And why he will likely be the Repub nominee.

And why he will likely be the Repub nominee.

Yeah, and I remember when I used to say if crazy Ronald Reagan were ever to get the nomination and be elected, I would move to Canada.

Watch out.

When we have the quivering equivocaters running the Democratic party like we do, I think there is a strong chance that Ron Paul would find as much favor with Democrats as with Republicans. He scratches the itch that says America has wandered off course.

I would under no circumstances want Ron Paul as president but I small contingent of say 20 libertarian reps and 4-5 libertarian senators in his mold would be great. They would be large enough to help brake the worst excesses of both parties but too small to actually destroy the government like they want.

Ron Paul is fairly charismatic, and seems to be at least consistent and ethical, which puts him well ahead of his pack. As a serious candidate, oh hell no, but as someone to liven up the debates, represent a minority view of the party, and put a little heat on the tax-cut-and-spend wing of the Republicans, he's a welcome figure. He's their version of Kucinich, in a way.

Why stop at the gold standard?!

Let's get rid of nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources and get back to good old wood burning stoves and only windows and hand fans for air conditioning!

Does this mean the Washington Monthly no longer wants to let the Middle East go hang?

The article shows that the US has moved so far away from many bedrock conservative and libertarian principles that we will ever return. Kevin rightly mocks the ideas, partly because he thinks they wouldn't work but partly because he knows it's unthinkable that they would ever again be tried. Paul is considered a nut case by most Republicans for espousing these views. His poll ratings for President are under 1%.

For example, I personally believe the UN does more harm than good. I'd love to see the good parts like WHO retained and the rest of the UN shut down. I might as well wish for the moon.

Similarly, I think the World Bank and IMF waste most of the billions they're given. But there's no way to shut down these organizations or to end US participation. Many posters here will consider me a nut for raising the idea.

In principle I believe in enforcing the law, which means fencing the border and deporting illegals (and at the same time increasing the number of legal immigrants and guest workers.) It's not going to happen. Illegal immigrants effectively have some sort of unofficial resident status. Sooner or later they'll be given official resident status, or, at the very least, they will be allowed to live here indefinitetly.

In summary, the cited article reminds us that whether Paul's ideas are worthy or crackpot, there's no chance of the country going in that direction.

you forgot about the controlled demolition at the twin towers he seems to believe in, which keeps him out of the Elephant house.

also, I watched the Linklater movie Slacker from 1989 era and in one seen the players are walking down an Austin TX street and walk past a truck trailer that says "RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT" on it.

he's been loosing at this a long time...

Given a choice between Ron Paul and the current crew occupying the executive branch, I'd take Paul in a heartbeat*. The government would do much the same nothing as it's doing now, but it would be much cheaper!

*I'm assuming I'll have a better choice in 2008, though.

the great irony of Ron Paul, though, is how he can call himself a "Libertarian" but oppose safe and legal abortion.

guess that Libertarian ethos only applies to "his" stuff.

Or how he can call himself a "Libertarian" and oppose the free exchange of labor across borders.

The man's not a libertarian; he is simply a far rightwing wacko.

Kirby: He's their version of Kucinich, in a way.

Only in the sense that the MSM and other candidates treat them as just shy of the lunatic fringe. In substance (or at least espoused positions) Ron Paul really is a radical, but Kucinich is not.

It's interesting that political debate has moved so far to the right in this country that Kucinich is seen as a radical.

Yes, let's abolish the IRS. The government can go to fee for services instead of collecting taxes. Of course, that eliminates deficit spending, right Mr. Paul, Mr. Bush? How much do you want for my share of the Iraq war?

Ron Paul is the Howard Dean of 2008.

Watch him not win a damn thing come primary time.

John Derbyshire, from his column: If Washington, D.C. were the drowsy southern town that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rode into, Ron Paul would have a chance.

Oh yes, let's all go back to the Guilded Age, the corruption of the Harding administration, and laissez-faire government, because that ended up working out so well for the bulk of the US population.

'Barking Mad'? Weaker than I'd put it, but yeah.

you forgot about the controlled demolition at the twin towers he seems to believe in, which keeps him out of the Elephant house.

Not true - he was accosted by a group of those 9/11 Truth freaks and somehow people made a connection in their minds. Paul did, however, say that 9/11 happened because we've been too involved in Middle East geopolitics for too long, i.e. we've been poking a hornets' nest and got stung.

the great irony of Ron Paul, though, is how he can call himself a "Libertarian" but oppose safe and legal abortion.

The two viewpoints are not necessarily at odds, although the combination is relatively rare (Andrew Napolitano, the Fox News legal commentator, is the only other example I can think of). As Reason mag (whose writers are very consistently pro-choice) pointed out, libertarians believe the government should protect life, liberty, and property, so if Paul genuinely believes that a fetus counts as a human life, he's not being inconsistent. I don't agree with him, but I understand his position and believes he genuinely believes it, unlike the posers vying for GOP front-runner.

The article shows that the Republican Party has moved so far away from many bedrock conservative and libertarian principles that we will ever return.

Fixed it for you, "ex-liberal."

You really do get a sick thrill out of posting the most insultingly disingenuous, bad-faith comments you can, don't you? Why Kevin's moderator(s) tolerate your pissing on the rug is beyond me.

Nobody advocating the gold standard should go anywhere near the Oval Office.

Kirby: He's their version of Kucinich, in a way.

Except that Kucinich is right on the issues.

ex-lax at 12:50 PM
The article shows that the Republican Party has moved so far away from many bedrock conservative and libertarian principles that we will ever return...
Where are your bedrock balanced budget and smaller government 'principles'? The only Republican principles are expediency, follow the Party Line, afflict the afflicted; comfort the comfortable; don't give any brown person a break

...I personally believe the UN does more harm than good...
Yes, there is a bedrock principle: any organization that stands in the way of whatever wars the US wants to launch is evil.

... the World Bank and IMF waste most of the billions they're given...
Yep, all they do is promote American capitalist business interests, or is that a good thing?

In principle I believe in enforcing the law [but not against Republicans], ...
You could always resort to repatriation

...Tens of thousands, and possibly more than 400,000, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were pressured — through raids and job denials — to leave the USA during the Depression, according to a USA TODAY review of documents and interviews with historians and deportees. Many, mostly children, were U.S. citizens....

Nobody advocating the gold standard should go anywhere near the Oval Office.
Posted by: American Citizen on July 31, 2007 at 2:08 PM
---------------------------------------------------

Quite right, citizen. To such powers I say: you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

Why is it these people are so fearful, they want to build a wall around the entire US? By definition, that's a prison. It keeps people out and you in. Why are they so scared of people who don't look like themselves? Lets give them the state of Utah and build a huge wall around the entire perimeter...then people like Derbyshire can move in there and feel safe again.

Fixed it for you, "ex-liberal."

What do you mean? The "US" and the "Republican Party" are one and the same. Non-Republicans are traitors.

Mike: You could always resort to repatriation

In all fairness, ex-liberal was talking about illegal aliens. The very interesting article you linked to was talking about citizens and law-abiding LPR's. This sordid episode of American history should be brought to light. Unfortunately it's being done now to draw a false parallel to deporting illegal aliens.

