Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) took a break from his presidential bid to pursue one of his favorite pastimes ‚ÄĒ criticizing the Federal Reserve.
"Nobody's smart enough to have central economic planning," he said. "Our time has come for serious discussion on monetary reform."
"The Fed's going to self-destruct eventually anyways," Paul added later.
He went on to criticize the Fed for its monetary policy, reiterating his longstanding desire for currency backed by hard assets like silver and gold. He pressed Bernanke on why existing fiat currency couldn't coexist with hard currency like silver....
Hover wrote: This is a major claim. Can you elaborate?
No, since it's pretty digressive since a whole lot of evidence has to be adduced which in any case, could probably be disputed at length. Just my opinion, but I was making a point about the Appeal to Novelty fallacy Jim was committing.
Jim Lincoln wrote: ‚Ä¶ Now, if you wish to be identified with the radical Republicans and their mindset of irrationality, so be it. I do believe the John Birch Society has just about disappeared because the present Republican Party so well reflects their views that the reason for their existence has ceased.
Jim, you are so transparent ‚Äď¬†now you're trying the dirty trick of Guilt by Association, as if support for any Repub, even an outsider like Paul, makes one a friend of papists or racists! What if I said the Communist Party USA no longer fields candidates because your Progressive Democrat buddies are so similar to them now? What a lame line of reasoning, yet you insinuate I'm irrational! This is too funny!
And how do you know Repubs alone are friends of the ‚Äúindustrial complex‚Äú (whatever that is)? Name some rich industrialists who are known conservative (not Progressive like Bush) Repubs. I despair of finding any.
I would suppose that my connotation would be unpleasant, because I see much of the Republican standardbearers, Mel Gibson Catholics, Ultra-Traditionalist Catholic, Dixiecans, and those of the Identity: A 'Christian' Religion for White Racists have seemed to take it over the Republican Party. Now, if you wish to be identified with the radical Republicans and their mindset of irrationality, so be it. I do believe the John Birch Society has just about disappeared because the present Republican Party so well reflects their views that the reason for their existence has ceased.
I like Alexander Hamilton's views of a central bank better than Ronnie Paul's. While I have used fairly negative connotation for Ron Paul in particular the Republican Party, as it is at the moment, generally. I think the denotation of a party that culls favor from the industrial complex, or at least certain elements of it, for present or future benefits, no doubt monetary, is accurate.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, I think Ron Paul is the perfect example of a member of the Reactionary Party.
What's wrong with being Reactionary, or perhaps better, Counter-Revolutionary? I'm not ashamed to stand for old-fashioned things, if they are sound. So your attempt at being offensive fell flat, so far as I'm concerned.
And thanks for providing us another example of prejudicial use of words, just as John & Mike & I were discussing. If you don't like the Constitution as written, or Limited Government, be honest & say so, instead of labeling people with abusive adjectives, as propagandists love to do. You're not fooling us.
The days of Reformation Christianity, like the Gold Standard, are long gone too.
Neil, I think Ron Paul is the perfect example of a member of the Reactionary Party. I wonder if Ronnie disagrees with Bernanke when he said this:
US News wrote: When asked about Standard & Poor's recent downgrade for its outlook on U.S. debt, Bernanke called it "constructive" because he thinks it will encourage policy makers to act. "We currently have a fiscal deficit, which is simply not sustainable over the longer term, and if it is not addressed it will have significant consequences for financial stability, for economic growth, and for our standard of living," he said at the press conference.
San Jose John wrote: ...if the "moral/fallen current" is naturally leftward, those who renounce any kind of anchor (i.e. "independent") will naturally tend to move leftward.
Good points. Also, ‚Äúindependent‚ÄĚ implies that affiliation with a political party makes one ‚Äúdependent,‚ÄĚ & what thinking person will describe himself thus? So it is good propaganda compared with ‚Äúno party affiliation.‚ÄĚ Likewise the term ‚ÄúProgressive‚ÄĚ: who wants to admit he opposes Progress? Or again, who wants to be called ‚Äúilliberal?‚ÄĚ
Deceptive language is popular with heretical theologians; they redefine common theological terms to ‚Äúfly under the radar‚ÄĚ and deceive the simple. This is why it is vital to say, ‚ÄúDefine your terms.‚ÄĚ
Mike wrote: Maybe pride and dishonesty doesn't allow them to admit their leanings toward liberalism. So they call themselves independent, so as to convince themselves they aren't liberals. But listening to them will reveal what they are. Who do they criticize the most, liberals or conservatives? Democrats or Republicans? What is their view of the role of government in the citizens' lives? Their "independent" self description should be given with a wink.
Yeah, I was thinking some combination of pride, fear, and laziness; but I hadn't thought of dishonesty as a motive as well. Makes sense. A tree is known by its fruit. Couldn't agree more. Also, if the "moral/fallen current" is naturally leftward, those who renounce any kind of anchor (i.e. "independent") will naturally tend to move leftward.
San Jose John wrote: LOL. I LOVE it!...Because it tends to be so true. I know far more "independents" who are actually leftists (but can't seem to see it, much less admit it) than are conservatives. Not sure why this is the case but it is clearly a common occurrence.
Maybe pride and dishonesty doesn't allow them to admit their leanings toward liberalism. So they call themselves independent, so as to convince themselves they aren't liberals. But listening to them will reveal what they are. Who do they criticize the most, liberals or conservatives? Democrats or Republicans? What is their view of the role of government in the citizens' lives? Their "independent" self description should be given with a wink.
Jim Lincoln wrote: You mean we have a better state if it was run by rich Republicans like Paul, Neil?
Your tiresome Inner Marx is rearing its head again, using "rich" as a pejorative adjective. I'm glad Paul is rich enough to be able to run for public office; men of means have the time & resources for this sort of thing, just as in the 1780's. And can you list any currently-serving poor politicians?
But today, there are too few virtuous people, in or out of politics, for such a change to be possible. Singularly electing someone like Paul would accomplish nothing w/o an accompanying turnover of the other branches of gov't as well, for our gov't is designed to prevent one man from changing too much too radically (esp. a real conservative, these days).
Mike, thanks for reminding that the problem is not restricted to one party.
James 1 9 But let the brother of humble circumstances glory in his high position; 10 and let the rich man glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away. 11 For the sun rises with a scorching wind, and withers the grass; and its flower falls off, and the beauty of its appearance is destroyed; so too the rich man in the midst of his pursuits will fade away.---NASB
Before abandoning fiat currency, we must first abandon the Welfare State which requires it, along with its enabler, Keynesian economic theory.
Unfortunately a substantial portion of the US population today either pays no Fed. taxes or receives benefits (or perceives it does) from the gov't. Given that few of these folks are likely to consent to any sacrifices of these for the sake of monetary stability, it is also unlikely a politician like Paul who favors radical gov't downsizing will be elected. This is a fatal condition from which I see little hope of recovery. Greece is a preview.
This is the trouble with democracy ― the fool's vote is as good as the wise man's. Not that I like other forms of gov't any better.
I remember reading somewhere that NO fiat-based currency in history has survived more than about 50 or 60 years, and we've had ours for over 40 years now. Sounds true but I am unable to substantiate this claim at this time.