Rand Paul: feds may have unfairly 'targeted' dad's supporters

[Adamsa]

In a truly free market, competing currencies would be legal. Whats especially sad about this case is that the constitution says only gold and silver should be legal tender, and yet the official currency is not this.

 

[TrueFreedom]

Congressman Louis T. McFadden, was the Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency from 1920–31

here is a speech by Louis T. McFadden

Louis T. McFadden's Speech In the House of Representatives 10 June 1932 http://www.afn.org/~govern/mcfadden_speech_1932.html

Let me put a few paragraphs here.


"Some people think the Federal Reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia and thus drove a wedge between the Allies in the World War. They financed Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian revolution and they placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun the breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children."



Let me remind you this is from 1932, so this is not something new to the people.

And by the way, a quotation from one member of the House of Representatives doesn't help your case at all. He never mentioned the laws on the books and challenged them, plus have you ever stopped to think that maybe we have some dumb people in the House? I mean we have a member of the House who says this right now....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G980aLrAwoM

you are gonna have to do better than that. Give me laws and court cases to prove what you are saying, not theories or people ranting with no substance.

 

[TrueFreedom]

In a truly free market, competing currencies would be legal. Whats especially sad about this case is that the constitution says only gold and silver should be legal tender, and yet the official currency is not this.

You are misinterpreting the Constitution. It never says only gold and silver can be the only legal tender. It says states can't make anything but gold and silver legal tender. But it doesn't say that the Federal Government can't.

 

[Trigonx]

And by the way, a quotation from one member of the House of Representatives doesn't help your case at all. He never mentioned the laws on the books and challenged them, plus have you ever stopped to think that maybe we have some dumb people in the House? I mean we have a member of the House who says this right now....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G980aLrAwoM

you are gonna have to do better than that. Give me laws and court cases to prove what you are saying, not theories or people ranting with no substance.

Honestly, I don't give a fuck what you think, I am ashamed of myself for actually trying to talk to you. I don't understand why you are here, really. I would continue to argue this, but every time you will go back to what "you" believe is factual and correct without even trying to conceive what others may say.

 

[TrueFreedom]

Honestly, I don't give a fuck what you think, I am ashamed of myself for actually trying to talk to you. I don't understand why you are here, really.

In other words, McFadden didn't know what he was talking about and you have nothing else to back up this claim. I mean I've only disproven it by law, Congressional Acts, and even disproving the one Representative who spoke out against it but used false facts. Hmmm, tells me a lot about the legitimacy of this argument......

 

[TrueFreedom]

Honestly, I don't give a fuck what you think, I am ashamed of myself for actually trying to talk to you. I don't understand why you are here, really. I would continue to argue this, but every time you will go back to what "you" believe is factual and correct without even trying to conceive what others may say.

Um I quote laws. You quote people like McFadden who make incorrect statements that have been PROVEN factually wrong.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

All this bickering is absurd. First, TrueFreedom coming in here and trying to argue that Keynesian economics is somehow superior and better thought out than Austrian economics is a little odd, as Keynes' proposed system was 1) nothing new, deficit spending had been used for centuries it simply had never been formally theorized and 2) has a good deal of flaws and is hardly backed up by historical success yet you claim it is the superior economic paradigm. Neoclassicism and neokeynsianism have their flaws as well, so to claim one paradigm is "flawed" without actually giving any real examples is hardly convincing. Perhaps the term "flawed" itself is a subjective analysis backed up with personal bias i.e the objectives that a single economist might have for an economy, or what he values.

But the main point of this thread is about the Liberty Dollar. The question is whether or not it is counterfeiting - the answer is that it is a grey area in the law, considering how it was marketed. It was interpreted and obviously the warrant obtained that there was probable cause of counterfeiting, so this seizure, while it sucks, is technically "within the law" and is no real violation of civil liberties, at least in a legalist sense (not an absolute sense, which we'll get to in a sec). Your assertion that it was counterfeit, while is shaky, is in a grey area and was backed up by the law and warrant in this case. So youre sorta right.

Now, TrueFreedom, your assertion that competing currency would lead to more [detrimental] inflation is not backed up by any sort of historical evidence - usually other currencies are used as a hedge against inflation, such as in countries with hyperinflation, when they switch to foreign stable currencies, even against the law, to pay for meals etc, as a hedge AGAINST inflationary currency. Even back in the US< they used to import french gold coins and use them as currency. The inflation that did exist - an expansion in the money supply - was often natural and based on the market demands. Remember, currency is simply the most liquid commodity in a market (as hayek so explained to refute socialist ideas of abolishing money)

So you are essentially righ ton this specific case, but that does not make the law right, but it does make it tehcnically "justified" in the sense that it was done legally, even if a legal grey area. But your contention that competing currencies = more inflation and worse inflation is wrong, and is a sound idea. The US government DOES have a monopoly on currency that it should NOT have, so while it is illegal to trade in other tender, it is not wholly justified, and is a rather statist proposition to force a single currency. You call yourself TrueFreedom, surely you should have identified this already. Also, you are right about the fed, it is quasi governmental, was instituted by an act of congress, and is "legal" even though it does clearly ignore the section of the constitution that says gold and silver must be coined as legal tender - my qualms with the fed are not the "conspiracies" behind it, but rather the very real issues it creates - i.e central monetary planning, expansion of government programs because of the ability to expand the money supply (aka "inject liquidity") etc, these are all VERY REAL and VERY PUBLICIZED flaws with the federal reserve.