Innocent Bystander: they want to build a wall around the entire US? By definition, that's a prison. It keeps people out and you in.

Get a better line. It doesn't keep you in, and it only keeps out non-citizens lacking an appropriate visa. In English, that's called a "border".

If you want the true crackpot Ron Paul, you'll get things like his belief that our government is poisoning people with jet contrails. (My own mom believes that's what caused her "arm problems," which in standard medical terminology is called a stroke.)

You're right, we don't need the gold standard or a commodity based dollar. Currency backed by debt, a hope and a smile is SOOOOOOO much better.

Why is doing away with the Federal Reserve "crazy"? It's common sense. The Federal Reserve is a group of private banks that do nothing but print and loan money to the United States Government. Its complete parasitism.

Ron Paul 2008

SocraticGadfly... this is the first I've heard of that... do you have a source?

For those railing against the Gold Standard... did you know that the Fed refuses to release minutes of it's meetings where it makes most of the decisions about our money? Did you know the dollar is worth $0.04 compared to the 1913 dollar? Our money is worth 4% of what it was when the Fed took over our money. Our money system is severely broken and is basically held together with the faith the rest of the world has in us.. It's only a matter of time before the euro is the monetary unit of choice and our economy undergoes a massive shrinkage. The oil producing countries are already switching to the Euro... search google video for federal reserve, especially a video called "Money As Debt" it's very enlightening.

Ron Paul is not a nut... these conspiracy theories attributed to him are nonsense. Do some reading on our monetary policy over the last 100 years, it reads like fiction it's so bizzare. And if you think getting rid of the IRS is crazy...

In Fiscal Year 2007, individual income taxes amounted to $1.17 trillion, just 42% of the total federal outlays of $2.78 trillion. Abolishing the individual income tax would not destroy the federal government, it would only force a reduction in spending levels back to FY1997, hardly the era of small government, when the total federal budget was $1.60 trillion. In other words, we could have ALREADY abolished the income tax, if Congress and the President hadn't increased spending by 74 percent in the past ten years.

danb is correct.

Notice how people like Kevin Drum often say "Ron Paul is crazy!" -- but then fail to back that up with arguments.

So, I await someone here telling me why abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve is crazy. I think it's common sense.

In fairness, Derb is hardly representative of mainstream thinking at NRO.

Sometimes that's a very good thing, sometimes not.

In all fairness, ex-liberal was talking about illegal aliens.

And in equal fairness to earlier commentators, "ex-liberal" has made it perfectly clear -- as he tacitly acknowledges with his weaselly "In principle I believe in enforcing the law" -- that in practice he does not believe in enforcing the law against Republicans.

But why not? "ex-liberal" isn't here to comment in good faith; he's her to post neocon propaganda and insultingly disingenuous talking points. Why Kevin's moderator(s) tolerate his pissing on the floor here is a mystery.

Well, it certainly took long enough for all the RonBots to show up.

It is lunacy to link currency markets with commodity markets. A real free marketeer understands that currencies should float. Pegging the US$ to gold will merely serve to distort the markets for both.

Our money system is ... basically held together with the faith the rest of the world has in us

That's exactly as it should be. The free market should determine how much the US$ is worth vis-a-vis other currencies. Why do you want the big old bad gvmt dictating how much it's worth by pegging it to gold?

ex-liberal: In principle I believe in enforcing the law, which means fencing the border and deporting illegals (and at the same time increasing the number of legal immigrants and guest workers.)

It also means fining companies that hire illegals, as well as fining them for breaking a vast number of other laws, including environmental laws.

But of course those who rail about how the law must be respected and enforced against illegals are virtually always the same ones who rail against any attempt to force corporate America to abide by regulations in other areas.

BTW, it is clear that the GOP does more harm than good.

Are you for getting rid of them, ex-liberal current-doofus?

barking mad?

That's a mild description of the real disorder.

frothing-at-the-mouth mad is more accurate, or banging-head-against-the-padded-cell wall works too.

I'd sure like to see someone explain how/why the right gets more radically extreme as they become more alienated from the majority by being extreme.

Dork: So, I await someone here telling me why abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve is crazy.

Since they exist and you want to abolish them, tell us why abolishing them makes sense.

Details please and cites to credible sources for any factual assertions made in your argument.

BTW, NRO and the WSJ are not credible sources.

anonymous--

I think I was quite clear about the Federal Reserve. It should be abolished because it is not in the interest of the American people that it exists, it is in the interest of a small number of private banks that it exists. It is not a government agency, it is a private organization -- though they try very hard to perpetuate the myth that they are governmental.

They print money and loan it to the U.S. government at interest. They do nothing else.

Here is a piece by Paul himself. Learn as much as you can about the Federeal Reserve, its abolition is an issue that cuts across the political spectrum -- we're ALL being stolen from. It isn't a left-right issue at all, it's pure theft.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html

Let me also add that people too often, as Kevin does here, use "That idea is crazy!" when closer to the truth is "That idea is one I don't understand."

Nixon took the US dollar off the Bretton/Woods Gold Standard in 1971.

The central banks/Chase/Exxon (read Rockefeller, et al) immediately moved to assure that from then on all worldwide oil sales would be dollar-denominated, which they have been, save for 3 recent exceptions:

1. Saddam's sale of Iraqi oil through the UN's Oil for Food program, in which he stupidly decided to accept Euros for his oil.
2. Iran's announced plans for their own exchange, through which they plan to accept Euros, Yen and possibly other currencies for their oil.
3. Russia's announced desire to sell their oil for Rubles.

Hmmm...Invade Iraq under false pretenses, threaten preemptive nuclear attack against Iran under false pretenses and announce construction of 'missile defense systems' on the Russian border.

It appears to me that the dollar indeed has dependency on a commodity tie to survive as long as it has. In fact is seems obvious that the dollar's tie to oil is desperately important.

Ron Paul has advocated a commodity backed dollar. This does not necessarily mean gold. He has also discussed competing currencies to the Fed's reserve notes.

I can state with certainty that Duke University has never graduated a M.D. who is a 'whacko' or is 'whacky', and, to be honest, those sorts of descriptives identify a comment for what it's worth...less than the virtual ink it's written with

We have this unprecedented gang of lying thugs in control of our government and someone has the stones to say Ron Paul is whacky? Or that Georgie's wannabe twin, Giuliani is a better choice? FT, Romney, McCain??

Gotta go, I need oxygen.

In all fairness to Ron Paul, he acknowledges that there were problems associated with the gold standard and it is my understanding that he does not seek to return to how the gold standard used to be. However he does support having currency backed by hard assets instead of the ability for the fed to print money unchecked, increasing the money supply but decreasing the value of our money. His despise of the current system is also rooted in the fact that the constitution grants congress the responsibility over money and not a private central bank.

Here is a link to something on the topic by Ron Paul.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=507

I read a great book about Mao Tse-Tung years ago by one of his personal physicians. It was a great period piece about what it was like in China at that time, a great memoir of the doctor, and a great account of what a totalitarian regime is like, besides just being an interesting book about Mao Tse-Tung. Anyway, the more time that passes and the more news I read, the more Bush's immediate underlings remind me of Mao's regime. The Surgeon General stuff in particular is the latest story that stands out as an example of that.

Ron Paul has not advocated going back to the old Gold Standard. He has said in several interviews that there ARE problems with that system. What he is for is SOUND MONEY; rather than money made out of thing air.

His first proposal towards this goal is to "legalize" gold and silver as tender. And allow opening up the markets to alternative currencies. He feels that given the choice between a currecy backed with assets; the consumer would move to such currencies instead of our current FIAT money.

Batting around "he wants to return to the Gold Standard" is a good way to get the discussion started on how to fix our currency system. He knows it can't be done overnight; but there are reasonable steps that can be taken. Don't buy the spin.

Just sayin', they're wacky nowadays.

Back in August of 1971, when Nixon severed the last link to gold, and inspired Ron Paul to enter politics, you could buy a brand new Mustang for around two grand and a one bedroom apartment in Manhattan would set you back around $200/month. Closing the gold window set the stage for stagflation, runaway deficits, American jobs sent overseas, the S&L crisis, the junk bond fiasco, the dot-com bubble, the housing bubble and the credit derivatives bubble. And the average American family has seen no improvement in their standard of living in nearly four decades. Barking mad indeed.

Dave and Victor are correct. Since Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971 -- the act that spurred Ron Paul into politics -- the US dollar has essentially been a petrodollar. Which means that when people stop paying for their oil in dollars, we are screwed.

Did you notice a couple of weeks ago when Iran demanded Japan that it would have to start paying for its oil in Yen instead of dollars, and the Japanese, feigning reluctance, agreed? Eerily similar to Saddam being overthrown and executed after his real crime, which was a planned switch to selling his gold in Euros instead of dollars. What a coincidence.

Folks, we have a *serious* economic crisis headed our way very soon, and it's all the fault of the Federal Reserve, leaving the gold standard, and out welfare-warfare leaders in government.

We need Ron Paul to win this election more than most people realize.

I await someone here telling me why abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve is crazy.

As to the IRS, assuming we have some kind of government, someone has to collect the taxes in order to pay the bills.

Sorry dork, but some arguments are just not worth making.

"Did you know the dollar is worth $0.04 compared to the 1913 dollar? Our money is worth 4% of what it was when the Fed took over our money."

Justifying the fed to you would require your developing an actual understanding of economics. Interestingly, most Americans also do not actually have a sufficient understanding of economics to comprehend the justification for its existence either. Fortunately, they have been willing to defer to the opinion of experts and its history of success.

Maybe not the gold standard... but something... inflation has robbed the dollar of 96% of it's value in less than 100 years. $20 of gold 100 years ago is worth $500+ today.

When the organization that prints our money and sets our interest rates won't even report to congress what happens behind it's closed door meetings... it should make you wonder why... What will happen to us when the dollar isn't the worlds standard currency anymore? who is going to care about the dollar when half the world is on the Euro? Inflation is going to continue to increase.

By the way Kevin, that was a brilliant quote. You really had me confused for a moment there.

It appears to me that the dollar indeed has dependency on a commodity tie to survive as long as it has. In fact is seems obvious that the dollar's tie to oil is desperately important.

Oh good f-ing lawd. *Everything* denominated in US$s has an effect on the value of the dollar, and oil more than most because oil is "desperately important" to the US and world economy. Duh. That's the way the free market works.

Contrast that with Paul's plan for the gvmt to peg the US$ dollar to gold (or whatever other commodity he fetishes at the moment), which is distinctly *anti* free market.

Makes sense to me. I don't see how these are "whacky" ideas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTBrJNipytg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q

tomeck,

It is true that the federal government would still need to collect taxes and so there would probably still be some agency given that task (presumably the irs). However, when people talk of abolishing the IRS, it is often linked to the income tax. There are other taxes beside the income tax that support the federal government but I always here abolish the IRS in the context of the income tax. I believe Ron Paul has supported a very low across the board import tax. The issue that first has to be address though, is out of control spending.

You know, Thoreau didn't pay his taxes to protest the Mexican-American War yet all you liberals don't mind giving away your money to the collection agency for the military-industrial complex. Very strange. I would have thought there would be more tax protesters on the left.

But then again those on the left during World War II didn't mind the "Merchants of Death" when they were working for both the U.S. and Joe Stalin.

The bottom line is that Ron Paul is going to end this war because he is going to fundementally change U.S. foreign policy away from direct interventionism and have a rapproachmont with both Iran and Russia. It's the only way to save lives, bring troops home from across the globe, save taxpayer money, reduce government at home(which conservatives haven't figured out yet or maybe they have and don't care about anymore.) and restore our good name abroad.

The bottom line is also is that no matter who the Dems nominate, either Richard Holbrooke or Joe Biden is going to be Secretary of State and most of the foreign policy apparatus of any future Democrat Administration will be from the Clinton Administration "Liberal Interventionist-Kill Christian Serbs" team.

Now ask yourselves this question: Are such people going to begin to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq right on Inauguration Day?

I didn't think so either. So it's no wonder some of you around here are probably scared some on the left are attracted to the good Texas doctor who sounds a lot like Eugene McCarthy/George McGovern. In open primary like my home state of Wisconsin, such support could be very useful to Ron Paul.

Yes, let me echo the comments of others here in explaining that "returning to the gold standard" is a not-exactly-precise shorthard for what Ron Paul will do as president. You won't be walking around with gold coins in your pocket to pay for groceries.

It just means that the currency will be backed by gold, silver, or other hard assets (can be metals or anything else durable and of lasting value). The effect of this is that when the politicians get too greedy and print too much money, people will start cashing their dollars in for gold (or other hard assets backing the currency).

Such a standard serves as a check on politicians to not print and spend more money. As it is now they have no disincentive and we're borrowing $3 billion a day from China, Japan and others to finance our welfare-warfare state. THIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE DOLLAR WILL CRASH, AND HARD, IF WE DO NOT GET OFF THE FIAT CURRENCY TITANIC.

NO fiat currency has ever not crashed. The dollar will crash soon too. Don't believe the Fox News hype about how great the market and economy is, these guys know what's coming and are making money while it's there to be made.

With Ron Paul we will have a soft landing and a smooth transition to a real free market economy. With anyone else, well, runaway inflation causes very bad things to happen in a society.

I believe Ron Paul has supported a very low across the board import tax.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

Yet more market distortion wackery from the faux-libertarian isolationist Ron Paul.

Money is generally made out of air, and not just Federal Reserve notes. The value of gold, even when gold "backed" our money, was based on the "air" of human communication and the "air" of the spirit of human greed.

Gold doesn't have a set value unless two or more people agree on it; it doesn't have a high value unless they're greedy.

If you're talking pragmatics, silver is much more valuable than gold and has been for millennia; ditto in spades for copper.

But specie of all metallic combinations has been debased since Croesus started the art of coinage, so let's not talk about a floating dollar as something new and unique in that regard, either.

In today's world, we could not only denominate the dollar in terms of oil, but Kansas hard red winter wheat or all sorts of other things.

