jon_perez explain yourself

[Spirit of '76]

Man, lay off perez.

[snip]

Finally, is perez a troll? No, he isn't. He's a guy that has questions, and so far hasn't seen a good reason to support part of Paul's personal ideas.

Having "questions" is a far cry from posting in every thread on this subforum ridiculing the ideas as stupid without ever explaining why.

Whether he's intentionally trolling or not, that's what his behavior thus far amounts to.

Again, he could pose his questions and express his doubts about the ideas contained in various posts without calling everyone names and ridiculing the ideas without once actually addressing them.

I for one would love to see some real debate on these issues, but so far all we have is Bradley posting articles and perez laughing about how stupid he thinks they are. That's not debate or discussion. That's trolling.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Man, lay off perez. So what if he finds the gold standard "dastardly"?

Finally, is perez a troll? No, he isn't.

His questioning the gold standard is wise. His wanting answers is wise. You trying to alienate a Paul supporter is not.

I want to know WHY he finds the gold standard "dastardly"? Or more correctly, why using gold is inherently more "dastardly" than unbacked paper.

His posts and threads are negative, rude and disruptive more than questioning. Hence our view he is a troll.

Presuming the "you" is I since I started the thread, and my apologies if I'm wrong, I am not at all convinced he is a Paul supporter and lean much more strongly that he is one here trying to confuse and alienate Paul supporters from Dr. Paul's agenda.

 

[mordechai]

Then why? Is perez a secret agent? He works for Guiliani?

Come on. Those two are egging each other on. It's just a little argument that got out of hand. Both of y'all should just smoke the peace pipe, bury the hatchet, and go on your merry.

 

[fsk]

The gold standard, as implemented in the past, failed due to regulation of banking. The solution was even more regulation of banking, until you arrive at the current system.

There is no reason to hold gold out as superior to silver, copper, or other metals. You can have a multi-metallic standard PROVIDED the exchange rate among metals is set by the market.

A gold standard fails miserably when you have government regulation of banking AND a cartel nearly monopolizes the gold supply. Banks can only misbehave and act as a cartel when banking is regulated.

Mainstream orthodox Keynesian economics says that the gold standard has been discredited by history. That is complete and utter nonsense, but it is psychologically hard to overcome the hurdle that every mainstream economist and newspaper is full of lies.

If every newspaper and TV station is full of lies, that leads to the idea "Maybe there's some nasty conspiracy preventing them from telling the truth?" Why is it considered offensive to even suggest that something really nasty might be going on? I'm not absolutely certain. I don't have absolute proof. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence.

 

[kylejack]

Now*this* is trolling.

You asked about issues with the gold standard after being told several times that Ron Paul does not favor a return to the gold standard but rather legalization of alternative currencies.

Why?

 

[Bradley in DC]

Still haven't learned to stop putting words in people's mouths, eh? Nice try at the strawman.

I bet you idolize Karl Rove.

No, the question is mine based on your statements. The question stands, regardless of your thoughts on idolatry. Why is using gold inherently "more dastardly" than unbacked paper?

 

[jon_perez]

Man, lay off perez. So what if he finds the gold standard "dastardly"? He doesn't like what's going on right now. And he didn't exactly say that he thinks gold sucks as a store of value, or anything else. He simply questioned credit policies in a gold standard system.

Actually, that's the type of questions that need to be asked.

Now, I do remember jon_perez saying at one point he didn't see why we were all putting so much significance in a "heavy yellow metal" I think it was. (correct me if I'm wrong).

I was exaggerating a bit to make the point that, considering gold's rather limited industrial uses, it also counts as a more-or-less arbitrary measure of wealth just like fiat money. Like fiat money, gold's value is largely derived from people's perceptions of it. Of course, intrinsically speaking, gold does have a lot more value than paper, but the price it commands I believe is still out of proportion to its industrial utility/rarity.

So what if he finds the gold standard "dastardly"?

See, Bradley is trying to twist what I said to make it seem like I'm being far more accusatory than is the case. What I said was that if the gold standard would allow bankers to eventually own all the gold then it would indeed be dastardly and arguably far more so than a fiat money system. If people were forced to use gold and only gold as money, then I don't see why such a scenario can be so easily discounted.

Bradley did make an effort to rebut this via his copy-pasted articles, so this thread of his has to count as nothing but juvenile vindictiveness.

Someone else answered that if gold were hoarded, the market could choose to switch to an alternative, more plentiful commodity as money. So that's food for thought right there from someone who was, unlike Bradley it seems, able to come up with an interesting and relevant answer.

 

[mordechai]

That isn't what perez said. He said allowing banks to use artificial interest rates to get control of all gold is wrong, and "more dastardly".