Can we at least come to a happy little medium - that capital gains taxes should be removed on Gold and Silver? Actually id love to remove capital gains taxes on everything but, at least gold and silver, as authorized by the constitution? Would that suit your fancy?

 

[TrueFreedom]

All this bickering is absurd. First, TrueFreedom coming in here and trying to argue that Keynesian economics is somehow superior and better thought out than Austrian economics is a little odd, as Keynes' proposed system was 1) nothing new, deficit spending had been used for centuries it simply had never been formally theorized and 2) has a good deal of flaws and is hardly backed up by historical success yet you claim it is the superior economic paradigm. Neoclassicism and neokeynsianism have their flaws as well, so to claim one paradigm is "flawed" without actually giving any real examples is hardly convincing. Perhaps the term "flawed" itself is a subjective analysis backed up with personal bias i.e the objectives that a single economist might have for an economy, or what he values.

But the main point of this thread is about the Liberty Dollar. The question is whether or not it is counterfeiting - the answer is that it is a grey area in the law, considering how it was marketed. It was interpreted and obviously the warrant obtained that there was probable cause of counterfeiting, so this seizure, while it sucks, is technically "within the law" and is no real violation of civil liberties, at least in a legalist sense (not an absolute sense, which we'll get to in a sec). Your assertion that it was counterfeit, while is shaky, is in a grey area and was backed up by the law and warrant in this case. So youre sorta right.

Now, TrueFreedom, your assertion that competing currency would lead to more [detrimental] inflation is not backed up by any sort of historical evidence - usually other currencies are used as a hedge against inflation, such as in countries with hyperinflation, when they switch to foreign stable currencies, even against the law, to pay for meals etc, as a hedge AGAINST inflationary currency. Even back in the US< they used to import french gold coins and use them as currency. The inflation that did exist - an expansion in the money supply - was often natural and based on the market demands. Remember, currency is simply the most liquid commodity in a market (as hayek so explained to refute socialist ideas of abolishing money)

So you are essentially righ ton this specific case, but that does not make the law right, but it does make it tehcnically "justified" in the sense that it was done legally, even if a legal grey area. But your contention that competing currencies = more inflation and worse inflation is wrong, and is a sound idea. The US government DOES have a monopoly on currency that it should NOT have, so while it is illegal to trade in other tender, it is not wholly justified, and is a rather statist proposition to force a single currency. You call yourself TrueFreedom, surely you should have identified this already. Also, you are right about the fed, it is quasi governmental, was instituted by an act of congress, and is "legal" even though it does clearly ignore the section of the constitution that says gold and silver must be coined as legal tender - my qualms with the fed are not the "conspiracies" behind it, but rather the very real issues it creates - i.e central monetary planning, expansion of government programs because of the ability to expand the money supply (aka "inject liquidity") etc, these are all VERY REAL and VERY PUBLICIZED flaws with the federal reserve.

Can we at least come to a happy little medium - that capital gains taxes should be removed on Gold and Silver? Actually id love to remove capital gains taxes on everything but, at least gold and silver, as authorized by the constitution? Would that suit your fancy?

Well I appreciate the post. Finally someone who actually argues from a factual basis. And I appreciate the comments on competing currency and inflation. I will post a thought out response to the whole thing shortly. But first thoughts after hearing this, let me try to understand where you are coming from. First off, why do you think that the "gold and silver as the only legal tender" line from article 1 applies to the Federal Government when it plainly says the states? Two, removing the capital gains on gold and silver is a very interesting concept, I'll think on it Three, explain to me how leaving federal reserve notes in circulation and then adding competing currency on top of it will not increase inflation. I cannot, even when looking from a Hayek view, see how this will stablize or even decrease inflation whatsoever. I'll grab a drink and start to type out a more full response, but I actually look forward to your replies!

 

[Man from La Mancha]

It is illegal because they are passing it off in the form of a coin, their website refers to it as real money and currency and the LAW says this......

Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title [1] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


Therefore it is illegal

Why are these being used now in the USA then?

or

 

[TrueFreedom]

Why are these being used now in the USA then?

or

Not sure what the Disney dollars are doing up there. No one is saying those are real money or currency. Has nothing to do with the topic......

