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
-
October 31, 2011 at 7:14 AM #731681October 31, 2011 at 7:20 AM #731682
markmax33
Guest[quote=walterwhite]If this whole plan is contingent on doctors volunteering free thru local churches, that would truly be amazing to see. Given the overhead the doctor will br bankrupt in 4 months. Back in the day he had to finance a little black bag with a stethescope. Now he can finance all kinds of required wondrous medical machinery. I don’t recall docs toting around an MRI machine in the 50s.
But seriously, in a world of fiat currencies, where no nation is “responsible”, is there really an advantage to the us dollar in it’s competition with other currencies for getting on a gold standard oreven acting fiscally responsible?[/quote]
There is a huge advantage to being on the gold standard. We don’t allow the fed to print fake money and bail out their friends at the cost of inflation for everyone else. In the end all fiat currencies end in massive protests and violence because the people lose all of their social services, just like what is happening in Greece. Greece is having forced intervention because they can’t print their currency, but the same things happen when the dollar defaults. We should have done what is happening in Greece and forced ourselves to deal with the pain early, because it gets worse later as the fed blows up the next financial bubble.
October 31, 2011 at 7:27 AM #731683SK in CV
Participant[quote=markmax33]
He was in the low single digits 4 years ago and now he’s around 20%. That’s a massive increase. He doesn’t have much further to go and he has a kid who can pick up where he leaves off. There is hope for this year and every year forward, you need to wake up and join the movement.[/quote]Except he’s not around 20%, he’s below 15%. Usually below 10%. Some polling only use landlines, others use both cells & landlines. And by adding 10% to Paul for what you’re considering invalid methods, you’re assuming that somehow this is a negative for Paul and a positive for the other candidates. (That might be true, but I’d like to hear the rationale for it.) Last time around his final average polling number was 6.5%, even with the newest polls, he’s still under 10%. At that rate of improvement, he may be in the fight for the nomination around 2032. When he’ll be 97. He still won’t be electable.
October 31, 2011 at 7:31 AM #731684Guest[quote=hslinger][quote=markmax33]Well Ron Paul’s either going to win the Republican nomination or win as a third party.[/quote]Want to put money on that?
Has he made any indication that he will run as a third party candidate?[/quote]
He obviously won’t announce his 3rd party intentions until he possibly doesn’t win the Republican nomination. If he is getting 20% in the real polls that aren’t land line phone calls to the 60 year old+ population, I assure you he runs again. He did it last time. He will win and has already won with bringing forward several issues to the mainstream media. They don’t fight him in interviews anymore because he slaughters them every time. When these debates get down to 4-5 candidates he will shine. He will get more time to explain his positions and force you all to think about it. His positions ALL make a TON of sense, but you haven’t heard them or been brainwashed by the mainstream media so they don’t make sense without a longer explanation and critical thinking. Trust me, it took 3 years or more of my friend banging on my hard head to finally get it!
October 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM #731686Anonymous
GuestQuestions about gold-backed currencies:
To be a true gold-standard, there would have to be some fixed amount of gold held by the government for every dollar, correct?
So, to switch to the gold standard, we would have to take the current money supply and the amount of gold the US has and figure out an exchange rate, correct?
Has Ron Paul done this math?
If we go on the gold standard, how many dollars would one get for an ounce of gold?
October 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM #731685Guest[quote=markmax33]The solution for healthcare is to return to how we did it in the 1950s. Back then there was minimal government intervention, no GOV help and EVERYBODY got taken care of.[/quote]
True, healthcare was better back then. Open-heart surgery, MRIs, and carbon-fiber hip replacements were available to everyone. Pharmacies handed out Lipitor like candy. Nobody worried about their children getting polio. Pregnant women could get an ultrasound whenever they wanted.
The 1950s was indeed the golden age. I’ve seen it in the movies. People seemed happy, life was simple.
Why were things so good back then? Clearly it was the success of the Federal Reserve. Forty years after the Fed was established, the US was thriving.
BTW: Does EVERYBODY include the colored folk?
