Jason Steck Mr. Bradford, it just occurred to me that you yourself presented the piece of evidence that definitively disproves your claim about competing currencies.   The strength of the Euro shows how it was more efficient than the multiple competing currencies that preceded its adoption in Europe.  The problem of transaction costs is the reason -- it is always more efficient for a single economy to have a single currency. If your argument were true, then Europe would be economically WEAKER after adopting the Euro than before it.  The fact that the opposite is true disproves your causal argument even in the absence of you actually articulating one.  :)

Jason Steck

Dr Paul did not get us in the economic mess we are in, but yet he is attacked by proposing a solution

No, he is attacked for proposing a solution that is EVEN WORSE than "the economic mess we are in". Big difference.

J Bradford Mr Steck, I don't have to prove anything to you.  You were the one on here that blasted Dr Paul's theories, without providing any sort of alternatives whatsoever.  If your belief is that we should remain on the current course because something else is "too risky" then that is your right.  I'm not on here trying to change your opinion, I could really care less what you think, but I get tired of seeing people blasting Dr Paul's economic stance when they offer no solution to our problems themselves.  And yes, we do have major problems.  If we do not make a change we will most certainly face economic ruin.  It's inevitable.  Keep your head in the sand if you want, but it will happen.  You say his plan is "too risky" - there are numerous findings that it is not, and in fact many, many economists believe soundly in that theory.  Just because you do not believe it does not mean that it will not work.  Is it perfect?  No, but no other solution is.  Actually, I'm still waiting to hear another solution.  Continuing on our current trend is for me "too risky."  We should agree to disagree on our economic beliefs - neither of us is going to change the other's mind.  For every example you give stating your case, I can give one to oppose it, and vice versa.  It's the way the world works - there are no absolutes.  But my whole point in even commenting on your thread in the first place was the way you attack Dr Paul's supporters with the childish nature of your rant.  It would serve everyone better, and make your points hold their validity, if you would keep the conversation at a mature level. 

J Bradford You wrote: "No, he is attacked for proposing a BAD solution.  Big difference." You're entitled to your opinion.  But just because that is your opinion doesn't make it so.

Jason Steck

If your belief is that we should remain on the current course because something else is "too risky" then that is your right.

My argument is not that "something else" is too risky, but that Paul's drastic and completely untested proposals SPECIFICALLY are too risky. Big difference. And your continuing refusal to even attempt to explain how Paul's proposals would actually solve any specific problems shows me that you're not as expertly engaged with the issues as you represented to us above. Paul's supporters have the burden to prove that his proposals will not be EVEN WORSE than the status quo already is.  Until they are willing to do that, they will continue to fail to be anything more than a cult of personality with a thyroid problem.

Robert E. The rhetoric of "keeping the promise" requires a policy of massive tax increases to pay the bills already incurred for BOTH the people who rely on Social Security AND those who are wealthy enough not to need it Not true, if the world empire is dismantled rapidly and the many other unconstitional federal expenditures on such idiotic undertakings as the war-on-drugs, the Departments of Education, Energy and Agriculture, to name a few, are drastically scaled back or discontinued alltogether as Dr. Paul proposes.

J Bradford Mr Steck, I have been an economist for 30 years, I'm not here to spell out the validity of Dr Paul's economic views. I've been trying to get you to give me your viewpoints and your proposed ideas since you were the one who initially blasted his economic theory.  Why do I have to prove his stance to you?  Go research them yourself if you want to understand them.  I was merely suggesting that you not act like a child and stop talking down to his supporters.  It makes you look mad and foolish.  I will say this for the last time, you are so quick to judge others for their ideas, but you STILL have not given any of your own.  Keep the status quo, right?  It's easy to criticize someone and then sit back and offer nothing of your own.  Good job.

