Herman Cain Drops Out

[Zinegata]

Nope, it's generally not this crazy. McCain's nomination was heavily contested, but he wasn't up against a field that was this crazy.

Interestingly, the last election's Democratic nomination was also pretty sharply contested, and Hillary can make a real case that she was screwed out of a nomination. But that's still nothing compared to this circus.

[Simon_Jester]

As someone who only started following presidential nomination process (rather than the general election) closely this election cycle, has it always been this bad? Because Republicans have produced an entire series sideshow acts, each one climbing to the top before crashing and burning before our very eyes. Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Herman Cain. They're not just people I disagree with, they're total jokes.

As Zine says, it's almost never this bad.

What's made it this bad this time is the evolution of the Republican Party. Their base has been radicalized by years of systematic, subtle efforts to convince them that liberals are about to bring down the apocalypse. Of the four major subgrouping within the party (security-culture neocon, libertarian, crony-corporatist, and Christian fundamentalist), the only one that lends itself to a de facto moderate and technocratic style of government, the neocons, has been wiped out by the debacle of Iraq, the running sore of Afghanistan, and the fact that post-2007 America cares far more about domestic policy than foreign policy.

This is not a compliment to the neocons; it's just that all things considered the kind of Republicans who were running things under Bush usually didn't actively promote policies that would swiftly ruin the country. George Bush didn't run for president in 2000 by promising to abolish the Department of Education. But George Bush's kind of Republican are no longer firmly in control of the party. They've been replaced by people whose political careers matured well after the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and firmly believe all the anti-tax, tiny-government, poor-people-complaining-is-class-warfare rhetoric that was used to make that revolution happen.

And since there's no well established network of leadership and control to synchronize that, you get a squabble for power and self-aggrandizement among the dozen or so most prominent national figures in the party. Most of them are new and hungry, at least as far as national political influence is concerned, and they're all pandering to the Tea Party and the radicalized base, which means they have to walk a dangerous line between saying the right words to please that base, and looking so dumb and crazy that they don't stand a chance in the general election.

It's an atmosphere that brings out the worst in the candidates.


It's more normal for the nomination campaign to have two or three front-runners and a host of unpopular secondary candidates. Moving from the first to the second tier of candidates (i.e. from 20% support to 5%) or vice versa in mid-campaign is usually rare. When it happens, it's usually because of a struggle for power and a quest to define the party in new terms, which is what's hitting the Republicans full blast this time around.

[Eframepilot]

Also Fox News has had a distorting effect on the whole party. They've become political entertainment. If the ridiculous happens and Gingrich gets the nomination, it will be due to the Foxification of the Republicans.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

There really aren't any Tea Party candidates left.

Well, at least from those like me sit (the pre-2009 Tea Party) there has only been 1 Tea Party Candidate all along: Ron Paul. He polls about 50% of the self-professed Tea Party anyway (the other half being the Palin/Bachmann/Cain Johnny-come-Lately Drones).

From Investors.com:

Is Ron Paul about to win Iowa? He surges past Romney into 2d behind Gingrich
Posted 12/03/2011 09:24 PM ET

Elderly, iconoclastic Rep. Ron Paul, the longtime champion of meaningless straw polls, is now doing it where it counts in the ongoing struggle for the Republican presidential nomination.

A brand-new Iowa Poll, just published by the Des Moines Register, reports the often-dismissed 76-year-old Paul has surged past one-time front-runner Mitt Romney and moved into second place, with his sights set on the current front-runner Newt Gingrich.

According to the new poll results, Gingrich leads the pack at 25% of likely caucus-goers with less than a month until they're held. Paul is second with 18% and Romney now trails with 16%.

That might seem like a comfortable lead for the former House speaker with only 30 days left. But here's the special deal about Iowa: It's not an all-day drop by and vote anytime from 6 a.m. til 8 p.m. thing.

It starts at 7 p.m. and depends on a candidate's determined supporters being prepared to go out on a cold night and hang in all evening, schmoozing, campaigning, bargaining and voting ballot after ballot after ballot until maybe midnight on a school-work night.

Romney has not been working to win in Iowa, having been spanked into second place there four years ago by Mike Huckabee. Gingrich didn't open his first Hawkeye state campaign office until this week.

However, Paul's people are not just supporters; they are disciples, some even willing to doff their clothes for him, as we wrote here. They will also stand (clothed) for windy hours with signs on Interstate overpasses for their guy.

