What is Digg?70 Comments
- geoboy, on 11/10/2007, -12/+57Ron Paul is clearly the smartest man running for president. It's too bad most Americans hate smart people.
- rhinopig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8pLpI5rzKI The clip in context. Shows the questions Paul ask before and after this one as well as Bernanke's full answer (which is a conditional or qualitative yes, not absolute agreement.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVCStbbIvDg Ron Pauls opening remarks. (Happened before the first link but is less relevant to the digg video). - pdeco, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16While I agree there are a plethora of Ron Paul submissions to digg, how do you expect a grass roots candidate to win if you are an ***** to anybody who expresses interest in the candidate?
- nreynolds, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15did you just publicize your email address to all of digg?
- CannedMango, on 11/10/2007, -0/+12I have to agree with you geoboy, it seems that everyone wants to think that they themselves are intelligent, and the only way to keep up the charade is to vote for someone at the same (or slightly lower) intelligence level.
- Clark3934, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9He asked for information about Ron Paul. On Digg.
"Might get emailed" is quite the understatement. - clarionhaze, on 11/02/2007, -5/+14So whats this ron paul guy all about? Anyone who can really tell me and really feels as though they should can email me at stevenpalafox@gmail.com
- jester55, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8i wish i could make money appear out of thin air :(
- bigsurjune, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Can you imagine Edwards, Clinton or Guiliani up there doing the same? Guilani didn't even know what "blowback" was, and Edwards get $1000 haircuts! Ron Paul is the most intelligent and logical person running but the majority of the sheeple of America will vote for the person that says, "We will bomb the world to hell and back if they try to take our freedom!!!"
- bigsurjune, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7 PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Chairman Bernanke.
I share the concern for the inequality that has developed in our country. I think it's very real. I think it's a source of great resentment. And, unfortunately, I think it's one of those things that puts a lot of pressure on the Congress to increase the amount of government programs and government spending, which I do not think is the answer.
I believe the inequality comes specifically from the type of currency we have. When there is a deliberate debasement of a currency, it is predictable that the middle class is injured, the poor are hurt, and there's a transfer of wealth to the wealthy. And until we understand that, I do not believe we can solve this problem. And if we resort to continued monetary inflation and more government programs, we will only make this inequality worse.
This is exactly opposite of what happens when you have a sound currency and free markets, because it is the sound currency and free markets which creates the middle class and creates prosperity and allows the best distribution of this wealth. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. It comes from the Federal Reserve system. The Federal Reserve has tremendous pressure put on them because almost everybody wants low interest rates, except if you happen to be a saver. Then you might not like artificially low interest rates. But, of course, that contributes to the lack of savings, which is another problem that we have in this country.
We concentrate on inflation by implying -- and everybody casually accepts that inflation is a price problem. But the prices that go up is one of the consequences of inflation. Inflation causes a malinvestment. It causes excessive debt. And it causes financial bubbles that we have to deal with.
But we have a lot of information today available to us to show that there's a lot of monetary inflation going on. For instance, if you look at MZM, it's growing at almost a 9 percent rate. M3, no longer available to us from the official sources, but private sources tell us it's growing at a 13 percent rate.
Of course we can reassure ourselves and say the CPI is growing at a 2.6 percent rate. But if you go back to the old method of calculating the CPI, closer to what the average person is suffering and one of the reasons why there's an inequality going on, is it's growing at over a 10 percent rate.
The fact that the dollar is weak on the international exchange markets cannot be ignored.
For instance, just in six months, the Canadian dollar increased 11 percent against our dollar. This should stir up some concern.
One concern that I have that I think is causing more problems and keeps us from coming to a solution is the divorce between the exchange value of the dollar on the international exchange markets and the effort to lower the value of the dollar in order to increase exports, which can only be done through inflation, at the same time believing that we can have stability of prices at home, because that is a disconnect that is not possible.
If we strive for a lower dollar in the exchange markets, we will have price increases here at home, at we have to deal with it.
And I yield back.
PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I find it rather ironic that the Federal Reserve has complete control of the money supply, and yet it's the Treasury that's supposed to protect the value of the dollar. It seems like you have a little bit of responsibility for the value of the dollar as well.
