sure.all based on the “principle” that people are retards that need an all knowing govt to regulate their lives.stalin and mao are having the last laugh
anyway,forget ron paul. atleast listen to peter schiff or jim rogers or some real world market practitioners who foresaw all this coming. and guess what ,they all endorse ron paul.
greenman101 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ron Paul is wrong and anyone who wants a gold > backed currency is never going to make it through > the CFA because their knowledge of economics is > clearly sub par at best. Was that an attempt at satire or are you actually serious? A gold standard, or some standard that prevents the government from creating money whenever it’s in a bind, is absolutely necessary. I’m a Level III CFA Candidate and 2 for 2 at this point. My boss is a CFA charterholder that went 3 for 3 and he agrees. Just because it isn’t in the Econ section of the CFA curriculum and they didn’t teach it in the introduction to or intermediate macro & micro doesn’t make it so. What academia teaches is constantly evolving, if you asked Aristotle he would have told you that the Earth was the center of the Universe and I hear that world geography scholars used to teach that the world was flat. DanLieb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > greenman101 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Ron Paul is wrong and anyone who wants a gold > > backed currency is never going to make it > through > > the CFA because their knowledge of economics is > > clearly sub par at best. > > > Not to mention lack of knowledge of history & > civics. RP needs to study more of the great > democracies of the world before he esposes his > libertarian non-sense. People that see the error of a fiat money system have a lack of knowledge of history? What history are you referring to? I don’t suppose you are referring to the history of the German Mark following World War I… I hear the runaway inflation, caused by the central bank, resulted in a really REALLY bad guy to coming to power. How are Libertarian views nonsense? SeanC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > accountant23 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I love how people opposed to him never seem to > > make a pesuasive argument against him but > simply > > dismiss him. Why not make a case? > > its been done. > > RP fans are just as fundamentalist and out of > touch as he is. I’ve never heard a sound case against what he stands for and would love for you to enlighten me. Fundamentalist is a pretty nasty word, why not say ‘RP fans have principles and don’t blow in the wind’? What exactly are they out of touch with, the suffering that occurs during a recession or the Econ material in the CFAI curriculum?
I am not an American and I even dont care what Americans do with their currency/country… but this whole printing press mess … will sure kill them & its just a matter of time when Americans have to kill their golden goose and live like rest of the people on the planet … This how I understand it … Americans were dominating this world with “Military Might” and every time they had some probelms with the rest of hte world they attack some innocent country and show the rest of the world to obey them and keep buying treasury … and things get okay in couple of quarters … I still feel sorry for poor Saddam who tried to trade oil in Euros and got hanged on Eid day (a christmas like event for muslims) … left apart the cruelty Americans have shown to the rest of the world … now Americans have lost their Military might … they lost in Iraq … they cant dare to attack on Iran instead of several invitations from Ahmed-din-ejad (Irani president) … things are really messy in Afghanistan … and now Pakistan’s military chief warnings Americans to keep out of his country or they know how to wipe Nato bases in Afghanistan and also Israel is in their missile range … could anyone imagine this event happening just 5 years ago … and now G7 is giving massive aid to Pakistan to turn its intentions away from anti-american… North korea started its Nuclear reactor again … Russian president giving 5 point foreign policy statment and the major one was … “the world is multipolar” … just few years back China destroyed american satellite … to show their capability … should I mention this important fact that without satellite american foreces will be sitting like lame ducks for gureillas to attack … Now the icing … just 2 days ago, german finance minister saying america has lost its super power status … Just wait till … china stops buying treasury … GCC depegs its currency … and Iran starts an oil bourse trading oil in EUROS and russians are also very interested in it … How long Fed Reserve will keep the printing press runnings … ???
