While I am not a supporter of Ron Paul...

[wgadget]

Ron does not advocate "going to the gold standard," but rather, allowing competing currencies. Big difference.

 

[Ivash]

Ron does not advocate "going to the gold standard," but rather, allowing competing currencies. Big difference.

This was in response to the post I quoted. I have said earlier in the thread that I (was) not even sure if Ron Paul supported going back to the gold standard or not, considering the different responses I have gotten on the question (even from people who are themselves Ron Paul supporters).

 

[unknown]

Well, first and foremost, when I say raising revenue I don't actually mean raising taxes. What I mean is that there are way too many loopholes for way too many special interests, and that cutting them all will raise revenue. Multiple reports I have seen show that we could even lower taxes if we cut out some of the more ridiculous loopholes, and in all honesty I have no problem whatsoever with the government making those companies and interests pay the amount that they should.

As for gun laws, I'm actually increasingly apathetic about them. They have worked in some cases (such as in England, where the amount of people that die by bullet wounds is something like 50 a year, or, in other words, insignificantly small), but a bit of fact checking on my part shows that more often than not they don't work in the United States. If they don't work in the US, then I'm against the US restricting guns. When I have more time I'll go over some more facts and see where they lead me. I even changed that post to indicate my evolving beliefs.

Finally, I also believe going to the gold standard would be an utter disaster.

Not defending corporations, we were all against the bailouts under both Bush and Obama but the government already takes WAY too much of our money.

As for gun free England, violent crime worse in Britain than in US.

Right, which is why I linked Peter Schiff's opinion, who someone like Ron Paul, has a proven track record of being correct.

 

[muh_roads]

Competing currencies are a roadmap to the gold standard. He wants to prove to the people first that prices go up for US dollars while prices would remain the same and fall for metals and see them both side by side.

I think pricing everything twice is a great idea. At least let the market do so if they wish. Paul wouldn't force a law mandating such a thing. Right now the laws don't allow local communities to do this if they wish it.

You never need to expand the currency to expand an economy. An economy can expand on a gold standard just fine. It just means money becomes more rare with time. If money is harder to come by, then prices fall.

Another idea that people have in their heads is that you must physically trade with heavy coins. Paper dollars and credit cards can still work on a gold standard just fine. It just means the banks can't dillute what they don't have. The banks must have metal in their vaults and the representative money in circulation must represent their holdings.

Believe me if prices fall the way they should, there would be no need for all the loans people need to take out today. And saving would actually mean something again. And those that do would never have to worry about retirement. Being against the gold standard is like saying "I want the scammers at the top to take my money". Being against the gold standard is like saying "I want my future to be in doubt and full of worry."

 

[Ivash]

Not defending corporations, we were all against the bailouts under both Bush and Obama but the government already takes WAY too much of our money.

As for gun free England, violent crime worse in Britain than in US.

Right, which is why I linked Peter Schiff's opinion, who someone like Ron Paul, has a proven track record of being correct.

I don't disagree with the tax bit, which is why I support reforming the tax code so there are many less loopholes (particularly for corporations, but for individual groups as well) and lowering the tax rate. The amount of money saved via loopholes is outrageous, so the gov could raise revenue even if they lowered the actual tax rate. This, combined with cuts, should led to a debt situation much better than the one currently. It would also be much easier to actually pass into law.

Your point on British crime is well taken. As of now I would need to look into the matter more clearly before redefining my position, but that statistic is still telling.

And there are many economists (some who have proven track records of being correct) that say that linking the dollar with gold would be disastrous, not the least because there isn't enough gold in the world to back all of the US dollars out currently. Neither you nor I are going to be the ones who answer this particular question, and since Ron Paul isn't even advocating it it really isn't something worth debating about here.

 

[jbuttell]

I'm, uh, not much of a progressive. I'm just a moderate. I feel like the center is the best place to bring people together and to make the country a better place.

No offense, but I think most 'moderates' are the ones responsible for the election of these horrible politicians that are destroying this country. I think most self-proclaimed progressives really could be lumped in with moderates. Romney, Obama etc are mainly distinguishable by their rhetoric, but their actions are so very similar. A little spending here, a little waring over here - but not too much! Don't want to mistakenly get into a thermonuclear war! Don't devaluate the dollar too quickly!! Don't want to get the small people up in arms! Raise taxes.... but not too much!! Wouldn't want to send the wrong signals...!

Bush and now Obama have set new 'normals' where perpetual war IS the new moderate position. To not have war would invite terrorists! Ron Paul, who wants to immediately stop the wars while strengthening our defenses is the new extreme. Ron Paul, who wants to truly reverse the out of control spending, is the new extreme. Ron Paul who stands virtually alone (at least in the presidential field) in voicing concern about the steady erosion of the Bill of Rights - is the new extreme.

So how do you distinguish your "middle of the road" philosophy from these criminals in office who want to tinker with the system while continuing this ridiculous dog and pony show leading to this country's increasingly inevitable demise? The steady ride down the middle leads to a very dangerous place. Radical changes are needed before we can afford to have moderates back in power.

 

[Proph]

I don't disagree with the tax bit, which is why I support reforming the tax code so there are many less loopholes (particularly for corporations, but for individual groups as well) and lowering the tax rate. The amount of money saved via loopholes is outrageous, so the gov could raise revenue even if they lowered the actual tax rate. This, combined with cuts, should led to a debt situation much better than the one currently. It would also be much easier to actually pass into law.

Your point on British crime is well taken. As of now I would need to look into the matter more clearly before redefining my position, but that statistic is still telling.

And there are many economists (some who have proven track records of being correct) that say that linking the dollar with gold would be disastrous, not the least because there isn't enough gold in the world to back all of the US dollars out currently. Neither you nor I are going to be the ones who answer this particular question, and since Ron Paul isn't even advocating it it really isn't something worth debating about here.

If we do it rapidly, that's a possibility. However, that's the reason for competing currency. The idea would be to slowly work back to a monetary system that's backed by gold. Instead of constantly printing more federal reserve notes, we can start deflating by taking money out of the system (raising the value of the dollar in comparison to gold in the process).

That's how I understand it, at least.