October 31, 2011 at 8:35 AM #731689Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
He was in the low single digits 4 years ago and now he’s around 20%. That’s a massive increase. He doesn’t have much further to go and he has a kid who can pick up where he leaves off. There is hope for this year and every year forward, you need to wake up and join the movement.[/quote]Except he’s not around 20%, he’s below 15%. Usually below 10%. Some polling only use landlines, others use both cells & landlines. And by adding 10% to Paul for what you’re considering invalid methods, you’re assuming that somehow this is a negative for Paul and a positive for the other candidates. (That might be true, but I’d like to hear the rationale for it.) Last time around his final average polling number was 6.5%, even with the newest polls, he’s still under 10%. At that rate of improvement, he may be in the fight for the nomination around 2032. When he’ll be 97. He still won’t be electable.[/quote]
SK in CV,
I’m sorry but you clearly show you don’t understand polls or how polling numbers work. You can skew any system in your favor. How come Ron Paul has won more straw polls than everyone else, wins every single debate poll, even the ones linked to facebook account where you can only vote once, etc? You clearly don’t realize the “national polls” are incorrect in their methodology of only calling registered 60+ year old voters with landlines. THEY DON’T CALL CELL PHONES. He is around 20% among the republican party and if you throw in the disgruntled democrats who can’t vote he’ll easily capture another 10% from there. That doesn’t include the independents that will obviously mostly vote for him. New Hampshire has like 40% independents. That puts him at 30%+ going into the general election. The math is there, he can win. Stop spreading hate and discontent and think critically sir.October 31, 2011 at 8:49 AM #731690Guest[quote=pri_dk]
To be a true gold-standard, there would have to be some fixed amount of gold held by the government for every dollar, correct?
[/quote]Absolutely the GOV or whichever private entity is printing our money would need to hold on to gold and the money would have to be readily exchangeable for gold at their office. That’s the only way the gold standard is kept in check by the private market. The money supply would only increase based on new gold mined which has been at about the same fixed rate for the last 500 years. It happens to be a convenient check and balance, gold has a high perceived value for its weight which also works well. It can easily be made into coins too.
[quote=pri_dk]
So, to switch to the gold standard, we would have to take the current money supply and the amount of gold the US has and figure out an exchange rate, correct?
[/quote]Yes you would have to take the current money supply and divide it by the amount of gold. It would likely be a much higher figure than the current $1600/ounce or whatever we are at currently. It would then lock out inflation and the GOV’s ability to print endlessly and steal from your bank account through inflation, as our founding fathers intended and warned against. The alternative is you keep letting them print infinitely and the dollar goes to 0, your family loses everything, and we end up back on the gold standard with a new piece of paper backing it. It has happened 1000s of times in history.
[quote=pri_dk]
Has Ron Paul done this math?
[/quote]The gold supply has never been audited properly. It is well known the price of gold would increase. It will anyway with the current system.
October 31, 2011 at 9:02 AM #731692Participant[quote=markmax33]SK in CV,
I’m sorry but you clearly show you don’t understand polls or how polling numbers work. You can skew any system in your favor. How come Ron Paul has won more straw polls than everyone else, wins every single debate poll, even the ones linked to facebook account where you can only vote once, etc? You clearly don’t realize the “national polls” are incorrect in their methodology of only calling registered 60+ year old voters with landlines. THEY DON’T CALL CELL PHONES. He is around 20% among the republican party and if you throw in the disgruntled democrats who can’t vote he’ll easily capture another 10% from there. That doesn’t include the independents that will obviously mostly vote for him. New Hampshire has like 40% independents. That puts him at 30%+ going into the general election. The math is there, he can win. Stop spreading hate and discontent and think critically sir.[/quote]I’m thinking hard here. Trying to remember when a a candidate won a general election with 30% support. Hmmm….. Pretty sure the answer is never.
And no the math is not there. All pollsters do not only use land lines. Each of the last 10 polls listed on Real Clear Politics used both cell and landlines. Landline only polls (based on 2010 election results) tend to bias towards Republicans by 5-7%. If there is a bias away from Ron Paul within the Republican party on landline only polls, I’ve yet to see the evidence. But since pollsters all appear to be polling with a combination of cells/landlines, it appears to be a moot point.
Sorry that the math is so unsupportive of your dream.
October 31, 2011 at 9:03 AM #731693Guest[quote=markmax33]It would likely be a much higher figure than the current $1600/ounce or whatever we are at currently.[/quote]
How much higher?
2x higher? 10x higher?
More?
What will my wedding-band be worth after we go on the gold-standard?
Has Ron Paul done the math?