And all fall while other candidates rocketed up and flamed out, the Paul campaign, his third for the presidency (1988 and 2008), has been seeking volunteers from across the country to travel to Iowa for pre-caucus campaigning.

Iowa native Rep. Michele Bachmann is fourth with 8% in the newest Iowa poll, the same support gathered by business executive Herman Cain, who has officially suspended his campaign, as predicted here.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has fallen to 6% support, the same as ex-Sen. Rick Santorum. Ex-Gov. Jon Huntsman is last with 2% support a,mong likely caucus attendees Jan. 3.

Paul, Bachmann and Santorum will all appear on Sunday morning talk shows, as detailed here, where this poll will no doubt come up.

Now, nothing is certain, but it does seem like Dr. Paul is doing alot better than the assjackals like Bill "Shitstain" Kristol and Charles "Fuckhead" Krauthammer want to admit. And, funny enough, apparently the moderator of the Herman Cain forums just came out and announced his support for Ron Paul (though Cain is likely to throw his weight behind Gingrich, naturally).

[Zed]

Why is it that Ron Paul supporters keep calling their favorite candidate 'Dr.', while, say, Gingrich supporters don't?

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Why is it that Ron Paul supporters keep calling their favorite candidate 'Dr.', while, say, Gingrich supporters don't?

Heh, cause people don't really like Gingrich. At least not in the way Dr. Paul gets fans. At least for me, its a show of respect that he has the credentials of a medical doctor.

Young Republicans choose Ron Paul over Romney
By Sarah Palermo
Concord Monitor
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 5:40pm
KEENE, N.H. -- The oldest candidate in the race for the Republican presidential nomination gets treated like a rock star by his youngest supporters.

http://www.standard.net/stories/2011/11 ... ver-romney

[Mr Bean]

Why is it that Ron Paul supporters keep calling their favorite candidate 'Dr.', while, say, Gingrich supporters don't?

Might it be for the fact that Dr Ron Paul is a medical doctor and by all accounts a competent one while Dr Gingrich holds a doctorate of history and is famous for his alt-history novels which can best be described as "making Eric Flint look good". Also because unlike Dr. Paul who personally is a very nice man in person, Newt is a dick to everyone and anyone.

[Zinegata]

It also needs to be said - from the perspective of someone who lives outside the United States - that Ron Paul is refreshingly honest about America's missteps on the world stage.

Case in point: During one debate, Ron Paul was the only candidate to admit that part of the reason Iran went fundamentalist was because they helped install the Shah by toppling a democractic government.

Now, Ron also has some pretty crazy ideas - wanting to go back to the Gold Standard thing being the most notable that should put him in the political looney bin - but as Simon Jester noted this may really be more of the current crop of Republicans not knowing how to make a government tick, and simply go "Small government! Small government!" without thinking it all through.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Now, Ron also has some pretty crazy ideas - wanting to go back to the Gold Standard thing being the most notable that should put him in the political looney bin.

Actually, that is not what Dr. Paul necessarily wants. He wants to abolish the Legal Tender Laws that make it so we have to use FRNs for any transactions. The simple fact is that The Several States are forbidden from emitting Bills of Credit and the Federal Government is not authorized to do so. That makes FRNs unConstitutional.

[Bakustra]

Now, Ron also has some pretty crazy ideas - wanting to go back to the Gold Standard thing being the most notable that should put him in the political looney bin.

Actually, that is not what Dr. Paul necessarily wants. He wants to abolish the Legal Tender Laws that make it so we have to use FRNs for any transactions. The simple fact is that The Several States are forbidden from emitting Bills of Credit and the Federal Government is not authorized to do so. That makes FRNs unConstitutional.

Article 1, Section 8:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Article 1, Section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

So what does this mean? Congress can coin, that is, issue money, set its value, and set exchange rates. States may not issue money, and may not issue anything else that is legal tender between the government and citizens, and may not decide what is or is not legal tender. There is nothing saying that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, or that "fiat money" is unconstitutional, or that abandoning the gold standard is unconstitutional- indeed, it would seem to reserve that power to Congress, since it is explicitly forbidden to the states and not explicitly forbidden to Congress and would seem to be implied in the the power to issue money.