I have a question about the GDP in the first quarter. Our GDP didn't do so well, with less than 1 percent. Our population growth averages about 1.5 percent. So if we have total wealth divided, you know, by the population, we actually have negative growth.
Could this not be a part of the explanation on why some people feel inequality, that they're not doing as well in the economy? Wouldn't this explain some of the concerns that we have?
BERNANKE: Well, Congressman, that was, of course, a single quarter. And there were a number of temporary factors that held down GDP growth in the first quarter, including the liquidation of the inventory overhang, which I mentioned before, a swing in our trade balance, a temporary swing and a temporary decline in federal defense spending. All of those things have been reversing now. And so I think we'll be seeing in the second quarter something closer to 3 percent growth. Between the two, the first half of the year, overall it would be a more healthy rate of growth. PAUL: We have a savings rate which is negative. And if we had true capitalism, this would be very, very serious. Because we'd have no savings and no capital to invest. Today with our monetary system, we resort to other means. We can create credit and money out of thin air, and it acts as capital by stealing value from the existing currency. And we've been doing that for a long time. So the process can continue, but it -- and it literally is the inflation.
Also, we can resort to borrowing overseas. And we are permitted because we have the reserve currency of the world to export our inflation.
PAUL: And that seems to be a free ride for us, as well.
But how long can we fool the world? How long can we continue with a current account deficit of 6 percent if we're not -- if our productive jobs are going overseas and like the gentleman mentioned earlier about these -- more jobs going overseas, eventually this is going to catch up with us.
Is it conceivable that we could live on capital formation, by creation of money and credit out of thin air? If that's the case, we wouldn't ever have to go to work again, if that's true.
It seems like we really have to go to work. We really have to save. And we really have to invest. And we really have to get these jobs back.
But I see so many of our problems as a consequence of a monetary system that discourages savings, encourages a free ride for us because there is still a lot of trust for the dollar, although that trust is going down every day.
And I think we have to face up to the consequences of what this might mean to us.
BERNANKE: Well, first, our national saving includes corporate savings as well as household savings. You put those together, and you get a positive number, so there is some net saving going on in the United States.
But, Congressman, you're absolutely right that we're also relying pretty heavily on borrowing from abroad, which is our current account deficit. I think that's sustainable for a while, because foreigners seem quite interested in acquiring U.S. assets. We have very deep and liquid financial markets.
However, I also agree with you that that's not a long-term, sustainable situation by any means and we need to be working to try to bring that current account deficit down over time.
And in answer to a previous question, I talked a bit about the importance of structural change, increasing savings here in the United States, increasing attention to domestic demand with our trading partners.
PAUL: You did say in your talk that the predominant policy concern was inflation, which is encouraging that there is a concern. Of course, once again, inflation is a monetary phenomenon and we have to deal with it. War sometimes is not healthy for a currency or for keeping prices down, at least inflation.
It's hard to find throughout all of history when war didn't create price inflation. Because even in ancient times, countries resorted to clipping coins and diluting values or whatever. They inflated the currency because people generally don't like to pay for the war.
And yet, in the '70s, we had consequences of guns and butter. Now we're having guns and butter again, and we're having consequences. And it just looks like we may well come to a '79-'80. Do you anticipate that there's a possibility that we'll face a crisis of the dollar, such as we had in '79 and 1980?
BERNANKE: The Federal Reserve is committed to maintaining low and stable inflation, and I'm very confident we'll be able to do that.
PAUL: You're not answering whether or not you anticipate the problem.
BERNANKE: I'm not anticipating a problem like '79-80. No.
PAUL: With your fingers crossed, I guess.
OK. Thank you. - trp642, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Isn't that how a democracy works?
- rhinopig, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10A) He's a 'true' republican and/or libertarian who is against almost all of government except the 3 core branches in the constitution (on a federal level, as far as I know he supports states rights to decided how to organize themselves and decided anything not explicit in the constitution. He's also called himself a 'constitutionalist'). That means he's a conservative that supports withdrawal from Iraq and is permissive of states rights to allow gay marriage and determine they're own drug policies (such as the use of medical marijuana). However to balance that out he has been accused of mild racism, and I believe is for building a wall on the Mexican border (or maybe just stricter immigration laws and enforcement). The immigration issue I see as the biggest (or only) inconsistency in his message, as a liberal immigration policy has always been what made America great, and is a result of labor demands as well as the artificially imposed minimum wage. Additionally he is a medical doctor, and is opposed to universal health care, which might be somewhat unpopular among liberals (but again, atleast he's consistent for the most part.)