October 31, 2011 at 9:09 AM #731695Guest[quote=markmax33]The solution for healthcare is to return to how we did it in the 1950s. Back then there was minimal government intervention, no GOV help and EVERYBODY got taken care of.[/quote]
[quote=pri_dk]
True, healthcare was better back then. Open-heart surgery, MRIs, and carbon-fiber hip replacements were available to everyone. Pharmacies handed out Lipitor like candy. Nobody worried about their children getting polio. Pregnant women could get an ultrasound whenever they wanted.[/quote]You seem to be implying that our technology has improved and you are implying that GOV must intervene in a market because of improved technology. That argument doesn’t hold water. Remember the analogy of the healthcare in our modern day society that DOESN’T have GOV intervention and how the prices are dropping astronomically and the technology has improved faster? Look at breast implants, liposuction, laser liposuction, laser eye surgery, lap bands, etc. I’ll argue that laser eye surgery is as dangerous as any other surgery and it is now the simplest thing in the world and prices have probably dropped 50% in the last 5 years. It has been perfected by the free market.
[quote=pri_dk]
The 1950s was indeed the golden age. I’ve seen it in the movies. People seemed happy, life was simple.
[/quote]I think it was nice that my grandfather could work as the local Culligan water Man and still send both of his kids to college and allow my grandmother to stay home and take care of the kids. The federal reserve has driven inflation that wouldn’t be even close to possible now.
[quote=pri_dk]
Why were things so good back then? Clearly it was the success of the Federal Reserve. Forty years after the Fed was established, the US was thriving.
[/quote]The US has gone backwards in almost every major category since the Federal Reserve has been established. The founding fathers warned against a federal reserve and prohibited it. Do you think the founding fathers prohibited a federal reserve because they are idiots? They saw England’s empire failing and understood why.
[quote=pri_dk]
BTW: Does EVERYBODY include the colored folk?
[/quote]I’m sorry the north caved into the south when establishing the union and included slavery. They regretted it and went to war over the fact later. They didn’t want to do it to begin with. Not sure how this is a valid topic unless you seem to be implying that slavery allowed for cheap healthcare and subsidized the healthcare industry in a major way. That would be an erroneous argument.
October 31, 2011 at 9:12 AM #731696Guest[quote=pri_dk][quote=markmax33]It would likely be a much higher figure than the current $1600/ounce or whatever we are at currently.[/quote]
How much higher?
2x higher? 10x higher?
More?
What will my wedding-band be worth after we go on the gold-standard?
Has Ron Paul done the math?[/quote]
It’s impossible to do the math when there hasn’t been an audit. I would guess 5x-20x. It’ll be 300x in 10 years if you don’t fix it though.
October 31, 2011 at 9:15 AM #731697Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]SK in CV,
I’m sorry but you clearly show you don’t understand polls or how polling numbers work. You can skew any system in your favor. How come Ron Paul has won more straw polls than everyone else, wins every single debate poll, even the ones linked to facebook account where you can only vote once, etc? You clearly don’t realize the “national polls” are incorrect in their methodology of only calling registered 60+ year old voters with landlines. THEY DON’T CALL CELL PHONES. He is around 20% among the republican party and if you throw in the disgruntled democrats who can’t vote he’ll easily capture another 10% from there. That doesn’t include the independents that will obviously mostly vote for him. New Hampshire has like 40% independents. That puts him at 30%+ going into the general election. The math is there, he can win. Stop spreading hate and discontent and think critically sir.[/quote]I’m thinking hard here. Trying to remember when a a candidate won a general election with 30% support. Hmmm….. Pretty sure the answer is never.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that 100% divided by 3 = 33%. That is pretty simple for ya!
October 31, 2011 at 9:31 AM #731700Participant[quote=markmax33]I’m pretty sure that 100% divided by 3 = 33%. That is pretty simple for ya![/quote]
That’s good math. But it still doesn’t win an election, doesn’t get you to 270.
October 31, 2011 at 9:33 AM #731698Guest[quote=markmax33]It would likely be a much higher figure than the current $1600/ounce or whatever we are at currently.[/quote]
What hasn’t been audited?
We don’t know the money supply? (Then what are all those “M” numbers the government keeps publishing?)
Or the gold reserves?
Can we at least make an estimate using the numbers we have?
Has Ron Paul done the math?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.