Paul raises more than $3.5M in one day

[markalot]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_po/paul_fundraising_3

Have you seen the signs around town? I've seen a few banners tied up to over passes. I just checked out his propaganda (web site) and he's pretty close to my ideal candidate. Maybe I'll get me a bumper sticker.

hmmm, this sounds like an ad.

RON PAUL for whatever he's running for.

[the happy prole]

It's kind of hard to dislike Dr. No. I disagree with a lot of his politics, but he's a smart guy with strong convictions and one of the few people who can claim to be a genuine Libertarian.

The cult of Ron Paul scares the bejesus out of me though. For whatever reason, he seems to attract a disproportionate amount of whackos.

[Breeze]

It's kind of hard to dislike Dr. No. I disagree with a lot of his politics, but he's a smart guy with strong convictions and one of the few people who can claim to be a genuine Libertarian.

The cult of Ron Paul scares the bejesus out of me though. For whatever reason, he seems to attract a disproportionate amount of whackos.
So he's the Kucinich of the opposite side of the aisle, then?

[The Sheck]

What an empty campaign slogan. 'Leading advocate for freedom.' Whatever that means. :p

Basically, he wants to tear down the education department and 'lower taxes' by getting rid of other government programs. And there's his 'free market' dedication, which is a nice idea in theory, but I'm more concerned about 'fair' markets. Free is not fair.

[the happy prole]

So he's the Kucinich of the opposite side of the aisle, then?

I think his left wing equivalent would be more like Ralph Nader. It's like okay, you can like the guy and vote for him but let's not worship the dude. I'm also not saying everyone who likes Ron Paul or Nader is a nut, just that they have a certain nutty core following. That crazy newsletter debacle is a good example.

I don't get that vibe from Kucinich supporters. Most of the ones I know realize he's a bit goofy and they're a bit goofy themselves for "wasting" a vote on a hopeless case. None of them want to stalk him or anything.

Of course, I don't live in Ohio so I may be insulated from all that.

[DaHood]

He apparently wants to get rid of NAFTA and get the fuck out of Iraq. Sounds good to me.

[the happy prole]

I like NAFTA. The fact that the some people hate it because it binds the US and the others hate it because we're supposedly taking advantage of poor countries and it's not strict enough to me means it's a good compromise.

Either that, or it's really just that bad that even polar opposites can agree. :p

[Marlowe]

he's not a 'real' libertarian in the sense that libertarians are radically free-trade. he's an isolationist libertarian... it's great to free-trade inside the US, but any mechanism that reduces trade barriers with other countries is somehow a compromise to our sovereignty. which is a crock of shit. so basically, he's a pat buchanan libertarian.

still, his presence in the race is a positive if for no other reason than he's the best of the fringe candidates by a long-shot. and yes, by the way, kucinich is indeed a whack-job.

[Docta]

He apparently wants to get rid of NAFTA and get the fuck out of Iraq. Sounds good to me.

i think this is the attraction for many traditional gop voters this go around. they want out of this war but god forbid they vote for a democrat!

a libertarian friend of mine wants a paul/obama or obama/paul ticket, wowsa.

[ICONOCLAST420]

Have you seen the signs around town? I've seen a few banners tied up to over passes. I just checked out his propaganda (web site) and he's pretty close to my ideal candidate. Maybe I'll get me a bumper sticker.
I have a sign in my yard and a few extra bumper stickers. I like the way he was on the Tonight Show the same night as the Sex Pistols.

Ron Paul On The Tonight Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1EFHgUXZaU)

[Breeze]

I like the way he was on the Tonight Show the same night as the Sex Pistols.
That's what you call setting the bar low for selecting a candidate--leave it up to scheduling.

[markalot]

Breeze,

you've gone something like 745 posts now without saying anything meaningful. This might be some kind of record.

[Measure Up!]

Don't know much about Paul other than he's anti-choice and has a few racist comments in his past. I'm pretty sure he'd be easy to take out by the other GOP candidates if he became a real threat.

[Sushi]

I have a sign in my yard and a few extra bumper stickers. I like the way he was on the Tonight Show the same night as the Sex Pistols.

Ron Paul On The Tonight Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1EFHgUXZaU)
I figured his bump in fundraising was directly connected to being on right before the Sex Pistols. A friend told me Johnny Rotten is an outspoken Libertarian.

Can anyone tell me from watching the video if Mr Lydon really gained that much weight or did he just make an unfortunate wardrobe choice?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB7lKOEasoA

[Buzzstein]

A libertarian is someone who has never needed help from the government. Under a libertarian government many people in my situation would be completely screwed.

