Ron Paul - Going the Distance

[MdKnightR]

Here's a new video from the only true statesman in the race for President!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMliyeIDp4

 

Comments and debate welcome!

[mimartin]

Thank you, MdknightR, thanks to your title of this tread I now have Cake's "The Distance" repeating in my head.

 

He is a good man and has some good ideas, yet I still can’t get past his more insane ideas.

[mur'phon]

gold standard anyone?

[MdKnightR]

Would you care to elaborate your position on why we shouldn't return to the gold standard?

[mur'phon]

'cause I'm tired, if you want my personall stance, you'll have to wait until tomorrow.

[mimartin]

Would you care to elaborate your position on why we shouldn't return to the gold standard?

Well since 2007, China is the worlds largest producer of gold.

 

Of course, with us selling our debt to other countries, I don't see much difference if China owns us this way or by buying our debt.

[Web Rider]

Well since 2007, China is the worlds largest producer of gold.

 

Of course, with us selling our debt to other countries, I don't see much difference if China owns us this way or by buying our debt.

 

Since 2007? That's not exactly an amazing feat. I mean, that gives them...a year? yay.

[mimartin]

Since 2007? That's not exactly an amazing feat. I mean, that gives them...a year? yay.

Well I was about to write South Africa, before I checked the facts.

[Totenkopf]

Would you care to elaborate your position on why we shouldn't return to the gold standard?

 

Well since 2007, China is the worlds largest producer of gold.

 

Of course, with us selling our debt to other countries, I don't see much difference if China owns us this way or by buying our debt.

 

Some of the problems with this line of thinking are that you don't define what largest producer translates into as a share of total production. Not to mention that it the US went back on the gold standard, it would behoove the PRC not to screw with the value of the dollar until they could completely divest themselves of US holdings, lest they were willing to take a huge writeoff/hit vs their own economy.

[mimartin]

Now you are going to make me sound like the paranoid right. However, if they had a chance to ruin our economy and become the only world superpower, would they? Let us think about world demand for oil. If we were in completion of said oil supply with China, would they wreck our economy in order to procure the oil for themselves? That is going to become a concern in the near future.

 

The next question is why would they have to divest themselves of U.S. holdings? Under the “Gold Standard”, the U.S. dollar would back be up by gold. Why not just covert the dollars to gold and then all you have to do is give gold time to regain its value. In the mean time, you have bankrupted America and destroyed the American government without firing a shot. Oh, and if you say you cannot covert dollars to gold, then you are not really on the "Gold Standard."

 

1. China 275 Tons 2007

2. South Africa – Don’t know – but logic will say it is more than the U.S., but less than China.

3. Australia – Don’t know – more than U.S., but less than South Africa.

4. United States – just less than 250 Tons 2007

5. Russia - little more than 150 tons 2007

[Web Rider]

Now you are going to make me sound like the paranoid right. However, if they had a chance to ruin our economy and become the only world superpower, would they? Let us think about world demand for oil. If we were in completion of said oil supply with China, would they wreck our economy in order to procure the oil for themselves? That is going to become a concern in the near future.

 

The problem with divesting themselves from the US is namely that China has trouble feeding it's population. It relies heavily on food imports since currently it's like, 5/8ths of an acre to a person. The US provides much of that food, especially wheat. Heck, we provide wheat to MOST of the world.

 

Additionally, the US is the foremost importer of Chinese goods. Europe builds it's own cars, builds higher quality goods, and generally just buys a lot less. The US literally devours everything that comes out of China.

 

China would need to radically alter it's economy to either be more for it's own support or to better fit the desires of the rest of the world.

 

Additionally, "super-power" status comes with lots, and lots of light. And a government like China would have an easier time conquering the world(which would be very difficult(read: impossible) if they lost their food imports) than dealing with the entire world watching their every move and every transgression like it does for the US.

[Totenkopf]

Now you are going to make me sound like the paranoid right. However, if they had a chance to ruin our economy and become the only world superpower, would they? Let us think about world demand for oil. If we were in completion of said oil supply with China, would they wreck our economy in order to procure the oil for themselves? That is going to become a concern in the near future.