He wondered how to avoid that. (we've thrown out the only way to have that happen is government regulation).

perez can either believe it, or not.

 

[fsk]

One advantage of gold compared to unbacked paper is that gold can't be faked.

If the government is running a deficit, eventually its paper will trade at a discount to gold. That's what happened in 1913, 1933, and 1971 when the USA defaulted on the gold standard.

Under a gold standard, there's a limit to how much debt a government can run up. With unbacked paper, there's no limit to the inflation rate.

A gold standard means that real interest rates can't go below 0%, because people could just hold onto physical gold to preserve their purchasing power.

There is a problem if someone happens to monopolize gold. That's why you allow a multi-metallic standard and don't regulate money at all.

 

[jon_perez]

You asked about issues with the gold standard after being told several times that Ron Paul does not favor a return to the gold standard but rather legalization of alternative currencies.

Why?

Mmmm... because it was an interesting issue... ?

But hold on. Now I'm confused, because we have Bradley here saying verbatim that "Ron Paul's agenda is for a gold standard" and then we have you saying that Ron Paul "does not favor a return to the gold standard".

I guess it's my turn to ask you guys to explain yourselves. Which is it, Bradley?

Is a gold standard Dr. Paul's agenda, or is it merely his preference (like you say in a succeeding post), or does he not favor it at all (as kylejack seems to be saying)???

Better get your story straight Bradley, or I will assume you are just trolling here....

 

[mordechai]

It is quite dificult to monopolize all gold without government help.

And virtually impossible with silver or copper (because of how much exists in the world)

 

[jon_perez]

Again, he could pose his questions and express his doubts about the ideas contained in various posts without calling everyone names and ridiculing the ideas without once actually addressing them.

Oh, ridiculing ideas like, for example:

"You are free to believe that the Federal Reserve was *NOT* designed to loot the USA. You are also free to believe that the Earth is flat.

If you go around espousing flat-earth theory around a bunch of scientists, don't be surprised if they accuse you of trolling."

I'm sorry, but I can't help but notice that objectivity is in short supply here in "Sound Money".

 

[WilliamC]

That Dastardly Constitution

Greetings All,

So which is "Dr. Paul's agenda" Bradley, competing currencies or a gold standard?? You can't seem to speak with one tongue here...

And also, how can you claim to speak for Dr. Paul at this point in time?

Well now, from the US Constitution, Article I, section 10

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Seems that the Constitution advocates using gold and silver as money.

As to Ron Pauls position he has clearly stated on multiple interviews that in the short term he favors legalizing competing currencies. Listen to

http://69.65.26.137/~ronpaula/RonPaulKorelinEconomicsReport111907.mp3

for one example.

William C Colley

 

[AoiMasamune]

I have to step in to stand up for this guy. He raises a valid question that I've wondered about myself.

It's important to remember in this debate that money has no inherent value, it is just the measure of value we place on goods or services provided. Much like an inch, pound, pint or degree, money doesn't exist without something to measure with it.

A gold standard has the benefit that it cannot be controlled by a creator, aka, a central bank, because it is not created, it just exists. However this is also it's greatest weakness, because by it's nature it is a limited supply. Any banking institution that is allowed to charge interest and make profit will eventually gain control over the whole resource, or at least enough of it to become dangerous. After this happens, they now have enough power to exert their will on lawmakers, and thus the cycle repeats.

Even with competing currencies, eventually one will drown out the others because money must be universally accepted, and for convenience, people will gravitate towards only one. This is especially true with a precious metal based system, because exchange rates will have to be checked before each transaction to ensure a fair tranfer of value.

I believe that what is more important than choosing what form money will appear in is choosing what it's nature will be. Currently, money comes into existence through the creation of debt accompanied by interest which does not exist. The only alternative is to spend it into existence and ALWAYS ensure that there is the same amount of money in the economy as is going out of the economy to avoid the compounding, non-existent interest dilemma.

So with that in mind, I propose the following hybrid system:

A: Monetary Policy
Money begins it's existence as silver coins (silver being far more common than gold, thus much harder to gain a monopoly over) kept by the US Treasury, these will be initially be created from silver borrowed from one of our few remaining allies.

The US Treasury loans (at interest) these coins to each state treasury.

The state treasury then loans the coins (at interest) to private banks.

B: Government Funding
The Federal government pays it's expenditures from a combination of trade tariffs for imported goods, and the interest gained from these loans.

Trade tariffs should be set high on pre-manufactured items to ensure a flourishing industrial sector in the US, tariffs should be low on incoming raw materials, to keep our industrial goods prices low.

The state government pays it's expenditures from a combination of interest from loans to banking institutions and fines imposed for breaking petty laws.

