End The Fed - WHY?

[unknown]

I like Ron Paul, but I think there are a lot of people like me who begin to see diminishing returns in too rigid a pursuit of liberty and the constitution.

Based on what?

You see the pursuit of liberty as a bad thing? So you admire countries like Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea etc?

Non-adherence to the Constitution has brought us to the verge of collapse.

The Federal Reserve is nothing more than a failed experiment. Even Keynesian Milton Friedman blamed the Fed for causing the Great Depression. Not to mention that they have destroyed the value of the dollar by 96%.

The media has led many people believe that the Fed is some kind of untouchable mainstay, its not.

 

[Travlyr]

I like Ron Paul, but I think there are a lot of people like me who begin to see diminishing returns in too rigid a pursuit of liberty and the constitution.

This is what it boils down to. Some people will not be better off when the monetary system is based on effort rather than privilege. The people who have been privileged all their life will have to compete. On the other hand, those who have been abused by the system of privilege will benefit handsomely. Anyone who puts forth effort can succeed. All in all an honest sound money system is a more fair monetary system as well as liberating.

 

[gte811i]

.

You've made a lot a points and I'm not doing a good job explaining. You are advocating a Chicago monetarist position. I would again encourage you, if you haven't to read the books I listed.

 

[CogWheeler]

While Ron Paul advocates a commodity currency, he has talked more about allowing competing currencies and letting market forces dictate demand.

The first thing competing currencies will do is make Alexander Hamilton roll over in his grave. The next, will be to invite the repudiation of dollar denominated debt. Not sure I would be on board with that, but I see growing popularity. Probably early for a "viable" Presidential bid. No?

 

[eproxy100]

Yes, an academic point, which takes me to this:



But my point is correct if the supply of money grows at the rate of potential GDP. The supply/demand of currency should be kept at equalibrium. That is one of the two goals of the Fed. The other being full employment, which fewer and fewer buy into.



It's economically destabilizing to a business manager who has to set price at the end of the production cycle, based upon forced assumptions he has to make about the supply and demand for money, which I hear you supporting. I think It serves the economy for that to be taken OUT of the equation as completely as possible. Both inflation and deflation are bad if you look at it prices and incomes as a wash.

As far as computers, I could be snide and just say "Dell", but the real point here is they too are an exercise in the equalibrium price of everything that goes into them. They sure have done a lot, but I do not think as many would sell under a gold standard. If we assume population growth, growth in labor, etc, than your condition of falling prices accelerates because of the competition to turn those things into wealth. Note, labor goes down. I would specify that as a negative condition in falling computer prices. I think it might be constructive to also add that productivity displaces labor. There is less reason to pay one more salary around the shop if the robot makes what was once achievable by two, achievable by one. This is economically destabilizing only in so far as we see economics as a social science.

I don't deny all the other arguments about poor management at the Fed. I used to respect Greenspan, and it still hurts me to say that. Bernanke? What's going on now is tough in that its reactionary to something that should have stopped a long time ago. That doesn't make me want to End the Fed. What comes afterwards? With the firm belief that we ought to fear the people's (Confressional) management of a peg, or floating currency much more, I think I'd be happier with a reformed Fed. Again, I guess I don't get on the gold standard bus because I don't think a fixed gold standard is going to fly. Part of the point to all of this is that the party least interested in inflation tends to be the one with most of the wealth, and to that end private banks CAN be a good guardian.

I like Ron Paul, but I think there are a lot of people like me who begin to see diminishing returns in too rigid a pursuit of liberty and the constitution.

Are you worried that people won't have jobs because robots can take over the jobs? For one thing, people are needed to make robots. Robots would only make sense if the total amount of resources put into creating and operating the robot is less than the human alternative. Suppose it is, that would mean the end product would be cheaper because fewer resources are needed for it. That's good for people's standard of living because that product is more readily available. But what would the person who "lost" the job do? They would be free to fill in other demands in the economy. What other demands? Basic economics states that people have limited needs but unlimited wants. Those wants are what most would argue to be what increase the living standards of people. That means you would see faster progression of technology, and therefore an increase in standard of living.

