Further proof that Ron Paul is the most sane person in Washington

T

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
I know there are those here that can't stand him or think he's a nutjob, and I can't wait to hear their problems with this video (mostly those of you that tend to think more regulation is usually the answer to everything).

New video from 1/5/2009 in the Madoff hearings.

He lays the smack down on a number of issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuLUGqC9_oQ

My favorite is from 2:25 to 2:50. Pure verbal gold that Americans just don't care enough about, and will continue to economically suffer for.

After watching this, it further reinforces for me that writing his name in on the ballot was the right thing to do; that is if voting for the best man for the job was the goal.

Ron Paul is the closest thing we have to a Thomas Jefferson today; he has a more firm grasp on the corruption gripping government and works hard to expose it. Most other politicians, especially the most popular this last election, seem more resigned to just work with the corruption rather than risk the seismic changes we desperately need.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dont taint Jefferson's name like that. He was for free public education up to the college level for anyone able at the expense of taxpayers. He wouldve likely been for universal healthcare as well for similar reasons.

Can anyone point to a period in history when libertarian principles have been widely adopted by a country to their benefit?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. Madoff would have never happened if we had less regulation. Thanks Ron Paul. :roll:

He's also unnecessarily dismissive of the Sarbanes-Oxley act (the corporate crime prevention act in response to Enron) and the policy that it is. Sarbanes-Oxley wasn't *meant* to prevent changes in the economy, good or bad, numbskull. It was simply a law that makes corporate executives personally accountable for the *truth* of their financial statements.

Imagine where we would be financially right now if Sarbanes-Oxley never happened: executives would have seen from the example of Enron that there are loopholes to lie about finances without taking personal responsibility. How much better off would we have been there?

Pfff. Just because he's a contrarian doesn't mean his ideas are any good. It's not like he has a cogent grasp of Sarbanes-Oxley in the first fucking place.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Dont taint Jefferson's name like that. He was for free public education up to the college level for anyone able at the expense of taxpayers. He wouldve likely been for universal healthcare as well for similar reasons.

Can anyone point to a period in history when libertarian principles have been widely adopted by a country to their benefit?[/quote]
Plus, good ol' TJ was into sweet sweet slave lovin'.

It's definitely inappropriate to label him today's Thomas Jefferson. I can point to a period in history though. The United States of America in the latter half of the eighteenth and the entirety of the nineteenth.

I too oppose Sarbanes-Oxley, but from more of a functional standpoint. Complying with the regulations involved hasn't improved either of the companies I've worked for in the interim. Most companies take it further than it needs out of a fear of fines. He's got a point with the commentary that all of the Enron executives were prosecuted by laws already on the books. Sarbanes-Oxley didn't make it any more illegal, it just caught honest companies up in regulations that didn't really do anything other then create busywork, legal and accounting expense.
 
Think of the money saved in court costs had Sarbanes Oxley existed prior to Enron happening.

Is it red tape? Sure, but it's red tape that's inherently tied to the nature of corporate crime: if you treat the corporation as a legal body, how do you prosecute criminally for abuses of this order?

*Shouldn't* companies be fully aware of the truth of their financial reports?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Think of the money saved in court costs had Sarbanes Oxley existed prior to Enron happening.

Is it red tape? Sure, but it's red tape that's inherently tied to the nature of corporate crime: if you treat the corporation as a legal body, how do you prosecute criminally for abuses of this order?

*Shouldn't* companies be fully aware of the truth of their financial reports?[/quote]
Yes, they should, but the argument about court costs is misleading.

There will always be malfeasance. There will always be bypassing of regulations. Making things more illegal doesn't prevent crime - Punishment is not effective prevention. You've said so yourself. It's best to find the people who commit these frauds and remove them from the system. Perhaps a court order to never let them run a company or serve on a board.

Saddling all companies with red tape to punish the few (or many) who aren't honest does nothing other than create new costs.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Yes, they should, but the argument about court costs is misleading.
things more illegal doesn't prevent crime - Punishment is not effective prevention. You've said so yourself. [/QUOTE]

That statement reminds me of study I came across in my Law and Economics course in which data showed that increasing prison sentences were not a crime deterrent, but made it so difficult for the inmate to return to regular life that crime levels increased. Rather, the best deterrent was to increase the probability of being caught in the first-place.

