People are finally opening their eyes and realizing that Ron Paul was the only candidate that knew exactly what he was talking about.

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/48695/

__________________
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Disclaimer:
I do not support McCain or Obama, please refrain from making the assumption that because I post something negative about your candidate, that I must be supporting the other. We do have more than 2 people running for president.

He didn't believe in the 'Human Right' for healthcare. He and all of his followers are a virus in my book.

That is your choice.

The "right" to health care is a pretty emotional issue, so I wont belittle you for being so closed minded as to call others names based on their beliefs.

__________________
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Disclaimer:
I do not support McCain or Obama, please refrain from making the assumption that because I post something negative about your candidate, that I must be supporting the other. We do have more than 2 people running for president.

Ron Paul's a good guy, but the gold standard?

I think he got his economics from a few decades back..... (but that's not to say that his economics are inferior to McCain or Obama's, just that they aren't perfect)

__________________

"Seek truth from facts"

--Deng Xiaoping

Nobody is perfect...far from it. I realize Paul has his own faults...however Paul was never 100% in favor of going back to a gold standard across the board. He called for competing currencies...which would have its own issues, however I think it is a legitimate option when compared to the mess that we are in now.

__________________
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Disclaimer:
I do not support McCain or Obama, please refrain from making the assumption that because I post something negative about your candidate, that I must be supporting the other. We do have more than 2 people running for president.

Competing currencies share the same flaw as the gold standard (they also have more flaws): the amount of currency in our country would not remain stable. The problem with not having a stable amount of currency in our country is that currency transactions, the basis of everything in the economy, would not remain stable either. If too much money left circulation, then people would value their money more and would be less willing to trade it. Because an important function of money is a method of exchange, and because liquidity and ease of exchange are so vital to our economy, putting a set amount of currency into the market, by using the gold standard or a similar method, would cause liquidity and transactions to go down, striking hard at the foundation of our economy. Striking the foundation of our economy generally isn't a great thing.

__________________

"Seek truth from facts"

--Deng Xiaoping

Those are fair points, however the whole competing currency issue was not something I would consider a top priority for Paul, nor was it one of the things I found to be a strong point.

His issues with our ever shrinking liberties, the Fed and aboloshing them, plus his stance on the war were a few reasons I support him. The Fed issue was tricky, I dont think (nor did he) that you could abolish them over night, however I do think he would have focused on strictly limiting their ability to manipulate the currency and markets they way they are now. The organization has (and is gaining) way too much power.

__________________
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Disclaimer:
I do not support McCain or Obama, please refrain from making the assumption that because I post something negative about your candidate, that I must be supporting the other. We do have more than 2 people running for president.

Here's part of a PM exchange I had with another member on the Federal Reserve:

Me:
"The problems that the Federal Reserve exists to correct for are permanent realities of the market. There won't be a time where people won't think that they can use run away speculation to succeed even though the risks and repercussions from those actions pose direct threats to the very foundations of the economy and there will always be banks who would try to get an advantage in the banking market by not properly backing up their deposits. The Fed is here to stay, so long as we value a healthy and stable economy."

Him:
"But you don't think the Fed is in any way detrimental to the economy or future economic status of the US? They pretty much admitted to the causing of The Great Depression."

Me:
"In this case, the Federal Reserve did not do the job that it was given. The result would have been the same if not worse had the Fed not existed."

Him:
"Plus, with the way they print money...can't be good for the dollar. Like I said though, for the record, I'm just throwing out things I've heard/read."

Me:
"In this case, the Fed is doing what it is supposed to do, keep the supply of money in the country relatively stable. The real problem is that they have to continue to print money to keep that supply stable because the US is losing so much of its currency to foreign holders through an imbalance of trade and other imbalances in the flow of currency. If the Fed did not keep the domestic supply stable, then currency transactions would dramatically decrease which would be a death blow to the economy and we would enter a massive depression, as currency transactions are the very fundamental foundation of everything in the entire economy."

__________________

"Seek truth from facts"

--Deng Xiaoping

I understand your points here, and find them to be fairly acceptable, however I do disagree with some points.

It is hard to say what the results would have been with/without the Fed during the great depression. If you find it possible that the results could have been the same, then that obviously rules them out as being an important factor...manipulation of a supposed free market will always have unintended consequences.

As for the Fed keeping things stable, I think that in theory thats great, however in reality it seems more as if they keep things relatively stable for a long period of time, but then when their actions cause blips, they are MAJOR blips...beyond the regular high and low that would be felt if it was left relatively untouched....thats just my opinion, and Im not an economist, but I have read similar statements from actual economists.

Overall I think it is in everyones best interests to see the power of the Fed much more limited, instead of what we see today where they are asking for more power. They are really just creating bubbles that have to burst at some point.

__________________
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Disclaimer:
I do not support McCain or Obama, please refrain from making the assumption that because I post something negative about your candidate, that I must be supporting the other. We do have more than 2 people running for president.

Just to interject here: The economy has become *substantially* less volatile in the last several decades, an indication that the Fed is doing a good job.
http://www.williampolley.com/blog/archives/2005/11/

The chart on the link shows the annual change in GDP going back to the mid-40s. Notice how the peaks and valleys have become a lot shorter/shallower since about 1985?

Unless you think the Fed hasn't made a mistake in the last 23 years, it seems apparent that its mistakes aren't upsetting the apple cart much.

__________________
Man up.