Comments on: Rep. Ron Paul

By: nymfortostrv

nymfortostrv — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:18:52 +0000

Can I just say what a relief to find someone who really knows what theyre speaking about on the internet. You undoubtedly know find out how to carry a problem to gentle and make it important. More people have to read this and understand this facet of the story. I cant consider youre not more standard because you undoubtedly have the gift.

By: swan

swan — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:50:38 +0000

President Wilson is right, he did ruin our country by giving in to the tribalists who do not mean us well, and gave us the Federal Reserve.

Congressman Paul is right to oppose the ‘bailout’ and to call for the abolitio of the Federal Reserve. Keep on, Ron. I know that I have got your back.

By: Martin Brock

Martin Brock — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:07:42 +0000

BB&T Corp. is doing well, compared with Wachovia, according to the market.

By: Marina

Marina — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:11:21 +0000

Ron Paul mentioned that several small banks were doing fine and not affected by this crisis. Does someone know their names?

By: Orville H. Larson

Orville H. Larson — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:01:31 +0000

Best regards to you, Doctor Paul, and here’s a handshake over the miles.

By: Martin Brock

Martin Brock — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:01:01 +0000

The financial elite are not non-governmental. They are part and parcel of the government. The bailout teaches this lesson again.

By: 8Ball

8Ball — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:04:30 +0000

We have all participated in the ruin. The general public bought into the “good life” mentality that was promoted after WWII. Houses, cars, boats, RV’s, whatever… all on credit. The industries that employed all of those workers are gone, shipped off shore to places where the labor is cheap… The free ride is ending and don’t think that the dimwits in DC have the answers. They don’t, because they were along for the ride all of the while.

By: Nan Henker

Nan Henker — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:02:38 +0000

The Constitution does state that Congress shall have the power to issue coin and regulate the value of money. [In coin or otherwise.]

Unfortunately, this power was given away to the non-governmental financial elite in 1913, with the Federal Reserve Act, when then President Woodrow Wilson allegedly said afterward, “I have ruined my country.”

By: Martin Brock

Martin Brock — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:39:45 +0000

Paul does speak of competing currencies, but the reality is not so simple. The question ultimately involves legal tender. I have no fundamental problem with Liberty Dollars myself, for example, but will courts order my creditors to accept payment of my debts denominated in “dollars” using Liberty Dollars, and will the IRS accept payment of my income taxes in these notes? It’s fine to say that we shouldn’t have any income tax at all, but that only avoids the issue.

No, I don’t think Rothbard agreed that bills of credit from gold bankers would win a free competition for money. As I understand Rothbard’s position, he would command a 100% reserve standard of gold bankers, but gold banking never operated this way, and I don’t expect gold banking, without a Rothbardian command, to operate this way.

Gold bankers without a Rothbardian King commanding 100% reserves will issue bills of credit redeemable in gold exceeding their reserves, particularly if the credit is secured by valuable assets other than gold. If I bank $100,000 worth of gold, I may choose to issue $200,000 in bills of credit redeemable in gold secured by two houses worth $100,000 apiece, because I can always claim the houses and sell them for gold to meet the demands of holders of my bills of credit. The Proudhonists (the original “anarchists”) wanted banks issuing credit secured only by valuable labor, precisely because they saw an established, titular “nobility” practically monopolizing gold.

But the real issue is taxes and other lawful debts. Precisely, how does Paul propose to distinguish lawful “dollars”, for the payment of debts including taxes, from unlawful “dollars”? “The market will decide” doesn’t address this question.

I also have a problem with Paul and other “hard money” advocates saying that the Constitution requires only gold and silver as a legal tender. The Constitution clearly doesn’t say this. It only limits the States this way. It clearly does not limit Congress similarly. Whether it should have limited Congress this way is a separate issue, but I don’t believe it should have.

By: Scott Horton

Scott Horton — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:35:06 +0000

Martin,

Isn’t Paul’s position to simply legalize competing currencies, rather than mandate a govt. gold standard? Didn’t Rothbard, and doesn’t Paul, argue that gold will eventually win out in the market and as Paul said in the interview simply “overtake” (I think that was it) paper money?

I’m confused, because it sounds to me like y’all agree.