 

[American]

Doesn't matter. I'm a Ron supporter, but Rand is wrong here. The law plainly states you can't counterfeit even if the coin is of original design. It's not an issue of mistaking it for Washington....it's against the law.

Its not counterfeit, the liberty dollar had never said that is was legal tender or that it a Govt backed currency. Its a barter currency and its legal.

 

[allyinoh]

Its not counterfeit, the liberty dollar had never said that is was legal tender or that it a Govt backed currency. Its a barter currency and its legal.

Don't waste your time.. It's not worth it.. =)

 

[TrueFreedom]

Its not counterfeit, the liberty dollar had never said that is was legal tender or that it a Govt backed currency. Its a barter currency and its legal.

You might be suited to read the thread. It's not legal.

 

[TrueFreedom]

Don't waste your time.. It's not worth it.. =)

LOL, you've been here all day too. I know we disagree, but hope no hard feelings. We both want to see Ron win this thing lol.

 

[ronpaulfan]

Doesn't matter. I'm a Ron supporter, but Rand is wrong here. The law plainly states you can't counterfeit even if the coin is of original design. It's not an issue of mistaking it for Washington....it's against the law.

Shill detector off the charts. This one is good, I can't peg him on any of his blatantly negative shill posts.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Well I appreciate the post. Finally someone who actually argues from a factual basis.

No prob.

And I appreciate the comments on competing currency and inflation. I will post a thought out response to the whole thing shortly. But first thoughts after hearing this, let me try to understand where you are coming from. First off, why do you think that the "gold and silver as the only legal tender" line from article 1 applies to the Federal Government when it plainly says the states?

First, notice the section - section one. It is talking about State's debts, which are usually to other states or to congress. As is outlined, states may not trade with sovereign nations. So it is obvious that the intent was to keep gold and silver as the only legal tender circulating among states - remember, at the time of the Constitution's inception, there was no national currency, many currencies were used, but they were commissioned to be coined in Gold and Silver as apayment of debt, as it was the generally accepted currency at the time. That passage was never amended, so while it could be argued that it is outdated, to arbitrarily not follow it is the sort of action that has us where we are today, at least, as a general attitude toward the constitution. But the intent was to make sure currency was coined using gold and silver to repay debts. It does not explicitly say anything about the federal government sticking to that maxim, but it clearly ALLOWS gold and silver as legal tender for a payment of debts, which is what Ron Paul talks about when he means legalizing gold and silver as competing currency.

Two, removing the capital gains on gold and silver is a very interesting concept, I'll think on it

Capital gains is abhorrent in general, as it tempers investment opportunity and essentially inhibits growth of capital - which, in a CAPITALIST society, inhibiting the growth of capital hurts the society as a whole, as the less capital an entrepreneur or investor has, the less he has to invest in the economy in ventures that would be beneficial to the general public. as far as specifically gold and silver, it would allow them to be more freely traded as commodities, allowing them to compete as legal tender (but, as always, must be sent to a mint to be coined as such, which is fair enough under the current system, though i would like to take away all restrictions on such, at least it is constitutional). Which brings me to my next point:

Three, explain to me how leaving federal reserve notes in circulation and then adding competing currency on top of it will not increase inflation. I cannot, even when looking from a Hayek view, see how this will stablize or even decrease inflation whatsoever. I'll grab a drink and start to type out a more full response, but I actually look forward to your replies!

Inflation is an increase in the monetary supply, as you well know. Of course, some definitions (including the keynesian one) is that it is simply a "raise in prices". This raise in prices, is, of course, an adjustment to the ACTUAL cause of inflation ,an increase in the money supply. As far as the actual economics of how a competing currency would work, ill try to do my best not to be too abstract - though in a perfect world, money is simply the most liquid commodity (it is anyway, but right now its generally pegged only to other currency markets, rather than all markets, at least if im understanding correctly why exactly the dollar is falling in purchasing power - mainly because of the dollar being dumped on currency markets, but inflation is also a very real factor). The agreed upon market commodity would be the currency traded in most transactions, but people would be free to move to other currencies if they so wished, or price in other currencies if they so wished. While this seems like ti might cause problems, if you think deeper, everyone will have incentive to stay on a single currency so long as it is stable, as to keep themselves involved in all markets. However, if there is a more favorable currency that gains traction in markets, people will switch to that which will keep prices low (prices being valuations of commodities based on supply and demand - think outside of the $ and cents we always think of as being a "price", its really just a representation of a price, symbolism). whoops, i got too theoretical - lets move to reality. In reality, the competing currencies would still be valued in US dollars - they would essentially be market commodities that would have value rise as prices rise, such as gold. If capital gains taxes were removed on gold, any earnings on gold could be coined and converted to US dollars - but you would be able to use less gold to coin the current equivalent of a dollar. However, the capital gains tax retards this and makes it less profitable than just remaining on the inflating currency.

