - how did we make it 200 years without it???)
If you read the constitution, you will find a part that says "( Article I, section 8, clause 5 ), Congress has the exclusive power to coin money of the United States and to regulate its value. By statute ( 31 U.S.C. § 5112(a) ), Congress specifies the coins that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to mint and issue and requires the Secretary to carry out these duties at the United States Mint (31 U.S.C. § 5131). Accordingly, the United States Mint is the only entity in the United States with the lawful authority to mint and issue legal tender United States coins."
The Federal Reserve, is a group/cartel/conglomerate of 'PRIVATE' banks from all over the world - they are not a governmental institution of the US.
Therefore, the federal reserve is unconstitutional, especially since they print money and then sell that money to the US goverment with a rate of interest. The US government is supposed to be minting its own 'coins', as is dictated by the constitution
I hope this answers some of your questions, I realize this response is a bit long.. please let me know if I can answer any of your other questions, or direct you to where the answer is. - JohnFive, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1Gold is not valuating, its 'value' has remained constant. It might seem to be valuating because, as you said, most countries uses fiat currency and their value is declining .
However with fiat currencies and the setting of their interest rates (price control) introduces the business cycle into the economy. And until we understand the results these actions have (and we cannot know because Federal Reserve operates behind closed doors), we will be doomed to repeat these periods of boom and bust - hardly transparent and stable. - TomK88, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1So do you believe the Dow Jones goes up in value? Or is it just "fiat currency declining"? You don't even know what you're talking about.
- EdwardWK, on 03/06/2008, -1/+1TomK88 read and learn http://www.the-moneychanger.com/articles_files/mmm ...
- JohnFive, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1LOL. spending power increase comes from innovations in bringing the price of a particular good down.
- TomK88, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1I understand that Ron Paul wants to cut spending. However, he is not NEARLY specific enough about where those cuts will take place. Without a list of exactly what funding and programs he's going to cut, how am I supposed to make an educated decision on whether to vote for him or not?
Also, there are certain services that cannot be "paid for on your own". There a lot of the services (like the military) that will only work if the government operates them.
As for fiat currency, keep in mind that every country in the world (that I know of) uses a fiat currency. How does it work everywhere else but not in the USA? Also, how specifically would a gold-backed currency work? I can't figure out the details of it, a link to an article explaining it would be beneficial.
Gold IS valuating. Gold is no different than oil, silver, or any stock for that matter. Gold valuating is no different than the NASDAQ going up. Gold is up whether you're looking at in USD, CDN, or Euros. Commodities are no different than stocks. Buying a commodity gives you that commodity, buying stock gives you a piece of that company.
Inflation is a necessity in any economy. The important thing is targeting it, as Canada and several European countries do. What is wrong with that system? It's predictable, transparent, and stable. - TomK88, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1You clearly don't understand what you are talking about.
Gold HAS gone up in value. As long as it's value increases at a rate higher than inflation, it is increasing in value. Gold has tripled in value (versus the USD) since 2001. Are you trying to tell me that the USD is worth 1/3rd of what it was worth in 2001? How much does a jug of milk cost now compared to 2001? Is it a 3x difference?
How can the government introduce additional money into the money supply if it's backed by gold? Currency that is backed by gold is simply a certificate saying "If you bring this certificate to the bank, we'll give you X amount of gold". So unless the government has more gold to give out, they can't create any more money. - TomK88, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1So basically you're staying that the spending power of the world has never gone up? LOL
Talk to me when you have even an elementary understanding of economics. - JohnFive, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1I do sir. And since you do not live in this country I would be careful spotting off like YOU know what your talking about.
If you were to price oil in gold, its price has not changed since we went into Iraq.
The inflation we are worried about comes from the uneven change in the volume of money, say, when it is printed and given to a defense contractor. For the moment the contractor's suppliers do not realize the money volume has changed, the recipient of the printed money experiences increased purchasing power. The workers end up receiving the wage in old money, but then are faced with prices in the new money after the vendors adjust to the new money supply. And every time the Fed injects more money into the system, which causes more spending, then you will have more money chasing the same number of goods which causes inflation.
Thomas Jefferson was concise in his early warning to the American nation, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
So lets see here:
inflation - check
MILLIONS of people lost their homes - check
deflation - almost there, - TomK88, on 03/05/2008, -6/+5I'm not sold on this. How would abolishing the income tax help America? How would America pay the massive amounts of money necessary for essential government services, even if they cut down on some services? Can somebody tell me exactly what programs and spending Ron Paul wants to cut to eliminate the deficit while not collecting income tax?
What will a competing currency accomplish? Is this used anywhere else in the entire world? I can't see how this will deal with the monetary policy issues that America has, but if somebody could explain it to me I would very much appreciate it. I believe the answer is adopting an inflation targeting monetary policy which has been a great success in many countries. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_targeting - KenSPT, on 03/05/2008, -8/+1Oh Dear God ... he's not going to win, and supporting him is a waste of time and money ... I cannot wait until I no longer have to hear from the Ronbots on Digg ...
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is