Ron Paul approved newsletters personally, and BONUS!

[MKSheppard]

Brock, who gives a shit what he wrote in a book, because it's been shown that he'll overlook/approve anything published in his name to make a buck, even if it's full of John Bircherist stuff like how the RED MENACE IS COMING TO DE-FLUORIDATE YOUR WATER, and how it was all better for us when TEH GHEY WAS BACK IN THE CLOSET?

[Skgoa]

Sidewinder: I believe the argument on that is that he is the lesser evil. Gingrich is a powerhungry cheating dick, Romney is the same but also doesn't get "common" people. Santorum is a mullah without a beard and Obama is a marxist. Paul comes across as a career politician, but at least he doesn't seem to have much of an agenda. (Other than stuff they will never pass in the legislature, anyways.)

[Jim Raynor]

Paul's agenda is the stuff that will never pass. Which is why I can't support him as a candidate. He talks big about tearing everything down all at once, without any practical ideas of how to govern.

[Simon_Jester]

Sidewinder: I believe the argument on that is that he is the lesser evil. Gingrich is a powerhungry cheating dick, Romney is the same but also doesn't get "common" people. Santorum is a mullah without a beard and Obama is a marxist. Paul comes across as a career politician, but at least he doesn't seem to have much of an agenda. (Other than stuff they will never pass in the legislature, anyways.)

If so, the argument is gibberish. Obama is the most pathetic excuse for a Marxist I've ever seen, and the idea of calling him one is a joke. Paul has all kinds of agenda that, as president, he could do without even bothering to talk to Congress.* Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum... well, OK, I'll grant you those.

*A president who was actively trying to wreck chunks of the US government instead of running them would have enormous power to do so- it's one of the bugs in our system, but to be fair the people who wrote the Constitution probably didn't expect that we'd have an active semi-anarchist political movement trying to dismantle important parts of the government, and willing to do it by fair means or foul. I don't think it's Founder-deification to not blame them for not expecting that..

[Lonestar]

Have decided my vote will go to Dr. Paul, whether he's on the ticket or not.

Typing out "Dr. Paul" is just as much a dog whistle for "stupid political beliefs" as typing "Barack Hussein Obama".


It's emphasizing a non-relevant credential to the process. We don't go around saying "Senator Smuckatellis, Esq" because he's a lawyer, why do Ronulans insist on using "Dr. Paul"?

[Skgoa]

Because many of his competitors do not have doctorates? Gingrich can call himself speaker, Romney will be Governor Romney forever. It's just the way humanity has decided to honour achievement.

[TimothyC]

why do Ronulans insist on using "Dr. Paul"?

It's a way of denigrating the others in the race. That's why I prefer to call him Representative Paul. Calling him that means he can't run from his record, or that he's a congress critter. I've also yet to see any of the Rondroids call Dr. Gingrich "Dr.", so I figure it's fair game.

[Lonestar]

Because many of his competitors do not have doctorates?

Neither does Ron Paul, he's an MD, not PhD.

You don't hear people calling other elected officials "Doctor" even if they are MDs as well. For example, you never heard people referring to Bill Frist as "Doctor Frist", even in the context of him weighing in on the Terri Schiavo case.

[bobalot]

Because many of his competitors do not have doctorates?

Neither does Ron Paul, he's an MD, not PhD.

You don't hear people calling other elected officials "Doctor" even if they are MDs as well. For example, you never heard people referring to Bill Frist as "Doctor Frist", even in the context of him weighing in on the Terri Schiavo case.

Dude, haven't you heard? He's delivered a lot of babies. That makes him qualified to be President or something.

[General Brock]

Fiat government powered on fiat money

Is that supposed to make some sense in the real world? Or are we supposed to completely ignore large swathes of history where your fantasy world was tried, failed and was rejected?

You mean the real world of hard currency commodity money which lasted for centuries if not millenia in various incarnations and tended to limit the money supply to actual goods and services produced? Reliance on fiat currency has only been around for a hundred years, and historically tried, failed, and rejected numerous times with surviving governments reverting to a commodity standard like gold. Fiat currency's main claim to fame is enabling borrowing beyond the here and now into the productive potential of future generations, including those of nations buying into U.S. debt, to a degree that now appears unrealistic.

You mean the real world American Constitution which was the gold standard of constitutions for 200 years but tended to limit lawmakers to what could be legitimately negotiated from all rights-protected stakeholders in society? Government by fiat has only become openly popular in the last 20 years and is predicated on ignoring as many stakeholders as possible for the benefit of a few. Totalitarianism has been tried, failed and rejected many times.

The ardent anti-Pauls are first and foremost for fiat government with fiat money, an attitude to power that is killing America and will kill America as a force for genuine good. In fact, the decadent duo are recurrent in the great (failed) governments of history. Rule by fiat does not produce rule by philosopher kings and saviors, only tyrants thirsting for power. A people so imposed upon by the artifacts of tyranny that they can only respond with apathy and fear, will suffer so long until the will to live free is embraced once more.

[General Brock]

Lastly, another interpretation of those newsletters it that they were an attempt to skim money from racists. That would be some pretty desperate money-grubbing, and it was the racists who were misled, with as yet unknown Paul people cynically targeting them for easy cash.

Which means Ron Paul is just like any other politician. So why should I vote for him, when NO CHANGE can be realistically expected?

Well, why not? You may as well be asking why vote at all. The whole argument around Ron Paul is that he is either a bigoted liar or incompetent. Yet, the newsletters only deceive people into thinking Ron Paul was racist when he is not. Ron Paul also didn't write bigoted content; people acting on what they thought was best to achieve narrowly defined goals of making money from a target audience misrepresented him. The OP concedes that rather than incompetent, Ron Paul was a "shrewd businessman" whose people delivered the bacon by fair means or foul.

Real politicians actively lie personally with public speeches tailored to tell interest groups what they want to hear no matter how internally conflicted the whole message is, and often break promises while in office. As a Congressman, Ron Paul has not done this, and remained consistently on-message supporting fiscal responsibility, from never voting for a tax increase to never approving politicians' pay raises, and government by Constitution in opposing war and infringements on the
Constitution by lawmakers an government agencies.

The anti-Pauls don't want Ron Paul's Antiwar message, Constitutional rights civil liberties message, the message that lawmakers and government agencies should be bound to Constitutional rule, to be on the agenda, at all.

In effect, nothing has changed in the hate-Paul matra save a little shift in the subtext reminding hardcore racists Ron Paul isn't on their side and his people played on their racism for business.

So, you can either ignore the hate-Paul bandwagon or jump on board, alongside the institutional racists, warmongers, soft liberals looking for a politically correct excuse not to challenge the system they otherwise know is failing (but serves them in the short term), and, apparently, actual racists presently being reminded that Ron Paul isn't with them and never was.

Or, you can use Ron Paul to see to it that the wars, fiscal responsibility, Constitutional rights and Constitutional rule remain talked-about issues in the GOP primaries and during the Presidential campaign. The other candidates certainly won't bring up the real issues, except to advocate making them worse with more war and more spending and more infringements upon the Constitution. (When they're not heaving buckets of red herrings attacking Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters for things that have nothing to do with the issues at stake).

[General Brock]

Brock, who gives a shit what he wrote in a book, because it's been shown that he'll overlook/approve anything published in his name to make a buck, even if it's full of John Bircherist stuff like how the RED MENACE IS COMING TO DE-FLUORIDATE YOUR WATER, and how it was all better for us when TEH GHEY WAS BACK IN THE CLOSET?

The book was more clearly written as Ron Paul's own personal expression than a business product, and helps explain the personal philosophy he applies to governance which can be compered to his record of action, as well as to examine his platform and critique it from a theoretical level his discrete policy solutions.

