End The Fed - Houston Rally with Ron Paul
Part1
Part2
Part 3
Part4
Part2
Part 3
Part4
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by I TOOK THE RED PILL on -
watch
-
Permalink Reply by Xeranar on -
I sat through most of his talk. He was wrong on every account and he's speaking to people who have no understanding of how a mixed economy works with the idea that the free market needs controls in order to avoid self-destruction. The fact he wants to dismantle it proves just how simple minded he is.
-
Permalink Reply by I TOOK THE RED PILL on
-
your in denial. the economy is leading in to self destruction right now. you need to watch money master you can find it on google video. your the one with no understanding on how the mixed economy works. right now its working in one interest the bankers.
-
Permalink Reply by Xeranar on
-
And that is why the Banks are failing?
Good lord, your argument is to tell me to watch a paranoid video made my imbeciles who don't even know the banking laws. Please tell me you have something better? Try picking up a book on the Federal Reserve or use Lexis Nexis to find the actual federal banking laws. It is beyond reproach to claim that the Federal Reserve is run by banks. It is clear they are not. 3 members of each branch are for the banks, 3 for the business, and 3 for the government. Collectively they set local standards of emergency lending.
What exactly did they do?
You need to look at the Glass-Steagall act that was repealed by Phil Gramm. Deregulation is what caused this mess. Ron Paul is beyond deregulation, he wants no regulation which is multiple times worse.
-
Permalink Reply by I TOOK THE RED PILL on
-
The fed is shit if you want to support it go ahead. presidents have fought to bring it down they knew that it was bad and now we are paying for it. and people like you support it, and think its the only way to maintain money which its not. the United States has the power to print its own money with out the debte on it. They chose not to because of who is in charge.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
... The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating. -Thomas Jefferson
History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. -James Madison
If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. -Andrew Jackson
The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. -Abraham Lincoln
Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to...provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands. - Theodore Roosevelt
Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson
Years later, reflecting on the major banks' control in Washington, President Franklin Roosevelt paid this indirect praise to his distant predecessor President Andrew Jackson, who had "killed" the 2nd Bank of the US (an earlier type of the Federal Reserve System). After Jackson's administration the bankers' influence was gradually restored and increased, culminating in the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Roosevelt knew this history.
The real truth of the matter is,as you and I know, that a financial
element in the large centers has owned the government ever since
the days of Andrew Jackson... -Franklin D. Roosevelt
(in a letter to Colonel House, dated November 21, 1933)
-
Permalink Reply by I TOOK THE RED PILL on
-
what points was he wrong on. list them
-
Permalink Reply by Xeranar on
-
You're going to make me listen to his gibberish, but fine...you want to be told the truth, lets go at it.
- The dollar doesn't need to act as gold, it is better than gold. It was also removed from the silver standard longer and yet we managed. The gold we supposedly are to base a system on is pointless, gold is as valueless as paper.
-GDP is the best way to set the value of currency since it basically grants stability based on your industrial power.
-Why does it matter if it was a sunday? Talk about pulling in the religious...or perhaps a jab at the Jewish community?
- The business community was ruined by the lack of gold backing? How?
- The printing of money has always been based on gold or some other figment of value. The standard fluctuated at will and we would devalue currency at will.
- Yes, use that new world order to prove how right you are! No world government because nobody wants to be in a democratic republic with France! Yes! Use that xenophobia Ron Paul, you'll certainly pull those votes.
- There was limited use of the continental dollar because the colonies and later the US government was weak. Printing money based on it was troublesome to trade with outside of the country.
- The founding fathers set up two central banks in a row. Each was let to lapse because they were designed with private funds as their base instead of the federal reserve system we know today. The original central banks paid out all excess funds to the share holders, our reserve pays out 6%.
- The fight between who controls the money is whether it is controlled by the government or private citizens. Government is better than private citizens.
-Jefferson removed the national bank because it was privately owned
-Andrew Jackson removed the 2nd national bank because it was privately owned.
- In 1913 a federal reserve was established. It is in fact, NOT A BANK. It is a reserve. It lends to other banks in order to keep the monetary system stable.
-The Federal Reserve did not create the excessive lifestyle people live. Reagan caused the slow decline in real wages which created the gap that caused the increase in debt.
-Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve is legally obligated to tell congress when they do a federal audit yearly. If Ron Paul asked Bernanke under oath in congress then Bernanke had to answer truthfully.
-The Federal Reserve is compounded by the law to not adopt any international standard without congressional approval.
-The law is also the constitution. I fail to see how Ron Paul separates the two.
- Telling what Bernanke said is basically hearsay but to build upon this, central banks try not to step on each other's toes so as not to create confusion within the market.
-Selling gold allows people to buy into a stable commodity. It has nothing to do with actual monetary policy and has yet to be proven any direct link to the value of the dollar when facing a depression since traditionally in a depression on gold-based money deflation happens which means that workers face radical wage cuts and businesses face collapse because they buy into long term contracts. By comparison, GDP-based money faces inflation which means long term contracts become more valuable to have. Essentially it is better to inflate than deflate because of the long-term nature of the modern economy. No longer do we buy week to week, we buy year to year, decade to decade, GDP-based money allows the currency to fluctuate with ease.