 

[unknown]

Prices should rise and fall strictly based on the supply and demand for labor, productivity, capital, resources, etc. Not currency. Not in my view, becasue it's economically destabilizing.

But the fact is that there is a demand for certain currencies via the currency markets. How would you stop that?

Furthermore, its becoming clear to everyone except those who get their news from the 4th branch of government, the media, that the US dollar is being discarded.

China, Russia quit dollar.

China, Japan Bypass U.S. Dollar in Pivotal Trade Agreement.

China drops dollar in trade with Turkey.

China and Brazil: Dump the Dollar.

Iran, China explore using yuan to settle trade: rpt.

 

[unknown]

The first thing competing currencies will do is make Alexander Hamilton roll over in his grave.

Probably early for a "viable" Presidential bid. No?

And you think Hamilton was applauding the Federal Reserve Act?

Competing currencies is not the optimal solution but you have to realize that we are fighting an entity which has unlimited resources.

Like I said, the gold standard seems to be the focus of his critics. Ron Paul would initially just like to stabilize our economy and prevent a Russia or European type collapse.

 

[gte811i]

Yes, an academic point, which takes me to this:



But my point is correct if the supply of money grows at the rate of potential GDP. The supply/demand of currency should be kept at equalibrium. That is one of the two goals of the Fed. The other being full employment, which fewer and fewer buy into.

It's economically destabilizing to a business manager who has to set price at the end of the production cycle, based upon forced assumptions he has to make about the supply and demand for money, which I hear you supporting. I think It serves the economy for that to be taken OUT of the equation as completely as possible. Both inflation and deflation are bad if you look at it prices and incomes as a wash.



As far as computers, I could be snide and just say "Dell", but the real point here is they too are an exercise in the equalibrium price of everything that goes into them. They sure have done a lot, but I do not think as many would sell under a gold standard. If we assume population growth, growth in labor, etc, than your condition of falling prices accelerates because of the competition to turn those things into wealth. Note, labor goes down. I would specify that as a negative condition in falling computer prices. I think it might be constructive to also add that productivity displaces labor. There is less reason to pay one more salary around the shop if the robot makes what was once achievable by two, achievable by one. This is economically destabilizing only in so far as we see economics as a social science.


I don't deny all the other arguments about poor management at the Fed. I used to respect Greenspan, and it still hurts me to say that. Bernanke? What's going on now is tough in that its reactionary to something that should have stopped a long time ago. That doesn't make me want to End the Fed. What comes afterwards? With the firm belief that we ought to fear the people's (Confressional) management of a peg, or floating currency much more, I think I'd be happier with a reformed Fed. Again, I guess I don't get on the gold standard bus because I don't think a fixed gold standard is going to fly. Part of the point to all of this is that the party least interested in inflation tends to be the one with most of the wealth, and to that end private banks CAN be a good guardian.

I like Ron Paul, but I think there are a lot of people like me who begin to see diminishing returns in too rigid a pursuit of liberty and the constitution.

The Fed has stipulated at least a 2% inflation rate, that means prices will double every 35 years . . . that's stable?? Unemployment just means that wages are too high. Unemployment is a misallocation of resources and if people accept lower wages they will get a job.

A business manager gets paid to calculate if what he is producing will pay off in the end. Supply/demand for money is already baked into the cake and it will also be . . it is a natural occurance just like gravity you can't get rid of it. Even IF you had a stable supply of money the demand for money can change and cause prices to go up or down!! That is why right now prices are not exploding even though the Fed is creating money like crazy. Supply of money is going up, but the demand for money is also going way up.

I'm not sure what you mean by Dell, if you mean by low cost jobs, where else would those people be working, in a sweetshop? Working at Dell in 21st century America is a heck of a lot better than working a low wage job in some sweetshop in the 1900s -- increase in standard of living.

A gold based currency is not fixed. The natural market occurence would be for Federal Reserve notes to go the way of the dodo. The only reason they are around is precisely because the government makes it so, mandates it.