I love reading Paul’s stuff. It’s easy to make the case against Paul - his policies are aimed at the reworking of the world order. Is there anybody who seriously thinks that withdrawing from NATO, the UN, instituting a gold standard, eliminating the IRS, removing all military bases overseas, etc. would not cause an enormous number of (at least) short-term problems? It’s not clear how fast a Pres. Ron Paul would do that stuff, but it’s easy to say that “While there might be long-term benefits in that stuff, it certainly contains tons of risk and that’s more risk than I have an appetite for”. Ron Paul would probably even respect that and thank you for your attention. As far as these statements like “If you are in favor of the gold standard, you don’t know your history and you can’t pass your CFA exams”, that’s just silly. I tend to think gold standard types are flat-earthers because most of them seem to think that we need some 100% reserve system with the money supply completely dependent on the quantity of gold in the vault. That’s not a reasonable system and is just a strawman to beat on the idea of a “harder” currency. I believe most of what Paul said in his letter is correct. Don’t most people on AF believe that our current troubles are at least in part fueled by an easy money policy of the Fed? The Fed operates with almost no constraints and it’s really easy for a room full of a dozen or so guys to really mess up stuff. Hard currency is aimed at putting some limits on the impact those guys can have on everyone else. How you feel about that probably should hinge on how you feel about the wisdom of Central Bankers and the downside of limited flexibility of hard currency (as well as your views about who should be protected by monetary policies - workers, savers, lenders all have different goals). Edit: BTW - Aristotle did think the earth was the center of thhe universe (we now know, of course, that I am the center of the Universe) but he “knew” it was round. Kinda weird that later generations made the step backward to flat earth.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love reading Paul’s stuff. > > It’s easy to make the case against Paul - his > policies are aimed at the reworking of the world > order. Is there anybody who seriously thinks that > withdrawing from NATO, the UN, instituting a gold > standard, eliminating the IRS, removing all > military bases overseas, etc. would not cause an > enormous number of (at least) short-term problems? > It’s not clear how fast a Pres. Ron Paul would do > that stuff, but it’s easy to say that “While there > might be long-term benefits in that stuff, it > certainly contains tons of risk and that’s more > risk than I have an appetite for”. Ron Paul would > probably even respect that and thank you for your > attention. well for that you have to read ron paul a little further.he doesnt propose a 4 year plan to “rework” the world. getting out of NATO etc are political decisions and can happen rapidly -didnt the eastern communist bloc collapse like dominos at a very rapid pace?. there was no serious harm done -except horrible devaluation of their currencies -but people survived -it wasnt anything like the great depression or something as bad. as far as medicare or social security is concerned, clearly couple of generations have been conditioned to think that the govt will “take care” of them - they arent gonna be thrown out on the streets -there will have to be a transition period for them. the income tax,gold standard disappearing all didnt happen gradually -they happened just after crises(ww2/vietnam war,depression etc). in anycase ron paul’and austrian) prediction of continuing the current system indicates far more extreme risk than you might be comfortable with since the same mistakes are being repeated and the “cure” is more of the same risky behaviour -the pain on the downside will have to be equal and opposite to the excesses on the up side.thats logical. > > As far as these statements like “If you are in > favor of the gold standard, you don’t know your > history and you can’t pass your CFA exams”, that’s > just silly. I tend to think gold standard types > are flat-earthers because most of them seem to > think that we need some 100% reserve system with > the money supply completely dependent on the > quantity of gold in the vault. That’s not a > reasonable system and is just a strawman to beat > on the idea of a “harder” currency. > > I believe most of what Paul said in his letter is > correct. Don’t most people on AF believe that our > current troubles are at least in part fueled by an > easy money policy of the Fed? The Fed operates > with almost no constraints and it’s really easy > for a room full of a dozen or so guys to really > mess up stuff. Hard currency is aimed at putting > some limits on the impact those guys can have on > everyone else. How you feel about that probably > should hinge on how you feel about the wisdom of > Central Bankers and the downside of limited > flexibility of hard currency (as well as your > views about who should be protected by monetary > policies - workers, savers, lenders all have > different goals). > > Edit: BTW - Aristotle did think the earth was the > center of thhe universe (we now know, of course, > that I am the center of the Universe) but he > “knew” it was round. Kinda weird that later > generations made the step backward to flat earth.
Dsylexic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeyDVivre Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I love reading Paul’s stuff. > > > > It’s easy to make the case against Paul - his > > policies are aimed at the reworking of the > world > > order. Is there anybody who seriously thinks > that > > withdrawing from NATO, the UN, instituting a > gold > > standard, eliminating the IRS, removing all > > military bases overseas, etc. would not cause > an > > enormous number of (at least) short-term > problems? > > It’s not clear how fast a Pres. Ron Paul would > do > > that stuff, but it’s easy to say that “While > there > > might be long-term benefits in that stuff, it > > certainly contains tons of risk and that’s more > > risk than I have an appetite for”. Ron Paul > would > > probably even respect that and thank you for > your > > attention. > > well for that you have to read ron paul a little > further.he doesnt propose a 4 year plan to > “rework” the world. getting out of NATO etc are > political decisions and can happen rapidly -didnt > the eastern communist bloc collapse like dominos > at a very rapid pace? No it didn’t. The collapse of Eastern European Communism took most of the Cold War period. There wasn’t a question that Communism was dead starting in 70’s sometime and the world pretty much prepared for and brought them down to a soft landing. IMHO, one of the great Reagan triumphs. >. there was no serious harm > done -except horrible devaluation of their > currencies -but people survived -it wasnt anything > like the great depression