So what's stopping you from holding your net worth in gold? Could it be ... no net worth? You pay interest... WHEN YOU BORROW. I'd still like to know which gov't program that someone could dream up wouldn't be funded if money were "free". Could it be that nobody cares about your theories of the fed because they have as much validity as your theories that the US gov't brought down the twin towers. You and Hydroblunt live in the same alternate universe.
It is a good point, and I accept the concept of the point. It's just a rebuttal to a point that I'm not making. I'm not saying that the Fed doesn't create money from nothing. I'm saying that they are the vehicle for borrowing, not the cause. People have always and will always want to borrow to accomplish things. As long as there is a demand for something, there is someone willing to supply it. A desire to achieve something faster is the cause of borrowing. The Fed simply provides a vehicle for doing so.
What you need to understand about RP is that he is very much a federalist. That indicates a lot of his background. I also am a federalist, so I don't hold that against him, but there are obvious problems with many of his positions. Think of it this way. He is saying that the federal government shouldn't be taxing income. He's not saying that states shouldn't have the ability to tax income. He'd leave it up to each state to figure out for themselves how they want to bring in revenue. While RP is for dramatically reducing our military, as you are, he is also for dismantling the UN. There is no need for anyone to police the world in his mind. He is a believer that we are causing al the wars we are involved in. If we would simply leave and worry about ourselves, then they wouldn't want anything to do with us and would just leave us alone. Yeah, the most interesting of RP positions is that he says he doesn't want the federal government to interfere with free-trade, either promoting or discouraging it. In the next sentence he says that one of the best sources for federal revenue is tariffs.
Rhetoric given by the establishment when USA was going off the gold standard. Hypothetical reasons with little evidence behind them, just theories. Yeah I know, thats the nonsense they taught me in college and even then, most of the class swallowed it with difficulty. The reality was that USA was in default and was not able to meet the redemption of dollars for gold. How about you look at history of gold as money vs fiat. One has thousands of years behind it, the other, well I think I made my point. When kings debased metal currency, that was a problem. When major power players hoarded gold & controlled supply, that was a problem. The inherent concept is one that was tested by time and mankind. Basic concept of money: Durable, malleable, divisible and obviously, scarce and valuable. Gold & Silver meet that, hence why they were the most common forms of money. Laissez-Faire is not a theory. Before you try to act like an expert, why don't you go learn exactly where Laissez-Faire came from and its results. Unlike socialism, which was drafted as a theory, laissez-faire came from real life and then formulated as methodology. You obviously totally missed my point. I know, simple math is a hard concept, so is understand that in the current system Money=Debt. It's hard to those who do not even understand the concept of money, where it came from, how it came about and the various systems that have existed. Let me make it simple, from Day 1, under a private central bank, there is no money in the nation unless there is debt. Period. Just look on any dollar bill and check what it says. Yeah, you're right, destruction of sovereignty, self substinence, the local community & human rights are GREAT. Destruction of the middle class & quality of product/service in what was once the top nation in the world is AWESOME. Cause we gotta make sure 10% of the Chinese & Indians get to become middle class, while most of them toil away in sweatshops. Meanwhile the main benefactors are multinational corporations. Yet somehow, the wealth gets spread around to everyone, because that's how corporations do it, they spread the wealth before performing their legal duty of growing profits for shareholders. There has yet to be a reasonable study that supports globalism. The key results are growing disparity between rich & poor, loss of sovereignty, destruction of environment & sweatshops. I will use basic math again. Globalism is essentially this. Instead of paying someone 10 dollars here, you pay someone 2 dollars elsewhere. You still charge the same price for the product and keep the spread. You bring down the standard of someone living here by 50% and raise the standard of living of some third world slave by 10% (which u will soon erase anyway by increasing cost of living). Lot of losers and very few winners. What? You don't know what you are talking about. Almost every war has to do with mercantilism & imperialism. Civil wars are only about power. You have no idea about free trade or globalism. NAFTA, WTO, IMF, World Bank (which are the leading institutions of Globalism, something you obviously did not know) and their subsequent agreements are as far from free trade as communism is. Seriously, no wonder some people won't even respond to you. You're borderline clueless.
How about FBI raiding Liberty Dollar HQ? Or http://www.wellsfargonevadagold.com/exec-order.html It's a total mystery how governments used to operate, even in this country, without central banks. Oh, the horror. Yeah, you're right, noone cares. That's how Ron Paul raised so much money from private individuals, cause noone cares. I'm pretty sure you will care when you wake up and realize that you are living in a third world country.
USA was an industrial & economic superpower with tarrifs on almost everything. Japan STILL uses tariffs to protect their manufacturing base, while enjoying one of the highest standards of living. There are other extremely stable 1st world nations which use tariffs to protect their industry, I think Switzerland (I may be wrong on this) Tariffs when used to create & stimulate an industry for which the nation simply has no economic sense for, fail badly. These are the examples you see being used by "economists" who have a pre-disposed bias for globalism. Tariffs used to protect an existing & vital economic base have a historical track record of success. Japan still uses them excessively, among with other techniques. And, by the way, tariffs are part of free trade. The Free Trade concept, which is a lot older than you will ever realize, was often about lowering tariffs, not exactly eliminating them. The understanding is that importing a product will hurt your economic base which will have consequences (just look at USA). Hence the tariff is the subsidy which is meant to be passed on to the nation.
Hydro, I'm not at all amazed with your arguments, many of them are logical and obviously correct. Many also have nothing to do with the points I was making though you seem intent on assigning opinions to me. I am however amazed at your animus. You come across as a very hateful person who simply hates anyone who would hold a different opinion. You seem convinced that you are the all knowing and that the thousands of economists who disagree with you are somehow ignorant to the secret truths that you are privy to. You also seem convinced that I think our current monetary system is great. I don't! I prefer a much different system, but I simply don't buy into the idea that gold is perfect. Also, I referred to lassiez-faire as a system for ease in communication, not because I think it was somehow invented. You seem so bent on hateful disagreement that you're completely unwilling to seriously consider the actual meaning behind others' statements. I also never claimed that NAFTA, WTO , etc. were good. If a company would prefer to do business elsewhere, they should have ability to. Again, I am separating corrupt agreements from the idea of free-trade and freedom to expand and become multi-national. I attempt to have a discussion that I might benefit from. You seem more inclined to try to belittle people in an attempt to make yourself feel superior. Good day sir.
Achilles, I owe you an apology. I missed the context of your original statement. I re-read this and realized your point regarding RP's statements about the FED, and what you were trying to get at. Points well taken.
This was mentioned earlier but I wanted to hit it again just in case someone from mitts campaign needs a job. Go back an watch the tom clancy movie in which harrison ford gave the pres advice. you don't sit there and argue with the guy you amplify. You do ju jutsu to it. You give him praise for being on in front on the iraq surge. You say on that test you scored 100%. You were the lone wolf out in front and you nailed it. But is that the test of leadership. Lets look at your other lone Republican deals. Out in front on amnesty. 85% of the country was against you and 95% of republicans You do the same Out in front on campaign finance gang of 14 dopes, etc. Sure john you take career ending/party destroying stance all the time. It does make you a leader - but not of the Republican party.
hey hydro, did you not see the word "dramatically" after the word "tariff"? were you not reading the entire thread? we were speaking of an increase in the realm of ten fold. you are such a protectionist that you prolly have an argument for that one too, however.