NY Sun editorial: Ron Paul's Prescience

New York Sun ^ | November 12, 2007 | New York Sun

[BlazingArizona]

Inflation is dangerous. We had wild inflation in housing. Now we have wild inflation in energy. And there seems to me to be under-the-radar inflation in food prices. Ron Paul is wrong on some big things, but I don’t think his warning about the inflation of the currency is one of them.

What Bernanke is worried about right now is the massive deflation in real estate that has taken place. The traditional remedy for deflation is to increase liquidity (increase the ratio of money to Stuff). In ordinary times this would mean inflation, but Bernanke is hoping that failing home prices, will produce a contraction of assets that precisely matches the inflation of all other assets, such as energy.

All he gold standard means is holding the money supply constant. Since the amount of Stuff, all the goods that US dollars trade for, increases at a modest rate each year, a gold standard would mean an excruciating depression. Would that be preferable to what we have now?

The most recent time of a strong dollar was 2002-2003. Gold was cheap, commodities were cheap and most of us in the tech fields saw our jobs float off to India. Is this the hard-currency nirvana we want to go back to?

[Abcdefg]

I read post # 18 and the price of oil did not go down as a result. I'll read it again.;^)

[traviskicks]

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

Sound money and anti-Fed ping.

[George W. Bush]

What Bernanke is worried about right now is the massive deflation in real estate that has taken place. The traditional remedy for deflation is to increase liquidity (increase the ratio of money to Stuff). In ordinary times this would mean inflation, but Bernanke is hoping that failing home prices, will produce a contraction of assets that precisely matches the inflation of all other assets, such as energy.

He's just bailing out the banks on their subprime crisis, the current replay of the S&L bailout of the late Eighties when another Bush was president. And he'll tank everything in sight to save those banks from their own drunken orgy of irresponsible lending.

He's even caused the Chinese, with their current holdings of $3.5 trillion in U.S. debt, to announce they will henceforth purchase other currencies. Why wouldn't they if all the debt they invested in was now only worth half of what it was supposed to be worth. They're commies but they're not that stupid.

After Bernanke saves the bankers' bacon and we're looking for lenders to continue our $1 trillion p/year borrowing on our $9 trillion debt, tell me who is going to be dumb enough to want to buy U.S. bonds? Not the Chinese. And, for damned sure, not those precious bankers the Fed just bailed out by debasing the currency and reaping a hidden tax on the entire economy but which hits hardest at those who live on fixed incomes and rely on savings that are suddenly worth a lot less.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Ping of interest.

[Revolting cat!]

"WE LUV PAUL!"

[mtntop3]

Inflation is dangerous. We had wild inflation in housing. Now we have wild inflation in energy.

Please inform us how "we have wild inflation in energy."

Are you speaking of appreciation in value because of supply and demand?? That is an increase in value due to scarcity.

It is well to differentiate between "inflation" and "speculation" - as in the housing market. Since housing prices are obviously dropping, how can they be inflated??

It is an adjustment of market reality.

If anyone wants to see market chaos, let a terrorist attack occur brought on by the simpleminded head-in-the-ground outlook of Dr. Appall.

[Toddsterpatriot]

He's even caused the Chinese, with their current holdings of $3.5 trillion in U.S. debt

Math is hard. LOL!

After Bernanke saves the bankers' bacon and we're looking for lenders to continue our $1 trillion p/year borrowing on our $9 trillion debt

The government is borrowing $1 trillion a year? Where?

tell me who is going to be dumb enough to want to buy U.S. bonds?

Nobody is buying U.S. bonds. That's why the rate on the 10 Year bond is 4.21%. LOL!

[Gondring]

ping

[rineaux]

Thanks for the ping. Will read later. Did the donations on the 11th and signed up again for the 16th. Should be maxed out of donations by than. When Dr P gets into the WH, I hope he sends me Christmas cards like W did for the last 7 years. Will miss the Barney and then Barney & Miss Beasley Christmas cards. LOL. Dr P will have to get a dog or two if he doesn’t have one/two already.

[M203M4]

Nonsense. A monetary policy predicated upon arbitrary (but politically expedient) injections of fresh paper is entirely sane. Things are good right now, so any deviation from our current policies means that you are either economically ignorant, are insane, hate America, or all of the above. It is almost as silly as questioning the sanity of spending programs which rely upon perpetually accelerating borrowing from friendly nations like China. Why would they ever offload dollars?

Besides, how do you expect the federal government to be responsible for 50% of total national spending without a free hand to debase the currency? "We could never subordinate spending to the stringent requirements of sustaining a commodity-based monetary system."

[republicpictures]

I am certainly not a trained economist, but my common sense makes me wonder about Greenspan’s stewardship. Is my memory faulty, or wasn’t he encouraging people to get adjustable-rate mortgages?

[fortheDeclaration]

He's just bailing out the banks on their subprime crisis, the current replay of the S&L bailout of the late Eighties when another Bush was president. And he'll tank everything in sight to save those banks from their own drunken orgy of irresponsible lending. He's even caused the Chinese, with their current holdings of $3.5 trillion in U.S. debt, to announce they will henceforth purchase other currencies. Why wouldn't they if all the debt they invested in was now only worth half of what it was supposed to be worth. They're commies but they're not that stupid. After Bernanke saves the bankers' bacon and we're looking for lenders to continue our $1 trillion p/year borrowing on our $9 trillion debt, tell me who is going to be dumb enough to want to buy U.S. bonds? Not the Chinese. And, for damned sure, not those precious bankers the Fed just bailed out by debasing the currency and reaping a hidden tax on the entire economy but which hits hardest at those who live on fixed incomes and rely on savings that are suddenly worth a lot less.

Only one Presidential candidate understands this and the need for a return to monetary system that cannot be manipulated by the U.S. government-but he is regarded as the 'nut' of the group.

[fortheDeclaration]

[The Gold standard (gold backed currency) would remove the Gov’t from being able to inflate the money supply. What you would be able to actually purchase would increase.” ]

And how do you deal with a growing population? As the population grows with the money supply held constant, then the amount of money goes down on average. A ‘dollar’ might buy more but you’ll, on average, have fewer ‘dollars’.

Yes, and you will need fewer dollars since that dollar can buy more.

The issue isn't the quantity of the money, it is purchasing power of the dollar that matters.

[Oberon]

IBTTA!

(That's "In Before The Thorazine Ad.")

[ml/nj]

And how do you deal with a growing population? As the population grows with the money supply held constant, then the amount of money goes down on average. A ‘dollar’ might buy more but you’ll, on average, have fewer ‘dollars’.

The value of a dollar backed by gold or silver was and would be much more stable than one backed by politicians. You seem to believe that all the gold on earth has been mined and that there can be no more. In fact, what happens is that as the value of gold increases, it becomes more attractive to mine some more, and so the supply increases. Gold really is little different from any other commodity in this respect.

ML/NJ

[George W. Bush]

It seems some folk hate this idea just because it is Ron Paul talking about it.

When he went after Bernanke in a hearing recently, trading stopped in the pit on the Chicago exchange as the traders cheered Dr. Paul. We had another report recently of Ron Paul going through an airport when he was accosted by an IMF economist who told him he agreed the IMF caused great harm and should be abolished.

So there are some high-finance types who are really getting the message on currency and the Fed.

RP doesn't believe you can go to a hard currency all at once. He believes you would start by offering it as an alternative legal tender and that as you began to circulate more of it, it would begin to have a stabilizing effect on the entire valuation of currency and insulate against the tricks the Fed pulls for its real customers, the irresponsible big banking interests who are getting bailed out currently by the Fed in the subprime crisis at the expense of those with savings accounts or consumers seeing their buying power eroded.

To hear some of his opponnets tell it, they oppose the idea that any U.S. currency should have an intrinsic value not determined and subject to the manipulation of the Fed. Now, that is a perfect recipe for central economic planning but that is generally suited to socialist countries, not a free trade and pro-business economy like ours is supposed to be.

[reagan_fanatic]

;)

[ctdonath2]

Compare population growth with increase in mined gold.