259 responses to “Ron Paul on Gold vs. the Dollar”

  1. UEBERNERD

    Mathematically Perfect Economy, MPE, Jack, I struggled through M.Montagne's website. Is the bottom line: "eradicate interest" or is that too simple or am I wrong?

    BTW: Non-Euclidean geometry is not useless, it is the foundation of Einstein''s General Relativity Theory and that one is spot on.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    1. fred the protectionist

      Non-Euclidean geometry is useless until you convert it back into Euclidean geometry.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      1. longshotlouie

        You have made wasting motion a new art form.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        1. fred the protectionist

          Why do you hate math? What has math ever done to you?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        2. longshotlouie

          The mathematics is irrelevant to your wasting of motion.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  2. jack

    Most people can't give you a good definition of money — a definition which holds; and a definition which serves them.

    Yet if we ask the questions which develop a fully accountable answer, we readily arrive at a fact that the only definition of money which can inflict no offense whatever, is a currency which comprises immutable tokens of value.

    In fact likewise, most people do intuit that money IS a relatively immutable token of value — not understanding how the exceptions are engendered, or how the exceptions offend them. In other words, they recognize that immutability is a vital object; they likewise recognize that immutability of a promissory note is even vital to its facts of contractual obligation; but they do not recognize that one and one only monetary prescription makes good on this indispensable object of immutable tokenization of value.

    Both to tokenize value and to immutably tokenize value nonetheless are only TO REPRESENT not only however many different products, but necessarily, to likewise represent the volumes of such products, or we fail to keep the ostensible 1:1 relationship between circulatory volume and remaining value of all products, which is necessary to immutable value.

    The only way to immutably tokenize value therefore is if the units of value of the circulation are immutably linked to the remaining value of ALL represented property (not just to one or several of MANY products); and thus likewise, the remaining volume of units of circulation must at all times equal the volume of remaining value of the ALL the products which the circulation is intended to represent, or we fail to keep these principles. In fact then, the only way to maintain these equal volumes is to pay the value of the represented property out of circulation as the value of the property is perceived to be consumed, or to depreciate. The only way you can do this of course, is if we pay monetary obligations comprised only of principal, at the rate of depreciation or consumption of all represented properties.

    Volume of circulation must likewise equal remaining volume of all represented property. Franklin observed in his "Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency," that the colonists prospered substantially more when they supplemented their circulation of precious metal with paper currency (certain implementations of which were debatably subject to interest). He postulated that some prospective extent of such supplementation might be excessive; and that it might have negative consequences. But nonetheless he noted (evidently then because they never reached such a limit) that the additional circulation of paper currency sustained substantially greater prosperity.

    Why?

    They must therefore have suffered previously from an effectively deflated circulation. But simple questions thus resolve Franklin's curiosity:

    If the circulation is to represent (tokenize) value, then if the circulation were ever to exceed the volume of the remaining value of all property, then someone would have received circulation for nothing. Such an excessive, "inflated" circulation however would be impossible, if in fact all promissory notes (of principal only) are legitimately collateralized.

    Likewise however, if the effective volume of circulation is ever less than the volume of represented property, then it is impossible to trade all property all at once; and someone will not have received and persisted in just reward for their production.

    So, an "effective," just circulation must at all times equal the remaining value of ALL production ("productS").

    A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible.

    1. The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property.

    2. The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property.

    3. Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property (subject to promissory obligations), the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency.

    These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected economy™; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.

    But our question asks if money is a product? Essentially, this is to ask if it MUST be a product in order to serve these vital purposes of a just currency, which of course must eradicate all potential for systemic offense.

    We can see however, even on an abstract level, that the concept of tokenization can only go awry if the need for tokenization must account for all products, and the concept of tokenization requires A product or a few productS to do so. Yet even according to the concept of tokenization itself, the token is distinct from the product itself — unless to be an immutable token of value, "money" must actually exist in the physical form or instances of some such "product." In other words, if just/"honest" money IS a product; how then and why would argue this restrictive concept of A product or productS? How can either case serve the objects of volume equaling the volume of ALL products, if money "must" be A product or productS; and if the volume of THE product or productS must yet equate to the volume of ALL products?

    In fact, given the aforesaid observations, we readily recognize that nothing but ALL products CAN so represent all products; and the only reason folks like the Austrian "economists" are trying to insist on A product (or productS) for their obfuscated claim to tokenization, is they refuse to acknowledge the very principles they pretend their ONE or few productS somehow uphold — and yet are proven not to uphold.

    As Franklin likewise observes, never did their precious metal monetary standards result in actual consistent values of money; and the reasons are evident in these principles: There is no perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation: remaining value of represented property: and obligation, because the Austrians refuse to recognize that the only mathematic course to this perpetual relationship is to pay off promissory notes comprising obligations of principal only, at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property — with the payments thus retiring the circulation as the value of the property itself is consumed. In fact, only promissory notes of principal, paid at this obligatory schedule of payment CAN accomplish these purposes; and do so even without regulation.

    Thus we readily understand the problems of gold, which itself in fact perpetually violates our necessarily perpetual 1:1:1 relationship; and which further violates these principles when it coexists with interest, which perpetually disposes ever more of the circulation to servicing a perpetually multiplying sum of artificial debt — leaving ever less of the same circulation to sustain commerce.