Pon Raul, like many libertarians, operates with a delusional view of the US Constitution.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

["Step away from your grimdark interpretation of a Macek hackjob translation of three scifi cartoons for a second"]

Wow, what in the blue fuck this has to do with anything, I'm not certain. Are you just trying to be an asshole for no reason?

So what does this mean? Congress can coin, that is, issue money, set its value, and set exchange rates. States may not issue money, and may not issue anything else that is legal tender between the government and citizens, and may not decide what is or is not legal tender. There is nothing saying that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, or that "fiat money" is unconstitutional, or that abandoning the gold standard is unconstitutional- indeed, it would seem to reserve that power to Congress, since it is explicitly forbidden to the states and not explicitly forbidden to Congress and would seem to be implied in the the power to issue money.

The Congress CANNOT give away its power to mint money without amending the Constitution. As the Federal Reserve is a private bank, its not officially part of the US government. That makes its issuance of FRNs outside the bounds of the US Constitution. Furthermore, it specifically says mint and setting of the weight and measure (the last two referring to precious metals last time I checked). The States are forbidden from accepting ANYTHING but Silver and Gold as Legal Tender (making the Legal Tender Laws unConstitutional).

Pon Raul, like many libertarians, operates with a delusional view of the US Constitution.

No, its you who operates with a delusional view of the US Constitution.

[Bakustra]

["Step away from your grimdark interpretation of a Macek hackjob translation of three scifi cartoons for a second"]

Wow, what in the blue fuck this has to do with anything, I'm not certain. Are you just trying to be an asshole for no reason?

I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes I just like to post funny things I read elsewhere on the Internet, in order to make dull posts about finance more interesting. Am I upsetting you?

So what does this mean? Congress can coin, that is, issue money, set its value, and set exchange rates. States may not issue money, and may not issue anything else that is legal tender between the government and citizens, and may not decide what is or is not legal tender. There is nothing saying that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, or that "fiat money" is unconstitutional, or that abandoning the gold standard is unconstitutional- indeed, it would seem to reserve that power to Congress, since it is explicitly forbidden to the states and not explicitly forbidden to Congress and would seem to be implied in the the power to issue money.

The Congress CANNOT give away its power to mint money without amending the Constitution. As the Federal Reserve is a private bank, its not officially part of the US government. That makes its issuance of FRNs outside the bounds of the US Constitution. Furthermore, it specifically says mint and setting of the weight and measure (the last two referring to precious metals last time I checked). The States are forbidden from accepting ANYTHING but Silver and Gold as Legal Tender (making the Legal Tender Laws unConstitutional).

You are fucking ignorant. The Federal Reserve does not mint money. The US Bureau of Engraving and Printing, aka the US Mint, does that. The Federal Reserve Banks then distribute the money that is printed by a branch of the US Government. So the only way that your first half of your paragraph can make sense is if we take it to mean Congress has to manually operate the printing presses, which is ridiculous.

Secondly, mint is functionally equivalent to issue because nobody ever wrote down Article Hayek: Nobody can ever use anything but the gold standard!!! Fiat money is slavery!!! Unnatural rights!!! Also, standards of weight and measure include things like the fucking Imperial system you use every fucking time your glance at the speedometer on your goddamned automobile, not just precious metals. Finally, the states cannot "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts", meaning that they cannot declare what they can and cannot accept, not that they can only accept silver and gold, making America a fraud that's nothing more than a system of financial penalties.

Finally, I'm pretty sure that only Purestrain Gold is acceptable for legal Debts, making the majority of all gold certificates ilLegal TenDer and unConstitutional.

Pon Raul, like many libertarians, operates with a delusional view of the US Constitution.

No, its you who operates with a delusional view of the US Constitution.

I'm sorry, I meant to say "delusional view of reality."

[BrooklynRedLeg]

I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes I just like to post funny things I read elsewhere on the Internet, in order to make dull posts about finance more interesting. Am I upsetting you?

No, you're just a goddamn Asperger's riddled shithead.

You are fucking ignorant. The Federal Reserve does not mint money. The US Bureau of Engraving and Printing, aka the US Mint, does that. The Federal Reserve Banks then distribute the money that is printed by a branch of the US Government. So the only way that your first half of your paragraph can make sense is if we take it to mean Congress has to manually operate the printing presses, which is ridiculous.