B) Probably not a good idea to post your email address on a public forum. Google index's these pages so spam spiders can find it. - sbharnish, on 11/10/2007, -0/+6could be that he just publicized his liberal/non-libertarian friend's address
- Vlatro, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I understand your point, but this is not a democracy, never has been and hopefully never will be. Every attempt at "True Democracy" has historically lead to severe socialism and economic disaster.
The U.S. is a republic. We elect leaders to make the decisions for us. The downfall of it is the assumption that those elected officials understand the issues, read the bills, think about the consequences in the short and long term and then vote in the best interest of their community rather than serving their own agenda. Both parties have failed miserably at that.
In a Democracy, every person has an equal vote. Majority rule. However since the majority of us can't agree on anything, nothing would happen (at least not without pissing off 49.9% of the population). Traditionally, that splits the population into many smaller political groups with a specific agenda. Since the groups are small and focused, they tend to ally and unionize with one another to gain momentum and political power, ultimately leading to a frail and impotent single-party system. - Freonce, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Good for you for taking the initiative.
- shirosamurai, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Both of you failed. Spam bots crawl all over the place looking for e-mail addresses. Just posting your address on ONE page can get your inbox nailed with spam. And since Google caches all of digg's submissions (including the comments).. this guy will likely be seeing more e-mails than he bargained for.
- bigsurjune, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Woo there pal! Don't be so quick to judge only Americans. I judge them because I AM American but foreign countries have their sheeple too. Look at the UK and Europe. Europe right now is creeping back towards socialism each day with the help of the UK. Tony Blair has the UK under Orwellian type surveillance, and Gordon Brown is following right along. Soon you won't be able to take a crap in private in the UK--everyone is considered a terrorist in Britain. Don't even get me started on other parts of the world....
- barbobot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I support Ron Paul, but please learn some proper internet etiquette. It's very rude to paste all of that.
- justinjus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4ron paul is for letting the states decide this issue at the local level--not the federal
- Protonz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+49/11 was bad
- manmademark, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Ron Paul is not going to win the presidential election and this makes me more sad than I can express with a keyboard :(
- acudoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It would be so refreshing to have a president who actually understands economics and the mechanics of the current centralized banking cartel, and who, like Thomas Jefferson, understands how a central bank not constrained by a gold standard and operating via a fractional reserve banking scheme that creates money solely by indebting the citizenry, ultimately results in the indentured servitude of the population . Ron Paul, you're my man!
- Protonz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4In a nutshell: Decrease size & power of government, increase personal liberty.
- bigsurjune, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Well, he's no champion for white straight males between the ages of 18 and 38 but that doesn't stop me from wanting him to be in office. His idea is "freedom for all... mind your own business and I'll mind mine!" Get it? If you want special treatment and to be babysitted by the government than move to Europe--I heard they're headed back towards socialism over there.
- Pureeviljester, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5So can you blame people from foreign countries when they say Americans are dumb?
Thinking Bush is a war criminal and BSer has come so naturally now, it blows my mind when people defend him(online or in person).
"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!" - BelXul, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The majority of the founding fathers were not Christian. Most were deist, and on another hand, most were also masons (bot not all were both). Open some history books and check your story.
- Pureeviljester, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3you can tell from the very end he meant to say yes we are, but i agree it's not gonna last long cause the currency will fix itself. or something like that.
deductive reasoning scores again! - dbhaley, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4He is for immigration, as long as we get rid of the welfare system that the illegal immigrants feed off of. He has said that once welfare is gone he would gladly welcome as many people that want to come. Illegal immigrants are an unnecessary tax burden. Period. But you were right about the min wage. It is an abomination.