[Kruschev]

The guys got two first names for crying out loud. It's obviously an alias. He's hiding more than we think.

[Jumpman]

A libertarian is someone who has never needed help from the government. Under a libertarian government many people in my situation would be completely screwed.

And I'm assuming for more than just the lack of government enforced ramps and such.


I'm just curious about this, because when it comes to macrofinance, I'm somewhat at a loss. What would be the benefit of a gold standard? Is it even possible today considering the value of the free-floating dollar as compared to actual reserves? Is the idea that it curbs inflation? What would be the drawbacks. Should this be it's own thread?

[Breeze]

Breeze,

you've gone something like 745 posts now without saying anything meaningful. This might be some kind of record.
Don't be silly--it's way more than 745.

[euro60]

Can anyone tell me from watching the video if Mr Lydon really gained that much weight or did he just make an unfortunate wardrobe choice?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB7lKOEasoA
Lydon has gotten rotten in his bottom.... so yea.. he's become rather plumb in the last 10 years or so.

[markalot]

I don't understand that principle at all.

If I have a house that I paid 100,000 for with cash and for whatever reason my house increases in value then anyone wanting to buy my house is going to need more cash to pay for it. In response to this the government prints more money so that the new buyer can pay.

If my house price falls then too much money is in circulation. If the money was based on gold then gold prices would fall. Where is the difference?

[markalot]

Why would the government need to print money for someone to buy the house? The buyer would save or borrow.

With a gold standard there wouldn't be "too much money" in circulation because the money represents something of value. Gold was chosen because it isn't easily created, making it a stable commodity. If the gold price fell, your house would be worth more bank notes.

Sorry, my world was limited to 100,000 dollars and one house. :) The concept is the same, though. If value increases but the value of your currency stays the same then you need more currency to purchase the same amount. If this currency is tied to gold then you need to mine more gold or raise the value of the gold. If you can't mine more gold then either you can't sell your house or it won't increase in value.

[the happy prole]

Let's say you sell me a house. I borrow $100k to buy it. I then give it to the seller. I borrowed that money at interest so I need to pay $200k back over thirty years. Where does that $100k come from? It has to be "printed."

And let's look at it real terms. I borrow $100k to buy a house. No actual money is required because it's all transferred electronically. All my payments are made electronically or via personal check. At no time am I ever going to pay for my mortgage with real cash currency.

The inflation is created by interest. When the bank loans me money at 6% interest it's effectively that $1.00 bill today equals $1.06 next year. The more money I borrow, the more interest comes into play and the higher the inflation.

Going back to the gold standard won't accomplish a damn thing. If I borrow 5 ounces of gold from you today, I still need to pay back 7 ounces later. So two ounces of gold are "created."

What does it matter how much money the government prints? My net worth is my net worth whether the government has $1 in the reserve or $10 billion in the reserve. If the government gave me money for free, yeah then you have inflation. But they could do the same thing with gold.

It's not like 1700 anymore. No one carries around actual gold, and it'd be impossible to run a modern economy that way. People carry around pieces of paper and/or plastic cards with magnetic strips on them. The worth of money has been symbolic for a long time.

If the government wants to run up a huge debt and then it turns out that there isn't enough gold to pay for it then they could just say "$1 bill is now only equal to $.75 worth of gold. Like it or lump it." And what if someone figures out how to make gold for real cheap? We'd all be screwed.

Either the government will continue to run up ridiculous amounts of debt and dork around with the interest rates or it won't. A gold standard isn't going to do a thing to change that.

[Jumpman]

Wrong. I will have a better response tomorrow but inflation occurs because of an increase in the paper money supply. Interest can be offset through services and products that one produces, not by printing money. This is all based on trading. Always has been. To have paper that varies in value backed by nothing is absurd.

Oh, it's not backed by nothing. It's backed by the Lord.

http://www.munic.state.ct.us/BURLINGTON/us_one_dollar_bill/image006.jpg

[the happy prole]

All right. Look at it this way. When you buy borrow $100,000 from a bank, you sign a loan agreement that you will pay them $106,000 next year. You didn't truck over $100,000 worth of gold bullion. Even if you had a means of transport, you still wouldn't do it. Why? Because you don't have the money. If you did, you wouldn't be borrowing it.

So does the bank really have $106,000 in gold bullion? No. It has a piece of paper, with your signature. That piece of paper is legally enforceable via the court system. If it weren't for legally enforceable, it'd be worth nothing.

So that theoretical $106,000 is tied to nothing more than 1) a piece of paper which is not even official currency, 2) my word, and 3) the government's ability to enforce the agreement.