Numbnuts, the fucking Federal Reserve Note is an entirely different entity than the US Note. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing may physically do it for the Federal Reserve, but its their goddamn debt. US Notes have no debt attached to them, while the FRNs do.

Secondly, mint is functionally equivalent to issue

Wrong.

mint/mint/Verb: Make (a coin) by stamping metal.

Synonyms: coin - strike - invent

Also, standards of weight and measure include things like the fucking Imperial system you use every fucking time your glance at the speedometer on your goddamned automobile, not just precious metals.

The US Constitution is not referring to your goddamn Speedometer fuckhead when it says Congress has to set the weight and measure. It refers to Grains and Carats.

Finally, the states cannot "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts", meaning that they cannot declare what they can and cannot accept, not that they can only accept silver and gold

No, it means they can only accept Silver and Gold in payment for debts.

Finally, I'm pretty sure that only Purestrain Gold is acceptable for legal Debts, making the majority of all gold certificates ilLegal TenDer and unConstitutional.

And?

I'm sorry, I meant to say "delusional view of reality."

[Bakustra]

I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes I just like to post funny things I read elsewhere on the Internet, in order to make dull posts about finance more interesting. Am I upsetting you?

No, you're just a goddamn Asperger's riddled shithead.

Asperger's syndrome is a very serious disorder that seriously affects a great many people. Your casual use of it as a pejorative is frankly disgusting and hateful. I bet you make fun of kids with Down's syndrome when you're in your middle-school cafeteria, too. Of course, you thankfully lack the will and the physicality to escalate into full-on violence, bigot.

You are fucking ignorant. The Federal Reserve does not mint money. The US Bureau of Engraving and Printing, aka the US Mint, does that. The Federal Reserve Banks then distribute the money that is printed by a branch of the US Government. So the only way that your first half of your paragraph can make sense is if we take it to mean Congress has to manually operate the printing presses, which is ridiculous.

Numbnuts, the fucking Federal Reserve Note is an entirely different entity than the US Note. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing may physically do it for the Federal Reserve, but its their goddamn debt. US Notes have no debt attached to them, while the FRNs do.

So? The Federal Reserve is still established by the US Government and its leadership is appointed in exactly the same way that any bureaucratic department is appointed. What you're saying is that the Post Office is unconstitutional because it, too, operates the same way- independently of the US Government, though its leadership is appointed by it.

Secondly, mint is functionally equivalent to issue

Wrong.

mint/mint/Verb: Make (a coin) by stamping metal.

Synonyms: coin - strike - invent

Oh, I see your hatred of the autistic is such that you're putting on a little minstrel show about how you don't understand what "functionally equivalent" means and you resort to dictionaries. Go to hell.

Also, standards of weight and measure include things like the fucking Imperial system you use every fucking time your glance at the speedometer on your goddamned automobile, not just precious metals.

The US Constitution is not referring to your goddamn Speedometer fuckhead when it says Congress has to set the weight and measure. It refers to Grains and Carats.

No it doesn't. If it did, it would refer solely to that. But it doesn't, because it also has the power to determine what every standard of measurement is, and even if we venture into Libertarian Land and accept that, it still doesn't ban paper or "fiat money" unless we go further into the realm of your insanity.

Finally, the states cannot "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts", meaning that they cannot declare what they can and cannot accept, not that they can only accept silver and gold

No, it means they can only accept Silver and Gold in payment for debts.

Do you not understand syntax? Make refers to the power to alter. It doesn't say what you think it says unless you twist things to point due stupid. Here, let me put it to you this way- if I declare that I do not have the power to make anything except Cowrie Shells a tender in payment of debts, then does that mean that I can only accept Cowrie Shells in payment for debts?

Finally, I'm pretty sure that only Purestrain Gold is acceptable for legal Debts, making the majority of all gold certificates ilLegal TenDer and unConstitutional.

And?

So unless you can find some of the Purestrain Gold created in the Big Bang (not that Pon Raul believes in that) which is the only thing in the universe with intrinsic value, it's still FiAt MoNeY and unConStiTutIonAl. Don't you even know what truth is?

[open_sketchbook]

I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes I just like to post funny things I read elsewhere on the Internet, in order to make dull posts about finance more interesting. Am I upsetting you?

No, you're just a goddamn Asperger's riddled shithead.

Kindly die in a fucking fire.

