What happens if Ron Paul wins....

[Lugnutzpop]

IF RP were to pull of the near impossible? If he were to follow through with his pledge to end the Fed, what happens then? If there's no Fed Reserve, there's no fiat. Does that lead to digital currency? Gold and silver as currency?


-L

[phideaux]

Hell freezes over.

I'm sorry to conclude this, as I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 and I would vote for him again without hesitation as the Repub, or as a 3rd Party/independent, but TPTB will never let RP take office as president. They will assassinate him and his veep after the election if necessary.

[silver solution]

Hell freezes over.

I'm sorry to conclude this, as I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 and I would vote for him again without hesitation as the Repub, or as a 3rd Party/independent, but TPTB will never let RP take office as president. They will assassinate him and his veep after the election if necessary.

If he had his own protecters got rid of the SS and had tons of people tossed in prison he might live longer than people think?

[Uglytruth]

Greenbacks..... JFK.....Lincoln...... If RP is added to that list it will be their last shot without mass public action.

[<SLV>]

Up until the 1970s US Treasury Notes were circulating right alongside Federal Reserve Notes -- the key visual difference being a red seal on the Treasury Notes. We would still have fiat if we had no Fed, but it would be issued by the government instead of a banking cartel. It may also be tied to hard money (gold standard), but I think that would be a mistake.

The inherent flaw in a gold standard is the fact that the growth of gold reserves is slower than the growth of the population. This creates a constant state of deflation (increase in the value of gold and the money on which it is based, falling wages, falling prices). Without monetary expansion there would be nearly no job creation (note present circumstances) and business ventures.

I know the forum is called "gold is money", but you must realize that gold is only money to the degree that it is valued by society as a whole. What is "money"? It is a tangible way of rewarding labor contributions to society (wages) based upon the significance of the work done and the skill required to do it. Ultimately, "work is money."

It is easy to understand how gold can be so greatly prized by humanity because of its scarcity, beauty, and the fact that it can't be manufactured -- it must be discovered. For that reason it is a good store of value. But it only works as "money" as long as there is a counter-party willing and eager to accept it in exchange for goods.

[Lugnutzpop]

Up until the 1970s US Treasury Notes were circulating right alongside Federal Reserve Notes -- the key visual difference being a red seal on the Treasury Notes. We would still have fiat if we had no Fed, but it would be issued by the government instead of a banking cartel. It may also be tied to hard money (gold standard), but I think that would be a mistake.

The inherent flaw in a gold standard is the fact that the growth of gold reserves is slower than the growth of the population. This creates a constant state of deflation (increase in the value of gold and the money on which it is based, falling wages, falling prices). Without monetary expansion there would be nearly no job creation (note present circumstances) and business ventures.

I know the forum is called "gold is money", but you must realize that gold is only money to the degree that it is valued by society as a whole. What is "money"? It is a tangible way of rewarding labor contributions to society (wages) based upon the significance of the work done and the skill required to do it. Ultimately, "work is money."

It is easy to understand how gold can be so greatly prized by humanity because of its scarcity, beauty, and the fact that it can't be manufactured -- it must be discovered. For that reason it is a good store of value. But it only works as "money" as long as there is a counter-party willing and eager to accept it in exchange for goods.

Excellent post SLV, I completely forgot about the Red and Blue sealed treasury notes.

I agree with you in regards to metals being money, while the majority of us at GIM understand why, most of the population remains clueless.

I also agree that TPTB will do everything in their power to silence Dr. Paul if need be...

-L

[Tecumseh]

Aren't you an old timer SLV? Don't you remember the Ivantovich arguments?

I think you are arguing that gold and silver are not a currency or a functional currency and that is somewhat true.

Central Banks still hoard it so to me it is a monetary asset - it supports a currency or increasingly gives it value.

[Brent H]

Up until the 1970s US Treasury Notes were circulating right alongside Federal Reserve Notes -- the key visual difference being a red seal on the Treasury Notes. We would still have fiat if we had no Fed, but it would be issued by the government instead of a banking cartel. It may also be tied to hard money (gold standard), but I think that would be a mistake.

The inherent flaw in a gold standard is the fact that the growth of gold reserves is slower than the growth of the population. This creates a constant state of deflation (increase in the value of gold and the money on which it is based, falling wages, falling prices). Without monetary expansion there would be nearly no job creation (note present circumstances) and business ventures.