- BelXul, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I support Ron Paul, yet I feel the same. I will continue to support Ron Paul just in case I am wrong, but I believe that we really are not given the choice on who wits in the White Hose, nor have we truly had that decision granted since the 1930s. If what I believe is correct, the next President will be Hillary Clinton, even if 2/3 or more of the people vote against her. Most people are shocked to learn of the family connections she married into. William Clinton Blythe (Later William Jefferson Clinton) was born to a woman named Virginia Kelley, who was an illigitimate daughter of Winthrop Rockefeller. For someone who is supposed to have been just a regular trailer park joe, William certainly had a some interesting opportunities never granted to the average (not related to the Rockefeller family) person. He had received a Rhodes Scholarship, to which he attended Oxford University in the UK, and was granted $50,000 a year in spending cash while attending the University. Let us fast forward. They've been in the White House once already, and by her running for the presidency, that's just like voting for Bill a third time. Think about alll the Rockefellers have done for America. Think about how the German Luftwaffe would have been unable to operate without Standard Oil, which contained a proprietary additive without which the plane engines would not have run. Think about what else the Rockefeller family have done for America. Think about how Nick Rockefeller had spoken about their agenda to put a microchip into every human being on the planet and set up a new economy that would run exclusively on those chips, and if anyone dissents, the chip would simply be shut off. If you want to be (in the words of former Gov. Roy Romer of CO) "chattle for us to do with as we please" then by all means, ignore me or digg me down, tell yourself everything will be fine, and by all means, don't do anything to change the course we're all headed on. Your owners will look kindly upon you for your inaction.
For the record, I want to be wrong on this. - rhinopig, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Somehow I read that as 'Ron Paul eaten by babies."
That would have been much more interesting. - rhinopig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Actually I think that'd be a from of inductive reasoning. or something. But yeah, it was kinda obvious he wasn't in total agreement.
- Livinginx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3***This is actually a reply to the post above this guys.*** I blame the long crappy day at work!
Ron Paul is the man who wants to bring the Constitution back into U.S. politics and save us. One of the beliefs he has is that for a country to function at its best level, there needs to be minimal government interference in the lives of its citizens.
And he wants to do away with drug control, so it's a plus :-) - TsuruchiBrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I love PBS. I have an HDTV and I only watch free TV. PBS often times is the only thing worth watching. That said, I am totally against tax money going to a television station. I am pissed at Bush for a lot of things, but this isn't one of them. PBS should be supported by donors. If it can't raise enough money without taking it from people that don't want to donate, then it doesn't deserve to be on the air.
- sullyz0r, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8Oh no, he might get emailed! Horror.
- allenu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2How about you write a poem then?
- bigsurjune, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3tnoy: I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says, nor does anyone else, but what other choices do we have?
Let's see, vote for the person with a few flaws or vote for the person with a majority of flaws... hmmmm... tough choice?
I personally believe that education under Ron Paul's freemarket plans might get hurt but I also understand we in America HAVE A CONGRESS AND A SENATE! Not all of what Ron Paul stands for would even be considered but at least we would have a man in the oval office that has morals, integrity, principles, and a grasp on the real problems facing America.
The rest of the candidates are not from planet Earth and you know deep inside that this is true. Where then is the choice??????? - anaesthetica, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Start a bank. Voila.
- inactive, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1absolutely silly...I am a atheist for Ron Paul...if more Christians were like Ron Paul then I might never have left the church. Without federalized education the government would be unable to indoctrinate any state religion. The federal education system is the single most dangerous weapon in the hands of any potential theocratic dictator. Ron Paul seeks to end federalized education.
Traditional fundamentalist are scary and wierd and ignorant....I agree with that, but the scariest religon I am seeing today is the one that tells us we need to worship the state. - dbhaley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Very concisely put political theory. Well done, sir.
- trp642, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I know what your saying, I'm on your side. I was merely pointing out the general way Digg runs the site, not the way the government is supposed to be run. I don't mind the info though. Keep up the good work!