I seriously have no idea how people can believe that the the value of gold is any less arbitrary, well, anything else. Gold only had value because it was shiny and keeps for a long time; it always represented a purely imaginary and fluid value relative to local markets and the will of whatever warlord was having his face stamped on it this year.

We might as well do it the way they did in Feudal Japan and go by bundles of rice produced. At least a koku of rice has the rather inarguable value of, you know, keeping you alive for a year. That's a pretty real fucking value right there. But unless you're willing to go out to the rice paddies and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, how about you shut up about your stupid gold standard?

[Civil War Man]

It also needs to be said - from the perspective of someone who lives outside the United States - that Ron Paul is refreshingly honest about America's missteps on the world stage.

Case in point: During one debate, Ron Paul was the only candidate to admit that part of the reason Iran went fundamentalist was because they helped install the Shah by toppling a democractic government.

Now, Ron also has some pretty crazy ideas - wanting to go back to the Gold Standard thing being the most notable that should put him in the political looney bin - but as Simon Jester noted this may really be more of the current crop of Republicans not knowing how to make a government tick, and simply go "Small government! Small government!" without thinking it all through.

Speaking from the perspective of myself and other liberal people I know that I've talked to about politics, one of the issues Paul has with gaining supporters is that, in large part because of his crazy ideas, it feels as though any time I actually agree with him is an accident.

[Panzersharkcat]

I seriously have no idea how people can believe that the the value of gold is any less arbitrary, well, anything else. Gold only had value because it was shiny and keeps for a long time; it always represented a purely imaginary and fluid value relative to local markets and the will of whatever warlord was having his face stamped on it this year.

We might as well do it the way they did in Feudal Japan and go by bundles of rice produced. At least a koku of rice has the rather inarguable value of, you know, keeping you alive for a year. That's a pretty real fucking value right there. But unless you're willing to go out to the rice paddies and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, how about you shut up about your stupid gold standard?

That actually is one of the more annoying arguments in favor of gold from my fellow libertarians. "It has intrinsic value!" No, it does not. To quote Gary North, "Gold is a valuable thing to store. However, it is not a store of value. Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable. However, it does not have intrinsic value." All economic value is subjective. The point of using gold as money, the argument goes, is because in a free market for currencies, people will tend towards gold because it's nice and shiny, not easily duplicated, easily divisible, and useful for other things. You could substitute gold for bottle caps or silver or rice or cigarettes and it'd still work alright.

[Zinegata]

It also needs to be said - from the perspective of someone who lives outside the United States - that Ron Paul is refreshingly honest about America's missteps on the world stage.

Case in point: During one debate, Ron Paul was the only candidate to admit that part of the reason Iran went fundamentalist was because they helped install the Shah by toppling a democractic government.

Now, Ron also has some pretty crazy ideas - wanting to go back to the Gold Standard thing being the most notable that should put him in the political looney bin - but as Simon Jester noted this may really be more of the current crop of Republicans not knowing how to make a government tick, and simply go "Small government! Small government!" without thinking it all through.

Speaking from the perspective of myself and other liberal people I know that I've talked to about politics, one of the issues Paul has with gaining supporters is that, in large part because of his crazy ideas, it feels as though any time I actually agree with him is an accident.

That's not Paul's problem then. That's yours. If you cannot judge a person's positions by the quality of their positions - but instead feel "it must be accidental" due to perceived ideological differences - then it's clearly pesonal prejudices at play here.

====

Also, I have no idea why Bakustra is even arguing. BrooklynRedLeg is saying that Paul wants to abolish Legal Tender Laws so that we HAVE to use FRNs. But in the same post he also points out FRNs are UNconstitutional. Seriously, Brook is agreeing that Paul's measures are fucked up and UNconstitutional - albeit it's not just a simple "Go back to the Gold Standard!" like I said.

Really, a lot of shit being thrown and blatant dogpiling by the usual suspects over nothing.

[Simon_Jester]

Stepping back past the shit-flinging contest:

Now, Ron also has some pretty crazy ideas - wanting to go back to the Gold Standard thing being the most notable that should put him in the political looney bin.

Actually, that is not what Dr. Paul necessarily wants. He wants to abolish the Legal Tender Laws that make it so we have to use FRNs for any transactions. The simple fact is that The Several States are forbidden from emitting Bills of Credit and the Federal Government is not authorized to do so. That makes FRNs unConstitutional.

