Ron Paul Revolution

i don't foresee us seeing eye-to-eye on the gold issue. which is fine. we'll let that be a point we agree-to-disagree on.

so the gold issue aside, you have to admit ron paul is the best republican in the race. he consistently opposes the government's abuses of our civil liberties and he's the only one who has never voted for an unbalanced budget and wants to cut government programs in order to balance the budget. he voted against the iraq war and wants to pull us out of it immediately. he doesn't want any amendments or legislation preventing the right of homosexual union. these ideas transcend party lines.

there will always be politicians you disagree with on some issues, but ron's ideas are almost all good ideas. (i'll be the first to argue that they're all good ideas, but we'll save that for another day)

rock on

So as far as Ron Paul's economic prowess, we clearly disagree. This is something we can agree to disagree on.

However, on the Constitution, I'll defend my point. I stand my my former statement that the restriction on what can be coined money applies only to the states. This is a separation of powers issue. The founding fathers wished to prevent the states from having their own separate currencies, thereby undermining the national economy.

The section of the Constitution you cite simply does not apply to the federal government. In fact, the Constitution is very clear on the federal government's powers in this regard:

"The Congress shall have power...To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures"

In other words, Congress can decide how much the money is worth, however they see fit. The states can't coin fiat currency, but Congress certainly can, and has.

"That said, Ron Paul doesn't study economics either"

WOW. Check your sources. Ron is an economic genius. His three heroes are the people who really figured out how economics works. He has the portrait of all three of them on his wall. He's written an absurd amount of literature (books, short essay, and legislation) on the matter. He could probably teach economics on the collegiate level with ease.

He destroys people in debates when economics comes up. He predicted the economic troubles in the late 80s and the economic downturn in 2008.

Go see what committees he sits on in congress; no surprises there.

Finally: Nobody said to throw out the whole system. It's about competition with it (read my previous comment)

"...I'm not sure I understand why someone who wants to take the government out of as many things as possible would add a whole new governmental function of managing a separate gold-backed currency."

"but the restriction on what can be coined money is not one of them."

WOW; how about your read the constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec10

What was your point? I argue we return to a constitution form of government. Gold is rock-solid in value; the government wouldn't have to do any regulating.

Arbitrarily and inorganically lowering interest rates is the most inflationary thing you can do. If you don't believe me about the printing of money to come up with shortfall (which does happen) notice what happens to the dollar whenever interest rates are lowered. It's your money; why don't you want to protect its value?

I'll preface this with a disclaimer. I don't study economics, so my knowledge is based on some classical texts and some common sense. That said, Ron Paul doesn't study economics either, so we can be on equal footing here.

We ought to be very careful about listening too closely to Von Mises, champion of the Vienna School, without taking into account the last 50 years of economic thought. I'm not saying his ideas are bad, but the economy today is fundamentally very different than it was in his time, and we need to adjust our thinking accordingly.

As far as the fed regulating the money supply, I would argue that the amount of money in circulation is not arbitrary. If the government did, in fact, print up more money to cover its shortfall, then the economy would collapse. Clearly, fiat currency has to be managed smartly to avoid this pitfall. Whether or not we've been doing that is up for question, but even if we've been doing it wrong, that's not reason to throw out an entire system.

On the idea of competing currencies, I'm afraid I don't see the need. If you feel, right now, like your assets are deeply threatened because they're in fiat currency: buy gold. There's nothing stopping you. I'm not sure I understand why someone who wants to take the government out of as many things as possible would add a whole new governmental function of managing a separate gold-backed currency.

And as far as the Constitution goes, the founding fathers gave Congress power to coin money and set the value as it pleases (Art.1 Sec.8). The states have no such power, but that restriction is clearly limited to the states, as it's in with all of the other provisions that limit powers of the states (Art.1 Sec.10). Many of the prohibitions in that section are also separately prohibited to the federal government in previous sections (bills of attainder, etc.), but the restriction on what can be coined money is not one of them.

actually, ludwig von misses, probably the greatest economic thinker of all time argued to have hard currency.

this isn't an economic issue as much as it is a moral issue. it is wrong for a government to arbitrarily print money to come up with the shortfall when borrowing and taxing isn't enough. if they increased the amount of money in the circulation of 10% then the government has robbed you of 10% of your wealth and future income. lowering interest rates is inflationary too. i don't necessarily care if we go back to the gold standard, but it'd be nice to have a currency that didn't plummet in value.

finally, it isn't ron's position to force america to switch over to the gold standard. he simply wants to legalize competing currencies -- one backed by gold and we can keep the fiat/worthless money around.

in this way: you can convert all your cash to the gold currency and maintain its value as the dollar continues to crash.

oh and let's not forget what our constitution tells us. the founders were aware of the problems brought about by runaway inflation. (research the continental). either we amend the constitution or respect what it tells us -- ignoring it is just about the worst thing you can do

There's a lot of Ron Paul hate that goes around, and honestly, I don't hate Ron Paul. In fact, I respect him, because at the very least, he does stick to what he says.

Problem is, what he says is wrong, especially on the economic front. My school is well known for being the center of conservative economic thought, yet its late superstar economist, Milton Friedman, still did not endorse the idea of hard currency. We no longer live in the 19th century, and it no longer makes sense to have a currency that's backed by a piece of shiny metal. It makes much more sense that a nation's currency is based on the strength and purchasing power of its economy, and even the University of Chicago's hardcore free market economists agree with that.

Many of Paul's positions fall into similar traps. While it's a good thing that he keeps to what he says, it does nobody any good if what he says is misinformed or just plain wrong.

More than Ron Paul, I support the idea of his candidacy, the presence of a campaign that gives real, concrete answers instead of the broad generalizations that everybody else makes. Like that.

I support Ron because I love America and I don't want this country to get into any worse shape than it already is in. I endorse his candidacy because I still like the idea of obeying the constitution. I appreciate the advice the founders gave us and I'd like our government to follow it.

RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL!

Just wait till the internets swamps this page