Paul's their all

The Boston Globe ^ | September 27, 2007 | By Lisa Wangsness, Globe Staff

[jmeagan]

CHICAGO - Late on a balmy Friday night in Wicker Park, a gentrifying neighborhood just northwest of the Loop, a small tribe of 20-somethings gathers outside a corner bar. Their leader, a petite, energetic 25-year-old named Meghann Walker, hands out leaflets to people heading inside.

"Do you guys know Ron Paul is going to be in town tomorrow?" Walker asks a short-haired young woman in jeans and flip-flops. "There'll be a lot of good people there, that's for sure."

[SJackson]

That’s true, he is to the left of Clinton, Obama and Edwards on the war, which is why many people compare him to Kuchinich. And yes, he’ll pull anti-war voters from the far left and right if he runs third party

[jmeagan]

“Gold stocks would not benefit from a return to the gold standard”

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.
That means JUST to back up currency with gold, America needs $753 billion of gold
- which @ $735/oz = 1,024 million ounces.

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*****

Being on a gold standard doesn’t mean that you have to have gold to balance every dollar in circulation, just that you are willing to exchange dollars for gold at a set amount. As long as people are willing to accept that value, they will not exchange dollars for gold. If the US would print too many dollars, the people holding them would start exchanging them for gold taking excess dollars out of circulation. If there are too few dollars available, people would exchange gold to get more dollars to buy things.

It is just like the fractional reserve that all banks in the US use. You put your money in a savings account or a cd and the bank uses that money to make loans to other people. They only keep enough actual cash on hand to handle the normal in flow and out flow of cash. That is why no bank can stand a “run on the bank.” Think back to Jimmy Stewart in “Its a Good Life.”

It is also why we have the FDIC. If a bank screws up and makes a bunch of bad loans that it can’t collect, we know that the government will insure that we get all of our money up to $100,000.

From the early 1800’s until about 1933, the price of gold was set at around $28 US dollars per ounce. (Except for the time of Civil War). At any time you could exchange $28 US dollars for an ounce of gold. Confidence that the US dollar was “as good as gold” meant that most people would rather use the US dollar than carry around a bunch of gold. However there were gold coins.

Inflation, as we know it today, was almost non-existent under the gold standard.

In the early 30’s, FDR eliminated all private ownership of gold currency and changed the value of gold to $32 per ounce. However, private citizens could no longer change US dollars for gold.

This worked until the 1960’s and then we had a two tiered gold price. Central banks were exchanging gold at the official US price of $32 dollars per ounce, while the private market price was much higher.

Nixon closed the gold window in the early 70’s and since then we have seen very high inflation rates as the value of the US dollar or any other currency is dependent on how many the central banks decide to print. E.g. the US dollar will buy 1/3 to 1/4 of the products today that it could buy in 1970.

****Does Ron Paul see himself as a future gold equivalent of “oil sheiks”?****

Stupidity.

[jmeagan]

**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/***

I would say they are uninformed.

****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.***

Well, I will try to educate you on such matters

****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.****

There is no question that Ron Paul is the only second tier candidate that has a chance to make it to the first tier.

****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.****

No doubt that those ignorant of the effects of a gold standard might try to make those type points, but the reality would be a lot different. The worse possible situation for gold stocks is that a major country would go on a gold standard.

*****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.***

That makes no sense at all.

[Katya]

hyperbolic statements never lead to meaningful exchanges...so I can’t really comment on your linking Paul with Islamofascists, and describing their relationship as buddies.

[Katya]

See...what I hate about the left is their intolerance of any stream of thought that leaves the reservation, whether it’s pro-life, pro-religion or pro-capitalist. I am not conservative at all on social issues, but I happen to respect other peoples beliefs, and like the fact that we can still agree on principled issues.

[Katya]

I just read what he actually said...and I’m fine with his statement. It’s a valid point, one that can be argued over. I’ve actually winced a few times when physicians that I know, have made similarly off putting statments regarding death. I think to a doctor life is life, and death is death...regardless of how it was taken. I do however understand how that statement might offend some.

[Lovebloggers]

BAHAHAHAHAHA. Kerry, Paul — there really is no difference.

[Lovebloggers]

ROFLMAO!!! OMG my side hurts from laughing so hard. Thanks for posting these!

[jmeagan]

*****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.*****

People are always “braver” when they are not personnally involved. It doesn’t take a lot of courage to send other people off to war. Unless, you truly believe that you would be willing to die for our excursion into Iraq, you shouldn’t expect young people to die for your ideals.

****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.)****

The republican party has traditionally been anti war. Ike was elected in 1952 to end the war in Korea. Nixon was elected in 1968 to end the war in Nam. Being anti-establishment, used to be a badge of courage for republicans.