It's usually not prison that is the problem, but the dis-utility of being caught.
 
[quote name='Quillion']
I can point to a period in history though. The United States of America in the latter half of the eighteenth and the entirety of the nineteenth.
[/quote]
In what respect? I dont think the span of 100 years of aggressive expansion, wars and lawlessness between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, on either end of which we didnt have a entirely cogent country or government, would be a prime example of a government purposefully adopting such principles.

Regarding the later half of the 19th century, I would point to the government subsidies/loans/land grants that went towards building the national railroad system, and the Homestead Act doling out federal lands to individuals.

Isnt it even contradictory for a national government to adopt libertarian principles? For the most part, the existance of government tends to stand directly in the way of those principles.

Theres a difference between a government not having power, and a government that does voluntarily adopting such principles.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']In what respect? I dont think the span of 100 years of aggressive expansion, wars and lawlessness between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, on either end of which we didnt have a entirely cogent country or government, would be a prime example of a government purposefully adopting such principles.

Regarding the later half of the 19th century, I would point to the government subsidies/loans/land grants that went towards building the national railroad system, and the Homestead Act doling out federal lands to individuals.

Isnt it even contradictory for a national government to adopt libertarian principles? For the most part, the existance of government tends to stand directly in the way of those principles.

Theres a difference between a government not having power, and a government that does voluntarily adopting such principles.[/quote] I'll give you the financial aid to the railroads.

However, everything else proves the point. Aren't grants of federal lands the epitome of libertarianism? a recognition that individuals can use the land better than the government?

You're right in your last sentence, but you miss the point slightly, the federal government was created weak. On purpose. They threw out the Articles of Confederation that they felt gave too little power, but the attempt was always to make a weak federal because they felt that the states and individuals could do it better.

Our federal government has been grabbing more and more power in the last century, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but at least we have that illustration of "libertarian" principles.
 
So that's got to be a new kind of record, huh? Turning this load of horse shit around and somehow finding a way to use some of the most damning evidence against capitalism and free market worship into complete and utter support! Brilliant!

A complete and utter breakdown of market principles by the strongest market actors and the problem is the regulator. The same regulator that everyone agrees has been ineffective. But where were the systems of checks and balances inherent in markets to prevent this kind of damage? Why, they were always there skippy! They just don't work, and I for one am sick and tired of pretending they do. I'd rather believe in the fuckin tooth fairy m'self. At least that bitch actually paid.

So, we if regulate more, we're bad guys to the poor small business man that's eating it due to SOX (lollerskates for the absurdity of that). And if we regulate less, we're idiots.

I guess I'll take the libertarian way out then: when you open a business, you sign a contract with the city and state saying you will play by their rules. Don't like regulation?

THEN DON'T SIGN THE fuckING SHEET IF YOU DON'T AGREE TO THE TERMS.

Amirite?
 
When I said he was like Thomas Jefferson I didn't mean to say he was like him in every respect. Thomas Jefferson, in his time, was famous for constantly warning against the power of privatizing currency creation, the extreme danger of central banks, and corruption in general.

Of course, like any historical figure, they tend to become more and more deified over time and people will cringe to such comparisons.

There have been few others in our nations history that have been as honest on just how deep corruption is embraced in the government. One other is Rep. Louie McFadden (D-PA):
The Aldrich bill was condemned in the platform upon which Theodore Roosevelt was nominated in the year 1912, and in that same year, when Woodrow Wilson was nominated, the Democratic platform, as adopted at the Baltimore convention, expressly stated: "We are opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank." This was plain language. The men who ruled the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the "king's bank" to control us from the top downward, and to shackle us from the cradle to the grave.
Click to expand...

And Rep. Charles Lindbergh (R-MN)
This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.
Click to expand...

The problem, I've noticed, with anyone mapping out exactly how corrupt the government is, in detail, is that everyone then asks "Ok, what should we do about it then?" And most Americans don't have the stomach for the types of radical change/solutions that answer that question; it's easier to continue voting for those on the same path of more bureaucracy , more government, more divisiveness, spend more money, raise taxes, and more regulation.