Jason Steck Mr. Bradford, I dropped the "Paulista" reference several comments ago after your request, even though I think reciprocal courtesy rarely if ever comes from the pro-Paul side. In light of that, your continuing "like a child" references and other condescending remarks such as questioning my mental stability are out of line. If they continue (you have continued them now THREE TIMES since AFTER I dropped the "Paulista" reference at your request), then you will not be welcome to continue to comment. As for presenting my own ideas, I am unable to do so in a vacuum. Specifically, I don't know what the problem is that I am supposedly trying to come up with an idea to solve. The dramatic proposal to ditch the U.S. dollar and undertake a massive global re-valuation of all dollar-denominated assets would seem likely to have been prompted by some specifically-identified massive problem. However, apart from a vague claim that the Federal Reserve is "unconstitutional" that you presented without any explanation, evidence, or weighting, I don't even know which problem in the status quo we are supposed to be addressing here. Furthermore, I can't see the point in presenting ideas of my own unless I know you are able and willing to explain how Ron Paul's proposal actually solves the problem. In order to compare whatever alternatives I might prefer to Paul's, we would not only need a clearer identification from the pro-Paul side about what the problem supposedly is, but we would also need some idea of how Paul's ideas CLAIM to work at all. Are you able or willing to do that or is your purpose only to claim that anyone who criticizes Paul is out of line? As shown by the experience of the Euro, the intuitive view is that a single currency is more efficient than multiple competing currencies. Further, as I explained, the reason for this is likely to be the transaction cost. Instead of answering these SUBSTANTIVE POINTS, however, you have continued only to deny all obligation to make ANY argument on your part and your pattern of personally attacking me. Paul's supporters often claim that the reason that their favorite candidate fails to receive coverage as a serious candidate is because of a vast conspiracy against him. Because of how this and previous discussions have developed, I think there is a much superior alternative explanation: Ron Paul's candidacy fails to receive serious coverage because most of its supporters are unwilling to actually step up and present serious arguments. As long as there is nothing more than shifting the burden to demand that anyone who questions them justify themselves, most people in the media AND the electorate will conclude that it is not worth the trouble to argue with people who are not operating in good faith. Simply characterizing ALL disagreement as a "childish" "rant" is not evidence of good faith on your part. And neither is your continuing refusal to actually USE your 30 years of experience to EXPLAIN HOW PAUL'S PLAN WOULD WORK instead of simply assuming it.

Jason Steck

Not true, if the world empire is dismantled rapidly and the many other unconstitional federal expenditures on such idiotic undertakings as the war-on-drugs, the Departments of Education, Energy and Agriculture, to name a few, are drastically scaled back or discontinued alltogether as Dr. Paul proposes.

As I said previously, the claim that other policy changes would provide enough revenue to eliminate a $500 billion annual deficit AND to pay for a multi-trillion-dollar Social Security and Medicare liability has not been heretofore supported with ANY evidence from the pro-Paul side. It has only been asserted. In point of fact, the combined cost of the departments you would eliminate would only provide a fraction of the necessary funds to deal with the looming entitlements crisis. How about you people DROP the sweeping, vague generalities and shoddy opinionated labels like "unconstitutional" and SHOW US YOUR NUMBERS. I would also argue that the pro-Paul side dramatically underestimates (or outright ignores) the very serious potential costs from a hasty and dramatic disengagement with what you pejoratively label the "world empire". If you hope to produce a better fiscal balance sheet, you're going to have to do a lot better than just repeating the talking points. You're going to have to actually get into the specifics of HOW Paul's plans would supposedly work. Or, as I told Mr. Bradford, your movement can continue to be a "cult of the margins" that is flashy but ultimately irrelevant.

A Balint Ron Paul only suggested making gold and silver legal tender.   When fiat money goes up in value, gold goes down.  When fiat money goes down in value, gold goes up.  Add the two together and you get a flat line (more or less).  This is what is called a stable monetary policy.  It is so simple that most complicated people just don't want to get it. @ Jason Steck"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result" - with regards to politics. @ J Bradford"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result" - when arguing with some people :)

Jason Steck

Ron Paul only suggested making gold and silver legal tender. When fiat money goes up in value, gold goes down. When fiat money goes down in value, gold goes up. Add the two together and you get a flat line (more or less). This is what is called a stable monetary policy. It is so simple that most complicated people just don’t want to get it.