The contents of the newsletter are not more important the issues Ron Paul wants to raise and address today. The hate-Paul bandwagon accomplishes nothing but to sideline the major issues by stridently harping on attacks upon the man, and does nothing to address the issues raised by the newsletters. When anti-Pauls attack Ron Paul for bigotry and incompetence, they deny addressing the problem of bigotry and incompetence in society and politics; even those issues aren't issues at all since they are just vehicles for personal attacks.

[Stark]

Are you saying Ron Paul's racist newsletter is ok because he's trying to raise awareness of racism?

[Lonestar]

You mean the real world of hard currency commodity money which lasted for centuries if not millenia in various incarnations and tended to limit the money supply to actual goods and services produced? Reliance on fiat currency has only been around for a hundred years, and historically tried, failed, and rejected numerous times with surviving governments reverting to a commodity standard like gold. Fiat currency's main claim to fame is enabling borrowing beyond the here and now into the productive potential of future generations, including those of nations buying into U.S. debt, to a degree that now appears unrealistic.

Dude, the Gold Standard IS fiat currency, it's worth exactly as much as the market determines gold to be worth.

Am I the only one who notices this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[Sidewinder]

Ron Paul also didn't write bigoted content; people acting on what they thought was best to achieve narrowly defined goals of making money from a target audience misrepresented him.

As I said earlier regarding Command Responsibility, Ron Paul IS responsible for the bigoted content- regardless of whether he wrote them or not, regardless of whether he's a bigot or not- because HIS NAME WAS ON THE NEWSLETTER!

The OP concedes that rather than incompetent, Ron Paul was a "shrewd businessman" whose people delivered the bacon by fair means or foul.

So why are you on the pro-Paul bandwagon, when he's demonstrated he doesn't care HOW the money comes in- legally or not, by outright theft or by an honest day's work- as long as it comes in? Would you do the same if this thread is not about a newsletter, but about a pyramid scheme?

So, you can either ignore the hate-Paul bandwagon or jump on board, alongside the institutional racists, warmongers, soft liberals looking for a politically correct excuse not to challenge the system they otherwise know is failing (but serves them in the short term), and, apparently, actual racists presently being reminded that Ron Paul isn't with them and never was.

You want to know why I'm on the hate-Paul bandwagon? I'm on it because he's a libertarian, and therefore a delusional fool, as demonstrated in the Voluntaryism and Anarchy: No Government and Anarcho-libertarianism (Voluntaryist V Surlethe) threads.

[UnderAGreySky]

You mean the real world of hard currency commodity money which lasted for centuries if not millenia in various incarnations and tended to limit the money supply to actual goods and services produced? Reliance on fiat currency has only been around for a hundred years, and historically tried, failed, and rejected numerous times with surviving governments reverting to a commodity standard like gold. Fiat currency's main claim to fame is enabling borrowing beyond the here and now into the productive potential of future generations, including those of nations buying into U.S. debt, to a degree that now appears unrealistic.

This is precisely what I meant when I called you ignorant.

Do you know how many Financial Recessions there were between 1776 and the Great Depression?

Thirty.

Do you know how many depressions there were before the Great Depression? Eight.

Nine in total, all on the gold standard. How many since?

Fat lot of "good" your so-called non-fiat currency has done. Fiat currency works every-fucking-where. Why do you think not a single economist - i.e. someone that has actually studied economics - actually thinks it's worthwhile? What makes you think either Ron Paul you know better than hundreds of them?

The ardent anti-Pauls are first and foremost for fiat government with fiat money, an attitude to power that is killing America and will kill America as a force for genuine good. In fact, the decadent duo are recurrent in the great (failed) governments of history. Rule by fiat does not produce rule by philosopher kings and saviors, only tyrants thirsting for power. A people so imposed upon by the artifacts of tyranny that they can only respond with apathy and fear, will suffer so long until the will to live free is embraced once more.