Edit: and here is the contrasting view, and like Dr. Paul says, will continue to happen; digging deeper holes is all most elected officials know how to do to "make themselves relevant".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Having enough Regulation isn't the problem. The regulators are the problem because they weren't and aren't doing their job. We have far more regulation laws than needed. They just don't enforce, probably because of kickbacks you'll never hear about.
 
Too bad we can't regulate the government. The amount of theft, fraud, and ponzi scheme spending programs in Washington put Enron to shame.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Paul has always reminded me of someone who comes along after the fact and yells "told you so!"[/quote]

Ron Paul along with other people who follow the Austrian school of economics like Peter Schiff have been predicting these events for years. They have been dead right on the asset bubble and subsequent burst. The reason you haven't heard of them until now is because their views were marginalized and ignored in favor of the status quo big gubmint Keynesian economists that always make it onto mainstream media.
 
If anything we have been listening to the Randroids a wee bit too much, it was the hardon for deregulation and basically letting these brigands in business suits walk around like lords of creation that got us into this mess. The last few years have been again if anything a vindication of Keynes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='JolietJake']Paul has always reminded me of someone who comes along after the fact and yells "told you so!"[/QUOTE]

Spend 30 minutes on youtube watching his speeches from the past 2 years and you'll change your mind. If anyone in Washington has the right to say "I told you so", it's him, but he doesn't say "I told you so".

His message hasn't changed much at all. The times have changed to better illustrate his message's relevance.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Too bad we can't regulate the government. The amount of theft, fraud, and ponzi scheme spending programs in Washington put Enron to shame.[/QUOTE]
You can regulate the government. It's called the 2nd ammendment.
 
[quote name='SpeedyG']You can regulate the government. It's called the 2nd ammendment.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, that may be more heavy-handed than Sarbanes-Oxley. ;)

A real possibility would be a national referendum system put in place. It won't happen because the federal government would have to give up some powers, but it would be a nice check of the people on Washington.
 
[quote name='SpeedyG']You can regulate the government. It's called the 2nd ammendment.[/quote]

Well if you are thinking that way, what is the point using the second amendment?

"We don't want the government to take away our guns so we can overthrow the government lawfully(?) under the rules of said government. We need to tell the government to not take away our guns....."
 
[quote name='Msut77']If anything we have been listening to the Randroids a wee bit too much, it was the hardon for deregulation and basically letting these brigands in business suits walk around like lords of creation that got us into this mess. The last few years have been again if anything a vindication of Keynes.[/QUOTE]

You're joking right?! Here's what you first need to know. What we have now is NOT the Free Market is an illusion of one. Right now and ever since HEARST got Hemp banned here and perhaps before, the Free Market has not been that. Instead rich individuals have used their money to have government block things that would threaten their profit margin. Hearst had a large amount of land with lumber on it that he owned and Hemp was a huge threat to it. Consider that you can yield 4 times as much paper on one acre of Hemp as you can over the same acre of trees. Also consider you can regrow the Hemp as well.

The Pharmaceutical Industry is also looking to try to get Natural Medicines under the regulation of the FDA. I suspect if this happens many things could happen. Besides being deliberately discredited in some fraudulent study or another said herb might be banned as well. Those are just a few examples. Pharma is doing it because natural medicine threatens their financial bottom line in at least two ways: 1.They can't patent it so they can't corner the market on one Herb for any set amount of time to really milk it. 2.These medicines most likely do not damage your body subtly, sending you to the doctor later for another prescription.

Seriously if we'd get rid of some of this nonsense banning of certain things, not allowing the government to do it to begin with we'd be a lot better off.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']What we have now is NOT the Free Market is an illusion of one.[/QUOTE]

Call it whatever you goddamn wish, deregulation i.e. the push for what you are referring to as free markets does not work and is responsible for much of the current mess. Can you even name an example of a place that has an entirely "Free Market"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The most amazing thing about all of this is that there are those that truly still believe that the problem was not enough government to begin with and the answer, clearly, is we need more government involvement to fix things.

Truly phenomenal.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']You're joking right?! Here's what you first need to know. What we have now is NOT the Free Market is an illusion of one. Right now and ever since HEARST got Hemp banned here and perhaps before, the Free Market has not been that. Instead rich individuals have used their money to have government block things that would threaten their profit margin. Hearst had a large amount of land with lumber on it that he owned and Hemp was a huge threat to it. Consider that you can yield 4 times as much paper on one acre of Hemp as you can over the same acre of trees. Also consider you can regrow the Hemp as well.

