Ron Paul’s Economic Theories Winning GOP Converts

The list of Congressmen sponsoring this bill is a who's who of some of the most popular politicians amongst people on this site.

That's disappointing.

Sorry your brand of Republicanism is being left in the past.

Intelligent Republicanism left in the past? That does explain some recent events.

No, not intelligent or conservative republicanism. Just YOUR kind of republicanism, that’s all. Intelligent and Conservative are going to be coming into their own soon and you are now officially passe’.

Just YOUR kind of republicanism, that’s all.

What kind is that?

Obviously it’s the elitist, disparaging of others, never met a government program or handout I didn’t like type of republicanism. It would appear to have zilch-point-zip to do with smaller, constitutional government from all I’ve seen of your snotty remarks. Your attacks on those who actually WANT smaller government, who want the republican party to return to its perceived roots as an ACTUAL, as opposed to lip-service, pro-Constitution, pro-FREEDOM party tell me you’re naught but a shill for someone.

Obviously it’s the elitist, disparaging of others

I disparage idiocy, on both sides of the political spectrum.

never met a government program or handout I didn’t like type of republicanism.

Silly rabbit, I'd cut at least 50% of government spending.

Patriot is a funny name for you to take, funny in that it is strange a person so unpatriotic, as evidenced by your home page would chose it. It is clear you are a liberal, you are offering no evidence of anything you say, only conjecture and you are absolutely a rabid anti-Paul person.

I have no dog in this fight, Ron Paul means nothing to me one way or another since I have never really looked at the guy, but I know this: The fed is wrong, it is unconstitutional and it is not based on capitalism.

If you do not believe, no, rather if you do not KNOW this is true, then you are not for the US constitution, you are not for freedom and you are not for Capitalism as it is meant to be practiced and the only way it works, that is to say, without the involvement of the government.

funny in that it is strange a person so unpatriotic, as evidenced by your home page

Evidence on my home page? Please share.

It is clear you are a liberal, you are offering no evidence of anything you say

My evidence is what Ron Paul said.

I have no dog in this fight, Ron Paul means nothing to me one way or another since I have never really looked at the guy

Yeah, sure. So why are you concerned if someone is anti-Paul, rabid or otherwise?

....The fed is wrong, it is unconstitutional and it is not based on capitalism.

LOL! We should let Congress control the supply of money. With Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, et al, in control what could possibly go wrong?

Do you believe prices were stable before the Fed was created? Because we didn't have booms or busts prior to the Fed?

If you do not believe, no, rather if you do not KNOW this is true, then you are not for the US constitution

This coming from someone who thinks central banking in this country began with the Federal Reserve? Never heard of the Bank of the United States, huh?

you are not for freedom

Are you for or against the ability of free people to freely trade their assets with other people? I mean, without government interference?

....and you are not for Capitalism as it is meant to be practiced and the only way it works, that is to say, without the involvement of the government.

Yeah, no police force to arrest bad guys, no judicial system to adjudicate contract disputes and no military to ensure the free flow of trade around the world. I suppose you are also against antitrust laws. What do you think our economy would look like today without antitrust laws? Do monopolies allow for more freedom or less?

When hyperventilating, I recommend placing a paper bag over your head while breathing slowly.

You're really getting the Paulistinian underpants in a wad here. Even Paul knows he's doing nothing more than grandstanding. It's probably an effective means for getting foolish people to send him money though. He does know how to push the buttons of emotional people.

I wonder when Ron Paul will make another appearance on Alex Jones' show?

***LOL! We should let Congress control the supply of money. With Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, et al, in control what could possibly go wrong?***

He didn’t say that.

***Do you believe prices were stable before the Fed was created? Because we didn’t have booms or busts prior to the Fed?***

We had central banks and centralized banking before the fed and when we didn’t, the government often let banks suspend specie payment taking away their incentive not to expand the money supply through fractional reserve banking.

***Yeah, no police force to arrest bad guys, no judicial system to adjudicate contract disputes and no military to ensure the free flow of trade around the world.***

Police, military, and and a judiciary are necessary to capitalism to prevent fraud, embezzlement, murder, etc. and to protect property rights and ensure contracts. It isn’t capitalism without these things.

***I suppose you are also against antitrust laws. What do you think our economy would look like today without antitrust laws? Do monopolies allow for more freedom or less?***

Anti-trust laws are totally unnecessary. In the free market, a monopoly comes into existence if it can create a better product at a lower price than all its competition (which is rare). That benefits consumers which is why the company takes all the market share. If it starts raising prices, competition will begin to reemerge since at these higher prices, they can now compete again. The monopoly will have to keep prices low or else lose market share.

This assumes of course that the government doesn’t get involved and, say, pass heavy regulations on the industry that the monopoly can afford while those trying to enter the market or small competitors can not afford. That is a monopoly kept alive by government intervention. In essence, the government prevents the market from working. The government can also simply grant legal privilege to a company over a certain industry much like what was done during the depression, although those were cartels.

Cartels can also not exist long on the free market because if a group of firms tries to fix costs, it is always in someone’s interest to lower cost and take market share. Cartels and monopolies can not exist in the free market if they do not benefit consumers, meaning they will be taking losses rather than turning profits.

And most cases of the use of anti-trust law have been against firms that have benefited consumers. Standard Oil, IBM, and Microsoft were hardly guilty of harming consumers (and in any case they didn’t have 100% of the market share).

He didn’t say that.

If the Fed is unconstitutional then who/what is constitutionally responsible for managing the money supply? Congress? The argument has been made here over and over again that Congress is the only constitutionally authorized organization to do so. I'm guessing you have another suggestion that's explicitly identified in the Constitution.

We had central banks and centralized banking before the fed and when we didn’t, the government often let banks suspend specie payment taking away their incentive not to expand the money supply through fractional reserve banking.

And that gave us stable prices? No experiences with 5% inflation one year and then 5% deflation the next? No boom and bust cycles? We never had tens of thousands of families and businesses destroyed because of wildly swinging inflation and deflation before the Fed?

Police, military, and and a judiciary are necessary to capitalism to prevent fraud, embezzlement, murder, etc. and to protect property rights and ensure contracts. It isn’t capitalism without these things.

All supplied by government. The other poster said:

....and you are not for Capitalism as it is meant to be practiced and the only way it works, that is to say, without the involvement of the government.

Capitalism only works with no involvement by government? Do you agree with me that this is a ridiculous statement? Sounds like you do. If so, why even bring it up?

Anti-trust laws are totally unnecessary.

Because all industries have low barriers for entry and a monopoly would never be able to manipulate the ebb and flow of supply and demand? Because without robust competition we can still have innovation? To think that monopolies will benefit consumers is naive at best.

I was told earlier this week on this forum that Ronald Regan was not a "true conservative", and neither was Jack Kemp. Now I'm being told, at least that's what it seems, that Teddy Roosevelt was not a "true conservative" because he supported antitrust legislation. When will we finally elect our first conservative president? Ron Paul 2012?

***I’m guessing you have another suggestion that’s explicitly identified in the Constitution.***

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Here’s a link with various sources on what that phrase means: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_5.html

The federal government also isn’t given the power to emit bills of credit (a power specifically denied to the states) so when you ask who would manage the money supply (constitutionally) I would say nobody since that implies an unbacked paper currency.

***And that gave us stable prices? No experiences with 5% inflation one year and then 5% deflation the next? No boom and bust cycles? We never had tens of thousands of families and businesses destroyed because of wildly swinging inflation and deflation before the Fed?***

I think you missed my point. What is implied when people blame booms and busts on the fed is that they are blaming the fed’s ability to increase the money supply and artificially lower interest rates. Fractional reserve banking is a key ingredient to this. You had asked if prices were stable or if we had booms and busts before the fed. My point in illustrating that we had fractional reserve banking, central banks, and centralized banking before the fed was that we had many of the same conditions before the fed as when it was enacted (up to the present day) and so it would make sense for there to still be booms and busts and price instability (if indeed the theory portrayed is correct, namely that fractional reserve banking et al. lead to booms and busts, and here I haven’t made a judgment on whether that is true or not).

Most certainly we had both price and monetary inflation and and deflation before the fed, but then we never had a truly free market monetary system.

***Capitalism only works with no involvement by government? Do you agree with me that this is a ridiculous statement? Sounds like you do. If so, why even bring it up?***

The government’s legitimate role is to provide police, military, judiciary, etc. for the the reasons I stated earlier. Without those, there is no capitalism because in order to function, capitalism needs the protections offered by the police, military and judicial system. I don’t see those as an intervention of government so much as necessary conditions for capitalism to exist.

The reason I brought it up is because I believe calex59 was thinking about the issue like I have presented it, namely that the government (police, military, judiciary) must exist in order for capitalism to exist. Any government intervention beyond this constitutes government involvement (such as regulation, taxation for any purpose outside police, military, legislator, judiciary, executive, etc. etc.).

Clearly if there is no government, capitalism doesn’t work, so on that we agree, but if we assume that implicit in the definition of capitalism is the establishment of government with minimal taxation to allow government to function, then any involvement beyond that constitutes something other than capitalism. I think basically we’re all on the same page just coming from different angles.

***Because all industries have low barriers for entry***

Under a free market yes. When government gets involved, then that’s another matter. Anti-trust legislation would be the government’s response to a problem it created essentially.

***a monopoly would never be able to manipulate the ebb and flow of supply and demand?***

Well I’m not sure what it would be able to do to demand, but it could most certainly affect supply in the short run. Let’s say it restricts supply presumably to charge higher prices. Firstly it should be noted that this does not necessarily guarantee it higher profits. They are selling less but charging more so it depends.

But secondly and more importantly I think, under a free market, there is no barrier to entry. A monopoly became such because it beat out all other competition. So up until that point it has benefited consumers. If it seeks to then raise prices, the competition it had beat out can now afford to jump back into the market as there is now the potential for profit. The threat of competition never disappears and so the monopoly must always please its consumers and out bid its competition, established or potential. Restricting supply may help a monopoly for the very short term, but it will quickly lead to its undoing.

***Because without robust competition we can still have innovation?***

If the monopoly isn’t constantly finding ways to benefit consumers better than its potential competition, then it will not survive as a monopoly. It has a vested interest in keeping its market share so if it wishes to remain viable, then it will look for ways to innovate, invest, and in general lower the costs of production. If there is a monopoly in a market, there will constantly be potential competitors looking for ways to grab a piece of the market share.

***To think that monopolies will benefit consumers is naive at best.***

It depends if they come about by the free market or not. A government created or supported monopoly most definitely won’t benefit consumers, but how can it be said that a monopoly created by the free market hurts consumers? Consumers are the ones that made it a monopoly.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Just as I thought. Congress has the authority to create a Federal Reserve or end it. Since the value of money is defined by its value in trade (purchasing power) how would Congress be able to regulate this? The only means available to them (in the real world) is by altering the money supply.

Congress also has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Banking and other financial services clearly involves interstate commerce. This has been established by the the courts for a long time.

Congress has the right to make any laws that are 'necessary and proper' for the execution of its enumerated powers. When the facts are considered it would appear that only fringers would attempt to make an argument, such as it is, that the Fed is unconstitutional.

...so when you ask who would manage the money supply (constitutionally) I would say nobody since that implies an unbacked paper currency.

In your conservative utopia, sans a Central Bank or anyone else to control the supply of money, how would the money supply be increased or decreased?

You had asked if prices were stable or if we had booms and busts before the fed. My point in illustrating that we had fractional reserve banking, central banks, and centralized banking before the fed was that we had many of the same conditions before the fed as when it was enacted

Uh, huh. Looks like prices have been much more stable over the past 27 years since Friedman taught us that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.

Just look at all that stability. If only we would establish a truly "free market" system then prices would remain constant (LOL). But how would the money supply increase or decrease? In fantasy world it just would. Trust us.

The reason I brought it up is because I believe calex59 was thinking about the issue like I have presented it, namely that the government (police, military, judiciary) must exist in order for capitalism to exist.

You keep trying to tell me Calex said something other than he did. There's a reason he hasn't come back to defend his nonsense. He said that capitalism only works when there is no government involvement. You and I both know that's absurdity. But, for some reason, you can't admit it.

***Because all industries have low barriers for entry***

Under a free market yes.

Theory and the real world are sometimes very different places. I suppose that's why some people never leave academia. In the real world people wouldn't want to invest in a start up that was looking to compete against a monopoly because most people, yourself included, don't like losing their money. One company could easily solicit investment from an Arab oil family, investment bank or foreign government to buy up their competition to create a monopoly. Consumers would have nothing to do with it and without a government to prevent it, all consumers can do is bend over.

You can wax and wane with stars in your eyes all day long about economic utopia and how things could or should be. However, those of us who reside somewhere close to reality know that the money supply isn't going to manage itself and that the Fed has done a pretty good job of controlling prices over the past 30 years or so. We also know that the Fed is Constitutional and that Congress has oversight and can end the Fed tomorrow if it so chooses. Managing the supply of money perfectly is difficult and we understand that mild inflation is better than deflation. Finally, we know that monopolies are not established by consumers and that a monopoly in any industry would serve the monopoly and not the consumer because they could easily take out any start up that, somehow, managed to find someone loopy enough to invest in them.

You're really getting the Paulistinian underpants in a wad here.

That's one of the easier things to do.

“Ron Paul is a kook. Haven’t you heard? We should all rally around some feckless vanilla box politician with good hair.”

Darn right! The Governor of Texas talked like a conservative a few times—he should be president!

/s