Pliny Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 The problem is that some parts of Ron Paul's line are oversimplistic. The idea that if everyone returns to the gold standard, somehow inflation magically disappears is very naive, and yet his followers literally preach it everywhere they can. It does. Inflation is entirely a monetary phenomenon. You only illustrate your own naivety with this statement - of which a majority of the public would probably agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 ..... I can only imagine how dismal and unproductive a presidency his would be. Yeah! All the more reason to vote Ron Paul! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 No....we're told that we may succeed. Success is defined many different ways. Okay, well I mean financially but your missing my point. Many can't succeed because the system won't allow them too, it is mathematically impossible for them too, the system is fundamentally flawed. Since there is more debt in dollars then their is actual dollars, Central Banks must perpetually expand the money supply threw either open market operations of threw the commercial banks and fractional reserve banking in order to create the dollars needed to service the debts. The problem is that the dollars that are needed to service the existing debt are created out of new debt. Since the total amount of debt perpetually grows, Central Banks are forced to increase the money supply by greater and greater amount each time. http://thetruthwins.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/us-money-supply.gif Ron Paul doesn't want to return to the gold standard because he is crazy, it is because fiat money system can't work, it is impossible. Eventually the inflation that comes with the expansion of the money supply gets out of hand and it destroys the currency. This is why Ron Paul is against many of the welfare programs. They become too expensive and the debt associated with them leads to inflation which hurts the people that the welfare program was initially trying to help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 The American Dream. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6OQzH07u0U&feature=related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 What's so special about "seniors", who already gobble up a good out of proportion part of the budget. You're right, let them die... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 The American Dream. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96c4B2C7e6Q&feature=related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Here is another one for you then American Woman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPtgfqaFaPQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Here is another one for you then American Woman. And here's another one for you. Enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I doubt you watched the two I posted American Woman .. not unexpected though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8 Keep posting your drivel, and I'll keep posting what you need to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I doubt you watched the two I posted American Woman .. not unexpected though. This may come as a shock to you, but I don't need to watch your videos to know what the American Dream is or isn't - and the American Dream is alive and well. Keep posting your drivel, and I'll keep posting what you need to hear. Yes, because I need a Canadian to tell me what I need to hear about the American Dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 You're right, let them die... I have more bad news for you....we're all gonna die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 ...Yes, because I need a Canadian to tell me what I need to hear about the American Dream. Ain't that the truth...touche`! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I have more bad news for you....we're all gonna die. I won't be dying on the streets, I don't think. I guess it doesn't matter but I prefer it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I won't be dying on the streets, I don't think. I guess it doesn't matter but I prefer it that way. Neither will seniors....children first if you don't mind, if they can manage to avoid state funded abortions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Neither will seniors... Very strange... you're usually rooted in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Very strange... you're usually rooted in reality. The reality is that seniors already receive a lot more benefits, which in many cases are not means tested. Hell, many of them would tell you this to your face. Why do you favor seniors over any other demographic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Now hear this....Ron Paul will never be elected President of the United States. Your best hope (from Canada??) is that he gets picked up as VP on a winning ticket and the real president drops dead. I really don't care what you think his odds of winning are or if you think he has a chance to win or not. I am simply trying to explain his view points. Did anything that I have said about money not make sense to you? Do you understand how a fiat money system screws you over? Look at QE1 and QE2...The banks got billions of dollars to spend in the economy. Since they received the money first, they got to use that money when its value was at its highest. As the money has trickled down into the system and made its way to the people(you) it has began to lose its value because of the increase of dollars are circulating. As a result your cost of living goes up while your savings go down. If I must, I will move to the USA, there is no voice for libertarianism in Canada. As Canadians we are rather collectively complacent to whatever actions our government takes. I live in Manitoba, maybe I should move to North Dakota, there economy is the fastest growing economy in the States and it is close to home. Maybe North Dakota is the fastest growing state because it is the only state with a state owned bank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I really don't care what you think his odds of winning are or if you think he has a chance to win or not. I am simply trying to explain his view points. Did anything that I have said about money not make sense to you? Do you understand how a fiat money system screws you over? Yes, and at this rate, I hope I get "screwed over" even more. I have been very successful in the current system, not any viable alternative you have yet to describe. Look at QE1 and QE2... As a result your cost of living goes up while your savings go down. Really? My cost of living is going down and my savings are going up. Perhaps you