or something as bad. I agree, with the exception of Yugoslavia which was destroyed. Sometimes when you take a risky approach, you get the upside of risk. > as far as medicare or social security is > concerned, clearly couple of generations have been > conditioned to think that the govt will “take > care” of them - they arent gonna be thrown out on > the streets -there will have to be a transition > period for them. Of course and it’s happening now. > the income tax,gold standard disappearing all > didnt happen gradually -they happened just after > crises(ww2/vietnam war,depression etc). I think most things do happen fairly gradually. Abandoning the gold standard took 5 - 10 years of New Deal/Vietnam/budget deficits to really mess up the US economy and then take down Bretton Woods. Our current problems started in 2002 or so. > in anycase > ron paul’and austrian) prediction of continuing > the current system indicates far more extreme risk Probably not because we are using time-tested institutions. The risk is in forming new models (like a Treasury Secretary-dictatorship) to dela with these problems. > than you might be comfortable with since the same > mistakes are being repeated and the “cure” is more > of the same risky behaviour -the pain on the > downside will have to be equal and opposite to the > excesses on the up side.thats logical. > Maybe but I don’t really know what that means. > > > > As far as these statements like “If you are in > > favor of the gold standard, you don’t know your > > history and you can’t pass your CFA exams”, > that’s > > just silly. I tend to think gold standard > types > > are flat-earthers because most of them seem to > > think that we need some 100% reserve system > with > > the money supply completely dependent on the > > quantity of gold in the vault. That’s not a > > reasonable system and is just a strawman to > beat > > on the idea of a “harder” currency. > > > > I believe most of what Paul said in his letter > is > > correct. Don’t most people on AF believe that > our > > current troubles are at least in part fueled by > an > > easy money policy of the Fed? The Fed operates > > with almost no constraints and it’s really easy > > for a room full of a dozen or so guys to really > > mess up stuff. Hard currency is aimed at > putting > > some limits on the impact those guys can have > on > > everyone else. How you feel about that > probably > > should hinge on how you feel about the wisdom > of > > Central Bankers and the downside of limited > > flexibility of hard currency (as well as your > > views about who should be protected by monetary > > policies - workers, savers, lenders all have > > different goals). > > > > Edit: BTW - Aristotle did think the earth was > the > > center of thhe universe (we now know, of > course, > > that I am the center of the Universe) but he > > “knew” it was round. Kinda weird that later > > generations made the step backward to flat > earth.
lol. I can’t even believe there is a debate about gold and Ron Paul here. His RPBs (ron paul bots) have really spread the rot. Asset backed currencies can still be debauched easily. The idea they can’t is laughable. They are deflationary, unpredictable, and limited. All of which hinders an economy.
Asset-backed currencies can be debauched? Does that mean that we would be morally corrupted by a gold standard?
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lol. I can’t even believe there is a debate about > gold and Ron Paul here. His RPBs (ron paul bots) > have really spread the rot. > > Asset backed currencies can still be debauched > easily. The idea they can’t is laughable. They > are deflationary, unpredictable, and limited. All > of which hinders an economy. spierce is a deflation monger. he doesnt know that america had its best economic growth between 1870-1900 when it experienced a consistent deflation. prices were half in 1900 of what they were in 1870. asset backed currencies can be debauched (sic) easily by breaking the law. having a fiat system is legalizing daylight robbery
greenman101 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ron Paul is wrong and anyone who wants a gold > backed currency is never going to make it through > the CFA because their knowledge of economics is > clearly sub par at best. Wow. It’s people like you that are so close minded that do not need to be running this country. PS… I have my charter and two masters degrees.
Dsylexic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > spierce Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > lol. I can’t even believe there is a debate > about > > gold and Ron Paul here. His RPBs (ron paul > bots) > > have really spread the rot. > > > > Asset backed currencies can still be debauched > > easily. The idea they can’t is laughable. > They > > are deflationary, unpredictable, and limited. > All > > of which hinders an economy. > > > spierce is a deflation monger. he doesnt know that > america had its best economic growth between > 1870-1900 when it experienced a consistent > deflation. prices were half in 1900 of what they > were in 1870. > asset backed currencies can be debauched (sic) > easily by breaking the law. having a fiat system > is legalizing daylight robbery Yuck. America grew between 1870 - 1900 because of the industrial revolution. Deflation probably hindered the growth. Certainly by the 1890’s, it was becoming pretty clear that we needed to expand the money supply more than the gold standard would allow. Edit: BTW - Growth in America happened 1865 - 1873 in an unhealthy awkward kinda way. From 1873 - 1878 (Grant’s term mostly), America was in a severe recession.
yeah so an “revolution” happened. what a joke.industries just sprung out of air and inventors just waved a wand and the dreamworks came true. yuckity yuck. the term revolution applied to economic development is bogus. the growth happens because of a build up over several years of good investible savings not credit expansion
Dsylexic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yeah so an “revolution” happened. what a > joke.industries just sprung out of air and > inventors just waved a wand and the dreamworks > came true. yuckity yuck. the term revolution > applied to economic development is bogus. the > growth happens because of a build up over several > years of good investible savings not credit > expansion I didn’t name it that. Every middle school text book calls that period something like “Second Industrial Revolution” or “New Industrial Age”. I have never heard growth in that period attributed to “years of good investable savings”. I have heard it attributed to cheap labor, technological innovation, newly valuable raw materials like oil and iron for steel, integrated railroads, steam power, rise of capitalist elite robber baron types, probably some other things. Hard to believe there were lots of investable savings after a devastating war, expensive Reconstruction, and the money of half the country wiped clean.