Here is the problem: There is not enough gold and silver in existence to replace or underwrite all of the "fiat money" (yet another highly misleading and pejorative term) and other assets in the current U.S. economy. That means that the only way to convert to gold and/or silver would be to massively deflate the U.S. economy, requiring a lengthy and global economic depression and all its accompanying ills (starvation, unemployment, etc). See, this is yet another one of those nice-sounding Ron Paul plans that results in absolute disaster once it meets the real world. It would be nice if Ron Paul's supporters would deal with the SUBSTANCE of the practical concerns expressed by dissenters instead of just repeating the same empty slogans, cliches, and personal insults. Their frequent refusal to do so may be why they have been banned from so many web sites. At least, that explanation makes more sense than the conspiracy theory explanation.

Chris Jason,Instead of spending our time gnashing our teeth over social security, we should look at how to contain medical costs.Check out this crazy graph from the Congressional Budget Office:http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8877/homepagegraphic.gif

Chris Isn't "fiat money" a standard economics term? What else would you prefer we call it? FYI, the U.S. government didn't end the convertibility of dollars to gold until the Nixon administration.

A Balint @Jason:111Do you work for Associated Press?Ron Paul suggests that gold and silver COMPETE with the current fiat currency, they do NOT replace it.  Your argument that there is not enough gold or silver is irrelevant - hence the rest of your attack is irrelevant.As for most of your comments, you are just simply attacking the Ron Paul camp without substance, and in some cases with complete lies."...politicians NEVER attack an opponent they think is far behind" - Ron Paul December 3rd 2007

Jason Steck 1.  Attacking the motives of everyone who disagrees or asks challenging questions doesn't win you any friends and makes you look conspiratorial and paranoid. 2.  I disagree with people who aren't winning the argument all the time.  The fact that people disagree with you is not proof of your winning.  Actually, you know, winning would be the only thing that would prove that. 3.  How can gold/silver "compete" with so-called "fiat money"?  Wouldn't Paul's plan put the U.S. back on the "gold standard" thus requiring acquisition of enough gold/silver to underwrite the entire economy?  Unfortunately, as in almost all other areas, Ron Paul's web site has none of these details, no explanations, and just empty platitudes.

Jason Steck Yes, Chris, the gold standard become unsustainable in 1971 and the U.S. left the standard because it was unable to maintain enough gold to underwrite the entire economy. Since then, the economy has grown by at least another order or magnitude making the gold standard that was impossible in 1971 even more impossible now UNLESS we deflated the economy to pre-1971 levels (requiring a massive depression including all of its side effects). Still waiting for one of the Paul supporters to answer the SUBSTANTIVE question of how to find and acquire enough gold/silver to underwrite the entire U.S. economy without requiring a massive depression. The last two efforts only (1) neglected to note that the economy has grown quite a bit since 1971 and (2) attacked me personally. Poor show. Try again. Or not.

Jason Steck

Jason,Instead of spending our time gnashing our teeth over social security, we should look at how to contain medical costs.Check out this crazy graph from the Congressional Budget

Both Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable.  To my knowledge, Ron Paul has not proposed any specific plan to reduce the IMMEDIATE load.  Paul's plan to enact private retirement accounts would only reduce the load 20 or 30 years down the road and would do nothing to reduce the load caused by baby-boomer retirements.  Thus, it is not any better of a "solution" than presented by anyone else. And I can get that kind of non-responsiveness to the issue that is at least attached to more sane positions on other issues from ANY of the other candidates.  That puts Ron Paul in third-to-last place on the "reasonable positions on important issues scale", ahead of only Kucinich and Gravel.

Enlightened One Dear Jason Steck, a few points, 1.  Why do you assume that a mountain of gold is necessary to institute some form of Gold Standard.  Bankers are very good with fractions as you may well know.  One could employ a Gold Standard with literally amount of the precious metal. 2.  Dr. Paul has stated before that we would gradually move back to a Gold Standard.  First you introduce competing currencies, (I know this is foreign to you "Federal" Reserve fans) that will have inherent value and consequently retain it. 3.  If the Media wasn't braindead and asked serious, legitimate questions about Dr. Paul's campaign, he would have plenty of time to explain one of the tenants of his platform, SOUND MONEY!  I'm not sure those words have been uttered by any of the numerous commentators, interviewers, and moderators that have interacted with Dr. Paul over that last year.  Quite frankly, it's ridiculous. 4.  You admit yourself that we're headed for financial ruin with the current system we have, so why in sweet hell should we stick with it.  It's absurd to think the "Federal" Reserve will eventually completely change it's inflationary policies to save this Country from disaster.