- inactive, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't say that Americans HATE intelligent people at all, merely that politically intelligent debate makes many people uncomfortable, basically because of the bombardment of FOX/CNN/CBS/NBC network type conditioning that pervades most unconnected Americans media experience. The nature of Man is inherently curious, and I'd posit inherently Good also, but we don't see these qualities brought out or stimulated very often. Instead, we see the collective inquisitive mind stifled by black vs. white dialectical debate, good guy/bad guy, us vs. them type messages, in great measure. I'm very grateful that you and I can become conversant with each others better inherent nature through mediums such as Digg.
Let's encourage more people to connect with each other in socially responsible ways, and not simply accept what they have been conditioned to hear, but that we've collectively associated with being true, based on our personal experience and all the available evidence. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is enormously significant, Sir, because "spending too much and not creating enough value at home" is EXACTLY what the Fed is doing. In fact, your personal worth is devalued each and every day from the inside out by the agency that issues your money. Get educated please, we don't want you to be silly, we want you to be wealthy with us! All of US!
- mlock2k, on 11/10/2007, -5/+6Ronpaul2008.com
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just an F.Y.I., but the last time I watched a program on PBS, they ran an SUV commercial at the end of the program, along with a few other Corporate COMMERCIALS. Do you even watch PBS? I stopped watching because their programming has gone absolutely sour. It's for the kids? Do you remember Barney? That show is singlehandedly responsible for decreasing my baby sisters IQ by at least 10 points... Fred Rogers might have had great intentions, but this generations PBS just isn't worth the taxes.
Remember Reading Rainbow? It was my mothers favorite excuse for not sitting her lazy ass down and reading books with me herself. ***** PBS. Totally unnecessary. Just an excuse for parents to do something "educational" for their kids....what a farce. - bigsurjune, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Well, he did have Bernanke sweating. He certainly didn't look comfortable answering the questions. Watch the other videos that show the whole interview. In the very beginning Bernanake shrugs off and chuckles a bit at one of the other gentleman's questions about the bond market--I'm sure it was a silly question because most of the bureaucrats don't understand what the Fed does much less economics--but when Dr.Paul starts to speak the Bernanke's mood changes. NOT SO FUNNY WHEN YOU GET CALLED OUT BY SOMEONE WHO STUDIES THE MARKETS AND ECONOMICS!!! LOL!!!!
- obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thanks for posting the whole exchange. Our monetary policy is becoming more like a shell game each day. This is refreshing stuff, and very worthwhile.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would argue that coming from any other congressman, it would be just another question. But this particular congressman just introduced a bill into the legislature to eliminate the Federal Reserve. Maybe you should find out why? I think it would absolutely be in your best interest to do so. You might learn why this submitter and the fellow diggers digging this story found it important. Thanks for your comment, dugg up for education.
"The Money Masters" is freely available on Google Video. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Edited for brevity, Sir. Edited to get to the point. Calm yourself.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dignified citizen, what you absolutely must realize, is how poignant it is, that the Chairman assents to these topics, while wholly working AGAINST the solution, being head of the agency that exists to do NOTHING ELSE than to FACILITATE the deficit. Period. You see, the Fed LOANS our own government money, AT INTEREST. Do you have any notion at all of what this logically means?
Simply put, wise Sir, is that our government would have to borrow more money, AT INTEREST, to PAY THE INTEREST ON THE MONEY THEY JUST BORROWED. That is of course, the money you and I buy our underwear and soda pop with, and it costs our government more to "create" that money, than the very value of the dollar itself!
Did you fall out of your chair laughing? Or induce vomiting out of disgust and disbelief? This is the reality. Learn and grow, solve something for our benefit. Watch "The Money Masters" on Google Video. Don't be of small mind. Free your Life. Ron Paul. - obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have the same feeling about Hillary. This week some guy at the Pentagon criticized Hillary over the war. Not really all that newsworthy, but the story wouldn't go away. All week I kept hearing the same talking point about this. A talking head reporter asks an opinion guest what this does for Hillary, and the opinion guest says that it makes her a stronger candidate because it strengthens her position against the war. It was like all the channels were reading from the same script. Hillary can't seem to stir up any bad press these days, and it's all strangely homogeneous. They are positioning her with popular sentiment against the war. If the corporate press is treating her this way it means she's the candidate of the elite. If she gets elected, nothing will change. Like you, I hope I am wrong.
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is