It's quite funny, if you look at The Twilight Zone they have an episode in like 1953 where automation has taken over a factory and everyone is out of a job. What they forgot is someone has to build, maintain, and program the robots . . . displacement in one area = boom in another.

 

[gte811i]

The first thing competing currencies will do is make Alexander Hamilton roll over in his grave. The next, will be to invite the repudiation of dollar denominated debt. Not sure I would be on board with that, but I see growing popularity. Probably early for a "viable" Presidential bid. No?

I know this may offend some but Alexander Hamilton was a punk . . .

 

[eproxy100]

I know this may offend some but Alexander Hamilton was a punk . . .

I'd go as far as saying that I think Hamilton is the equivalent of today's Romney/Obama/etc.

 

[gte811i]

I'd go as far as saying that I think Hamilton is the equivalent of today's Romney/Obama/etc.

Yeap, he is one the founders who would most be for big government.

 

[ericthethe]

Ron Paul's economic views aren't practical. You can agree with him on foreign policy and civil liberties, but for Gandalf's sake, don't blindly follow his economic views without at least having a basic understanding of economics. Austrian economics are a joke.

Fortunately, if RP somehow miraculously found himself in the oval office, he'd have no direct control over the economy.

 

[TheTexan]

Ron Paul's economic views aren't practical. You can agree with him on foreign policy and civil liberties, but for Gandalf's sake, don't blindly follow his economic views without at least having a basic understanding of economics. Austrian economics are a joke.

You can't make such a claim here without justifying your position. Please do so

 

[The Gold Standard]

It is not ultimately healthy for prices to rise or fall, simply because there is a shortfall, or surplus, in the means of exchange, or currency. A fixed currency would lower prices, as you point out, but so too would income go down as there was less currency to buy labor. I think in that case all boats are falling because of the currency fix. That's why it isn't healthy. Prices should rise and fall strictly based on the supply and demand for labor, productivity, capital, resources, etc. Not currency. Not in my view, becasue it's economically destabilizing.

It is impossible to run out of currency. Currency is divisible. If prices fell to the point where half-cents or quarter-cents or quarter-ounces of silver or whatever were necessary, those coins could be minted.

When prices fall, wages fall too, but not as quickly, because wages are sticky (to an extent). That is why the overall standard of living increases when you have sound money and price deflation. That is the same reason that when you have price inflation, prices rise more quickly than wages.

 

[The Gold Standard]

You can't make such a claim here without justifying your position. Please do so

LOL.

 

[ericthethe]

You can't make such a claim here without justifying your position. Please do so

Funny how every time someone criticizes RP they have to give detailed explanations why. Very well.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ommunists...&p=4111285&viewfull=1#post4111285

LOL.

I know, it gets old.

 

[eproxy100]

Yeap, he is one the founders who would most be for big government.

Not just that. He's the type who wants his buddies to benefit through government.

 

[gte811i]

Ron Paul's economic views aren't practical. You can agree with him on foreign policy and civil liberties, but for Gandalf's sake, don't blindly follow his economic views without at least having a basic understanding of economics. Austrian economics are a joke.

Fortunately, if RP somehow miraculously found himself in the oval office, he'd have no direct control over the economy.

I'm not sure if in jest or not. But economics is his strong suit. He got into politics because of economics. I have studied deeply Austrian economics. I have read Man, Economy, State (over 900 pages), Monetary History (500+ pages), Conceived in Liberty, Hayek, DeHuerta, Human Action and umpteen more. I have thought many, many hours over this stuff. RP is dead on economics. A few youtube videos and reading a few blogs vs. actually picking up a book reading and pondering it is like eating chocolate vs. eating a four course meal.

 

[The Gold Standard]

I know, it gets old.

I completely disagree with your economic views, and I think it would do you well to research the faults and fallacies of your Keynesian heroes and their teachings, but one thing about this movement is that the message of liberty brings all types of people together. People think Ron couldn't possibly work with Congress on anything, but he obviously has a lot to offer all sides.

 

[gte811i]

If one truly understand economics you come to realize that everything is boiled down into economics . . . which is simply how humans interact with each other and the method that that action is carried out. It all comes down to money and power.