-Abused the system over gold. Bretton did not set it, in fact gold is pointless. It has no value and by dumping gold it allows them to devalue it.
-Buying gold holds no value in a modern advanced society. When your poor nation has no safe stable industry you need to maintain a strong backing in order to make your currency worth anything to other nations. Thus the poorest nations are buying gold to try and stabilize their worth.
That was just the first 10 minutes of his hogwash, I can't actually stand to listen to anymore. I imagine the next 30 minutes is roughly the same mix of populism, lies, and general racism/ethnicism that Ron Paul is so well known for.
The man is clueless, but thankfully he is fairly old so he can't live too much longer to keep spreading his bull around.
-
Permalink Reply by I TOOK THE RED PILL on
-
how is the dollar better the gold. gold is the only thing that still has vaule. and the dollar is paper
who said anything about sunday?
if you not backing the dollar by something the how can it be with something. the fed is not a Reserve its just prints money from Reserve notes. to really be able to that you need something of value like gold thats how banking was invented.
-
Permalink Reply by Xeranar on
-
how is the dollar better the gold. gold is the only thing that still has vaule. and the dollar is paper
Explain in explicit terms why gold has value over paper? The only reason we used gold and silver was their scarcity in the world. In a modern society with excess population the need to print money on GDP is evident to avoid deflation when the expansion of society takes place. Also the actual printing of money had little if anything to do with the current collaspe, it had everything to do with the stock market taking long shot bets on loans that were poorly conceived based on risk and a deregulation of the market place.
Ron Paul said it was on a sunday, didn't you hear that in the first clip? It was evidently a dig at Jews or religious people, or perhaps a claim about the markets being closed....I honestly didn't get the intent but it was some sort of attempted dig at some group.
The dollar is backed by our Gross Domestic Product. If the US does well in business in general than that is how much our money is worth. It allows the trading of money without the requirement of holding excessive gold reserves which are in fact worthless.
The concept of banking was invented in Greek or Rome depending on who you talk to. The modern banking system was never thought of by them. The standards of loaning money and saving it are very simple, the allowance of stocks and bonds complicates it.
Also, the federal reserve does not print money, the treasury does, they are called reserve notes because they're part of the reserve system of monetary rules. It was all part of the banking act of 1913. But before you reply, the treasury prints them, controls the amount that goes out, and the reserve pays the treasury for the bills.
-
Permalink Reply by lowkey on -
- The dollar doesn't need to act as gold, it is better than gold. It was also removed from the silver standard longer and yet we managed. The gold we supposedly are to base a system on is pointless, gold is as valueless as paper.
OK, the statement that paper is better than gold is completely unsupported by what you've said. If you care to make that claim, then support it.
Gold will never be as valueless as paper because it takes significantly more time and effort to find, & mine gold than it will be to produce pulp and then paper. Even if you count the growing time for trees or hemp, paper is not worth anything near gold and never will be. This is why one ounce of gold buys many ounces of paper.
However this argument is actually a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is should we have a fiat money or a commodity money.
Fiat money is based on nothing but the laws and good will towards the government. When times are good and the GDP is up the good will pushes up the value of the currency. When times are bad, the publics will goes down and so does the currency.
Commodity money is always based on a set value of a currency so the publics will is irrelevant.
Second, with fiat money the government can just print more when it needs it. This is very useful when you're at war but it results in inflation which hurts the people. Especially the poor.
-GDP is the best way to set the value of currency since it basically grants stability based on your industrial power.
This may be true for fiat currencies but it is not true for fractional or commodity currencies.
But lets focus on fiat currency since thats what we have and what you probably meant.
Basing the value on the GDP is great when times are good. However, it can magnify the negative when times are bad so it's a double edge sword. It hurts especially bad because just when you need your currency at it's strongest, it will be at it's weakest.
-Why does it matter if it was a sunday? Talk about pulling in the religious...or perhaps a jab at the Jewish community?
Yes, start with the baseless accusations of bigotry and racism that you use so often. Maybe it was just small talk with the crowd to get himself and them warmed up. People do that you know.
- The business community was ruined by the lack of gold backing? How?
I'm confused by this one as well given that so much of the business community loves the upswing that fiat currencies bring at first. I can only assume it's like the rest of the bailouts and they just don't want to pay the dues for their choices.
- The printing of money has always been based on gold or some other figment of value. The standard fluctuated at will and we would devalue currency at will.
Not true. While commodity money has been the most common form of currency throughout history, it is not the only kind. Which is why we have terms for commodity and fractional money.
Examples of Fiat Currencies in History:
A. S'ung Dynasty was the first to issue paper money. While in principle it was redeemable for gold, this was never allowed so it practice it was a fiat money. Inflation became rampant because they didn't retire old bills and the notes fell out of favor.
B. Bills of Credit in the 18th and 19th century. Provincial governments issued this to pay for the things they needed with the commitment that they would accept them back as payment for taxes. Eventually they depreciated dramatically in many colonies.