I know the forum is called "gold is money", but you must realize that gold is only money to the degree that it is valued by society as a whole. What is "money"? It is a tangible way of rewarding labor contributions to society (wages) based upon the significance of the work done and the skill required to do it. Ultimately, "work is money."

It is easy to understand how gold can be so greatly prized by humanity because of its scarcity, beauty, and the fact that it can't be manufactured -- it must be discovered. For that reason it is a good store of value. But it only works as "money" as long as there is a counter-party willing and eager to accept it in exchange for goods.

This is the most internally contradictory set of statements I have ever seen on this forum. On one hand the poster says that a non-fiat currency would lead to an "increase in the value of gold', and then he turns around and contradicts himself by suggesting that people would not accept it "it only works as "money" as long as there is a counter-party willing and eager to accept it in exchange for goods." So, SLV's econommic theory is based on a contradictory belief that people do not want to possess things of increasing value.

[Lugnutzpop]

This is the most internally contradictory set of statements I have ever seen on this forum. On one hand the poster says that a non-fiat currency would lead to an "increase in the value of gold', and then he turns around and contradicts himself by suggesting that people would not accept it "it only works as "money" as long as there is a counter-party willing and eager to accept it in exchange for goods." So, SLV's econommic theory is based on a contradictory belief that people do not want to possess things of increasing value.

I didn't take it the way your did.

He stated that while in the view of GIMmer's, gold is money, it is not accepted by society as a whole. So yes, the value of gold will go upin the eyes of some, but it would not be valued highly by all.

-L

[917601]

IF RP were to pull of the near impossible? If he were to follow through with his pledge to end the Fed, what happens then? If there's no Fed Reserve, there's no fiat. Does that lead to digital currency? Gold and silver as currency?


-L

Do not confuse a financial meltdown(fiat) with a COMMERCE meltdown.In the unlikely event of a total USD value meltdown,I call it the mad max syndrome,COMMERCE continues as it has for 4,000 years.Life in bombed out Germany,occupied Lithuania,Latvia,Poland.......still carried on.Commerce still continued,even if cigarettes,food,or liquor was the currency.Sorry,no mad max coming soon.

[<SLV>]

This is the most internally contradictory set of statements I have ever seen on this forum. On one hand the poster says that a non-fiat currency would lead to an "increase in the value of gold', and then he turns around and contradicts himself by suggesting that people would not accept it "it only works as "money" as long as there is a counter-party willing and eager to accept it in exchange for goods." So, SLV's econommic theory is based on a contradictory belief that people do not want to possess things of increasing value.

If indeed circulation currency (paper) were tied directly and inflexibly to a gold standard the VALUE of the currency would be in a constant state of appreciation. This would mean that $1 would buy MORE goods year after year (constantly falling prices). This is perpetual deflation. Concurrent with this wages would have to fall and jobs have to be cut in order for companies to remain solvent. The net effect would be a constant contraction of money supply and slowing in the velocity of money. This is all because the population is growing at a rate that would be faster than the growth of the population's money supply (gold, in this case). It is simple supply and demand. More people need money, and less money to go around.

If we had a strict gold standard gold would cease to be an "investment". Currency would have the same value because it would be 100% backed by gold.

My statement regarding a counter-party is true of anything society wants to call "money," and is a separate concept from my explanation of the deflationary nature of a rigid gold-standard.

[<SLV>]

Aren't you an old timer SLV? Don't you remember the Ivantovich arguments?

I think you are arguing that gold and silver are not a currency or a functional currency and that is somewhat true.

Central Banks still hoard it so to me it is a monetary asset - it supports a currency or increasingly gives it value.

Yes, I joined GIM in 2004. I can't say I recall the name "Ivantovich" exactly, but I do remember a lengthy thread on the concept of money and society.

[AG Stacker]

....This would mean that $1 would buy MORE goods year after year (constantly falling prices). This is perpetual deflation.


If we had a strict gold standard gold would cease to be an "investment". Currency would have the same value because it would be 100% backed by gold.

Perhaps I'm missing something or seeing only what I want to see, but isn't this a contradiction?

Isn't what was said first essentially "A penny saved is a penny earned?" Isn't that the point of saving; that the value of the savings goes up over time? As efficiencies of production go up, the needed value to trade for the good produced goes down?

[<SLV>]

Perhaps I'm missing something or seeing only what I want to see, but isn't this a contradiction?

Isn't what was said first essentially "A penny saved is a penny earned?" Isn't that the point of saving; that the value of the savings goes up over time? As efficiencies of production go up, the needed value to trade for the good produced goes down?