A Balint @Jason:115 point 3.  youtube(dot)com/watch?v=abV9tgbG-bA Please watch to the very end for a full response in his own words.

Jason Steck

You admit yourself that we’re headed for financial ruin with the current system we have

I do not admit that.  I merely conceded that there were problems.  There are many problems short of "financial ruin". And no one has yet been able to get far enough past the empty slogans and ritualized talking points to tell me what the problem is with the Federal Reserve and/or "fiat money" anyway.  Economic growth was pretty damned good for a very long time with them during the 1990s, for example. And don't blame the media for the Paul supporters' refusal to flesh out the argument past the empty slogans and vacuous talking points.  No one is stopping YOU from doing it.

Jason Steck Sorry, A Baliant, but nothing about a gold standard guarantees anything against fluctuations in the value of money. It would be impossible to find enough gold to allow money to be traded in directly for gold, as I have explained many times. And as the Asian financial crisis of 1998 showed, nothing about a "pegged" currency prevents financial meltdown. I am uncertain where the Constitution supposedly says that "only gold and silver can be used as national tender" like Ron Paul claims. And his argument that gold and silver could circulate as actual money runs into the problem I have now pointed out about a dozen times -- there is not enough gold and silver in existence to allow it to happen without a crippling depression that would kill millions first. Sorry, I'm not inclined to support such a plan on the basis of slogans and talking points and vague conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve. As for the rest of it, he just keeps repeating "competing currencies", he does not explain how such a system could work or how the current system could be converted to it without causing a depression. Short version: YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. You just gave me a video that has the exact same vague generalities and total lack of engagement with the real world. And by the way, the person at the end was Steve Forbes, not Ron Paul. And Forbes didn't explain it either.

Jason Steck By the way, what gives gold any value as a medium of exchange other than a collective decision to treat it as such? Gold is "fiat money" just as much as the dollar is.

Chris

To my knowledge, Ron Paul has not proposed any specific plan to reduce the IMMEDIATE load.

Yeah… but the immediate load is paid for by the current level of Social Security taxes.  2018 is the year when it starts taking in less money than it’s projected to spend.=======Sorry for the double post... please feel free to delete 123

Jason Steck Chris, that only works if you accept as valid the government's practice of counting the Social Security surplus twice. Truth is, that "extra" money is spent already, it is not sitting there to fund the SS liability either before or after 2018. Also, any conversion to private accounts would immediately decrease the ongoing SS revenue stream as it was diverted away from funding current SS outpays to funding the privately-owned accounts. So how Ron Paul would fund ongoing Social Security "promise keeping" is a mystery. The net effect long term of private accounts would be to cut the load (20-30 years down the road) but the IMMEDIATE effect would be to increase the load substantially on existing SS taxpayers as they would have to fund BOTH their own future retirement and the current "promised" retirees. Honestly, I know I've come off as rough and unfair to Ron Paul, but on this one I think I have a legitimate beef. When it comes to pandering to the current generation of retirees who stand to gain many TIMES more $$$ from Social Security than they paid into it, Ron Paul is a creature of his generation and is NO FRIEND to anyone under 50. His combination of posing as the great guardian of the taxpayer while, at the same time, condoning the continued fleecing of younger generations to pay for impossible "promises" made to older generations (many of whom do not need the "promised" money) amounts to a straight up lie. If he came out for means-testing, it would at least show he was consistent on being efficient no matter what. But when combined with his strong anti-immigration policy, Ron Paul's Social Security policy is a recipe for the same disaster that Japan and much of Europe faces -- impossible "promises" that effectively enslave the young to the old.