I think you're delusional. The entire world uses fiat currency*, and has done so now for nearly 80 years. Your naive Amero-centric view is laughable, narrow and absurd.

*except individual countries in Europe

History offers plenty of cautionary tales. In the 1800s, gold was the standard. "The 19th century was one of recurrent financial panics and tremendous downturns," says James Hamilton, a professor of economics at University of California-San Diego. The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 didn't stop fiscal crises, of course, but it did a lot to reduce their damage. Other fixed rates have produced disasters, too. Greece's economic woes were exacerbated by the euro, which Foster calls "the ultimate fixed exchange rate." Argentina's attempt to peg its economy to the dollar produced a deflationary spiral.

(edited to clean up URL mess)

[Magis]

You mean the real world of hard currency commodity money which lasted for centuries if not millenia in various incarnations and tended to limit the money supply to actual goods and services produced?

Gold is produced, too, you know. Two and a half million kilograms of the stuff was produced from gold mines in 2009, for example, which constituted more than a 1.5% increase in the total gold supply of the world. I also vaguely recall some stories about countries waging economic warfare (back when the gold standard was common) by hoarding gold and/or flooding the market with gold, in order to forcefully manipulate the currency of the target nation.

The only reason gold was used as a currency in ancient times was that it is basically inert chemically (not actually inert, but practically so) so that you could carry a gold coin around with you in a dirty burlap sack for 20 years and it not disintegrate into dust.

Reliance on fiat currency has only been around for a hundred years, and historically tried, failed, and rejected numerous times with surviving governments reverting to a commodity standard like gold.

Of course, if you think that a gold standard is so great, you could basically institute a little gold standard of your own by immediately converting all of your income into gold coin/bullion/certificates/etc as you earn it. Unless you live paycheque-to-paycheque and spend all your income quickly after you earn it there's no reason why you need to possess many dollars for very long anyways. So given that you already have the ability to store all of your own wealth as gold, I don't see how you would additionally benefit from the government going back to a gold standard.

[SirNitram]

You mean the real world of hard currency commodity money which lasted for centuries if not millenia in various incarnations and tended to limit the money supply to actual goods and services produced? Reliance on fiat currency has only been around for a hundred years, and historically tried, failed, and rejected numerous times with surviving governments reverting to a commodity standard like gold. Fiat currency's main claim to fame is enabling borrowing beyond the here and now into the productive potential of future generations, including those of nations buying into U.S. debt, to a degree that now appears unrealistic.

Dude, the Gold Standard IS fiat currency, it's worth exactly as much as the market determines gold to be worth.

Am I the only one who notices this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I was asking the same thing..

[madd0ct0r]

oooh gold standard.

there's a gold mine up the road from em, my mother in law was finance director there.

most of the famaily savins are in ... land

what, think we're stupid ?

[bobalot]

Imagine moving to a gold standard today.

There would be massive deflation and industries that actually use gold in their products would see their costs soar. The deflation would actually increase the size of debts people owe and further cripple a system flooded with bad debts.

It would be an economic catastrophe.

[VarrusTheEthical]

Imagine moving to a gold standard today.

There would be massive deflation and industries that actually use gold in their products would see their costs soar. The deflation would actually increase the size of debts people owe and further cripple a system flooded with bad debts.

It would be an economic catastrophe.

Bobalot, you seem, to be forgetting one important thing. If we don't use to the Gold Standard, where will the Rational Self-Interest Fairy be able to get her magic dust to fix all our economic ills overnight?

[ChaserGrey]

Actually, I think the guy near the end of the Protocols article has a good point. Let's give Paul the benefit of the doubt and say he isn't a racist or anti-Semite. What, then, is the least these newsletters show? That he's willing to work with people who are and doesn't vet those under him to weed out really nutty views.

That sound like a good management style for a President to you? Cause it sure doesn't to me.

[Plushie]

This is precisely what I meant when I called you ignorant.