 

The next question is why would they have to divest themselves of U.S. holdings? Under the “Gold Standard”, the U.S. dollar would back be up by gold. Why not just covert the dollars to gold and then all you have to do is give gold time to regain its value. In the mean time, you have bankrupted America and destroyed the American government without firing a shot. Oh, and if you say you cannot covert dollars to gold, then you are not really on the "Gold Standard."

 

1. China 275 Tons 2007

2. South Africa – Don’t know – but logic will say it is more than the U.S., but less than China.

3. Australia – Don’t know – more than U.S., but less than South Africa.

4. United States – just less than 250 Tons 2007

5. Russia - little more than 150 tons 2007

 

I don't disagree with the notion that the PRC might work toward bringing the US down, just that it's a longer term strategy due to it's current symbiosis with the US economy.

[SilentScope001]

Anyone actually listen to PRC's properganda?! They state that they want to be a peaceful rise to be a superpower! Peaceful! They aren't interested in competing with the US.

 

Sheesh. Not to say I'm not a part of the paranoid right, but I rather that we stop being too paranoid of China and just be afraid that China finally can contest us.

[Totenkopf]

Do you believe everything said by politicians?

[MdKnightR]

'cause I'm tired' date=' if you want my personall stance, you'll have to wait until tomorrow.[/quote']

 

 

I'll take a queue from you...just because I'm tired...."What's Inflation" by Walter Williams Professor of Economics at George Mason University.

[Totenkopf]

Say, didn't he buy his wife a vacuum cleaner (or something practical) for her bday? I've actually heard him on the radio, he's priceless. As regards inflation, though, don't you love it how the govt ensures us that inflation is under control.... all the while refusing to factor in food and fuel prices.

[mur'phon]

I'll take a queue from you...just because I'm tired...."What's Inflation" by Walter Williams Professor of Economics at George Mason University.

 

I actually consider a little inflation a good thing, discourages hoarding. And while I agree that the govt shouldn't be able to indirectly steal, Isn't the federal bank suposed to be mostly independent?

 

As an aside, my stance on the gold standard is based on what it could do to my own country. I should have known better than to discredit it outright. Thank you for getting me interested, *starts studdying*.

 

As regards inflation, though, don't you love it how the govt ensures us that inflation is under control.... all the while refusing to factor in food and fuel prices.

 

They don't No wonder you apear to have litle trust in your govt.

[mimartin]

I seriously don't believe that what I described would happen, but I will defend what I wrote. I just don’t like the idea of giving other nations that much power over our economy, but like I wrote earlier, we are already giving up that power by selling our debt to other nations and I did not even mention our continued dependence on foreign oil.

The problem with divesting themselves from the US is namely that China has trouble feeding it's population.

First China would not be using nuclear weapons to destroy us, so I would think that unless we are in the middle of another drought, like during the great depression, that the people within the U.S. will still be able to produce food. Actually considering what the unemployment rate would be, we would actually have the ability to produce more food due to the increase in the workforce willing to do that type of labor.

 

Additionally, the US is the foremost importer of Chinese goods. Europe builds it's own cars, builds higher quality goods, and generally just buys a lot less. The US literally devours everything that comes out of China.[/Quote]We consistly hear about emerging markets in Africa, also I am fairly confident China’s share of the middle eastern markets would increase dramatically being the nation that took down the great Satan.

 

China would need to radically alter it's economy to either be more for it's own support or to better fit the desires of the rest of the world.[/Quote]They would automatically get the support of much of the Muslim world, at least until they became the “next” great Satan. Like I wrote above the people of the former superpower America would be still willing to supply them food as we would still need goods and the barter system would be available to us.

Additionally, "super-power" status comes with lots, and lots of light. And a government like China would have an easier time conquering the world(which would be very difficult(read: impossible) if they lost their food imports) than dealing with the entire world watching their every move and every transgression like it does for the US.

Well since I believe food imports would not be a major problem and may even be cheaper and easier. I also believe the cost of fuel would decrease without the completion for limited resources with the United States. As to the world watching, I haven’t seen the U.S. overly worried about that in recent years.

 

I don't disagree with the notion that the PRC might work toward bringing the US down, just that it's a longer term strategy due to it's current symbiosis with the US economy.

I agree, but I also believe it would take some help and that would be what would slow down the process. China could not flood the world market with gold without allies. Russia would be the logical choice, even though that would probably not be enough, but China, Russia relationship is not the best throughout history.