have yet to overcome the debt curve. If I must, I will move to the USA, there is no voice for libertarianism in Canada. As Canadians we are rather collectively complacent to whatever actions our government takes. Who says you "must" move anywhere? Most Canadians believe in a direct role for government at every turn. Something about "peace, order, and good government". I live in Manitoba, maybe I should move to North Dakota, there economy is the fastest growing economy in the States and it is close to home. Maybe North Dakota is the fastest growing state because it is the only state with a state owned bank. North Dakota is doing well because the energy resources are mostly under privately owned land, free of federal red tape and barriers to development. Also, the big banks never gave ND any respect, so were not on hand to hose things up. North Dakota is experiencing the same success that came to Alaska back in the 1970's, but it is not forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) I don't think you really want me to dredge up some of your posts regarding this. My position has always been that the housing bubble was due to government policies, specifically low interest rates, easy credit (the creation of debt) and the Community Reinvestment Act, plus certain government policies from agencies such as Fannie and Freddie to purchase risky mortgages. If I recall, your stance is that it was speculators, investors and a greedy public that drove the boom to the netherlands. Well, they are the actors but they don't act just because they are who they are. The conditions have to be set in order for them to act. Speculators and investors and Wall Street were all set to make some money. Unfortunately, those that were simply homeowners wanting a home were the ones that were hurt the most. The homeowners that those government policies, the ones that created the "moral hazard" and greased the wheels, were supposed to "help" the most. And to add insult to injury - Wall Street was bailed out and Main Street left to languish for the most part - while government loftily looked down it's nose at all the greed - they deserved punishment for their deeds. Conspiracy theories???? Free market religion??? Wow! That wasnt just my stance, its corroborated by all facts surrounding the meltdown and by the money trail, and you could verify what I told you is correct if you even put 5 minutes into doing some research on what happened. The CRA is a red herring that was trotted out in the immediate aftermath of the crisis but quickly abandoned. The problem of course being that the CRA didnt apply to any of the lenders that origionated all the risky loans. I showed you who those lenders are, how they did business, and how they were capitalized. You ignored it simply because it conflicts with your ideology. Blaming the government for the whole mess is obviously a useful political instrument for you. I understand why you do it. What you had here was a garden variety asset bubble... made worse by the fact that the over securization of US mortgages allowed a massive glut of foreign capital into the US housing market, and structural changes in the financial markets. What changed during the housing bubble? The CDS market grew from less than a hundred billion to almost 60 TRILLION... and demand for asset backed securities based on US realestate grew to such a high level that it was a PROFITABLE VENTURE to origionate even very risky loans, buy default swaps, and then bundle the whole mess into derivitives which are then sold through investment banks to pension fund managers in China, or hedge fund managers in Germany. BTW, Iv read the CRA from start to end. It doesnt say what you think it does... and it doesnt encourage or mandate subprime loans. The fact is that commercial banks that recieved FDIC deposits and were subject to the CRA were probably the most responsible group of mortgage origionators, and also the most supervised. Edited June 22, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) It does. Inflation is entirely a monetary phenomenon. You only illustrate your own naivety with this statement - of which a majority of the public would probably agree with you. It does. Inflation is entirely a monetary phenomenon. No it isnt. Inflation happens when the number of economic units of account expands in relation to the total ammount of goods and services in the market place. I linked you to a good "inflation 101" primer a while back that should have cleared this up for you, but you obviously didnt read it. Its true that inflation is less likely under the gold standard though. The problem with the gold standard would be massive INFLATION. 300% since 1990 alone. Edited June 22, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Why do you favor seniors over any other demographic? I DID mention means testing though. Why I would mention them is that a large number of them depend on social security to live and have no other means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 We need to put in incentives...maybe if their pension was proportional to the economic health of the country? That would teach them to interfere with the economy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I DID mention means testing though. Why I would mention them is that a large number of them depend on social security to live and have no other means. Social security programs were never intended to be the sole source of retirement, disability, or survivors income. Payroll taxes will need to be raised and/or benefits cut to sustain such programs at current levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Social security programs were never intended to be the sole source of retirement, disability, or survivors income. Payroll taxes will need to be raised and/or benefits cut to sustain such programs at current levels. Means testing would address some of that problem, yes. The fund got raided in the past, and that's another problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Means testing would address some of that problem, yes. The fund got raided in the past, and that's another problem. Awesome stuff is it not? Two bailouts, eventually payed back by the taxpayer. Which means higher prices and less services for all, and when that money train runs out, they will go after the savings and retirement funds... Greece is selling off most of it's infrastructure and in the end will have to enact austerity measures in order to balance the books (if they can ever be balanced). The Greeks will never ever be able to pay these debts off. This is the same for many countries. But in the end who are all these nations paying? International banks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.