******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?****

The only reason I can see for a true conservative to vote against Ron Paul is his foreign policy of non intervention. However, those people that think we should be the cops of the world should look at what our country wanted to do prior to WW I and WW II. Wilson in 1916, and FDR in 1940 both campaigned on anti war platforms. American people want freedom and freedom includes the right to make bad choices. Since WW II, we have been involved in 3 wars, Korea, Nam and the current war in Iraq. The first two turned out to be bad for us, and I think the result in Iraq will be the same.

[drpix]

I conceded that no government could reach the ideal goal of matching their full money supply (M3) by crunching only the numbers for the physical currency in circulation (only part of M1). But you don't deal with the reason the U.S. was forced off the gold standard:

"The US gold reserves had declined from a peak of 21,682 tonnes in 1948 to 15,821 tonnes by 1960. By the time Nixon closed the gold window, US reserves had dropped below 8,500 tonnes. Nixon could not risk any further depletion of US gold reserves."

Source

US gold reserves are even lower today and both the total money supply (M3) and currency in circulation has grown exponentially.

Source

In 1971, when Nixon was forced to take us off the good standard - due to demands at the gold window - M3 was less than just today's currency component of the M3 (about $700 billion) and M1 (currency and checking accounts together) was around $100 billion.

To see viable numbers for maintaining a gold standard look at 1960. Gold reserves were 15,821 tons and M3 was less than $100 billion. At $35/oz that was $18 billion gold reserves for total money supply (M3) of $100 billion or 18%.

With today's $10,000 billion of M3, 18% would be $1,800 billion dollars of gold reserve. At $735/oz that's 76,530 tons of gold reserve. And yet today our 8,200 ton gold reserve is even less than even 1971 - when Nixon was forced to abandon the gold standard.

How could the U.S. open the gold window without a further depletion of the reserve forcing it to either close it again or make massive purchases of gold and causing an extreme increase in the price of gold and an extreme devaluation of the dollar?

As for the stupidity of questioning Ron Paul's personal motives and financial ambitions... His investments in gold while advocating a return to the gold standard is either dishonest, if he expect gold to benefit from his position, OR stupid, if he expects it to suffer from that position.

For you to believe this conflict of interest should not be questioned is beyond stupidity.

[Greg F]

See...what I hate about the left is their intolerance of any stream of thought that leaves the reservation,

The left worships the state. Any thought that threatens the ideal of state power is suppressed either with actual power (lower grades, law suits, or even imprisonment in tyrannical states) or social harrassment like being insulted or shouted down. From a conservative perspective the left's support of things like abortion, use of embryos in research, homosexual marriage and the like makes sense in that the family and the church is a bulwark against state power -- the family and the church are alternate centers of loyalty and power -- and so the left wishes to destroy them.

Things like sexual morality, where the left tends to encourage what the conservative views as immoral, I think can be seen in the context of the same attack on church (crudely put, you can listen to your parents and your church or you can get laid, you choose, Mr. 18 year old boy and Miss 18 year old girl) and attack on family (crudely put, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?) and also a way to weaken the individual through undermining the self-reliance that comes from good living, good morals, and personal self-discipline . . . and with weakened individuals the state steps in and can more easily dictate. This is why I think the left supports "social issues" like abortion, homosexual marriage, divorce, embryonic research and so forth. It's not about "freedom" it's actually about the reverse -- undermining alternate powers to the state in the individual, the family and the state.

[jrooney]

Well you are in the minority of freepers with that opinion. The only ones that support his ridiculous analogy are Paulnuts, which is not surprising. Paul is alienating himself from those that he needs to remain in Congress, republican voters. Libertarians and democrats can not save his arse this time. Those that show undying support for this foolish man no matter what he says or does, are alienating htemselves too here on FR.

[jmeagan]

****In 1971, when Nixon was forced to take us off the good standard - due to demands at the gold window - M3 was less than just today’s currency component of the M3 (about $700 billion) and M1 (currency and checking accounts together) was around $100 billion.

To see viable numbers for maintaining a gold standard look at 1960. Gold reserves were 15,821 tons and M3 was less than $100 billion. At $35/oz that was $18 billion gold reserves for total money supply (M3) of $100 billion or 18%.*****

Most banks, today, operate on a fractional reserve of 5% or less. It is a matter of confidence.

***With today’s $10,000 billion of M3, 18% would be $1,800 billion dollars of gold reserve. At $735/oz that’s 76,530 tons of gold reserve. And yet today our 8,200 ton gold reserve is even less than even 1971 - when Nixon was forced to abandon the gold standard.****

Nixon closed the gold window because several nations, mainly France, were trading in paper dollars for gold. LBJ and the Federal Reserve had a guns and butter policy during the 60’s, and we were flooding Europe with “Euro Dollars.”

