The chances of Ron Paul getting assassinated?....

[unknownx]

Yes it worked quite well, that is why it had to be amended so many times. It's a blue print and a good one but it is not perfect.
I am unsure of how protecting people from potentially dangerous drugs until they are properly tested sucks. I admit at times it can take too long and needs to be streamlined bt examples abound for why medicine needs regulation, Thalidomide springs to mind. I fail to see how explaining the basis of the gold standard makes me unable to understand money.......
Here is your example of him saying what the government should do it responce to a disaster

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/26/7488430-ron-paul-no-fema-response-necessary

And now Americans are losing the rights enumerated in the constitution.

The FDA does a relatively poor job of protecting people. They failed with Thalidomide. Then they over reacted by banning a drug that is very effective in the right situation. Just not for pregnant women.

You haven't shown any understanding of the gold standard, or money in general, as far as I can see.

I'll ask you again; where has Ron Paul said "Nobody should do anything" to help disaster victims?

I didn't say nobody, I said we. I also see the disconnect here. You see when I refer to "we" I am refering to the government of whom I consider myself a member. I personally can't do anything to help people in a disaster situation due to a lack of suitable skills, distance etc etc. So I expect the government to respond on my behalf, since I pay for it they are acting as my agents. At least that's how I see it. Government is the collective will of the people.
How exactly is my description of the gold standard incorrect? Explain how it works please, because obviously you seem to understand. Is it not true that the gold standard refers to gold being held in reserve so as to guarantee the value of the money in circulation? Is it not also true that there is not enough gold in the world to guarantee all of the money in circulation now?
As for thalidomide, the FDA never in fact licenced it so they never banned it either. Thus the US never experienced the side effects of thalidomid on pregnant women. What did happen in the US subsequently was the introduction of a regulation that drugs had to be tested to ensure they did not harm pregnant women. So I fail to see how they failed. Indeed I would see the episode as a posotive aspect of government regulation

We were on a gold standard until 1971 when Nixon took us off because the wars were draining our reserves. Being on a full fiat currency status allowed to go into deficit and fund all the war we want. On a gold standard, it would be very hard for a country to go to war because you can't print gold. During WWI and WWII, we were off the gold standard and during the 30's, FDR started confiscating people's gold in order to go to war. There is enough gold to guarantee all of the money in circulation IF it's priced at the correct value. With the amount of money the central banks are printing these days, gold has to reach a level or $20,000/oz to cover all the fiat currency that's in circulation right now. Do yourself a favor and read Alan Greenspan 1967 essay on "Gold and Economic Freedom" (http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm). This was before he sold out and became head of the federal reserve.

That was exactly my original point. There is so much money in circulation right now that a return to the gold standard would be physically impossible. Unless you did a drastic revaluation of all the currency's in the world, which is of course impossible. As for war you are preaching to the choir.

Not impossible....inevitable. All the money printing and fiat currency will eventually lead to a collapse of all fiat currency. Fiat currency will return to its intrinsic value....zero. For the last 5,000 years of civilization, gold and silver have been used as a form of currency because gold/silver ARE money, everything is credit. I have already converted 90% of my paper money into real money (gold/silver) in the last couple of months since I got back to the states. Buying more when I get my next paycheck. One more thing, war is a racket. Just follow the money and connect the dots, then you'll realize that all of the wars for the past 400 years have been nothing but deceptions.

[Jrong]

Ha ha! This topic made me laugh today and reminded me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb_YgzZnbhA

[Carles]

[
Not impossible....inevitable. All the money printing and fiat currency will eventually lead to a collapse of all fiat currency. Fiat currency will return to its intrinsic value....zero. For the last 5,000 years of civilization, gold and silver have been used as a form of currency because gold/silver ARE money, everything is credit. I have already converted 90% of my paper money into real money (gold/silver) in the last couple of months since I got back to the states. Buying more when I get my next paycheck. One more thing, war is a racket. Just follow the money and connect the dots, then you'll realize that all of the wars for the past 400 years have been nothing but deceptions.