Look at it from the perspective of a business owner. You borrow money to capitalize your business with production labor and materials. You are required to pay back the principle + interest while the unpaid principle is gaining value. Concurrently you have wage expenses that are fixed (assuming no periodic raises), but simultaneously you are racing to the bottom with the pricing of your product because the currency is strengthening in value.

This is not a recipe for expansion, innovation, and job creation. That is why a rigid gold standard would only ensure perpetual depression. There may be a motivation to save, but there would be no motivation for entrepreneurs to start or grow a company. And for that matter, saving is part of the reason we had a crash in 2008. They called this a "liquidity crunch." The "velocity of money" fell to near zero because everyone decided to save everything simultaneously.

[TimoneX]

This is not a recipe for expansion, innovation, and job creation. That is why a rigid gold standard would only ensure perpetual depression. There may be a motivation to save, but there would be no motivation for entrepreneurs to start or grow a company. And for that matter, saving is part of the reason we had a crash in 2008. They called this a "liquidity crunch." The "velocity of money" fell to near zero because everyone decided to save everything simultaneously.

While I agree a rigid gold standard would still have some problems with deflation, it would allow us to get back to a system where the price of money could at least have the potential of being set by market forces. Savings and prudent monetary policy could again be encouraged instead of being brutally punished by inflationary forces and malinvestment wouldn't be so easily forgiven via the printing press. Capital investment in small businesses could again come from individual or collective savings instead of perpetually created debt money which destroys wealth.

The most ideal system would probably involve debt free notes issued by the treasury as we once had with no federal reserve middle man.

I know...I'm dreaming.

[Tiger44]

I'm sorry to conclude this, as I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 and I would vote for him again without hesitation as the Repub, or as a 3rd Party/independent, but TPTB will never let RP take office as president. They will assassinate him and his veep after the election if necessary.

What makes you think Paul's people don't have a plan to strike first? All he has to do is call a meeting (or host a party) of key senators and congressmen, the CFR, Bilderbergers, Trilateralists, top media people, top business leaders, generals and admirals, defense contractors, top Wall Street people, bankers, Federal Reserve people, etc., and make them "disappear" à la Joe Stalin. Of course the first thing he'd need to do is dismiss The Secret Service and bring in his own security team.

[<SLV>]

What makes you think Paul's people don't have a plan to strike first? All he has to do is call a meeting (or host a party) of key senators and congressmen, the CFR, Bilderbergers, Trilateralists, top media people, top business leaders, generals and admirals, defense contractors, top Wall Street people, bankers, Federal Reserve people, etc., and make them "disappear" à la Joe Stalin. Of course the first thing he'd need to do is dismiss The Secret Service and bring in his own security team.

When we've become the enemy, they've won.

[Tiger44]

When we've become the enemy, they've won.

I don't think that (non) strategy would have worked in 1775 or 1941.

[Goldhedge]

Ron Paul won't end the FED. What he will do is introduce a competing currency.

When the 2nd National Bank charter expired in 1836, it went bankrupt in 1841. Jackson helped it along by restricting government money going to it. It was corrupt besides.

[Silver Art]

IF RP were to pull of the near impossible? If he were to follow through with his pledge to end the Fed, what happens then? If there's no Fed Reserve, there's no fiat. Does that lead to digital currency? Gold and silver as currency?


-L

Even if RP somehow did the impossible and won and was POTUS, then it may not do much good because he would have to constantly fight Congress to get the things that he wants passed. IMO a Ron Paul administration will not succeed with the type of Congress that we currently have and that is the problem. I seriously doubt that a RP administration could do enough to "right" the U.S financial ship (i.e. paying off national debt, eliminating Federal deficits, etc.). The U.S. $ is still FUBAR in my opinion.

[Lugnutzpop]

Even if RP somehow did the impossible and won and was POTUS, then it may not do much good because he would have to constantly fight Congress to get the things that he wants passed. IMO a Ron Paul administration will not succeed with the type of Congress that we currently have and that is the problem. I seriously doubt that a RP administration could do enough to "right" the U.S financial ship (i.e. paying off national debt, eliminating Federal deficits, etc.). The U.S. $ is still FUBAR in my opinion.

I don't disagree, but then I'm left asking....."Why bother? We're screwed no matter what".

-L

[phideaux]

Why bother? We're screwed no matter what".

-L

IMHO because there is value and satisfaction in knowing that you at least tried to do the right thing.

[TimoneX]

I have this feeling that this election is the last peaceful chance we'll get to change our nation's course before the economy completely fails.