Forget it, he's rolling.
Posted on 01/04/2011 9:49:48 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot
In the new Congress, Ron Paul (R-Texas) will head the House committee that oversees the Federal Reserve. Thanks to the title of his book, we know he wants to end the Fed and paper money. But what will he replace it with? The short answer: metal-based currencies.
I recently participated in a hour-long radio debate on the Progressive Radio Network's Freedom News Hour with two Paul supporters who wanted to take me up on the challenge of being proven wrong in my disagreements with seven of Paul's points about the Fed. I really enjoyed this debate and learned some important things.
Of these, none is more significant than what my debate partners believe Paul would do if he could end the Fed. According to them, Paul isn't ready to go directly back to the gold standard. Instead, he wants to keep the dollar and add three more currencies. Those would be based on gold, silver and copper.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailyfinance.com ...
So you think the restraints laid down on the Federal Government by the Founding Fathers are a bad idea?
soros wants a dual global currency system.
One for billionares and governments; one for peons
For instance Congress could legally declare that a one dollar bill is legally exchangeable for 1/1000th of an ounce of gold or 1/25th ounce of silver at any Federally chartered bank.
Congress could legally follow your suggestion. Just because it's legal, doesn't make it a good idea.
What happens when the ecotwits succeed in getting mining banned?
So you think that the Founding Fathers restrictions against Congress issuing paper money was a bad idea then or do you think that following the Constitution now is a bad idea?
Which is it?
So let me get this straight. You think the Federal Government adhering to the limits laid down by our Founding Fathers in the US Constitution is a bad idea?
Where did they do that?
or do you think that following the Constitution now is a bad idea?
I think following the Constitution is a good idea. I think your idea of fixing the dollar to silver and gold is a bad idea.
The Weimar experience was really bad. Printing presses going 24/7. But the amount they could print was at least limited by the physical constraints of the printing process itself. Today, a central bank can with one keystroke increase the monetary supply by whatever amount it wishes -- $1 billion, $1 trillion, $1 quadrillion... -- in an instant. The amount of gold will never, ever grow faster than the ability of central banks to "print" fiat money. Even if:
Anybody want to bet the entire world's economy that somebody can't develop a method to cheaply extract gold from seawater or convert lead to gold?
In which case gold would no longer serve as a reliable store of wealth. So people would simply move on to another commodity that would.
How would the conversion work?
Then we'd all carry around a pocket full of batteries. "Can I get change for a D-cell?"
That is a common misconception of what the Constitution says. According to Article 1, Section 8, Congress was authorized to create money (the term coin meant to produce, it was a verb, not a noun in this instance) and 'regulate the value' implies a non-fixed commodity currency because a fixed commodity currency wouldn't have a third party determining its value.
According to Article 1, Section 10, it is States who are limited to only using gold or silver to pay debts. They were not allowed to create a competing currency against the US currency. If paying in anything other than US currency, they could only trade direct commodities.
Gold is just a commodity, just like oil, salt, or grain. Its value is only tied to what people are willing to pay for it.
IMHO, I am for taking our currency off of debt (which means not having debt spending) and tying it to the full production value of the US versus a single commodity that the bugs want. The latter is too risky to be manipulated by outside influence- especially as we no longer have a strong gold producing infrastructure.
Article 1, Section 8. Read it for yourself.
I think following the Constitution is a good idea. I think your idea of fixing the dollar to silver and gold is a bad idea.
Can't have it both ways old boy. Here it is, right from the US Constitution:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
So once again, do you think the restraints laid down against paper money in the US Constitution were a good idea or a bad idea?
L
So once again, do you think the restraints laid down against paper money in the US Constitution were a good idea or a bad idea?
I think the restraints against states issuing paper money were a good idea.
I quite agree. I was merely responding to the claim that “inflation can’t occur” with a gold-based economy.
It certainly can, although the physical constraints you mention mean it can never get as bad as it can with fiat money.
European countries all thru the middle ages and early modern periods had, sorta, metal-based currencies. When they wanted to inflate, they called in the currency and recoined it, alloying the gold or silver with more base metals. Or they could make the coin smaller while claiming it was still the same coin. The effect either way differed little from printing more paper money.
During most of the Roman Republic coins were almost pure silver. By the time of the Emperor Galerius (260) coins were <5% silver and the empire’s economy was disintegrating.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
Am I reading that wrong?
Forget it, he's rolling.
Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing a paper currency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.