Do you know how many Financial Recessions there were between 1776 and the Great Depression?

Thirty.

Do you know how many depressions there were before the Great Depression? Eight.

Nine in total, all on the gold standard. How many since?

Fat lot of "good" your so-called non-fiat currency has done. Fiat currency works every-fucking-where. Why do you think not a single economist - i.e. someone that has actually studied economics - actually thinks it's worthwhile? What makes you think either Ron Paul you know better than hundreds of them?

The only country on a gold standard for the whole 19th century was Great Britain. Also, those countries which did join the gold standard as the 19th century went on weren't all that good at actually adhering to it, especially in the post-WWI era.

Finally the fundamental problem underlying financial panic (excessive, unproductive borrowing on the part of public authorities) existed in the 19th century under gold as much as it does today under fiat standards. In a way, the gold area of the 19th century was very much like the Euro area is today: It was a monetary union predicated on all members behaving and keeping their fiscal houses in order. Of course, when this didn't happen, as occurred in, say, the early 1870's when the new German Imperial government went on a virtually unmatched orgy of wasteful spending on monuments and grand buildings, the whole gold area suffered for it. Even seemingly productive spending, like on railways and other internal improvements, as in the US in the 1840's, could turn up to not be quite as profitable as first imagined, triggering a fiscal crisis that dovetails into a more general financial and economic one.

If you understand the gold standard as just a particular type of monetary union, it becomes easier to understand just how many periods of financial turmoil we have been through since the adoption of fiat currencies. It's just that these days we have inflationary stagnation and similar inflation based crises, rather than ye olde style deflationary economic crisis.

I think you're delusional. The entire world uses fiat currency*, and has done so now for nearly 80 years. Your naive Amero-centric view is laughable, narrow and absurd.

*except individual countries in Europe

Not so Amero-centric. China, for instance, was one of the first countries to move to a paper currency in the 13th century. It then suffered one of the worst bouts of inflation in pre-modern history and it took centuries for the Chinese people to trust paper again.

(edited to clean up URL mess)

I'll just say that monetary economics isn't exactly a field you can just wade into and be so sure of yourself in. Outside the field of people searching for careers at the Fed, it's actually a rather contentious area of research. People don't trust gold too often, but they also don't just arbitrary paper standards, either. Monetary rules have been all the rage since Friedman (and, really, since Keynes/Samuelson). Quoting one paragraph from one guy like there's a consensus is a tad hasty. The instability of the gold area during the 19th century can easily be attributed to a very imperfectly implemented gold standard. Now, it's worth having an argument over whether it's at all possible to implement a 'perfect' gold standard, but I'm not actually that much of a gold bug, anyway. I believe truly free choice in money is preferable, although probably even more difficult to adequately implement.

[Napoleon the Clown]

What does "truly free choice in money" even mean? If it's what it sounds like it's just not possible. If it is not what it sounds like knowing just what it is would be useful so as to even be able to discuss the matter.

Pretty much anything I could say about trying to go gold standard has already been said. I do feel it is worth noting that in an economy where there is deflation borrowing money becomes even worse, as there's going to be interest on the amount they get back from you in straight numbers on top of the increased real cost due to each dollar being worth more every year.

[Count Chocula]

"truly free choice in money" would mean not just the exchanging of different types of "currency," but the ability to set and use exchange ratios in everyday transactions. Say you're a goldbug; it's kinda difficult to go down to the dealer, pick out that perfect Mustang you've had your eye on, then pull out a cylinder of gold ounces to pay for it. Or a dozen bricks of silver. Our everyday system is built on transactions in one form of exchange, Federal Reserve Notes. It's theoretically possible to go to a diner, have your eggs, grits and toast, and plunk a silver fifty-cent piece on the table to pay for it...but the mechanisms to do that aren't in place. The closest we get to "free choice in money" these days in at currency exchanges, arbitrage and commodity markets.