The Pharmaceutical Industry is also looking to try to get Natural Medicines under the regulation of the FDA. I suspect if this happens many things could happen. Besides being deliberately discredited in some fraudulent study or another said herb might be banned as well. Those are just a few examples. Pharma is doing it because natural medicine threatens their financial bottom line in at least two ways: 1.They can't patent it so they can't corner the market on one Herb for any set amount of time to really milk it. 2.These medicines most likely do not damage your body subtly, sending you to the doctor later for another prescription.

Seriously if we'd get rid of some of this nonsense banning of certain things, not allowing the government to do it to begin with we'd be a lot better off.[/quote]Herbal "medicines" can also be dangerous in some cases. It isn't a good idea to self medicate when you don't know how something may affect you. Herbal medicine should be regulated by the FDA.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Any game needs rules. That includes markets. Football without goalposts, tick marks or refs isnt "free football". Its just chaos.[/QUOTE]

Of course. Nobody is advocating a 'no rules' game, that's not what Paul is saying.

The rules are already there. They aren't enforced as they should be, is the biggest problem. But the real danger when something bad happens (like the economy now) is many politicians tendency to come up with even more rules as the answer.

To use your analogy, just because you lost a football game, doesn't mean you should lobby for more rules that you hope help you win next time.
 
There are definitely people advocating for LESS rules.

And less rules is primarily responsible for this. If investment and commercial banking hadnt been allowed to merge, there wouldnt be an economic crisis. Sure, some bad loans wouldve still been made, and some people would be out homes. But there wouldnt be investment vehicles whose total is far greater than the GDP of the planet. Secondarily, regarding companies: If you're too big to fail, you're too big to exist.

Enforcement of existing rules is a legitimate problem though.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Herbal "medicines" can also be dangerous in some cases. It isn't a good idea to self medicate when you don't know how something may affect you. Herbal medicine should be regulated by the FDA.[/QUOTE]

Did you even READ a fucking thing I posted?! If it happens most Herbal Medicines will likely be banned and illegal. Watch people getting arrested for brewing up Green Tea, Oolong, Gingko Biloba, etc. How the fuck can I trust most doctors out there when their school Med programs are most likely primarily funded by Pharmaceutical companies?
I haven't even gotten into how the FDA is totally fucking corrupt. They passed NUTRASWEET for godsakes! They let Donald Rumsfeld ramrod it through. I haven't even gotten into how they let the Department Of Health and Human Services push for annual Flu shots when they should be all but BANNED for anyone who isn't elderly in my opinion.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yeah. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve and IRS gets laughed at all the time too. But it would fix quite a bit.[/QUOTE]
Provide data that would support your conclusion for skeptics.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Provide data that would support your conclusion for skeptics.[/QUOTE]

There is no data, it's all theory. Nobody asked the founding fathers to provide data for why the creation of this country should work, did they?

Provide data for why we NEED the Federal Reserve and IRS for our country to function well, or even survive. Both are institutions of enslavement and bondage put in place simply to make you and me legally obligated to rely on others.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Provide data that would support your conclusion for skeptics.[/QUOTE]

The Constitution is his data. Why would you borrow money and pay interest on it when you could legally make it from scratch? It's in the framework of our Constitution and by extension part of the backbone of our government is we can print our own money. Originally it was backed by gold, like in Fort Knox.
 
Sarang, people have been reading what you post. It just happens to be nonsense.

You and thrust invoke the Founding Fathers like some magic argument winning talisman.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Sarang, people have been reading what you post. It just happens to be nonsense.