A Balint @Jason 122 That is a very naive statement.  Paper money grows on trees; fair exchange of wealth is always at risk as more paper can be injected into the system.  Gold is a limited resource, has longevity, and still represents genuine wealth despite the fact it is not legal tender. Both monetary systems have their problems; however the two combined just may prove successful.  Fiat money provides control over the economy to smooth out boom bust cycles, while gold backed money prevents absolute control over the money supply.  Remember absolute power absolutely corrupts.

Chris

Truth is, that "extra" money is spent already[...]

Precisely... but it's spent on programs that aren't Social Security.  So with current tax levels if we can just reduce spending on things like medical care and war, we might be able to get back on track.

Mick Russom Drink LiberTEA at the Teaparty, Dec 16, 2007. Drink it for the first time. All other candidates DENY LIBERTY. Ron Paul is the greatest candidate I've ever seen. Consistent for 30 years. No flip flops. We are done with WAR, we want a real currency, we want peace, we want the welfare-state for the military industrial complex to END, we want to fix America and stop policing the world and to stop the authoritarian oppression here NOW. Here is what the US Government without Ron Paul in charge has done to us: - 9 trillion in debt - 850 billion trade deficit - War in Iraq - War in Afghanistan - Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda alive - Fomenting War with Iran - 12.25 trillion M3 money supply, and expanding (massive inflation) Ron Paul’s record is crystal clean perfect and consistent. He takes no money from anyone but people and constituents. He is as pure as they come. One of my favorite quotes about Dr. Paul, “You’re working for the most honest man in Congress.” That was John McCain speaking to Kent Snyder in 1988.

Robert E. << By the way, what gives gold any value as a medium of exchange other than a collective decision to treat it as such? Gold is "fiat money" just as much as the dollar is. >> The answer is actually very simple: 1. Scarcity - the supply is extremely limited.  New gold finds are rare.  Mining the ore and extracting the gold from it requires enough effort to offset any increase in supply which results. 2. Durability - gold is not easy to destroy. 3. Portability - gold can easily be carried in convenient quantities. 

J Bradford First off, Ron Paul doesn't advocate a return to the gold standard.  This statment might be made from time to time to make his point, but our economy does not have to "revert back to 1971" to make this happen.  His belief is that our "money" should be backed by SOMETHING.  It doesn't have to be gold, it can be anything of intrinsic value.  Having a fiat monetary system is unstable, corruptable, and thereby certain to fail. He is for competing currencies.  In fact, this is his answer he most often gives when asked about our monetary system.  The Federal Reserve should not have a monopoly on printing our money.  The value of the dollar is dropping and we are forced to use it.  If other currencies were introduced, and backed by something, it would either cause the dollar to stabalize or become obsolete.  Jason points out the problem with currency exchange - I believe this would be a temporary problem.  The market would decide which currency would be most used, thereby eliminating the other, less stable, less valuable currencies. The idea that doing away with the Federal Reserve and going to a monetary system with some backing will cause our economy to collapse is just inaccurate.  Congress has the right, and responsibility, to provide the money for our country WITHOUT interest.  That is one of their main purposes, but instead they hand that duty over to a bunch of private bankers who charge the government interest on the money they print and loan.  That is inexcuasable and should be stopped.  Paul offers a way to begin to get off of this corrupt, fiat monetary system, that will eventually collapse.  Ignoring that fact, and thinking our economy is growing is asinine.  The only thing our economy is growing in is debt.  Sure, it "appears" to be doing fine, but we're no different than the man living in the large house, driving the nice sports car, wearing the finest clothes, but is in debt up to his eyeballs.  Yeah, he appears to be rich, but he is actually poorer than the man living in the streets because he has no debt. Not changing from the current system because we "might" face some hard times is ignorant when all the indicators are there that we will face an economic crisis if we continue on the same course.  Our dollar is worth 4 cents today compared to what it was in 1913 when the Federal Reserve began printing the money.  Or you might say it's "not worth a Continental."  Don't know what that means?  Look it up.  The same thing is happening today with the inflation created by the Fed. In fact, the entire value of a Federal Reserve Note (dollar) is based on our perception of it's value, or confidence in it.  So wouldn't that make the whole Fed System a "confidence game"?  Or a "con-game"?  More simply put, a "con."