[the happy prole]

I think that probably 99.99% of homeowners who borrowed to buy their house would disagree with you that mortgages are for idiots.

But anyway, the point is-- people (including the government) will either be idiots and over-leverage themselves and build up too much debt or they won't. A gold standard is going to do little to stop that.

Assuming the gold standard could even reduce inflation in today's electronic, high velocity capital world, it's only good so long as we live up to it. And when we were on the gold standard we cheated. When we needed money for WWI, we just took ourselves off it. So if we're just going to change the rules whenever we need monetary expansion, what good is it?

If we adjust our attitudes towards our own and the government's debt then the gold standard isn't necessary. If we don't, then the gold standard won't help. I don't think you can bootstrap your way to non-idiocy by tying token currency into other token currency into gold which is itself is a luxury rather than a necessity and therefore completely arbitrary in it's worth anyway.

[Marlowe]

the amount of paper currency isn't the only inflation factor because the money supply has different definitions, and M2 & M3 money supply definitions far exceed simple M1.

the federal reserve can "create" money merely by changing the minimum bank reserve ratio, or by buying bonds. none of those things involve paper currency.

think of this... we actually need to expand the money supply by an average of 3.1% per year just to keep prices stable. why? because that's the long-term rate at which our economy grows every year, and if you have the same # of dollars chasing more goods, you'll have a price deflation. and deflation is even more dangerous than inflation because people will have less of an incentive to put their wealth into the financial market since they will 'earn' money, or buying power, just by burying cash in their backyard.

the gold standard is antiquated and it would be crippling to go back to it. the price species effect would result in an economy being crippled if it goes into current account deficit, and the US would be totally fucked. this is something that mainstream economists across the political spectrum agree with. anyone who thinks we should go back to the gold standard is either a total whack-job or (more likely) just doesn't know what they're talking about.

[dannyboy]

from wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard)

The essential features of the gold standard in theory rest on the idea that inflation is caused by an increase in the quantity of money, an idea advocated by David Hume, and that uncertainty over the future purchasing power of money depresses business confidence and leads to reduced trade and capital investment.


Differing definitions of gold standard

If the monetary authority holds sufficient gold to convert all circulating money, then this is known as a 100% reserve gold standard, or a full gold standard. In some cases it is referred to as the Gold Specie Standard to more easily separate it from the other forms of gold standard that have existed at various times. The 100% reserve standard is generally considered unworkable because the quantity of gold in the world is too small a quantity of money to sustain current worldwide economic activity and the "right" quantity of money (i.e. one that avoids either inflation or deflation) is not a fixed quantity, but varies continuously with the level of commercial activity.

In an international gold-standard system, which may exist in the absence of any internal gold standard, gold or a currency that is convertible into gold at a fixed price is used as a means of making international payments. Under such a system, when exchange rates rise above or fall below the fixed mint rate by more than the cost of shipping gold from one country to another, large inflows or outflows occur until the rates return to the official level. International gold standards often limit which entities have the right to redeem currency for gold. Under the Bretton Woods system, these were called "SDRs" for Special Drawing Rights.

Perceived stability offered by gold standard

The gold standard, in theory, limits the power of governments to cause price inflation by excessive issue of paper currency. It is also supposed to create certainty in international trade by providing a fixed pattern of exchange rates. Under the classical international gold standard, disturbances in the price level in one country would be wholly or partly offset by an automatic balance-of-payment adjustment mechanism called the “price specie flow mechanism”. At the time of the Bretton Woods agreement, it was believed that markets internally always clear (See Say’s Law). However, in practice, wages, not capital, depreciate in price first.

Mundell-Fleming model

According to modern neo-classical synthesis economics, the Mundell-Fleming Model describes the behavior of currencies under a gold standard. Since the value of the currencies is fixed by the par value of each currency to gold, the remaining freedom of action is distributed between free movement of capital, and effective monetary and fiscal policy. One reason that most modern macro-economists do not support a return to gold is the fear that this remaining amount of freedom would be insufficient to combat large downturns or deflation.

Advocates and opponents of a renewed gold standard

The return to the gold standard is supported by Objectivists, followers of the Austrian School of Economics, and many libertarians.

It is opposed by the vast majority of governments and economists, because the gold standard has frequently been shown to provide insufficient flexibility in the supply of money and in fiscal policy, because the supply of newly mined gold is finite and must be carefully husbanded and accounted for. However the opposite is also believed. The paper money printed based on the finite amount of gold will go up in value as it becomes more rare. This explains why at one time in the United States you could pay for milk and bread in pennies as opposed to several dollars today.