C. Continental issued by the US Congress under the Articles of Confederation.
D. Paper ducats in Napoleonic era Vienna. This fiat currency traded at 100:1 for its commodity cousin the gold ducat.
(Source: Wikipedia)
- Yes, use that new world order to prove how right you are! No world government because nobody wants to be in a democratic republic with France! Yes! Use that xenophobia Ron Paul, you'll certainly pull those votes.
Yes imply that resistance to a one world government is on purely racist and bigoted terms.
It may just be that people realize that there are only 300M Americans and in a one world government we would be out voted on every issue. It's protectionism for our culture. Not too different from the protectionism you say you support for businesses.
- There was limited use of the continental dollar because the colonies and later the US government was weak. Printing money based on it was troublesome to trade with outside of the country.
There was limited use of the Continental because it lost value faster than you could relay the news across the Atlantic so no one wanted to trust it.
In part this was due to its nature as a mostly fiat currency from a struggling newly founded nation with no GDP to speak of. It just wasn't a desirable currency and overprinting it didn't help.
- The fight between who controls the money is whether it is controlled by the government or private citizens. Government is better than private citizens
You provide no evidence for this claim. Please back it up since it is crucial to your argument.
-Jefferson removed the national bank because it was privately owned
No, according to his own words he removed it because:
"I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
(Source: Wikipedia)
If you know of some other sources, please provide them.
-Andrew Jackson removed the 2nd national bank because it was privately owned.
Actually wrong again. Andrew Jackson was very clear why he was against a Central Bank. In his veto, he stated:
* It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution. * It exposed the government to control by foreign interests. * It served mainly to make the rich richer.
(Source: Wikipedia)
* It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
* It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.
- In 1913 a federal reserve was established. It is in fact, NOT A BANK. It is a reserve. It lends to other banks in order to keep the monetary system stable.
If the FED is actually a reserve then it should be simple to say how much it holds in reserve and what the limits are on what it can loan the member banks. Please provide those numbers or it's not a reserve.
For example, Fort Knox is a reserve and we know that there is 147.3 million ounces of gold held within.
This question of what limits there are on the FED's lending are especially important, given the fact that the current rate of loans is at 1900x the weekly average for the last three years (source: Bloomberg).
-The Federal Reserve did not create the excessive lifestyle people live. Reagan caused the slow decline in real wages which created the gap that caused the increase in debt.
Provide evidence of the "decline in real wages".
From Wikipedia, the median income of 15 yrs old and older who have non-zero income (all figures in 2004 dollars):
1980: $27206
1990: $28439
2000: $31089
2004: $30513
Where is the slow decline in "real wages"? Looks like an increase to me.
-Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve is legally obligated to tell congress when they do a federal audit yearly. If Ron Paul asked Bernanke under oath in congress then Bernanke had to answer truthfully.
-The Federal Reserve is compounded by the law to not adopt any international standard without congressional approval.
-The law is also the constitution. I fail to see how Ron Paul separates the two.
Provide sources. Please.
-Selling gold allows people to buy into a stable commodity. It has nothing to do with actual monetary policy and has yet to be proven any direct link to the value of the dollar when facing a depression since traditionally in a depression on gold-based money deflation happens which means that workers face radical wage cuts and businesses face collapse because they buy into long term contracts. By comparison, GDP-based money faces inflation which means long term contracts become more valuable to have. Essentially it is better to inflate than deflate because of the long-term nature of the modern economy. No longer do we buy week to week, we buy year to year, decade to decade, GDP-based money allows the currency to fluctuate with ease.
Inflation means the dollars that you were promised today are worth less tomorrow. Inflation is good for the person paying not the receiver. It makes a long term contract at a fixed rate worth less over time and less valuable.
If you promise to pay me $8M over 10 years and inflation was 10% over that period then I would have to be paid $8.8M just to stay even. Your premise is broken.
-Buying gold holds no value in a modern advanced society. When your poor nation has no safe stable industry you need to maintain a strong backing in order to make your currency worth anything to other nations. Thus the poorest nations are buying gold to try and stabilize their worth.
No, if the gold backed currency is good for a small nation you can also see how it would be good for others.
No commodity currencies tend to produce slower growth in the GDP than when fiat currencies are used but remember what goes up must come down and when you soar higher with a fiat currency then you have further to fall.
Given the number of factual mistakes in your answer, I wonder who is the clueless one.
-
Permalink Reply by lowkey on
-
If he's so wrong, it should have been easy for you to give a few examples and explain why they're wrong.
But you never seem to do that, you just say he's simple minded or stupid. If you're going to keep making the claim, you really should back it up with facts and sources.
-
Permalink Reply by Xeranar on
-
Psst, I did so...But you posted that before I posted my exposition on why he is in fact a moron.
By the way, the Federal Reserve doesn't print money, the Treasury prints money. In fact the Treasury is the sole actor in printing and distributing money and they are a member of the Federal government.
Why do people seem so confused by the facts of reality?
Groups
-
Baltimore, MD
17 members
-
Oklahoma City, OK
22 members
-
Wisconsin Towns
38 members
-
Dallas, TX
32 members
© 2010 Created by Fight With Tools