****How could the U.S. open the gold window without a further depletion of the reserve forcing it to either close it again or make massive purchases of gold and causing an extreme increase in the price of gold and an extreme devaluation of the dollar?*****

You just have to look at the civil war period when we went off the gold standard. The US just printed enough dollars to get what they wanted and inflation was very high for the times. After the civil war, the US went back to the gold standard and there was a period of deflation. If there are too many dollars in circulation, people will turn them in for gold. If there are too few dollars in circulation, then people will turn in gold to get more dollars.

****As for the stupidity of questioning Ron Paul’s personal motives and financial ambitions... His investments in gold while advocating a return to the gold standard is either dishonest, if he expect gold to benefit from his position, OR stupid, if he expects it to suffer from that position.

For you to believe this conflict of interest should not be questioned is beyond stupidity.****

When people invest in stocks, it is because they expect the value of the stock to increase in future years. If we would return to a gold standard, the value of gold would be exactly the same 10 years from now as it is today. E.g. the value of gold, in US dollars, was the same from the early 1800’s until the early 1930’s.

We could also do a quasi gold standard, by just targeting our money supply to the price of gold. If the price of gold is increasing, we would print fewer dollars or take more dollars out of circulation. If the price of gold was decreasing, we would print more dollars. Using the price of gold to regulate our money supply would take the value of our currency out of the hands of whims of the head of the federal reserve.

[2CAVTrooper]

“There is a much better Ron Paul Girl video out there”

You can keep it.

ron paul is an idiot who’s “base” is made up of UFO abductees, conspiracy nuts, and hillary supporters from democratic underground.

There is a loon over on a forum I used ot post on who’s a big ron paul supporter, and this guy went as far as saying that communism isn’t all that bad.

This same loon blindly follows everything that ron paul says, and has gone as far as issuing false accusations and attacking computers of those who dare question him or his false idol ron paul.

ron paul’s record:
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. (That means that he has never voted infavor of a defence budget either)

He has never voted to raise congressional pay. (Yet he willingly accepts those pay raises without question)

He has never taken a government-paid junket. (He just let’s his donors pay for them instead)

He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. (He has never voted to stop the legislature from taking powers that are not theirs either)

He voted against the Patriot Act. (He voted against applying existing law enforcement measures towards terrorist groups)

He voted against the Iraq war. (He also voteed against bills to fund body armor, armored vehicles, food and other supplies for the troops IE “voting against unbalanced budgets”)

Congressman paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress. (Yeah bills like the one calling for term limits.....Funny how he doesn’t live up to his principals since he’s now in his 10th term and is currently running for re-election along with his presidential campaign)

[2CAVTrooper]

“Look FRiend, if you want to disagree with Ron Paul when it comes to the WOT like I do, that is fair game and a legitimate criticism. You don’t need to invent conspiracy theories.
Think about what you said for a second. Why would a Congressman who is only 1/435 of one body of Congress and has no chance of becoming POTUS would invest his life savings in gold mines and trading companies (whatever that means) thinking that he can influence the world and move markets?”

So you deny his claims about bringing back the gold standard?

And what IF he does somehow gets elected?

He said that he WILL bring us back to the gold standard, so isn’t it funny that a person with such a huge vested intrest in it would make such a claim?

As I said it’s just like al gore going around scaring the bejeezus out of people over global warming so people buy the carbon credits from his company.

They’re both doing it to make a quick buck while f*cking over the working stiffs.

[2CAVTrooper]

“You anti Paul people seem to know about as little about the gold standard as you do about foreign policy.”

We “anti-paul” people know a hell of a lot more about foreign policy than your pathetic little hero does.

IF your pet village idiot somehow gets elected, and he brings all of the troops home, the terrorists WILL see it as a sign of weakness and they WILL attack us again and again and again on our own soil.

Isolationism didn’t work prior to WW1 nor did it work prior to WW2.

Letters of marque has been outlawed by international treaties. So what will be the “blowback” from that policy?

Your senile hero thinks our foreign policy for the last 50 years has caused the blowback that resulted in the 9/11 attacks. He fails to realize that our policies has nothing to do with the war that we’re fighting. To the muslims we are “non-believers”, and according to the koran we are to be killed.

“However, it would stop the inflation by the Fed, which is a hidden tax on everyone.”

Uh huh

You mean all that intrest the Fed collects that gets dumped into the treasury each year?

[2CAVTrooper]

“Ron Paul may be misguided re the WOT but he is NOT and has never agreed with retarded truthers.”

But he wishes to conduct another investigation into 9/11 along with his best buddy dennis kucinich.

ron paul has been a featured guest on shows hosted by “truthers”

He has been featured on lew rockwell, alex jones’s “prison planet”, and on “conspiracy planet”

Kinda funny how someone who isn’t a “truther” goes out of his way to pander to them dontcha think?

[KevinDavis]

Do you think Ron Paul and his merry band actually reads the Constitution???

[KevinDavis]

How about the FAA?? Is that Constitutional???

[mnehring]

They own one of those DUmmie’s Guide to the Constitution books.