I am not so sure about that. Money has value because we agree it does. So anything can be used as currency, paper, gold, silver, sea shells, iron, potatoes just about anything as long as we agree it is worth a certain amount, Thus saying gold or silver are "real" does not make sense. Take silver, what intrinsic value does it have over say iron? It has limited industrial applications, it is only valuable because we agree it has valuable. Gold is the same, although it has many more industrial applications. All a currency, fiat or otherwise has to do is have an agreeable value for it to be used. I agree that governments need to stop printing money with such wild abandon. Inflation hurts us all, and yes a gold standard would help prevent such printing. But as I have said the situation is now at the point where there is smply not enough gold to replace all the money in circulation

 As for war again I agree it is terrible and useless.

[unknownx]

[
Not impossible....inevitable. All the money printing and fiat currency will eventually lead to a collapse of all fiat currency. Fiat currency will return to its intrinsic value....zero. For the last 5,000 years of civilization, gold and silver have been used as a form of currency because gold/silver ARE money, everything is credit. I have already converted 90% of my paper money into real money (gold/silver) in the last couple of months since I got back to the states. Buying more when I get my next paycheck. One more thing, war is a racket. Just follow the money and connect the dots, then you'll realize that all of the wars for the past 400 years have been nothing but deceptions.

I am not so sure about that. Money has value because we agree it does. So anything can be used as currency, paper, gold, silver, sea shells, iron, potatoes just about anything as long as we agree it is worth a certain amount, Thus saying gold or silver are "real" does not make sense. Take silver, what intrinsic value does it have over say iron? It has limited industrial applications, it is only valuable because we agree it has valuable. Gold is the same, although it has many more industrial applications. All a currency, fiat or otherwise has to do is have an agreeable value for it to be used. I agree that governments need to stop printing money with such wild abandon. Inflation hurts us all, and yes a gold standard would help prevent such printing. But as I have said the situation is now at the point where there is smply not enough gold to replace all the money in circulation

 As for war again I agree it is terrible and useless.

http://www.silverinstitute.org/silver_uses.php, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver#Applications


^Go read that and say that to me again. Did you not read about what I said about not being gold in my earlier post. I said there is ENOUGH gold if it's priced according to the correct value, which has to be $20,000-30,000/oz. At that price, all the money in circulation and total debt around the world be covered easily.

[Carles]

Don't get snarky just because not everyone agrees with you that government is the problem. I for one do believe government can be a force for good in people's lives as we have seen throughout modern history. You need only look at your own country's history to see that. I doubt the freed slaves felt government wasn't the answer. As the power of government has grown, the life expectancy, material wealth and overall health of people have all improved.
 If you would like to see an example of the modern world without the tyranny of government I suggest you take a look at Somalia. Obviously it can go to far in the government direction for example north korea. I still feel that today most western democracies have struck a balance between personal freedom and government power.

[Carles]

I for one do believe government can be a force for good in people's lives as we have seen throughout modern history.

Govt is the cause of 99.9% of the problems in the world.

You need only look at your own country's history to see that.

I'm not American

I doubt the freed slaves felt government wasn't the answer.

Slavery exist because of govt. eg. The Fugitive Slave Act. Also, the govt should have been prosecuting slave holders under the common law. Freedom from assault, murder, erm enslavement are pretty deeply enshrined common law.

As the power of government has grown, the life expectancy, material wealth and overall health of people have all improved.

You're mixing up causation and correlation. I would argue those things improved IN SPITE of centralized govt power.

If you would like to see an example of the modern world without the tyranny of government I suggest you take a look at Somalia.

Good grief man. Look at Somalia 1980-1993 and 1993 till 2009. Quality of life rose when they had no govt. They were a "scientifically socialist" country during the 80 and early 90s after all.

I thought you were actually serious about discussing this. Government is responsible of 99.9% of the problems in the world? Seriously? Is it responsible for malaria? For Aids? For cancer? For non potable water killing children in poor countries? For droughts in sub saharan Africa? For crack? For domestic violence? For murder? For poverty? For pollution?
Come on be serious Government has it's flaws but 99.9%?
Quality of life in Somalia improved since the collapse of centeral government? Again are you serious?
The government could not prosocute slave holders under common law because slaves were considered property and thus protected by the law as written in the constitution (paraphrase government shall not deprive of property etc) Dred Scott v. Sandford is a court case you should look up about that.
I'm sorry i just thought you were american.
As for your argument that standards have risen in spite of government you need simply look at the countries that lack a strong centeral government and the life expectancy and wealth of their populations to see that you are mistaken. Look at Somalia, Congo, Afghanistan.
I'm sorry but I think Government protects the weak from people who seek to take advantage of them. It also helps people when they have no one else to turn too.

[Jrong]

I'm sorry but I think Government protects the weak from people who seek to take advantage of them. It also helps people when they have no one else to turn too.

"The Government" will also be waiting outside 'Rusty's' school one of these days in an unmarked van...better watch his back....wait...I think I just saw a drone headed his way, that's a game-changer... 

[sheikhnguyen]

I'm sorry but I think Government protects the weak from people who seek to take advantage of them. It also helps people when they have no one else to turn too.

Yes, as is enumerated in the constitution. It generally fails to do even that because it is distracted with the myriad other things it concerns itself with.

I suppose it's hard to focus on the little things when you are busy producing 99.9% of the Worlds problems. Right?

[odie]

[/quote]

I for one do believe government can be a force for good in people's lives as we have seen throughout modern history. [/quote]

As for your argument that standards have risen in spite of government you need simply look at the countries that lack a strong centeral government and the life expectancy and wealth of their populations to see that you are mistaken. Look at Somalia, Congo, Afghanistan.
I'm sorry but I think Government protects the weak from people who seek to take advantage of them. It also helps people when they have no one else to turn too.
[/quote]

I have to agree with Rusty here. Government is not this wonderful father who will lovingly take care of the people. And this is not an argument of not having vs. having a government, but more like seeing government for what it is--a necessary evil--and limiting it (something for which Ron Paul stands for, if we're to get back to the OP's topic).

And there are many, many countries with a strong, centralized government where people's quality of life is sinking faster than the US dollar.

In the late great US of A, the constitution was made to protect the people from the government as well others who wish citizens harm. The right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from the quartering of troops in private homes--these were all originally protections from the government. That's why adherence to it shouldn't be seen as infantile but rather as wise because the people who wrote it knew what they were doing.

[pcunit2009]

have to agree with Rusty here. Government is not this wonderful father who will lovingly take care of the people. And this is not an argument of not having vs. having a government, but more like seeing government for what it is--a necessary evil--and limiting it (something for which Ron Paul stands for, if we're to get back to the OP's topic).

And there are many, many countries with a strong, centralized government where people's quality of life is sinking faster than the US dollar

There are many, many MORE countries with a strong, centralized government where people's quality of life is improving faster than at any other period in history. Just take a look at pretty much the entire continent of Asia (except for Japan in the last 20 years).

So we're looking at Greece, Ireland, Portgual, Spain and Italy vs Asia, Latin America and Africa (those countries which are not war-torn) and all the western nations (now struggling) that originally got rich on the back of strong, centralized government.

Hmm, I wonder which argument wins there.

Government can be a force for evil and bad (see countless historical examples), but more often than not - it's a force for good. For example, whilst the Chinese government (post Mao) is far from perfect, it's still fair to say they've done more good than bad for the people of China.

[Spongeblob]

I live in a pineapple under the sea and we never have these kind of problems.  ... Almost never.
(Touches a speakerphone and issues the kill order for Patrick the Starfish.)

[Keuka]

This is a rather bizzare topic about a sitting US Congressman.  I don't plan on voting for Ron Paul, but I think this topic is too bizarre and over the top. 

[anichion]

Why would the powers that be want him dead? He's been in office since '76! He's as much as a career politician as Gingrich: just with less baggage and more racial and homophobia issues.

I'd be more worried about threats from Ron Paul's supporters. They're a bit... unhinged.
http://www.eurweb.com/2011/12/tea-partier-urges-obama-family-assassination-in-facebook-rant/

[TheWB18]

Paul's idea of going back to the gold standard right now would be foolish.  Keynes showed how during the biggest of global depressions, countries remaining on the gold standard took much longer to recover than those who abandoned it.  Presumably, returning to the gold standard and limiting our ability to produce money (necessary during an economic downturn, though dangerous) would really just be another kick in the ribs for the U.S. economy.

To me, Ron Paul has just enough cringeworthy ideas to out weigh the fact that he's the only candidate who actually has new ideas.

[woman-king]

Paul's idea of going back to the gold standard right now would be foolish.  Keynes showed how during the biggest of global depressions, countries remaining on the gold standard took much longer to recover than those who abandoned it.  Presumably, returning to the gold standard and limiting our ability to produce money (necessary during an economic downturn, though dangerous) would really just be another kick in the ribs for the U.S. economy.

To me, Ron Paul has just enough cringeworthy ideas to out weigh the fact that he's the only candidate who actually has new ideas.

Ha, yeah.  I think some people just like hearing something a little different than "Republican Party Line" and "Democrat Party Line" from presidential candidates, and they like seeing someone go out on a limb and say what they really think even if it's a bit out in left field.  I like seeing Ron Paul in the primary debates even though I'd never vote for him.

[marsavalanche]

99.9999999...... percent of people don't care about Ron Paul.

He just won a poll in Iowa and is in 2nd place in NH.  Wanna try again?

[Keuka]

I'm surprised to be honest.  It makes the race even more interesting.

[Peekay1982]

One thing I like about that article is its continued use of the word (is it a word?) "banksters".

[Peekay1982]

Yes it worked quite well, that is why it had to be amended so many times. It's a blue print and a good one but it is not perfect.
I am unsure of how protecting people from potentially dangerous drugs until they are properly tested sucks. I admit at times it can take too long and needs to be streamlined bt examples abound for why medicine needs regulation, Thalidomide springs to mind. I fail to see how explaining the basis of the gold standard makes me unable to understand money.......
Here is your example of him saying what the government should do it responce to a disaster

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/26/7488430-ron-paul-no-fema-response-necessary

And now Americans are losing the rights enumerated in the constitution.

The FDA does a relatively poor job of protecting people. They failed with Thalidomide. Then they over reacted by banning a drug that is very effective in the right situation. Just not for pregnant women.

You haven't shown any understanding of the gold standard, or money in general, as far as I can see.

I'll ask you again; where has Ron Paul said "Nobody should do anything" to help disaster victims?

I didn't say nobody, I said we. I also see the disconnect here. You see when I refer to "we" I am refering to the government of whom I consider myself a member. I personally can't do anything to help people in a disaster situation due to a lack of suitable skills, distance etc etc. So I expect the government to respond on my behalf, since I pay for it they are acting as my agents. At least that's how I see it. Government is the collective will of the people.
How exactly is my description of the gold standard incorrect? Explain how it works please, because obviously you seem to understand. Is it not true that the gold standard refers to gold being held in reserve so as to guarantee the value of the money in circulation? Is it not also true that there is not enough gold in the world to guarantee all of the money in circulation now?
As for thalidomide, the FDA never in fact licenced it so they never banned it either. Thus the US never experienced the side effects of thalidomid on pregnant women. What did happen in the US subsequently was the introduction of a regulation that drugs had to be tested to ensure they did not harm pregnant women. So I fail to see how they failed. Indeed I would see the episode as a posotive aspect of government regulation

We were on a gold standard until 1971 when Nixon took us off because the wars were draining our reserves. Being on a full fiat currency status allowed to go into deficit and fund all the war we want. On a gold standard, it would be very hard for a country to go to war because you can't print gold. During WWI and WWII, we were off the gold standard and during the 30's, FDR started confiscating people's gold in order to go to war. There is enough gold to guarantee all of the money in circulation IF it's priced at the correct value. With the amount of money the central banks are printing these days, gold has to reach a level or $20,000/oz to cover all the fiat currency that's in circulation right now. Do yourself a favor and read Alan Greenspan 1967 essay on "Gold and Economic Freedom" (http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm). This was before he sold out and became head of the federal reserve.

That was exactly my original point. There is so much money in circulation right now that a return to the gold standard would be physically impossible. Unless you did a drastic revaluation of all the currency's in the world, which is of course impossible. As for war you are preaching to the choir.

Not impossible....inevitable. All the money printing and fiat currency will eventually lead to a collapse of all fiat currency. Fiat currency will return to its intrinsic value....zero. For the last 5,000 years of civilization, gold and silver have been used as a form of currency because gold/silver ARE money, everything is credit. I have already converted 90% of my paper money into real money (gold/silver) in the last couple of months since I got back to the states. Buying more when I get my next paycheck. One more thing, war is a racket. Just follow the money and connect the dots, then you'll realize that all of the wars for the past 400 years have been nothing but deceptions.

I definitely see where people are coming from in terms in buying gold these days, but I do wonder how you think it will work out in practice. Bring a lump of gold down to the shop and shave off a sliver for groceries? Serious question. Say paper currencies collapse and people start accepting gold for goods and services. How will it pan out?