The states weren't allowed to print paper money for reasons that made a hell of a lot of sense in 1790 if you were a rich creditor, and which don't apply today. The reason we don't want the states printing their own currency today has nothing to do with the Constitution. Or the Founding Fathers, or any other bit of the hagiography of the American Revolution.

It has everything to do with the consequences of having fifty independent currencies in the US. Which would be so ridiculous that anyone who proposes it for any reason has to be out of their mind. I don't care if the Constitution allows it or not. If it does, that is an argument for changing the Constitution. If it doesn't, fine.

Now, this is an important concept to understand. Policy changes have to make sense as policies. If we change a policy to fit someone's interpretation of the Constitution, the new policy we replace it with to has to make sense.

The Federal Reserve note as basic unit of American currency makes sense. All civilized nations do something broadly along those lines- create a central bank with a license to print money. There are differences in detail, but by and large, having some kind of government-empowered reserve bank at the heart of the economy is about as common as agreeing that we should all drive on the same side of the road. And I would argue that it's for much of the same reason- it's stupid not to have a rule about everyone driving on the right (or on the left); it's stupid not to have government agencies capable of controlling the flow of currency.

Can you convince me that Ron Paul's proposals for currency manipulation are good policy, separately and independently from convincing me that they stop the government from doing something unconstitutional? Because as far as I'm concerned, if you succeed in convincing me that the government's practice of printing paper money is somehow unconstitutional...

You haven't made the case for stopping the printing of paper money. You've made the case for a constitutional amendment allowing the government to do it.

[Zinegata]

Can you convince me that Ron Paul's proposals for currency manipulation are good policy, separately and independently from convincing me that they stop the government from doing something unconstitutional? Because as far as I'm concerned, if you succeed in convincing me that the government's practice of printing paper money is somehow unconstitutional...

I apologize to Bakustra as there was some confusion on my part, but my position isn't one that agrees with Ron Paul. I originally thought he was simply for going back to the Gold Standard, which is archaic and puts him out of the running as a serious politician.

Having each state capable of printing their own money however is simply downright insane.

[Panzersharkcat]

Having each state capable of printing their own money however is simply downright insane.

That's not what he wants, either. He wants a system where people are free to choose what they want to use for money. He does believe, though, that it will tend towards precious metals like silver or gold because they are shiny, easily divisible, and useful for things other than money. For all he cares, people could use bottle caps and as long as people knowingly agree to it, he wouldn't find it his business to interfere. I'll need to look up what he says about defining a dollar as a certain amount of silver or gold, though, as I'm drawing a blank on that at the moment.

[Zinegata]

Having each state capable of printing their own money however is simply downright insane.

That's not what he wants, either. He wants a system where people are free to choose what they want to use for money. He does believe, though, that it will tend towards precious metals like silver or gold because they are shiny, easily divisible, and useful for things other than money. For all he cares, people could use bottle caps and as long as people knowingly agree to it, he wouldn't find it his business to interfere. I'll need to look up what he says about defining a dollar as a certain amount of silver or gold, though, as I'm drawing a blank on that at the moment.

... That's... even nuttier.

[Simon_Jester]

Ayup.

And the big point I have is that I don't see the payoff in agreeing to do this. Why would we stop using a single currency standard, which makes bookkeeping and record keeping easy, transactions predictable, and prices stable? How would the heavily electronicized economy function- how am I supposed to do credit card transactions?

And so on. It just strikes me as a colossal upheaval for no reward at all, the ultimate triumph of blue-sky theory over cold hard fact in politics.

[Zinegata]

And so on. It just strikes me as a colossal upheaval for no reward at all, the ultimate triumph of blue-sky theory over cold hard fact in politics.

Yeah, blowing up the US dollar will not only wreck the US economy, but wreck the worldwide economy for nothing.

The Gold Standard I like as a historical oddity - as needing precious metals to back up your currency helps prevent people from simply printing money in ridiculous amounts - but it's obsolete and restrictive in the modern day with all the financial instruments at our disposal.

Paul's proposal makes him not only crazy, but dangerously crazy.

[Simon_Jester]

I'll give him a certain amount of credit for being a decent man whose heart is, on a lot of issues, more or less in the right place. He's not just another corrupt asshole.

But yeah, the currency issue casts his ability to enact sane policy into doubt.