Few economists today advocate a return to the gold standard, other than the Austrian school and some supply-siders. However, many prominent economists are sympathetic with a hard currency basis, and argue against fiat money, including former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and macro-economist Robert Barro. The current monetary system relies on the US Dollar as an “anchor currency” which major transactions, such as the price of gold itself, are measured in. Currency instabilities, inconvertibility and credit access restriction are a few reasons why the current system has been criticized. A host of alternatives have been suggested, including energy-based currencies, market baskets of currencies or commodities; gold is merely one of these alternatives.

In 2001 Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad proposed a new currency that would be used initially for international trade between Muslim nations. The currency he proposed was called the islamic gold dinar and it was defined as 4.25 grams of 24 carat (100%) gold. Mahathir Mohamad promoted the concept on the basis of its economic merits as a stable unit of account and also as a political symbol to create greater unity between Islamic nations. The purported purpose of this move would be to reduce dependence on the United States dollar as a reserve currency, and to establish a non-debt-backed currency in accord with Islamic law against the charging of interest.[1] Nonetheless, gold dinar currency has not yet materialized.[2][3]

Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas and candidate for the 2008 Republican nomination for President, advocates the abolishment of the Federal Reserve in the U.S. and reinstitution of the gold standard. [4] His plan is to allow the United States Treasury to print notes directly, backed by gold reserves and he believes this competing currency would put the Federal Reserve out of business in time without the need to write laws eliminating it.

[Marlowe]

uh, nick, why are you so stuck on inflation? that hasn't been a problem since the early 80s. this might have been an interesting discussion in 1979, but it's really not so much now.

there's NO SUCH THING as a purely safe harbor for your wealth. you really think gold is a pure hedge? real estate? a basket of commodities? treasury bonds? all of those things fluctuate in value. life is full of risks. anyone who keeps more than about $200 in paper currency is an idiot who deserves to lose value over time. anyone who's reasonably intelligent can put money in a savings account or invest in any number of high-liquid assets that will hedge against both inflation and other risks such as duration risk. but again, there's no such thing as a truly risk-free investment that is guaranteed to hold its real value.

[Marlowe]

I am stuck on inflation because the dollar is getting dangerously low in value (like in 1979-80) and our government and people's personal debt is out of control. We have massive trade deficits because other countries value our dollars. At some point nobody is going to want dollars.
inflation and exchange rate depreciation are two different things. and besides, if you think personal debt is out of control you should be happy if the dollar drops in value because it makes it easier to pay back.

[the happy prole]

Look, here's what would happen if we went to a gold standard:

US: Yo, Japan. Can I borrow like 100,000 gold bricks? I'll pay you back like 100,010 gold bricks on Wednesday.

Japan: I don't know, man. You've been borrowing a lot lately, and how am I gonna ship 100,000 gold bricks?

US: I got it covered. Just credit me with 100,000 gold bricks. You know, just set it aside in your warehouse. That way, you don't have to ship it. And you don't have to try and get the bricks back. Worst comes to worst, they're sitting right there under your control.

Japan: Okay.

Greenspan: Well, I guess I'll go ahead and issue a couple more million dollars in currency, since we've got another 100,000 gold bricks.

*one week later*

US: Yo, I'm UPS'ing ten gold bricks to you. Thanks.

Japan: No problem... but uh, don't you have 10 bricks *less* in physical reserve than you used to and way more dollars issued? Seems like a problem to me. You don't have enough in your reserve to cover it.

US: You let me worry about that. I said in a week you could have your 100,000 bricks back plus ten extra, right? And I delivered, right?

Japan: Yeah, I'm straight. That was actually pretty easy.

US: I'm glad you think so. 'Cause I was kind of wondering if I could borrow another 100,000 gold bricks. Same deal as last time...

[Buzzstein]

Hmmmm I'm not really following the discussion. Makes me feel dumb.

[Donyo]

Hmmmm I'm not really following the discussion. Makes me feel dumb.

To sum it up: all money is basically worthless. The end.

[Docta]

we should shut down this thread, just like sean hannity did (http://www.undergroundpolitics.com/index.php/policy_and_international_politics/november_5th_ron_paul_donation_drive.html)

[ICONOCLAST420]

So if creating money creates debt, how do you pay off the debt? Hmmm....
Most people file for bankruptcy. That's the problem with the system, it guarantees inextinguishable debt.

[Artpunchehorse]

It's very unsafe for drivers the way those people wave stuff from an overpass.