Tomeck --

We are talking about abolishing the income tax. This is an unconstitutional tax that's only been arond since 1913. It comprises about 35% of our federal dollars. If we just cut our spending to what it was under Clinton in 2000, say we'd be fine without it.

Look at our federal budget -- $1.8 trillion in 2000 and $2.9 trillion next year. Completely out of control -- and what happens when you forgo hard assets-backed currency.

He feels that given the choice between a currecy backed with assets; the consumer would move to such currencies instead of our current FIAT money.

Really, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at someone who thinks even 1% of Americans think about whether the dollars they spend are based on "fiat" or gold or anything else and hesitate to accept or provide dollars from a bank or to a merchant based on what the dollar is theoretically based on.

Dork: We are talking about abolishing the income tax. This is an unconstitutional tax

Extra, Extra, Read All About It! 16th Amendment Ratified!

Dork: This is an unconstitutional tax that's only been arond since 1913.

Well, you've earned your moniker with this comment.

The argument that the income tax is unconstitutional is as bogus as the claim that Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMDs in 2003.

Geez, you'd think that these whacky people would grow tired of spewing this crap in anything remotely resembling an intellectual discussion.

Go post that stuff on a tax protester website where you might actually find someone who believes that tripe.

Every single argument against the constitutionality of the income tax has been thoroughly rebutted and shown for the dimwitted reasoning that it is.

Unbelievable.

Anonymous,

From your scare quotes around "fiat" I'm guessing you're unfamiliar with the concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency

Americans will indeed start to think very hard about whether their currency is backed by hard assets or nothing at all when their $20 bills become worth $10 each in a matter of months or weeks.

Crash of the currency is the ONLY way fiat currencies end. It's amazing we've been able to go 37 years on the petrodollar.

The crash of the dollar is coming. It will rival the Great Depression in its effect.

So it's no wonder some of you around here are probably scared some on the left are attracted to the good Texas doctor who sounds a lot like Eugene McCarthy/George McGovern.

Ah, the mothership has finally landed.

oops,

I meant hear, not here.

Other problems with the IRS and other agencies is that often times they create the rules, they adjudicate the rules, and they levy the penalties. There is no separation of powers and this breeds many problems. Only the legislature is given the responsibility by the constitution of writing rules and they cannot give that authority to another body. Other "bodies" could propose rules, but congress would need to approve them.

"did you know that the Fed refuses to release minutes of it's meetings where it makes most of the decisions about our money?"

Why's that a big deal? I'd rather have a full and frank discussion amongst the FOMC members than them biting their lips 'cos they're concerned how a remark would be interpreted by the bond markets.

And frankly, I'd trust Janet Yellen and her colleagues over Lew Rockwell any day.

"Did you know the dollar is worth $0.04 compared to the 1913 dollar?"

Dang, if those time travellers from 1913 invade us, we'll be bought and sold.

FWIW, the rate of inflation since 1913 averages out at 3.4%. Damn those crazy inflation junkies at the Fed!!!!

It just means that the currency will be backed by gold, silver, or other hard assets (can be metals or anything else durable and of lasting value). The effect of this is that when the politicians get too greedy and print too much money, people will start cashing their dollars in for gold (or other hard assets backing the currency).

Good f-ing lawd, YOU CAN DO THAT RIGHT NOW!

That's why gold is a considered a hedge against inflation.

Let me repeat that: YOU CAN DO THAT RIGHT NOW, without screwing with the markets.

What Ron Paul wants to do is peg the US$ to gold and apparently other various commodities, which will only serve to distort the markets for the US$ and all those commodities.

In fact, I was much happier when I thought Ron Paul only wanted to fuck over the market for gold and the US$. Now you RonBots are all telling me that he wants to screw over the entire area of precious metals, and you expect we who comprehend econ to breath a sigh of relief? LMAO.

MPOWELL - I certainly hope the real - estate market keeps on trucking. Otherwise, who is going to buy up all those sub-prime loans rolled up into CDO's for you?

Ah, the mothership has finally landed.

I suspect that when Ron Paul finally unzips his skin suit, we'll find Pat Buchanan inside.

Crash of the currency is the ONLY way fiat currencies end.

Soccer often ends in a tie.

Sound Money is for the nuts?
Alan Greenspan didn't think it was that bad of an idea.
http://www.gold-eagle.com/greenspan011098.html
"Certainly a gold-based monetary system will necessarily prevent fiscal imprudence, as 20th Century history clearly demonstrates. Nonetheless, once achieved, the discipline of the GOLD STANDARD would surely reinforce anti-inflation policies, and make it far more difficult to resume financial profligacy. The redemption of dollars for gold in response to excess federal government-induced credit creation would be a strong political signal. Even after inflation is brought under control the extraordinary political sensitivity to inflation will remain.

Concrete actions to install a GOLD STANDARD are premature. Nonetheless, there are certain preparatory policy actions that could test the eventual feasibility of returning to a GOLD STANDARD, that would have positive short-term anti-inflation benefits and little cost if they fail."

Constitutional or not, the 16th Amendment is considered established law. That is why Ron Paul advocates repealing the 16th Amendment. As to currency, the constitution does not allow for a paper currency. So Ron Paul has said essentially that if we are going to continue the current system, then we need to pass a constitutional amendment so that everything is legal. The federal reserve in the same manner. Regarding economics, I certainly do not know everything, and I am not saying that Ron Paul does either, but the one thing Ron Paul advocates is following the constitution. If changes need to be made, then change it, but do it properly. That to me is a big deal and something the other candidates don't seem to care about.

Money is generally made out of air, and not just Federal Reserve notes. The value of gold, even when gold "backed" our money, was based on the "air" of human communication and the "air" of the spirit of human greed.

Thx for that. It didn't occur to me until you posted that that the problem with the RonBots may very well be that they do not comprehend how value is determined.

JP- I'm not sure what you think you're getting at. I tend to buy whole markets so I'm not overly exposed to the sub-prime market, but right now I'm betting on foreign markets a lot more strongly than domestic anyhow. But that's not because of the fed. If I wanted a gold, I could buy it. The value of the dollar will probably be going down b/c the government is spending more than it receives.

Those of you afraid of inflation are really funny though. Inflation is usually good for populists. It's the capitalists and wealth holders who don't like too much inflation.

Sound Money is for the nuts?

I prefer Taste Money.

Disputo,

We have about 5 tons of gold left in Ft. Knox. It used to be almost 5 times that. We are barely in the top 10 in the world on possession of gold. It does not back our currency.

Thx for telling me something I already know, and that is totally beside any point anyone has made. Good job.

Well, I see where this is going -- the RonBots will continue to ignore my specific argument that Paul's plan will lead to free market distortions (as I am learning so many of Paul's plans do), and will instead handwave and proffer non-sequiturs.

I leave you all to your task.

Victor: Constitutional or not, the 16th Amendment is considered established law.

Please explain how a Constitutional Amendment could possibly be unconstitutional.

That is why Ron Paul advocates repealing the 16th Amendment.

So that taxes can be even more regressive.

As to currency, the constitution does not allow for a paper currency.