Sheesh. Not to say I'm not a part of the paranoid right, but I rather that we stop being too paranoid of China and just be afraid that China finally can contest us.

I’m not paranoid, I was only giving an example of why I believe the “gold standard” is not a good idea.

 

I understand why people actually find it intriguing, but I believe we should hold our government officials accountable instead of creating barriers to prevent them from doing things they should not do. Why should we need a balance budget amendment, when that is just common sense? The “gold standard” prevents the government from just printing money, but should they really be doing that? While I do like that aspect of it, I don’t like the artificial control it could gives other countries over our economy. Then again, we are already giving them that control now.

[Web Rider]

First China would not be using nuclear weapons to destroy us, so I would think that unless we are in the middle of another drought, like during the great depression, that the people within the U.S. will still be able to produce food. Actually considering what the unemployment rate would be, we would actually have the ability to produce more food due to the increase in the workforce willing to do that type of labor.

I never said, nor implied they would. And most wheat is harvested and planted with large machinery, not by hand. Our wheat production would fall several fold if we were to switch from harvesting and planting with machines to by hand.

 

We consistly hear about emerging markets in Africa, also I am fairly confident China’s share of the middle eastern markets would increase dramatically being the nation that took down the great Satan.

The middle east and Africa would have to have an Americanly styled desire for quickly trashed goods. If Americans didn't buy so much new crap so often, we'd be importing a lot less from China.

 

They would automatically get the support of much of the Muslim world, at least until they became the “next” great Satan. Like I wrote above the people of the former superpower America would be still willing to supply them food as we would still need goods and the barter system would be available to us.

China already has the support of the Muslim world. Chinese construction companies pay workers 1 dollar or less per hours to build such Arabic icons as the Burj Dubai. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be real quick to ship tons of wheat to China while knowing we're being totally screwed by them.

 

Well since I believe food imports would not be a major problem and may even be cheaper and easier. I also believe the cost of fuel would decrease without the completion for limited resources with the United States. As to the world watching, I haven’t seen the U.S. overly worried about that in recent years.

The US does bow to international pressure on many issues, perhaps less so with the current administration. China tells the world to piss off.

 

If the cost of fuel became cheaper, then the US economy might go back up and then it would be expensive again. And back and forth we go. Opec controls the prices, supplies are often fixed even when production could be higher to generate higher prices.

[mimartin]

I never said, nor implied they would. [/Quote] I did not say you did, just pointing out that land would still be available.

And most wheat is harvested and planted with large machinery, not by hand. Our wheat production would fall several fold if we were to switch from harvesting and planting with machines to by hand.[/Quote] I never said, nor implied that they would not use machines. I just said there would be more man power available. Just because the economy and the government is no longer functional does not mean machinery suddenly stops working (See Iraq, guns still work over there).

The middle east and Africa would have to have an Americanly styled desire for quickly trashed goods. If Americans didn't buy so much new crap so often, we'd be importing a lot less from China.[/Quote] Agreed. China may actually have to start producing crap that people want.

I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be real quick to ship tons of wheat to China while knowing we're being totally screwed by them. [/Quote] Not necessarily, remember we have no real government, no real economy. If we want certain thing we would have no choice but to trade with China. After all, if the dollar was worthless, the “people’s currency” may not look so bad. Principals are great, but survival can be a greater victory.

The US does bow to international pressure on many issues, perhaps less so with the current administration. China tells the world to piss off.[/Quote] I will not go there, tempted, but I want. I’ll just say I agree.

If the cost of fuel became cheaper, then the US economy might go back up and then it would be expensive again. And back and forth we go. Opec controls the prices, supplies are often fixed even when production could be higher to generate higher prices.

How? If our currency is worthless, how would our economy go up? I mean the only way this would work is with a world glut of the gold to devalue the dollar. So how are we even going to take advantage of the price reduction of oil, when we have nothing to purchase the oil with? Under the gold standard only supply and demand of gold matters to the value of the currency, how would a price reduction in oil affect the supply or the demand of gold?

[Totenkopf]

Well, it sort of begs the question: "What commodity (or principle even) would you peg the $US to in order to keep the monetarists from wrecking the economy with even gradual inflation?"