C: Business Law
Corporate personhood should be completely abolished, and a new law put into place stating that only humans can own land or property. This new law should say that the owner of the land on which a company is operating is ultimately responsible for any mistreatment of the land or unethical actions of the company in general.

Minimum wage laws should be repealed and scrapped. Replace them with laws stating that no individual person associated (this includes the owner) with a company can make more than four times the amount of money paid to the lowest paid employee.

This is unfortunate because it restricts the direct growth of the individual, but it seems to be necessary to prevent the exploitation of the working class and the rise to power of ruling elites.

Companies can contract out for low paying work to work around this law, for services such as janitors and farm hands, but those companies will be subject to it as well.

~fin~

To summarize, this plan will eventually end all debt in the US, ensure that there is always enough money in the economy to pay off any interest, and keep the power of monetary control out of the hands of any individual or group for as long as possible.

This STILL wouldn't solve the problem completely though, because after enough generations of children inheriting money from their parents and then passing it on in greater amounts to their children, the money supply would end up being drained, causing deflation, recession, and finally depression. With depression, comes the rise of the Elites once again.

I still haven't figured out a perfect solution, but this is the best I could come up with so far.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Oh, ridiculing ideas like, for example:

"You are free to believe that the Federal Reserve was *NOT* designed to loot the USA. You are also free to believe that the Earth is flat.

If you go around espousing flat-earth theory around a bunch of scientists, don't be surprised if they accuse you of trolling."

I'm sorry, but I can't help but notice that objectivity is in short supply here in "Sound Money".

"But, mom! He started it!" is not a substitute for argument.

Take the high road.

 

[jon_perez]

I have to step in to stand up for this guy. He raises a valid question that I've wondered about myself.

It's important to remember in this debate that money has no inherent value, it is just the measure of value we place on goods or services provided. Much like an inch, pound, pint or degree, money doesn't exist without something to measure with it.

Careful about disagreeing with him... you might have Karl err... Bradley calling you a traitor to the Ron Paul cause for doing so...

Anyway, after reading through the rest of your post, I feel justified in reiterating my point of view that while the Fed may have its flaws, it was not an institution borne out of "evil, diabolic" intentions. These are tough, complex problems related to the money system and the idea of central banking has been offered as a solution to such.

If the Fed were as corrupt and damaging as the propaganda du jour makes it out to be, the US would not have become a superpower for the hundred years or so since it was created. Some people seem to forget this little fact.

The first and foremost problem really is overspending by Congress. Immediately turning the Fed into scapegoat makes us overlook where the most pressing problem lies.

 

[Meatwasp]

Bradley can you help me on this . Why did Roosevelt confiscate all private gold in 1933? The the miners around here told me it was for the war effort. He was planning on printing money
Only jewelrers were allowed ownership of gold.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Mmmm... because it was an interesting issue... ?

But hold on. Now I'm confused, because we have Bradley here saying verbatim that "Ron Paul's agenda is for a gold standard" and then we have you saying that Ron Paul "does not favor a return to the gold standard".

I guess it's my turn to ask you guys to explain yourselves. Which is it, Bradley?

Is a gold standard Dr. Paul's agenda, or is it merely his preference (like you say in a succeeding post), or does he not favor it at all (as kylejack seems to be saying)???

Better get your story straight Bradley, or I will assume you are just trolling here....

One form of trolling contrary to the guidelines is highjacking a thread. The topic of this thread: why do you think using gold as money is "more dastardly" than unbacked paper?

 

[fsk]

No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

Here's a subtle technicality. This is a prohibition on the behavior of *STATES*. There is no prohibition on the Federal Government declaring on unbacked paper as money.

You might say "It's obvious that is intended to also apply to the Federal Government", but what you think is irrelevant.

 

[fsk]

Bradley can you help me on this . Why did Roosevelt confiscate all private gold in 1933? The the miners around here told me it was for the war effort. He was planning on printing money
Only jewelrers were allowed ownership of gold.

The USA wasn't at war in 1933.

In 1933, President Roosevelt defaulted on the dollar and declared the USA bankrupt.

If President Roosevelt didn't outlaw private ownership of gold, people would have started using gold as money instead of irredeemable Federal Reserve Notes. The "official" gold price was $20/oz, decreased to $35/oz after the gold confiscation. However, with private citizens unable to own gold, people wouldn't notice that was a bunch of lies.

If Roosevelt didn't confiscate the gold in 1933, gold and Federal Reserve Notes would have circulated side-by-side. It took 40 years for people to be brainwashed so that Federal Reserve Notes are money and gold is not.

President Roosevelt's gold confiscation in 1933 was outright stealing. To declare it as anything other than stealing is being dishonest.