Please explain where in the Constitution it says that. Section 10 is about powers prohibited to the States.

Disputo wrote:

"YOU CAN DO THAT RIGHT NOW! (buy gold with U.S. currency)."

Yes, and some people do (including me, believe me). But it doesn't back our currency -- the reason the Chinese are lending us $3 billion per day isn't because they know we're good for it because we have 5 tons of gold in Ft. Knox. It's because they think we're good for it because the world has to pay for its oil in dollars. Oil backs our money, not gold.

This is rapidly changing -- Saddam wanted to sell his oil in Euros (got him whacked), Russia has begun the process, too, and Iran recently announced that Japan will start buying oil from them in yen (gonna get them whacked).

But we can't whack everyone, and Chavez and others are lining up to finish the dollar off. Our government spends too much and taxes too much, our currency isn't backed by hard assets, and the Federal Reserve fleeces value from every dollar it prints.

And even highly-educated people like Kevin fiddle with "barking mad" comments as Rome prepares to burn. And DC has a lot in common with Ancient Rome.

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

Section 8 - granted powers
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I do not argue that the 16th amendment is unconstitutional. I think some people question whether it was ratified properly though and they may or may not be correct - I just do not know.

The market is already distorted. That's the whole problem.

alex,
That is why Ron Paul advocates repealing the 16th Amendment.

So that taxes can be even more regressive.

That doesn't make sense alex. Not having an income tax would certainly not make taxes more regressive. You don't seem to realize that when businesses are taxed, that the end consumer is the one that pays for it. Perhaps you are referring to my comments where I stated that I thought Ron Paul supported an across the board very low import tax. Ron Paul stated in 2002, "By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing." So perhaps I was wrong on the import tax thing. Sorry.

The real issue is spending. Then we can deal with the taxes.

Victor,

As I already mentioned, Section 10 clearly limits the power of the States, and imposes no restrictions on the federal government, so there was no point in even listing it.

Now, even playing utterly strict constructionist (as your listing the 10th Amendment suggests you do), I see nothing in Section 8 that requires any particular approach to "regulate the Value thereof". So please explain how it is a Constitutional requirement to do so using a silly dead metal.

"Have I mentioned lately that these guys are barking mad?"

Not that I can recall.

Thanks for saluting the flag, Kevin. Now you can go back to pretending not to understand what we're really dealing with in the form of these guys.

Someone stated that Ron Paul believes in the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. No he does not nor is he a 9/11 Truther. Please stop spreading lies about the ONE honest politician in Washington

"a silly dead metal."

Two silly dead metals, in fact, whose value has outlasted that of every fiat currency known to man.

My money's in silly dead metals, and I'm voting for Ron Paul because I would sincerely like to lose money on those metals. But I haven't so far.

Ron Paul is head and shoulders the best candidate running. All of you people calling him a conspiracy theorist have no idea what you're talking about.

Just as an aside, it's odd that Kevin thinks "balance the budget" is part of his list that makes Ron Paul "Barking mad".

Was that an oversight? I know following the constitution makes you crazy these days, but is balancing the federal budget considered a quixotic goal as well?

Sock puppet said:

"FWIW, the rate of inflation since 1913 averages out at 3.4%. Damn those crazy inflation junkies at the Fed!!!!"

If it was smoothly at 3.4% that wouldn't be so bad. But the Federal Reserve creates boom and bust cycles -- on purpose, so their banks can make money and government can seize more power.

It's not a coincidence that government increased dramatically in size after the Great Depression. And don't have any doubt that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, since Bernanke admitted it to Milton Friedman last year (before Friedman died of course).

Boom and Bust, average 3.4% but so what when the chart looks like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Historical_Inflation.svg

dork: From your scare quotes around "fiat" I'm guessing you're unfamiliar with the concept . . .

Uh, no, the quotes were used to signify that it was you who was using the term and declaring our current money to be "FIAT money."

Nevertheless, as used by the general population, "fiat" most commonly means "arbitrary order or decree." (Hence, this is the first definition of the word.)

Since establishing a gold standard or any other standard for currency or even just allowing competition on the matter of currency, would be a "fiat" under the less common meaning of the word as a "governmental decree," as would any other law, it is clear that your use of the term in either case is inane, being either inappropriate or meaningless.

Indeed, under the second definition, the Constitution itself is a "fiat," but certainly it is not under the first definition.

Thus, our currency, being established by a properly and legally adopted law, is not a fiat under the first definition and declaring it so under the second is no more meaningful than declaring the First Amendment to be a "fiat."

Your delusional world is collapsing about you.

Run!

Victor: . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts . . .

Well, then paper money based on gold would be unconstitutional also.

dork: I know following the constitution makes you crazy these days . . .

No, only inane interpretations of the Constitution (capitalized, as it is supposed to be) without any historical or rational or legal foundation make us crazy.

Such as a unitary executive beyond the reach of the checks and balances system expressly envisioned by the Founding Fathers and incorporated into the Constitution.

A silent weapon system operates upon data obtained from a docile
public by legal (but not always lawful) force. Much information is made
available to silent weapon systems programmers through the Internal
Revenue Service. (See Studies in the Structure of the American Economy for an
I.R.S. source list.)
This information consists of the enforced delivery of well-organized
data contained in federal and state tax forms collected, assembled, and
submitted by slave labor provided by taxpayers and employers.
Furthermore, the number of such forms submitted to the I.R.S. is a
useful indicator of public consent, an important factor in strategic decision
making. Other data sources are given in the Short List of Inputs.
Consent Coefficients — numerical feedback indicating victory status.
Psychological basis: When the government is able to collect tax and seize
private property without just compensation, it is an indication that the
public is ripe for surrender and is consenting to enslavement and legal
encroachment. A good and easily quantified indicator of harvest time is
the number of public citizens who pay income tax despite an obvious lack
of reciprocal or honest service from the government.

I think we can settle all this right now if the RonBots would just answer one question:

Have you ever been abducted by an Extraterrestrial?

Now, now, with a little encouragement - Ron Paul could run as an independant - a Ralph Nader for the right.

And John McCain should be all for it too, right?

Hey Disputo, do us all a favor and go back to sleep. Get your mom to tuck you in.
Fearing the unknown is common practice for willfully ignorant people such as yourself. Fear easily turns into hatred when you're so confused like you are, and we don't need that negative energy .. just, Say it with me: All is well in the Homeland, leaders never lie,
all is well in the Homeland, government does not own my life,
all is well in the homeland, CFR is Pro-America, all is well in the homeland, the Peso isn't gaining on the dollar oh wait ...

Wow !

I'm amazed at the idiocy being displayed in this thread!

This thread is full of people arguing about things they know nothing about, yet pretending that they are experts.

Amazing.

LMAO.

I can't get a single RonBot to address any of substantive questions I have about Paul's policies, but ask them if they have been abducted by aliens, and they are all over me with patronizing insults (as if English owns this place -- LOL at the cute little newbie).

That illustrates better than anything why Ron Paul is doomed to failure. There is no there there.

Every wacko has projected his own personal "gvmt is out to get me" conspiracy theories onto Paul, but not a one has any idea of what his real policy prescriptions are.

Not having an income tax would certainly not make taxes more regressive. You don't seem to realize that when businesses are taxed, that the end consumer is the one that pays for it.

You don't seem to realize that corporate taxes are not income taxes.

Thx for playing.

Who IS Ron Paul? Do your own homework.
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com

anonymous, the USD *is* a fiat currency, I didn't declare it to be one. "Fiat currency" or "fiat money" has a specific meaning, you can't parse out a definition from the component words and argue with me on that basis.

I have to say, anonymous and disputo are either really stupid or they argue in bad faith. I've rarely seen so many truly lousy comments on a good board before.

I have to say, anonymous and disputo are either really stupid or they argue in bad faith. I've rarely seen so many truly lousy comments on a good board before.

Yet another insulting non-answer to my numerous questions about Ron Paul's policies.

You are quite the persuasive ambassador for the good doctor. He should put you on salary.

Shorter English: I have no idea what Ron Paul's policies are.

Thx for confirming my suspicions. You may go now.

Actually, I'm not going to do your homework for you. But I encourage you to think for yourself and listen to THE MAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT (as opposed to me, a "Ronbot")explain his positions to you on www.ronpaulaudio.com
Good luck

RonBots, we asked you nicely a month ago to spend 60 seconds learning to make a link if you expect us to read your cites.

And amazingly, not a single one of you fellows has managed this simple task. What are the odds?!

LOL.

"Actually, I'm not going to do your homework for you" = "I have no idea what the actual positions of the man I slavishly worship are, and it confuses and frightens me when you ask for any specifics."

shortstop, you remind me of Giuliani..
No, I didn't get your memo a month ago, I'm very sorry about that. I'm even more sorry that my poor linking would require you to copy and paste, pretty heady stuff.

The Fed's interference leads to boom and bust cycles??? LOL. Like these did not occur before? Martin Van Buren and Herbert Hoover would disagree. Unlike current "boom and bust" cycles, pre-Fed cycles devastated the economy.

If you have information you want others to look at or listen to, English, the onus is on you to make that info accessible.

It's called making a sale. Think of it as the free market of information sharing. You've demonstrated that you're unable to compete. It's a shame, but only the competent survive, and you and the other fellows (wink, wink) have been bested by a simple task mastered by millions of second graders every day.

Obviously we cant go back to the gold standard with all the money in circulation today. A binary bit, your savings account on a hard drive, is much cheaper than gold and probably cheaper than printing a dollar bill.

Silicon standard?

Hmmm.

The Cons don't care much for who they call Dr. No.

He follows the constitution strictly and we all know that todays Cons have alot of that Federalist society mentality and thats the reason, I say, behind their fear of Ron Paul.

Sorry for getting in here so late, but this is fun.
'
Abolish the Fed?

Has no one yet mentioned the Illuminati, or the Bilderbergers, whoever they are? No crackpot thread is complete without mentioning the Bilderbergers. Oh, and the grassy knoll.

Kevin,

You've cheated.

Lower down in the article, after asking "What's not to like?" the NRO guy makes it perfectly clear that he, at least, doesn't like very much of it.

I'm not choosing sides here. Imho Paul is a very attractive character, although I disagree with him on damn near everything, from his prissy church-going act through his nutbar economics.

My only point is that you have quoted NRO out of context in a totally dishonest way. Maybe you just didn't read beyond the first paragraph?

Kevin, meet shark.

Jump, Kevin. Jump!

Good Kevin.

RonBots, we asked you nicely a month ago to spend 60 seconds learning to make a link if you expect us to read your cites.

And amazingly, not a single one of you fellows has managed this simple task. What are the odds?!

Shortstop: Well, here ya go! I'll GLADLY make life easier for ya, if you actually WANT to access those files. (Of course, you COULD always have just pasted the supplied URLs into that little 'address line' thingie! It's not exactly "rocket science", you know.)

Ron Paul speeches and interviews - Audio Archive

Article by Ron Paul at Lew Rockwell Com

Article by Ron Paul at ronpaullibrary.org.

Anything ELSE above you'd like me to "translate" for you?

As for my own take, Ron Paul -- in demonstrating not only a keen perception of what's REALLY going on in this country (and the world) but also the sincere desire to fully inform the American people -- deserves FAR more credit and respect than is implied by these sneeringm facile dismissals of so-called "RonBots".

Cheap shot, Kevin.

For the URL-illiterate and functionally "link-challenged" here:

Representative Ron Paul -- Archives at Information Clearing House [Google]

Knock yourselves out! (There are multiple pages.)

I must take responsibility for an egregious error I made. At 4:52PM above I said:

I suspect that when Ron Paul finally unzips his skin suit, we'll find Pat Buchanan inside.

My apologies. After having read through some of Ron Paul's stuff I now realize that Lyndon Larouche is inside the skin suit.

Paul is considered a nut case by most Republicans ....
- ex-liberal

And that's supposed to reflect NEGATIVELY on him??

Why, that ALONE should be construed as the most GLOWING endorsement of the man!!!

Lower down in the article, after asking "What's not to like?" the NRO guy makes it perfectly clear that he, at least, doesn't like very much of it.

Oh, really? I'd like to see you back up the assessment that Debry "doesn't like very much of it" with a quote.

What Derby *does* say is that although he has "nits" to "pick" with Ron Paul, he "is conservative in a way we don’t often see from a presidential candidate. It is, in fact, conservatism of exceptional purity."

He goes on to knock down several reasons that conservatives may not like Paul, and finally concludes that the only reason not to like Paul is precisely because of his "conservative purity" -- that his politics are just not "practical".

After having read through some of Ron Paul's stuff I now realize that Lyndon Larouche is inside the skin suit.

Was that, like, a whopping 12-minute peruse, Disputo?

Come to think of it, have YOU ever been abducted by aliens?? (Regardless, you should definitely consider it an option.)

Come to think of it, have YOU ever been abducted by aliens??

I don't know why you RonBots are so scared of answering that question.

"If it was smoothly at 3.4% that wouldn't be so bad."

It still

"But the Federal Reserve creates boom and bust cycles --"

Crack open an intro book on Macroeconomics: Coulter or Mankiw or Delong. Look for a chart of GDP in the nineteenth century. Notice how much more volatile it is compared to

"on purpose, so their banks can make money and government can seize more power."

Wow, Janet Yellen, she's a power-grubbing tool of the oppressors, under that grandmotherly exterior?

Not only that, but the Fed reached through time and caused real GDP/capita to tank in the contractions of 1866-1871, 1874-1877, 1884-1885, and 1891-1894! Is there no end to their evil!

Face it, you're absolutely barking.

"And don't have any doubt that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, since Bernanke admitted it to Milton Friedman last year (before Friedman died of course)."

Bernanke was running the Fed in 1929? He looks awfully spry for his age.

Gimme a cite. I don't think Bernanke said what you think. There's a difference between "caused" and "potentiate". Friedman & Schwartz

"Two silly dead metals, in fact, whose value has outlasted that of every fiat currency known to man."

And during the millenia that gold was used, the GDP growth rate averaged

Fiat currency & countercyclical fiscal stabilizers (like, income & capital gains taxes and gubmint spending). More beneficial to mankind than penecillin. Really.

Poilu: For the URL-illiterate and functionally "link-challenged" here...

You've missed the point by about the width of three states.

Again.

--------------------
"But the Federal Reserve creates boom and bust cycles --"

Crack open an intro book on Macroeconomics: Coulter or Mankiw or Delong. Look for a chart of GDP in the nineteenth century. Notice how much more volatile it is compared to
-----------------

The Federal Reserve creates boom and bust cycles and robs the nation of wealth. The median real wages are lower now than they were 35 years ago, despite massive productivity gains, mostly because of the wealth robbing effects of the federal reserve.

Boom/bust cycles decrease in volatility as an economy matures, so the 19th century cannot be compared to the 20th century as a lesson on the affects of having a privately central bank control money supply. What can be compared is pre-1913 and post 1913. The first big boom/bust after 1913 was the Great Depression, which was directly caused by the private central bank printing too much money, and then practically printing nomoney for a decade (the 1930's).

Learn.

Ron Paul for president.

Corrections to half-sentences here:

"Gimme a cite. I don't think Bernanke said what you think. There's a difference between "caused" and "potentiate". Friedman & Schwartz didn't argue that the Fed triggered the decline: money supply didn't start contracting until *6 months* after GDP started dropping. What they argued was that the Fed *reacted in the wrong way* to counter the decline. Other economists, like Barry Eichengreen, have argued that the Fed couldn't have avoided deflation. I'd enjoy seeing your sentence on how there not being a Fed would have countered deflation that led to the depression, given that in the period between 1880 and 1913 experienced deflation from 1880-1881, 1883-1886, 1890-1896, 1900-1905, 1907-1908 and 1910-1911.

Anna Schwartz was a Fed employee, BTW: odd that the Fed would allow her to work with Friedman on how the Fed screwed up if it was controlled by conspiratorial Gnomes.

"And during the millenia that gold was used as the standard, the GDP growth rate averaged about 1% p.a."

You've missed the point by about the width of three states. ...

So you claim. But then, any actual "point" to that particular retort of yours was fairly EASY to miss. (Perhaps you're just too "subtle".) Moreover, YOUR point and my own might just differ radically!

But to make life easier for all concerned, maybe you could just explain the "point" in the following, so we can ALL understand your gist:

RonBots, we asked you nicely a month ago to spend 60 seconds learning to make a link if you expect us to read your cites.

And amazingly, not a single one of you fellows has managed this simple task. What are the odds?!

Several commenters had provided URLs that you could easily have just pasted into your browser's address line. (Not exactly "Rocket Science", is it??) And in a prior post, I HAD translated 3 of those into direct links for you. But apparently an onsite "spam filter" gobbled them up for exceeding a threshold.

Regardless, you now have a genuine LINK made just for you. It points to over 100 articles available on that single site alone. So, have you actually READ any of them?

(If not, it's clearly YOU who've "missed the point", entirely.)

I don't know why you RonBots are so scared of answering that question.

Disputo: No one is a complete idiot, but you obviously constitute a VERY reasonable facsimile.

How old are you -- 14??

(What's WITH this "RonBots" horseshit on this site?? Those wielding the term sound like a bunch of idiot LGF'ers!!)

"the 19th century cannot be compared to the 20th century as a lesson on the affects of having a privately central bank control money supply."

BS. England had a less volatile economy in the 19th century than the US, and coincidentally, had a central bank.

" The median real wages are lower now than they were 35 years ago, despite massive productivity gains, mostly because of the wealth robbing effects of the federal reserve."

Median wage was $12.53 in 1973 (2003 dollars). It was $13.62 in 2003. It was about $13.30 in 2006 (again 2003 dollars). This doesn't jibe with your assertion. Please back up your assertions with numbers. (http://www.epinet.org/datazone/05/wagecuts_all.pdf)

Coincidently, the share of the top 1% of earners went from 6% of GDP to 12% of GDP in the same time period. I wonder if the that and the slow growth in median wages are correlated?

Several commenters had provided URLs that you could easily have just pasted into your browser's address line. (Not exactly "Rocket Science", is it??)

Not to speak for shortstop, but if y'all are intent on selling your candidat, expecting them to make the effort of cutting and pasting the URL, rather than going to the effor of creating a link yourselves, smacks of poor salesmanship.

Faulting the readership of these forums for not undertaking an effort the Ron Paul boosters are clearly unable or unwilling to make, doubly so.

Disputo says:

"Oh good f-ing lawd. *Everything* denominated in US$s has an effect on the value of the dollar, and oil more than most because oil is "desperately important" to the US and world economy. Duh. That's the way the free market works.

"Contrast that with Paul's plan for the gvmt to peg the US$ dollar to gold (or whatever other commodity he fetishes at the moment), which is distinctly *anti* free market."

In a true free market, there would be no such thing as a 'petro-dollar'. Forcing all nations into such a scheme is anything but a free market approach.

That was the point of the post.

Try to follow along and actually 'get' some of the excellent points being made in this discussion, and try to tone down the silly and offensive juvenile language, will ya?

Gregory: Not to speak for shortstop, but if y'all are intent on selling your candidat, expecting them to make the effort of cutting and pasting the URL, rather than going to the effor of creating a link yourselves, smacks of poor salesmanship.

Faulting the readership of these forums for not undertaking an effort the Ron Paul boosters are clearly unable or unwilling to make, doubly so.

Yes, that was part of my point, as I explained above quite clearly enough for everyone but the RonBots to understand. I'm always amused by the tendency of Ron Paul supporters to believe that we should come to them. The most delusional of them--I know, I know--will follow up a display of complete ignorance of their man's positions (or a refusal to acknowledge those positions) with a confident pronouncement that "Dr. Paul" is going to surprise everybody come primary time. They're hilariously unaware of how much they're doing to kill any sympathy for or interest in Paul's candidacy.

The other part of my point, of course, was mocking the two or three Paul supporters pretending to be 15 or 20 Paul supporters. Despite having been repeatedly busted sockpuppeting, the idjits never have learned to make a working link, which might serve to disguise the small size of their group as well as promote their candidate. But they can't even pull that off.

Arrogant, lazy and incompetent. I'm sold! Sign me up!

....the Great Depression, which was directly caused by the private central bank printing too much money, and then practically printing nomoney for a decade (the 1930's).....Mike at 10:04 AM

...The large and growing disparity of wealth between the well-to-do and the middle-income citizens made the U.S. economy unstable. For an economy to function properly, total demand must equal total supply. In an economy with such disparate distribution of income it is not assured that demand will always equal supply. Essentially what happened in the 1920's was that there was an oversupply of goods. It was not that the surplus products of industrialized society were not wanted, but rather that those whose needs were not satiated could not afford more, whereas the wealthy were satiated by spending only a small portion of their income. A 1932 article in Current History articulates the problems of this maldistribution of wealth...

...."Two silly dead metals, in fact, whose value has outlasted that of every fiat currency known to man.".......Sock Puppet of the Great Satan at 3:51 AM

I doubt that there is enough gold on the planet to cover all the debt that the US owes
unless the dollar became worth approximately one yen, or less. Which, of course, is the reason that Nixon took the US off the gold standard in the first place.

