bigfoot66
bigfoot66
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1572
June 10th, 2012 at 12:01:57 PM permalink
Anyone care to retract false claims made in this thread?
Vote for Nobody 2016!
vert1276
vert1276
Joined: Apr 25, 2011
  • Threads: 70
  • Posts: 446
June 10th, 2012 at 2:07:52 PM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66

Anyone care to retract false claims made in this thread?



I assume you are talking to me?

First Ron Paul is in favor of a gold standard.....This is not even debatable. He is NOT in favor of the gold standard of the 19th century run by the Fed, known as the "Bretton Woods gold standard" were it still allowed the Fed to dictate monetary policy because the dollar was only fractionally backed by gold. the government was the only one who could own gold, and they set the price of gold. Paul often says "I wouldn't exactly go back to the gold standard, there were shortcomings with the gold standard of the nineteenth century because...it was a fixed price..." Basically saying he is not in favor of the Bretton Woods gold standard.....Ron Paul position now is "moving forward to a NEW gold standard" He recently spoke about this "new gold standard" with Lewis Lehrman. They both sat on the U.S. Gold Commission in 1981...and even co-authored a book together called "The Case for Gold"....Paul is for a "true gold standard" where the price of gold is not set by the Treasury/Federal reserve... But for people to try and spin Paul's position into not being in favor of the gold standard because he said, "I wouldn't exactly go back to the gold standard, there were shortcomings with the gold standard of the nineteenth century because...it was a fixed price..." is laughable....The man is anti Fiat currency and in favor of a commodity based currency controlled by the free market, and the commodity of choice for Paul is GOLD....

As to your other post about how The Federal funds rate effects the Prime rate....I said a case could be made that it does...Obviously when you add liquidity to the banking system The prime rate MAY Fall. But like I said the two are NOT linked. There are many more factors to the prime rate. There was far more bank liquidity in 2006 then now and the prime rate was over 8% in 2006, and now it is just over 3% Trying to link the two is a fallacy.....The rate the Fed WANTS banks to loan to each other at(the Federal funds rate) is NOT linked the rate banks loans to "creditworthy Costumers" at(the prime rate)
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1572
June 10th, 2012 at 2:35:43 PM permalink
When I made that post I had you and s2dbaker in mind.

Quote: vert1276

First Ron Paul is in favor of a gold standard.....This is not even debatable. He is NOT in favor of the gold standard of the 19th century run by the Fed, known as the "Bretton Woods gold standard" were it still allowed the Fed to dictate monetary policy because the dollar was only fractionally backed by gold. the government was the only one who could own gold, and they set the price of gold. Paul often says "I wouldn't exactly go back to the gold standard, there were shortcomings with the gold standard of the nineteenth century because...it was a fixed price..." Basically saying he is not in favor of the Bretton Woods gold standard.....Ron Paul position now is "moving forward to a NEW gold standard" He recently spoke about this "new gold standard" with Lewis Lehrman. They both sat on the U.S. Gold Commission in 1981...and even co-authored a book together called "The Case for Gold"....Paul is for a "true gold standard" where the price of gold is not set by the Treasury/Federal reserve... But for people to try and spin Paul's position into not being in favor of the gold standard because he said, "I wouldn't exactly go back to the gold standard, there were shortcomings with the gold standard of the nineteenth century because...it was a fixed price..." is laughable....The man is anti Fiat currency and in favor of a commodity based currency controlled by the free market, and the commodity of choice for Paul is GOLD....



This is partially true. He believes in the gold standard, yes, but he does not adovate a return to it as you noted. I am a huge Ron Paul guy and started a RP organization 4 years ago. As I already pointed out, he simply advocates repealing legal tender laws and auditing the federal reserve. Though he would ultimately like to see the Fed abolished, that is not the policy he is advocating directly. Again, he is not in favor of gold per say, but of the market choosing the commodity, and precious metals have historically been the choice of the market.

As for the other issue, I am frankly blown away by some of your claims. What is the point of changing the federal funds rate if it does not ultimately manipulate commercial interest rates and thus the economy?
We always hear that about how "the fed has lowered rates to stimulate growth" in the media (though not lately), how does the fed manipulate the economy if not through having an effect on comercial interest rates?
Vote for Nobody 2016!
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1572
June 10th, 2012 at 2:39:42 PM permalink
Quote: vert1276

the government was the only one who could own gold, and they set the price of gold.



