Posted on 09/27/2007 11:13:55 AM PDT by jmeagan
I’m not sure that’s an issue, but he’s clearly a goldbuy, and if he were a dem of any credibility, yes, that would be an issue. ****
You anti Paul people seem to know about as little about the gold standard as you do about foreign policy. Gold is a safe haven in inflationary times. As a long time poster on Jude Wanniski’s economic site and a poster on the site that took its place after Mr. Wanniski’s death, I can tell you that there are a lot of people who believe in the gold standard, or at least in the price of gold to predict inflationary pressures.
Gold stocks would not benefit from a return to the gold standard as that would fix the price of gold, in terms of dollars. However, it would stop the inflation by the Fed, which is a hidden tax on everyone. But which applies mainly to the lower class.
This is a really a fascinating intellectual debate (NOT) now that nobody is allowed to say anything nice about a Libertarian (capital L which Ron indeed is despite the R next to his name). Sure he is misguided on the WOT. Nice to be free of having to defend a position based on substance and logical argument. The rest of the FR community might learn something from your debate and posts while Ron goes down in a blaze of glory. Instead we have this fascinating exchange of ideas:
___________________________________________________________
To: mnehrling
Ron Paul is a doodyhead.
277 posted on 09/27/2007 10:20:29 PM EDT by lormand (Anti Iraq War Freepers should GTFO, permanently)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
_______________________________________________________
To: 2CAVTrooper
ron paul is also smelly too
266 posted on 09/27/2007 8:40:30 PM EDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
______________________________________________________
To: lormand; SJackson
I agree with both of you
238 posted on 09/27/2007 6:18:07 PM EDT by Petronski (Congratulations Tribe! AL Central Champs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
________________________________________________________
Fascinating stuff gentleman! Political discourse has been advanced by light years.
I’d like to think that the republican party is the true big umbrella party...where there’s room for all.
____________
I’d like to think so too. I’m a Christian and a conservative. People tend to judge too much by labels though. I would think that the libertarians tend to underestimate how much of the philosophy of liberty ties ultimately to a Christian culture and a culture respectful of tradition (where that tradition stems from English freedoms), and I think that “values voters” sometimes loses sight of the forest of things that we agree with libertarians regarding because of the “trees” on which we disagee.
The problem I’ve had lately is that the elites (who consider themselves men of the world and pragmatists — and are actually often just corrupt, cowardly, or misled) have captured the party again, while idealogical Christians, Conservatives and Libertarians have been pushed to the side.
Too funny!
I came to a realization last night. I still believe that Paul is dead wrong on his foreign policy stand and a few other issues- enough to make him unelectable in my eyes, however, he is doing something that is positive and may cause a change.
The anti-Paul side, including myself have long stated that Paul is mostly attracting anti-war/anti-establishment leftists and only a few good Conservatives. What is the result of this? You have many tens of thousands of leftists being exposed to a limited government, conservative message. They are tuning into our debates, they are showing up at the debates to cheer for Paul (as we heard last night.)
After Paul loses, they will all slink back to their respective comfort zones, but they all will have a seed of Conservatism planted. Any time an issue comes up, they just might recall something they heard or chanted in the defense of Paul. They may think more about the dangers of Healthcare being controlled by the government. They may see the benefits of lower taxes and greater individual freedom, who knows?
I still will vote against him and do everything I can to make sure that he is not successful and his followers don't split the vote up enough in the primaries to hand us Rudy, but I should also realize that a lot of leftists are reading what Paul says and the defenses and they are having seeds of Conservatism planted.
Just my thought for the day, I hope Jim doesn't zot me for that. ;->
Where’s that graphic of a bunch of children mocking a label? That one was perfect.
I agree 100% with you. I think Paul is a good thing for the conservative movement.
It may only be a seed, but it is a seed.
Now I'm off to do everything in my power to make sure Paul loses :->
Eric Blair 2084 : This is a really a fascinating intellectual debate (NOT) now that nobody is allowed to say anything nice about a Libertarian (capital L which Ron indeed is despite the R next to his name). Sure he is misguided on the WOT. Nice to be free of having to defend a position based on substance and logical argument. The rest of the FR community might learn something from your debate and posts while Ron goes down in a blaze of glory. Instead we have this fascinating exchange of ideas:jmeagan: You anti Paul people seem to know about as little about the gold standard as you do about foreign policy. Gold is a safe haven in inflationary times. As a long time poster on Jude Wanniski’s economic site and a poster on the site that took its place after Mr. Wanniski’s death, I can tell you that there are a lot of people who believe in the gold standard, or at least in the price of gold to predict inflationary pressures.