You and thrust invoke the Founding Fathers like some magic argument winning talisman.[/QUOTE]

I've never said it was. Bottom line, the Federal Reserve is a Private CORPORATION that prints our money and loans it. Remind me why anyone BUT the government should be doing it, especially when the government doesn't charge interest for one. Also we have no idea how much they're printing now. Word up, the M-8, which is the info that lists how much money is in circulation supposedly, the Fed is so arrogant they don't put that out now. Publish, whatever, the public doesn't see it.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I've never said it was. Bottom line, the Federal Reserve is a Private CORPORATION that prints our money and loans it. Remind me why anyone BUT the government should be doing it, especially when the government doesn't charge interest for one. Also we have no idea how much they're printing now. Word up, the M-8, which is the info that lists how much money is in circulation supposedly, the Fed is so arrogant they don't put that out now. Publish, whatever, the public doesn't see it.[/QUOTE]
~Just fyi, all you need to do is go to dailykos.com or huffingtonpost.com, read a smattering of comments from users under any story related to what you are discussing here, and you'll save yourself having to read msut's posts, so you can put him on ignore. ~

The public doesn't care about this stuff, that's the underlining issue here. They are too worried about the Republican bad / Democrat good daytime drama being played out on our mainstream media outlets to care.

[quote name='mykevermin']Well, publicize it, then. Does that potentially solve economic issues and more or less than eliminating it altogether?[/QUOTE]

How can any of us get it publicized though? The Fed ultimately answers to nobody, that's the way it was set up on purpose. They don't even "owe" our government a yearly audit.

The only way the Fed can really be stopped, as I understand it, is to get Congress to pass laws removing power from the Fed that they were given originally in 1913; and/or adding power to the government to audit them.

Why this hasn't happened is anyone's guess. Apathy, it seems to me, being the main culprit. People only care about the items on CNN's front page at any given time.
 
That seems plausible - more plausible, even, than simply eliminating it.

Perhaps it's apathy. I think it's more complex than that. Take the national debt for instance: people are becoming more and more concerned about the size of it now that we went from $5T to over $10T in Bush's 8 years (try and beat THAT, tax and spend Democrats!). But now we're adding to it even further with these bailouts we can't afford: I believe I've read our national deficit ended up being over $1.2T just in 2008 alone. But do we need it? I dunno: spending money we don't have to help recover to pay off money we already didn't have but spent before seems like a peculiar fiscal policy (yes, you have to spend money to make money, but perhaps after a quarter century of massive deficit spending and supply-siding, with only 2 years of a surplus under Clinton, you'd think that we'd stop trying this exercise). But, yeah, it's a problem, but the depression "recession" and getting out of it is a more pressing issue. We're told that we had to save AIG and Detroit to survive economically. And many of us are skeptical of that. But saving the economy and avoiding increasing the national debt would not have been a very easy thing to accomplish. If at all possible.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I've never said it was.[/QUOTE]

Actually that is exactly what you and thrust (to the extent that thrustmuppet ever says anything) are saying.
I don't blame you, it is much easier after all.

the Federal Reserve is a Private CORPORATION that prints our money and loans it.
Click to expand...

There is a bit more to it than that understatement of the year I know; your main beef however seems to be the US going off the gold standard something I am not going to even bother to respond to.

To tie in with what Myke was saying people are stating to notice the deficit and debt again because a Democrat is about to take office and they are the only ones who ever have to worry about paying for shit. Now I am not sure whether Myke thinks we should cut X program(s) or not but I would like to hear if he has anything in mind specifically.

The deficit will probably not be going anywhere and may get even worse (but probably at a much slower rate) from what I have read it will go to what should be looked at as an investment in America such as job creation and repairing our crumbling infrastructure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']That seems plausible - more plausible, even, than simply eliminating it.

Perhaps it's apathy. I think it's more complex than that. Take the national debt for instance: people are becoming more and more concerned about the size of it now that we went from $5T to over $10T in Bush's 8 years (try and beat THAT, tax and spend Democrats!). But now we're adding to it even further with these bailouts we can't afford: I believe I've read our national deficit ended up being over $1.2T just in 2008 alone. But do we need it? I dunno: spending money we don't have to help recover to pay off money we already didn't have but spent before seems like a peculiar fiscal policy (yes, you have to spend money to make money, but perhaps after a quarter century of massive deficit spending and supply-siding, with only 2 years of a surplus under Clinton, you'd think that we'd stop trying this exercise). But, yeah, it's a problem, but the depression "recession" and getting out of it is a more pressing issue. We're told that we had to save AIG and Detroit to survive economically. And many of us are skeptical of that. But saving the economy and avoiding increasing the national debt would not have been a very easy thing to accomplish. If at all possible.[/QUOTE]

Oh, the Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) will try to beat Bush's (and Congress's) insane deficits of the last eight years, believe me. No need to encourage them. Bush has already left them $350 billion in bailout money to spread around, and they want another $1 trillion (or more). Keep in mind that's NOT INCLUDED in the $1.2 trillion number that came out this past week. Also keep in mind the fact that we did not have surpluses under Clinton, only smaller deficits (unless you count stealing Social Security money to make a "surplus" as valid). Keep in mind that, similarly, the $1.2 trillion is not only before another predictably ineffectual "stimulus," but it does not include the Social Security surpluses we are stealing and someday hope to pay back (yeah right). What a tangled web we weave, indeed.

The only way this situation will ever be solved is for the government to be completely shaken to its roots. Dramatically expanding government is exactly the wrong direction to be headed, although both parties agree that is what's best! I wonder after which trillion dollars we print inflation will rear its ugly head.
 
You want to hear some of my fucking solution's to cut spending msut? Well so be it.

First before I get into that I do think it's an issue NOT to have money backed by something concrete, especially when you have a trade deficit. I'll be the first to admit the debt wouldn't be what it is now if not for that. I think the people who get us out of it will be the small businesses who get big lately and REFUSE to Outsource their products at all as well as pay their people a living wage. It will also take a decent amount of them tied together to do this.
The Fed makes this whole thing harder considering the fact they create inflation on top of what normally exists. Top this with business wanting to make a profit and inflation as we know it as high as it is and the worker really gets screwed. If the government printed money inflation wouldn't be at the 7%(I think that's the number we're talking) it is.
My solutions to cut spending are that you cut Corn subsidies completely for one as well as Dairy subsidies. In WIC you cut out Dairy, instead putting up stuff like Broccoli, beans and rice for their calcium and protein intake. This would be cheaper easily. As part of vitamin B12 you make Hemp and Rice Milk that have it added an option. Note I don't mention Soy as it has Phytoestrogens(plant based Estrogens) that we know do harm to very young boys at later ages.
I would also mention, this is on a consumer spending tip, that we completely cut out the government ban on Hemp and let it tangle with lumber for paper costs. The cost of paper will plummet in the process and we'll all benefit.
Now cutting a bunch of military spending would help too. We spend way too much on it. I will say that when cut you spend at least half of the money saved paying for the training of every military person to pay for college courses to make sure they have the most optimal chance of getting a job in the civilian sector. I'm referring to the one's let go.
Back to the Gold standard, I've heard there has been a bill proposed by Paul to deal with this. Though I'll be the first to admit it makes me uncomfortable not having our money backed by something concrete.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']You want to hear some of my fucking solution's to cut spending msut?.[/QUOTE]

I don't recall asking you that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are some valid arguments against going to a metal/gold standard for money. One of the main reasons being that currently there is way too much gold and precious metals in very few hands.

I personally think a revamped Lincoln Greenback system is the only answer. When you look at all sides, the only answer is to let elected officials control the creation of money out of nothing, and make the process rather involved. It's not a perfect system, but it would be better than the one we have, and no one entity could monopolize money creation (in theory).

Anyway, how to get from where we are now, to there, is the real trick - and one that will be extremely painful no matter what angle you look at it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']There are some valid arguments against going to a metal/gold standard for money. One of the main reasons being that currently there is way too much gold and precious metals in very few hands.

I personally think a revamped Lincoln Greenback system is the only answer. When you look at all sides, the only answer is to let elected officials control the creation of money out of nothing, and make the process rather involved. It's not a perfect system, but it would be better than the one we have, and no one entity could monopolize money creation (in theory).

Anyway, how to get from where we are now, to there, is the real trick - and one that will be extremely painful no matter what angle you look at it.[/QUOTE]

Well considering that both presidents who did that(Kennedy and Lincoln) were assassinated, I would say so. Also they dang near killed Jackson. I suspect if Jackson would've been their patsy we would've heard little about the Trail Of Tears and whatever there was would be downplayed.
Truthfully I wouldn't weep if the Federal Reserve people got caught and had their heads put under the Guillotine. I wouldn't actively encourage it but I would see it as Karma and take no hand in preventing it. You reap what you sow.
 
Maybe their heads could at least become the currency so it has something real backing it?

Man the more I think about it, the more it is truly amazing; that the one and only thing that backs the Dollar is faith in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top