Am I missing something? I could be wrong here, but I thought the government and banks issued gold coins for circulation at one point, no? you said it was illegal to own gold, in the 19th century, I thought that was not the case until Roosevelt stole all the gold...? Isnt the whole point of the gold standard that you can redeem the piece of paper and be paid in commodity?
Vote for Nobody 2016!
vert1276
vert1276
Joined: Apr 25, 2011
  • Threads: 70
  • Posts: 446
June 10th, 2012 at 4:02:42 PM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66

Am I missing something? I could be wrong here, but I thought the government and banks issued gold coins for circulation at one point, no? you said it was illegal to own gold, in the 19th century, I thought that was not the case until Roosevelt stole all the gold...? Isnt the whole point of the gold standard that you can redeem the piece of paper and be paid in commodity?



Under the Bretton Woods Gold standard it was illegal to own gold for investment purposes....You could own jewelry of course(because that has value added to it) and you could own coins(because that has value added) But you couldn't own gold as an investment like today. You couldn't own 20 1oz bars of gold like today, It was against the law to do so....Gold mines could not even keep their gold....after mining it they had to hand it over to the US treasury and they would be issued a certificate they would then take to the bank for them to issue them notes(money) for it....I think the limit you could own for "investment purposes" was 5 Oz or less......This is the whole point of the James Bond movie Goldfinger....Goldfinger was illegally stockpiling gold....This is why James Bond tries to set him up on the golf course and tries to get him to buy the bar of gold....because that would have been illegal in the 1960's(I guess this only makes sense if you have seen that movie lol)...SO to make a long story shot from 1933 till 1974 the era known as the "Bretton Woods system (which was a type of gold standard)" it was illegal to own gold for investment purposes...

AS to your question form the post above prime rates and Federal funds rates.....I don't think you understand fully how the Federal Reserve works.....When you hear "the Fed is lowing interest rates" they are talking about The Federal Funds rate NOT The prime rate.....The two are completely different...the two may have affect on each other but the two are not linked... I will PM you a link to another forum where I laid this out for someone else like yourself.....I have been in the Banking industry my whole adult career and even briefly worked at the Federal Reserve.....I think you just have some misconceptions about how The Fed works and what it does....
98Clubs
98Clubs
Joined: Jun 3, 2010
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1728
June 10th, 2012 at 4:23:51 PM permalink
Yes, in a way... that piece of paper represents the tangible, existant commodity in a convenient form (scrip). Gold-grams are a privately-funded version.

Abortion: Supreme Court can be overruled by a 39-state vote "Constitutional Amendment". OT: one can conclude that with 39 state-votes AGAINST, by de-facto law, that same-sex marriages remain outlawed in the Constitutional sense. /OT HOWEVER, The Constitutional Amendment must be voted upon by the vote-eligible population at large. If the Amendment passes (simple majority) in 39 states/protectorates/districts, then the Amendment passes. AFAIK, this is the check and balance to the Supreme Court. All Ron Paul can do as President is muster a ballot in all voting "states" for Amendment, an empty-suit position at best.

Nay, sez, I, none of the above candidates for President, gimme three others,
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
WongBo
WongBo
Joined: Feb 3, 2012
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 2126
June 10th, 2012 at 5:01:12 PM permalink
oh ron paul, the guy who said this:
"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King.
I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman.
What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

and this:

"opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions".

and this:
"I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society,
were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities".

and this:
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system,
I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief. - Proverb.
Boney526
Boney526
Joined: Sep 25, 2011
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 366
June 10th, 2012 at 6:31:02 PM permalink
Talking about the Newsletters?

Well, I'd just say that you I take him at his word that he didn't know, since it seems so inconsistent with everything I've ever heard him say.

I guess I can see it if you don't believe him, but based upon everything I actually know, it seems highly improbable that he'd say something like that. The worst thing I've heard him say was "he's a queer" after (I think it was for Bruno) some fake news reporter lured him into a hotel room and took his pants off, while hitting on him.

I'm pretty sure, though, that in that scenario many of us would act far less proper.

Most people in office who have these prejudiced at some point screw up big time and get caught SAYING something like that on tape. Seeing as how that's never happened, and how the one time it was close, he acted far more proper than people I don't consider to be intolerant would, I'd say that him being a closet racist or bigot is highly, highly, unlikely.
WongBo
WongBo
Joined: Feb 3, 2012
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 2126
June 10th, 2012 at 7:28:02 PM permalink
his name was on the newsletters, he approved their content.
i guess it takes a special man to say "the buck stops here".
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief. - Proverb.
Boney526
Boney526
Joined: Sep 25, 2011
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 366
June 10th, 2012 at 8:26:56 PM permalink
I have a hard time believing he knew they were in there.

That's all I'm saying. I believe he made a mistake of not using enough oversight. I don't think he wrote that himself. If he did, it would be completely out of character.

  • Jump to: