Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Ron Paul Questions and Concerns Well
- This topic has 266 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 2, 2011 at 9:10 AM #731990November 2, 2011 at 9:21 AM #731992
DomoArigato
Participant[quote=markmax33]
You keep missing the point. Under the gold standards there will be short term downswings when industries become obsolete. We are accepting that under Austrian Economics. You could fix the current dollar to the current value of gold and audit the fed properly and reestablish a gold standard over night. It’s not that hard. The price of gold might go up though![/quote]No, you keep missing the point. Fixed-exchange rate currencies always fail, so there is no reason to go back to the gold standard or any other type of fixed exchange rate.
Essentially, you are living in a fantasy world where a fixed exchange rate to gold fixes all our problems. It doesn’t. Please cite to one time in history where a fixed-exchange rate currency did not fail.
November 2, 2011 at 9:22 AM #731991markmax33
Guest[quote=DomoArigato][quote=markmax33]
IT DOESN’T HAVE TO FAIL IF YOU DON’T GO TO POINTLESS WARS AND INSTALL INFINITE SOCIAL PROGRAMS! The average fiat currency lasts 27 years and we are already at 40 since 1971.Why don’t you stand up and protect your children from this? We know what is going to happen if we don’t get Ron Paul elected. The national debt will be $20T by the end of Obama’s next 4 years.[/quote]
22% of U.S. children live in poverty. How is cutting back their programs going to protect them? Do you think children that are near starvation and living in squalor give a shit about the deficit?[/quote]
Great questions deserve great answers. If you reduce the programs you can also reduce their tax rates. People were taken care of before all of these programs, why do you come to the conclusion that if some were reduced they wouldn’t be? If your federal tax rate went from 35% to 10% would you be more likely to donate to the less fortunate? Would you be more likely to reinvest your money in businesses to create jobs for these people? I sure would! The government probably only returns 30 cents on every dollar you tax before everybody in washington gets paid out. Why do you want to waste 70% of your tax money?
You will gaurentee more people will live in squalor if you increase the debt and the currency busts. The debt will cause more unemployment and increase that 22% to 40%. Is that what you want? Remember the gap between the poor and middle class to the upper class is increasing under the current system.
Read this insightful article:
November 2, 2011 at 9:26 AM #731994Guest[quote=DomoArigato][quote=markmax33]
You keep missing the point. Under the gold standards there will be short term downswings when industries become obsolete. We are accepting that under Austrian Economics. You could fix the current dollar to the current value of gold and audit the fed properly and reestablish a gold standard over night. It’s not that hard. The price of gold might go up though![/quote]No, you keep missing the point. Fixed-exchange rate currencies always fail, so there is no reason to go back to the gold standard or any other type of fixed exchange rate.
Essentially, you are living in a fantasy world where a fixed exchange rate to gold fixes all our problems. It doesn’t. Please cite to one time in history where a fixed-exchange rate currency did not fail.[/quote]
It has never failed once. The people have removed the standard and not learned from history thousand of times in a row, effectively stealing from their children. You seem to be pointing at the fact a republic has not been able to maintain a gold standard before and yes that has been true. The people have to keep the GOV in check. No time in history has there been so much access to data and research to help convince the people. This is why it can work now. The GOV can’t pull the wool over our eyes as easily now.
November 2, 2011 at 9:49 AM #732001SK in CV
Participant[quote=markmax33]You could fix the current dollar to the current value of gold and audit the fed properly and reestablish a gold standard over night. It’s not that hard. The price of gold might go up though![/quote]
I figured this would eventually come up, because it always seems to. The fed gets audited every year. It’s a financial audit, and something I actually look at when it comes out. Pretty interesting. So when I hear screams to audit the fed, and claims that the fed has never been audited, it seems funny, stupid and uninformed.
So when given the opportunity, I ask these questions. If you have issues with the current audit, exactly what are those issues, and what is the basis for the argument? If you would like an audit with a different scope, what precisely is the scope of the audit you’d want? And most importantly, how is an audit going to fix anything going forward?
And in advance of your possible claim that by asking these questions, I’m presuming that everything the fed has ever done has been good, clean, and appropriate, I’ve made no such presumption. This is focused solely on your assertion that auditing the fed will provide solutions. I think that assertion is silly and misguided, and driven by conspiracy nuts who ignore reality because it’s not near as interesting as fantasy.
November 2, 2011 at 10:09 AM #732002scaredyclassic
ParticipantMy fantasies are astonishingly dull. I also prefer vanilla ice cream by a wide margin.
November 2, 2011 at 10:12 AM #732003Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]You could fix the current dollar to the current value of gold and audit the fed properly and reestablish a gold standard over night. It’s not that hard. The price of gold might go up though![/quote]
I figured this would eventually come up, because it always seems to. The fed gets audited every year. It’s a financial audit, and something I actually look at when it comes out. Pretty interesting. So when I hear screams to audit the fed, and claims that the fed has never been audited, it seems funny, stupid and uninformed.
So when given the opportunity, I ask these questions. If you have issues with the current audit, exactly what are those issues, and what is the basis for the argument? If you would like an audit with a different scope, what precisely is the scope of the audit you’d want? And most importantly, how is an audit going to fix anything going forward?
And in advance of your possible claim that by asking these questions, I’m presuming that everything the fed has ever done has been good, clean, and appropriate, I’ve made no such presumption. This is focused solely on your assertion that auditing the fed will provide solutions. I think that assertion is silly and misguided, and driven by conspiracy nuts who ignore reality because it’s not near as interesting as fantasy.[/quote]
I’m glad you asked! The federal reserve is not audited on a regular basis as you suggest like EVERY OTHER GOV OFFICE. They have NEVER been fully audited by the GOV’s internal auditor, the GAO. Why are they the only “GOV agency” to never get an audit?
During the first partial audit of the FED it was revealed to the American public the FED loaned out $16T. Did you know that beforehand? Did you have access to that? Did you know they loaned money to Libya’s Khadafi? I’m sure he bought bullets with that money to fire at us. I sure didn’t know and of that and I challenge you to find an audit before Ron Paul’s audit that shows it! There are certain programs inside the fed which are not allowed to be audited, IRONICALLY they are the largest and most powerful programs!
November 2, 2011 at 11:34 AM #732012Participant[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]You could fix the current dollar to the current value of gold and audit the fed properly and reestablish a gold standard over night. It’s not that hard. The price of gold might go up though![/quote]
I figured this would eventually come up, because it always seems to. The fed gets audited every year. It’s a financial audit, and something I actually look at when it comes out. Pretty interesting. So when I hear screams to audit the fed, and claims that the fed has never been audited, it seems funny, stupid and uninformed.
So when given the opportunity, I ask these questions. If you have issues with the current audit, exactly what are those issues, and what is the basis for the argument? If you would like an audit with a different scope, what precisely is the scope of the audit you’d want? And most importantly, how is an audit going to fix anything going forward?
And in advance of your possible claim that by asking these questions, I’m presuming that everything the fed has ever done has been good, clean, and appropriate, I’ve made no such presumption. This is focused solely on your assertion that auditing the fed will provide solutions. I think that assertion is silly and misguided, and driven by conspiracy nuts who ignore reality because it’s not near as interesting as fantasy.[/quote]
I’m glad you asked! The federal reserve is not audited on a regular basis as you suggest like EVERY OTHER GOV OFFICE. They have NEVER been fully audited by the GOV’s internal auditor, the GAO. Why are they the only “GOV agency” to never get an audit?
During the first partial audit of the FED it was revealed to the American public the FED loaned out $16T. Did you know that beforehand? Did you have access to that? Did you know they loaned money to Libya’s Khadafi? I’m sure he bought bullets with that money to fire at us. I sure didn’t know and of that and I challenge you to find an audit before Ron Paul’s audit that shows it! There are certain programs inside the fed which are not allowed to be audited, IRONICALLY they are the largest and most powerful programs!
The federal reserve system has been the subject of 574 reports by the GAO over the last 45 years. (I looked that up.) More than 10 a year. 93 of them specifically related to federal reserve banks. I suspect there is some operational or financial system that has not undergone a GAO exam. I don’t know what that system is. But your claim that it was the first partial audit of the fed is easily disproved. Just go to the GAO website and you can see yourself. (The fact that you haven’t read the reports doesn’t mean they weren’t done.)
The $16 trillion that they loaned is a total number. They never had anywhere near that amount outstanding at any one time. At the end of 2010, less than 10% of that was outstanding.
They have been audited annually by external auditors related to their financial reporting and those audit reports are available to the public.
So you didn’t answer my question. Do you know what an audit is? What exactly is the scope of the audit you want? And precisely how will an audit fix things as you claimed?
November 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM #732027Guest[quote=SK in CV]
The federal reserve system has been the subject of 574 reports by the GAO over the last 45 years. (I looked that up.) More than 10 a year. 93 of them specifically related to federal reserve banks. I suspect there is some operational or financial system that has not undergone a GAO exam. I don’t know what that system is. But your claim that it was the first partial audit of the fed is easily disproved. Just go to the GAO website and you can see yourself. (The fact that you haven’t read the reports doesn’t mean they weren’t done.)The $16 trillion that they loaned is a total number. They never had anywhere near that amount outstanding at any one time. At the end of 2010, less than 10% of that was outstanding.
They have been audited annually by external auditors related to their financial reporting and those audit reports are available to the public.
So you didn’t answer my question. Do you know what an audit is? What exactly is the scope of the audit you want? And precisely how will an audit fix things as you claimed?[/quote]
You just proved my point. We have had several partial audits of the smaller parts of the FED and never ever a complete audit of everything. Don’t you remember when Ron Paul asked at the banking committee who Ben Bernanke made loans to and he said he wouldn’t tell him? Don’t you think we should know? We had a larger partial audit the last time. It is known several documents have been shredded in there. Do you support a full audit SK? A full audit means they can’t make random loans to people they randomly feel like. I’d like a free loan! How come I can’t get one, but McDonalds, Libyan President Khadifi, almost every European bank and every risky US institution that should have known better got a loan. Those same people are the biggest contributors to the Obama/Romney/Cain campaigns, don’t you see a conflict of interest?! Where’s my discount window? I’d like 100,000 @ 2% to reloan on the open market for 4% and make free monies!
November 2, 2011 at 2:48 PM #732041ParticipantDude, seriously. More than 30 years ago I got my license as an auditor. Thankfully, I’ve never done any auditing since them, but I’ve reviewed hundreds, if not thousands of audited financial statements.
My soon-to-be wonderful ex-wife is subject to semi-annual medicare and medi-cal audits, in addition to occasional audits by the state board of medical quality assurance. I just got copied on an email to my payroll administrator that my workers comp company wants to do an audit. I audit every single sales proposal that my sales department sends to customers to insure margin targets are being met. My director of technology audits his staff’s work to make sure that they maintain best practices. As does my delivery director.
There is no such thing as a complete audit. It is a practical impossibility. You provide a “complete” list and I’ll point out what you missed in a matter of moments. Audits test compliance. That’s all they do. Were rules followed. Which is why I asked you what the scope of the audit is that you want.
Some of those loans pissed me off to. I have no idea which of them (if any) were in violation of regulations. I highly doubt any of them were random.
I proved none of your points. Other than Ron Paul is perfect, and the Fed is never right, I’m not even sure you have any.
November 2, 2011 at 2:51 PM #732042swave
ParticipantIt is great that Ron Paul is willing to tell us the truth. None of the other candidates are willing to do that. Unfortunately, he does not have the solution. If we go to a gold standard, the supply of money will be fixed. If the supply of money is fixed, the economy cannot expand. If the economy cannot expand, the unemployment rate will go up.
On the other hand, the economy cannot expand exponentially forever anyway. At some point, we will run out of resources.http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/
The only realistic solution that I have seen is for the fed to accept deposits with a negative interest rate.
Sacred Economics: Chapter 12, Negative-Interest Economics (Pt. 13)
November 2, 2011 at 2:54 PM #732043Guest[quote=SK in CV]Dude, seriously. More than 30 years ago I got my license as an auditor. Thankfully, I’ve never done any auditing since them, but I’ve reviewed hundreds, if not thousands of audited financial statements.
My soon-to-be wonderful ex-wife is subject to semi-annual medicare and medi-cal audits, in addition to occasional audits by the state board of medical quality assurance. I just got copied on an email to my payroll administrator that my workers comp company wants to do an audit. I audit every single sales proposal that my sales department sends to customers to insure margin targets are being met. My director of technology audits his staff’s work to make sure that they maintain best practices. As does my delivery director.
There is no such thing as a complete audit. It is a practical impossibility. You provide a “complete” list and I’ll point out what you missed in a matter of moments. Audits test compliance. That’s all they do. Were rules followed. Which is why I asked you what the scope of the audit is that you want.
Some of those loans pissed me off to. I have no idea which of them (if any) were in violation of regulations. I highly doubt any of them were random.
I proved none of your points. Other than Ron Paul is perfect, and the Fed is never right, I’m not even sure you have any.[/quote]
Dude,
There are COMPLETE multi-trillion dollar programs that the FED does not have audited. Do you see a problem with that as an auditing expert? You don’t have a problem with the FED funding bombs used against our troops? I do, and I bet everyone else reading this blog does other than possibly you.November 2, 2011 at 2:58 PM #732044Guest[quote=swave]It is great that Ron Paul is willing to tell us the truth. None of the other candidates are willing to do that. Unfortunately, he does not have the solution. If we go to a gold standard, the supply of money will be fixed. If the supply of money is fixed, the economy cannot expand. If the economy cannot expand, the unemployment rate will go up.
On the other hand, the economy cannot expand exponentially forever anyway. At some point, we will run out of resources.http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/
The only realistic solution that I have seen is for the fed to accept deposits with a negative interest rate.
http://www.realitysandwich.com/sacred_economics_chapter_12%5B/quote%5D
This is incorrect. You can fix the money supply and some prices will drop, others will rise, but ironically the money supply wouldn’t be fixed. Gold is always being mined and the money supply will always be expanding on that standard. The point of the gold standard is the FIXED SUPPLY increase, not a fixed supply. Without that any currency gets out of control.
November 2, 2011 at 3:45 PM #732051Participant[quote=markmax33][quote=swave]It is great that Ron Paul is willing to tell us the truth. None of the other candidates are willing to do that. Unfortunately, he does not have the solution. If we go to a gold standard, the supply of money will be fixed. If the supply of money is fixed, the economy cannot expand. If the economy cannot expand, the unemployment rate will go up.
On the other hand, the economy cannot expand exponentially forever anyway. At some point, we will run out of resources.http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/
The only realistic solution that I have seen is for the fed to accept deposits with a negative interest rate.
http://www.realitysandwich.com/sacred_economics_chapter_12%5B/quote%5D
This is incorrect. You can fix the money supply and some prices will drop, others will rise, but ironically the money supply wouldn’t be fixed. Gold is always being mined and the money supply will always be expanding on that standard. The point of the gold standard is the FIXED SUPPLY increase, not a fixed supply. Without that any currency gets out of control.[/quote]
Yes, 708 tons of gold were mined in the second quarter of this year, but 919 tons of gold were used in jewelry and electronics. The total amount of gold that has been mined is 165,000 tons. The amount available to back a currency is decreasing. A better commodity to use to back a currency is the environment. Clean water, clean air and undeveloped land.I spend a lot of time swimming and surfing in the ocean. Ron Paul’s views do not encourage the maintenance of a clean ocean. I cannot afford to hire a lawyer to sue a company that has polluted the ocean.
November 2, 2011 at 3:58 PM #732055Guest[quote=swave]
Yes, 708 tons of gold were mined in the second quarter of this year, but 919 tons of gold were used in jewelry and electronics. The total amount of gold that has been mined is 165,000 tons. The amount available to back a currency is decreasing. [/quote]The value of gold would go up and fewer people would use it in jewelery and the supply would increase. People would use some other precious metal. It would not be an issue.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.