Yes, if one doesn't support Paul they're by definition amongst the great, pig ignorant, unwashed, aka Freepers. I learned that in Cult 101/
That Eric mistates the issue is clear.
jmeagan, the point isn't the price of gold, I'm not smart enough to understand things like that anyway.
And I recognize Paul is considered a fringe candidate by everyone, including the Party and the media.
But you guys want to pretend he's a viable candidate, that exposes you to the standards applied to anyone else.
You know perfectly well that if Hillary or Thompson or Giuliani or Obama advocated a return to the gold standard while holding a substantial portion of their personal assets in mining stocks the media, and their opponents, would be all over them like flies on *hit. It's politically stupid. Irrespective of your opinion on the direction of the price, experts will be available on either side, they always are.
Good grief, they look for every client Rudy or Fred ever represented, if Paul were viable some reporter would be researching whether he ever delivered someone who grew up to be a mass murderer. For a real candidate appearances are important.
But anyone that thinks a moment about it realizes that Paul is just a gold bug, not a dastardly “Gold Finger” like plotter trying to increase the price of gold. He’s just a guy that thinks there is a good chance of economic collapse or difficulty and is putting his money in real assets as represented by mines.
Exactly. I hope I’m not being blasphemous, but I see it as analogous to someone that is being brought to Christ by a preacher that you personally do not trust or even agree with because of the preachers theology or denomination or lack of seminary education or focus or whatever. What are you going to do — attack the person that is making their first approach to the truth? Viciously attack the preacher that has reached them?
I don’t think so. I think you have a serious conversation.
ROFL!
LOL
You're right, but I was commenting on the political aspects of the decision to place assets in investments which could be materially impacted by policies you advocate. It's politically stupid.
Take the other side of the aisle. Hillary is smart enough to keep the bulk of her assets in a blind trust. Obama, a managed account and a couple mutual funds. Edwards, not subject to reporting, invests indirectly in foreclosed homes in New Orleans. IMO, Hillary and Obama smart, Edwards stupid. I think you get the idea.
Makes sense. I think it indicates that Paul is more realistic about his prospects than you might think.
How can that be true? The value of the U.S. gold reserve (as with all other industrial nations) is a tiny fraction of the value of the U.S. money supply (M3). For any government to return to the gold standard (back their money with gold) would require that they purchase HUGH amounts of gold to match the value of the money supply. The value of gold will explode! Here's some numbers:
$753 billion of American currency in circulation as of Dec. 18, 2006
[ just currency w/o all of M3 (checking & savings accounts, money market accounts, CDs...]
Source
U.S. gold reserve 260 million ounces (8,150 tons) in December 2006
Source
9/27/07 price of gold $735 per oz.
Having only 260 million ounces of gold on reserve covers only 1/4 of the currency in circulation. We would need to buy 764 million more ounces (23,875 tons) or quadruple the supply.
* * More than the total reported gold reserve of all other countries combined (22,000 tons).
Source
And that's only for the currency portion (about 1/10th) of the entire Money Supply (M3).
Does Ron Paul see himself as a future gold equivalent of "oil sheiks"?
I think the underlying assumption is that debt will contract and the money supply will shrink. Of course the issue depends on the rather naive assumption that our trading partners will opt for gold as well.
It's fair to say Paul agrees with you that the gold price will rise, else his investments are foolish.
Whether the price rises or falls, from a political perspective it's foolish to have your net worth dependent on investments impacted by positions you advocate.
mnehrling’s point in post 285 is perfect.
Paul is even more Dovish than Mrs. Clinton, Osama and the Breck Girl. None of them would even commit to getting out of Iraq completely by the end of their first term. Ron Paul makes those 3 look like warmongering imperialists by comparison. Paul wants to pull the troops out not only in Iraq but everywhere in the world.
He certainly might attract those single issue voters for whom the Iraq War is their only concern if he runs on the LP ticket. Then like mn said, those againg hippie liberals or young voters will be exposed to the idea of limited government for a change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.