Seems there are very GOOD reasons to reject this omnipresent "free trade" mantra. The Congress certainly thinks so nowadays, and so do I! Globalization may be a fat-cat Capitalist's dream come true, but it has wreaked havoc on the country as a whole, doing little (if anything) to actually "promote the GENERAL welfare":

As US Income Stagnates, Democrats Reject Free Trade
McClatchy Newspapers

The Democratic-led Congress won't give President Bush the special authority he needs to negotiate future free-trade deals. The Senate is moving on retaliatory trade legislation against China. The House of Representatives won't approve deals with three small neighboring Latin American countries. Global trade talks are near collapse.

Washington's mood on free trade hasn't been this negative in at least two decades, and a pullback is evident. Whether this becomes a full-blown return to protectionism remains to be seen. But for now Americans, and the politicians they elect to represent them, are in no mood to expand international trade.

"For decades we took for granted that everyone agreed with us economists that free trade is good, protectionism is bad. Somewhere along the way, that stopped being the conventional wisdom," acknowledged U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers. "And whereas the default vote on a trade bill in Congress used to be a 'yes' vote, the default vote on a trade bill now in Congress is a 'no' vote." Why? Because lots of people are no longer convinced that a rising tide of trade lifts all boats - and there's evidence to back them up. ...

Not to speak for shortstop, but if y'all are intent on selling your candidat, expecting them to make the effort of cutting and pasting the URL, rather than going to the effor of creating a link yourselves, smacks of poor salesmanship. ...

Gregory: You assume WAY too much, as do most of these habitual "RonBot" spouters.

I'm not selling ANYTHING here! But I find your would-be "argument " pretentious, contrived, and incredibly LAZY! I know many a site where links are simply not allowed, or are trapped out under certain circumstances by the filters. (The latter just happened to me here while attempting to post multiple links!) But that's never stoipped ME from going through the alleged "effort" of doing a simple cut-and paste. And though I'm intimately familar with some aspects of HTML, the A [Link] format is NOT the most "user-friendly" tag around, especially for the less computer-savvy among us.

I would counter that if y'all are truly interested in reading about the "opposition's" positions, you could politely ask Kevin to include a FRIENDLY "Link" command, or -- simpler still -- modify the interface slightly to AUTOMATICALLY convert raw URLs to links with the same name (Then you wouldn't have to go through all that "effort" in your quest for knowledge.) ;-)

Shortstop: I note that you completely dodged my DIRECT question about whether you had actually availed yourself of my OWN link, the better to "broaden your horizons". Nevertheless, you've taken a further opportunity to engage in this childish "RonBot" invective to castigate others for what is essentially supreme laziness on your part.

I'm NOT a "Ron Paul supporter" -- I'm not even vaguely INTERESTED in this vastly premature presidential campaign at this point. But I've found MUCH to commend in the man himself, totally attributable to my own "efforts" in reading various essays by him. And while the rest of the GOP "contenders" (and most of rhe Democrats) are talking shit to score "brownie points" with the "average" American, Paul is obviously his OWN man, witnessed several times over. I'm compelled to respect his honesty, a virtue practically non-existent in modern politicians bent only on "malleability" in pursuit of the Bell Curve's mode.

I really don't know WHAT you believe your point is above, but the implied stance is NOT an admirable one in the least. Essentially, you come off as insisting that you can't be bothered to do actual research without being "spoon-fed", at that by direct LINK only!

Does a cut-and-paste FAR exceed the caloric output required for a click? I'm aghast!! Or is it, alternately, just too ergonomically stressful, threatening to induce "massive neuro-muscular damage"? ;-)

Arrogant, lazy and incompetent. I'm sold! Sign me up!

Now I'm CLEARLY in the dark regarding your "point". Was that directed at the alleged "RonBots" or an honest SELF-indictment? (The latter seems most plausible.)

You're not dealing with any "sock puppet" here! And despite its convenient application as a atraw man, that generalization has by no means been demonstrated to hold water. To the contrary, it is more readily perceived as part of a campaign of "othering" unworthy of civilized discourse or scholarly debate. (That "RonBots" epithet exhibits all the forensic "integrity" of, say, broad-brushing your opponents as "Pinkos" merely to undermine their arguments.)

Ah! I see that 3-link comment -- "Posted by: Poilu on August 1, 2007 at 2:24 AM" -- was only snagged TEMPORARILY by the site's filters

Nice to see that Kevin DOES review and forward such "holds". (I've known others who weren't even AWARE of them.) Much obliged, Kevin!

I would counter that if y'all are truly interested in reading about the "opposition's" positions...

Well, there's the mistake you keep making: equating Paul with the opposition, and assuming that because you want us to read your selected sources about him, we should naturally want to do so. (As it happens, most of the regular posters in the recent series of Paul threads show a far fuller understanding of Paul's positions and actual legislative record than the man's supporters--the posts here by Paul supporter English are pathetically typical--but that's a separate topic.)

Do you begin to understand? It's not about cutting and pasting being difficult--no one has argued that it is, and I do it constantly for things I'm interested in. It's about the arrogance of saying, "Subject X is very important to me and so I insist that it must be important to you, too. But I'm not going to do you the simplest courtesy of giving you a link to the info I'm telling you to peruse." It's about the RonBots' inability to put themselves into the other voter's shoes and do a tiny bit of work to make a sale, instead of naively and self-centeredly believing that voters will come to them.

And, of course, it's also about the very funny fact that the same two or three link-challenged guys are pretending to be a lot more guys. Which brings us to...

Now I'm CLEARLY in the dark regarding your "point". Was that directed at the alleged "RonBots" or an honest SELF-indictment? (The latter seems most plausible.) You're not dealing with any "sock puppet" here!

Take a deep breath, Poilu. Go back and read my comments. Note where they came in the thread and to whom they were addressed. Note the point at which you entered the conversation and what you said. Note my making fun of you for not getting my point. Note my continuing to do so now.

Sometimes it's not all about you. Or, as you'd no doubt put it: SOMETIMES it's not "ALL" about "YOU"!!!!!!!!

(But as I mentioned above, thinking otherwise is a fairly universal trait among Paul supporters.)

Ron Paul posts bring crazy Internet libertarians like flies to shit.

Note my making fun of you for not getting my point. Note my continuing to do so now. ...

Duly noted throughout. Your mock derisive tone seems nearly constant, directed towards ALL you disagree with.

That being the case, I hope you won't mind terribly if I don't take you the LEAST bit seriously in future. Over-inflated egos -- with little evident to justify them -- have a strange way of producing that reaction in me. Alas, "it" is not all about YOU either.

Note: You were at least partly correct concerning my preferred rendering, though your own version was ludicrously histrionic. Consequently, if I were you, I wouldn't let it go to my head. But naturally, your results may (and almost assuredly WILL) vary.

Ron Paul posts bring crazy Internet libertarians like flies to shit. ...

... along with anonymous posters, among others, who have absolutely nothing of substance to add to the "discussion".