Anyone who thinks a gold backed currency is superior to our current system just flat out has their head up their ass. Maybe you guys have all sorts of degrees, but you clearly do not possess critical thinking skills. A gold backed currency puts our money supply and it’s growth or decline into the hands of the gold miners of the world. Other countries, like south africa, will be able to control our inflation. Nobody in their right mind thinks that is a good idea. A gold backed currency removes our control over the monetary system, and thusly removes the Fed’s ability to control the speed of the economy. Suddenly, there is nobody to slow us down when our growth is out of control. There is nobody to soften the recessionary cycles when our growth is poor. We lack ALL control. The fiat currency system we operate in at the moment may have some flaws, but a gold backed system would be disastrous. It will put our economy and all of the people working within it firmly under the boot of the market. We would be victims to the cyclical market which is beyond our control, and would be firmly in the control of gold producing nations of the world. If anyone doubts any of this then please take a few minutes to research how the gold standard magnified the great depression and ruined millions of lives due to unemployment. After you look into the negatives of the gold standard, and stop parroting some old fools who don’t know what they’re talking about, you will start to see the truth. The gold standard is out-dated and deadly for a reason.
greenman101 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone who thinks a gold backed currency is > superior to our current system just flat out has > their head up their ass. Maybe you guys have all > sorts of degrees, but you clearly do not possess > critical thinking skills. > > A gold backed currency puts our money supply and > it’s growth or decline into the hands of the gold > miners of the world. Other countries, like south > africa, will be able to control our inflation. > Nobody in their right mind thinks that is a good > idea. > ignorant argument. you have no clue how much gold demand exists for industrial,jewelry and other uses today.if gold were used as monetary asset, the inflation in gold would probably be 0.01% per year assuming new mines are immediately found and made productive. on the other hand Fiat money isa free license -central bankers must have injected as much “liquidity” this year alone as 30 years worth of gold supplies. gold is a scarce item,precisely the quality that makes it less susceptible to inflation -ofcourse you can remain deluded over why “faith in the central banker” is less susceptible to inflation - give me an example of one country that had inflation when under the classical gold standard . fiat money? i word for you - zimbabwe > A gold backed currency removes our control over > the monetary system, and thusly removes the Fed’s > ability to control the speed of the economy. > Suddenly, there is nobody to slow us down when our > growth is out of control. There is nobody to > soften the recessionary cycles when our growth is > poor. We lack ALL control. the fed didnt exist before 1913 and the concept of centrl banking itself is just a couple of hundred years old.so unless you a a central planning believing communist,you would discredit central planning by a few wise men at the federal level. geez. wow.with this argument, Lenin ,Che Guevara and Mao won. Reagan -go cry. i guess if majority of people are hooked to this argument,we must concede that Communism won the war of ideas > > The fiat currency system we operate in at the > moment may have some flaws, but a gold backed > system would be disastrous. It will put our > economy and all of the people working within it > firmly under the boot of the market. We would be > victims to the cyclical market which is beyond our > control, and would be firmly in the control of > gold producing nations of the world. > > If anyone doubts any of this then please take a > few minutes to research how the gold standard > magnified the great depression and ruined millions > of lives due to unemployment. After you look into > the negatives of the gold standard, and stop > parroting some old fools who don’t know what > they’re talking about, you will start to see the > truth. The gold standard is out-dated and deadly > for a reason. tch tch.nobody adhered to the gold standard after the world war 1. britain (dominant economy) went back to the gold standard at the pre-war price of sterling/gold. you cant just have arbitrary prices. its precisely the failure of govts to adhere to the classical gold standard that problems were created after the massive credit expansion of the 1920s. irving fisher,the most influential economist of the day was reassuring investors that stock prices were not overinflated but, rather, had achieved a new, permanent plateau. The artificial interference in the economy was a disaster prior to the Depression, and government efforts to prop up the economy after the crash of 1929 only made things worse.FDR came in and believed the problem was that business had too much power, and the New Deal was intended as a remedy, by empowering labor unions and farmers and by raising taxes on corporate profits. Regulation of the economy was a favorite remedy. we are heading precisely in that direction today