Thats really all Ron Paul and others mean when they talk about competing currency - using your own gold as a hedge against fiat inflation. It would still be in "US dollars" - the arbitrary symbolism of our current pricing system, but it would rise in value as inflation also rises, while the fiat currency would still be, well, backed by fiat, or debt, and would not be the unlimited legal tender that gold happens to be considered in markets. It is essentially an issue of US dollars backed on government fiat vs US dollars backed by market valuation - both of which actually have their merits, though fiat is, in the long run, going to be abused by government - always. Remember, its all subjective - you are right in that regard as gold having no "intrinsic" value, however, it has always been favored throughout time as a market standard, and markets ARE subjectivity - prices, demand, supply as a function of demand, everything - all subjective as explained by Bohm-Bawerk et al. Keynesian deficit spending is intended as a hedge against percieved inefficencies in markets, but in reality, the market tends to adjust to weaknesses, although not perfectly - why? Because the world is imperfect. But is government's involvement to try to make it perfect effective? Well, is anything government tries to do out of the "good of its heart" usually effective? I'll let you be the judge on that one, but then of course, like i said before, things we deem "flaws" in the first place are also subjective in nature, depending on the economist's views and biases.

Also, people, hes a supporter, stop trying your best to alienate him. So what if we disagree with him about some specific views, he is a fucking ROn Paul supporter - dont just drive him off or insult him or call hi ma troll - trust me, trolls are VERY obvious and will NEVER give you an inch and will be obnoxious and use completely fallacious reasoning. The fact that he has actually tried to engage in real debate shows he is not a troll, even if you (or i) disagree with him. Stop acting like assholes.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Ill just post this about inflation gain, then i have to go eat, but feel free to PM me or continue to debate here or in the Issues section of the forum.

Remember, the REASON inflation of fiat currency is bad is because it tends to happen at a rate that the average consumer cannot adjust to, thus prices rise, but wages in the inflated currency do not rise as fast. A lower inflation rate benefits people because it gives them time to accumulate wealth and savings and job security, and their wages will generally rise over time at a pace to keep up with inflation (note: these wages are voluntarily risen by the companies that hire the employees, and usually go significantly above minimum wage, which, when too high, increases unemployment of entry level workers). Of course, things like the income tax etc retard savings ability, but that is a discussion for another time. Anyways - what a competing currency, a market/gold backed one would do, is allow those who desire a hedge against inflation, such as a startup business or a young married couple trying to build their wealth, can invest in market commodities that hedge against inflation, and can use these commodities as direct legal tender, without taxes, without retardation of capital gain.

Since this is not an anarcho-capitalist society and congress does have the power to regulate the value of currency to an extent (as spelled out in article 1 section 8), this would all be done as commodity/market backed currency, and thats really it. Thats really all ron paul means/advocates when he says "competing currency". I think private coining of currency is a different issue, and whilst it might be beneficial and an intriguing idea, it technically is not constitutional, much less legal, to coin money as such, as the Liberty dollars hit that grey area, although i disagree with the overall principle of the entire situation, from a more realistic standpoint, it was actually "constitutional", though I personally wouldn't mind that part of the constitution being changed.

I will say this though - the fed can potentially be seen int he same light as congress defaulting on its powers to declare war - the Fed controls monetary policy and regulates it, where as the constitution clearly designates that duty to CONGRESS. The US treasury and mints are directly tied to congressional oversight, whereas the federal reserve, while it is quasi-governmental, does not have the same oversight nor the restraints -although congress can borrow from the fed and authorize printing, the Fed can also print on its own without that oversight, as much power is vesting in the Federal Reserve Board by congress. There are certainly governmental ties, as it is indeed QUASI government, but the level of oversight and accountability is another issue, and could, in a way, be seen as congress defaulting on their own constitutional powers to another body.

Stick around and chat, about other issues too that people might agree on more, so as to show you really are here out of interest and not to "troll"

 

[Matt Collins]

Wow - I had no idea this post would've created such a $hitstorm

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Doesn't matter. I'm a Ron supporter, but Rand is wrong here. The law plainly states you can't counterfeit even if the coin is of original design. It's not an issue of mistaking it for Washington....it's against the law.

Nope

 

[James R]

Doesn't matter. I'm a Ron supporter, but Rand is wrong here. The law plainly states you can't counterfeit even if the coin is of original design. It's not an issue of mistaking it for Washington....it's against the law.

Yes you can. It happens all the time, and I would bet that the most coins of this type are produced by the Disney company.

What the law says is that your motive for producing them is what determines whether or not the act of producing them or selling them is illegal.