    Thus the answer to the original question is that money CANNOT BE A product, if it is to be an immutable token of value, because A product, in which the resultant circulation would ostensibly be redeemable, ITSELF cannot represent All products! Thus it cannot provide a perpetual 1:1 relationship between volume of circulation and redeemability which purportedly eliminates subversion of value. Effectively, the Austrians (and others) claim virtues of gold which do not exist, while the principles they exalt instead would endorse only mathematically perfected economy™, because the only currency which CAN accomplish this purpose of making the circulation effectively not A product, but in fact at all times ACTUALLY REDEEMABLE in ALL products, is mathematically perfected economy™ — which alone therefore, immutably tokenizes all products represented by the circulation, and in such a way that the circulation is always redeemable in the very scope and volume of products it was from the beginning, intended to represent.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  3. jack

    Mathematically Perfected Economy is offering real solution.

    Mathematically perfected economy is a currency not subject to interest, comprising a debt financing all permissible enterprise, paid by each and every debtor exactly as they consume of the associated production.
    There is no inflation or deflation, as the currency in circulation is always equal to the current value of existent production across however much of the economy is supported by a circulation.
    Neither the value of money or assets are altered by changing proportions of circulation to indebted assets or services. The value of the money is always consistent in quantity — both in earnability and spendability — with the remaining value of the indebted assets which exist, for which it was issued, and which constitute its immutable value.
    The remaining circulation is always sufficient to pay off debt. Further production therefore is not impeded by a deficient circulation, deplenished by paying more than what circulation was introduced to finance the production.
    Debt is not multiplied beyond the circulation or remaining value of indebted assets. To pay debt obligations exceeding the remaining value of indebted assets sets off a perpetual cycle of re-borrowing and multiplication of debt. Merely to maintain a circulation, we must borrow again so much as we have paid beyond the original circulation which was equal only to the unmultiplied debt.
    Neither production or consumption are impeded by imposition of extrinsic cost. In every transaction, production is traded for equal production.
    So long as we make such a circulation available to production, no impediment, limitation, or inequity whatever are imposed upon production or commerce. Production and commerce are fully expedited only by a completely liquid and effectual currency.
    Mathematically perfected economy is no more than a singular prescription, dissolving unjust intervention.

    http://endtheecb.ning.com/video/mathematically-perfected

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  4. jack

    As this is the very set of principles -- and the only set of principles which ensure the immutable value of money across its lifespan -- a perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining value, remaining *obligation*, and currency in circulation -- what the f is an "Austrian economist" doing complaining about the preservation of value of money, that they can take unearned and unjustified profit? Well... obviously, that's the point of being an "Austrian economist" -- and it's just why they argue so ignorantly, and reject all accountable argument -- because it comes back to their lack of principle.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  5. Citizen

    It's interesting how this topic has generated so many responses, nearly 5 times the average for this site.
    A Gold Standard is not the solution; rather ending Fractional Reserve banking where Banks, the FED in particular, create money out of thin air is the direct corollary to the dilemma of inflation. Keynes postulates that we can simply artificially increase the supply of money and it will create demand (out of thin air) by an artificial boost… Stimulus Spending.
    If this were true, then Ben should simply recommend sending every American family a five million dollar check and all would be solved, no more pain and suffering! WRONG!!!
    It has not worked nor will it ever work. M. Keynes General Theory ignores the problem of Scarce Resource, printing more money doesn’t create more material goods or service, it simply raises Demand and forces prices up on the Limited Scarce Supply side. Assuming every family gets $5M dollars, bread would soon be selling for $200 a loaf or more! Like the 1925 Weimar Republic.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. fred the protectionist

      Fractional Reserve banking is banking. You get rid of that, you might as well just shut down all the banks.

      I'm all for it. Banks are not a necessary evil, they produce nothing of value.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      1. jack

        The people criticise the fact that governments pay interest for the use of their own money which the central bank creates "out of nothing" (to use William Paterson's famous phrase). This leaves the state of a nation's economy susceptible to the interests of private bankers who create the money solely for the purpose of creating ongoing profits for their employees and shareholders, without any other binding social or legal obligations to the broader community (or future generations) that are normally expected from government entities.

        We don´t need banks under MPE. They in fact are the biggest problem in today´s society. Let´s kick´m out together with the Austrians...

        http://www.perfecteconomy.com/

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        1. longshotlouie

          Smells like socialism.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        2. fred the protectionist

          Uh oh the boogeyman socialism.

          You do realize socialism simply means Social Engineering by using the Tools of Government. In the most literal meaning of the word Libertarians and even Anarchists are socialists.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. longshotlouie

          What I understand is that you worship The State, while making inane comments.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        4. fred the protectionist

          you YOU Anarchist.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        5. longshotlouie

          You've already forgotten? It's anarcho-capitalist.
          Anarcho-capitalist Libertarian Christian to be more precise.

          Try a B-complex.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        6. fred the protectionist

          Christians can never be Libertarian or "anarchist". Christianity requires you to use logic and a minimum amount of compassion, Libertarians lack both in totality.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        7. EndtheFed

          According to Fred, believeing in invisible men in the sky is "logic".

          AHAHAH

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        8. fred the protectionist

          BWAAHAHAHAHAa haha haha hah... *sigh*

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        9. fred the protectionist

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5BKX3QCjk0

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. jack

    You presume this is my first experience with Austrians, and that I might not be sufficiently aware of their ideas that my observations of their lack of manners hold. Their ideas are bankrupt. They routinely dismiss all logic. They have no arguments; they merely cite one another as if they’re a coalition which has agreed not to step on each others’ toes so they can all pretend expertise.

    Even conventional “economics,” which is itself a facade, rejects Austrian School dogma; and so routinely do they abort logic, that over my 20 years experience with them, logic, courtesy, discipline, true critical thinking, and an interest in the truth… if any of these fly out the window… it’s a strong sign there may be Austrians around.

    See all the Austrian works on interest, if you don’t believe me, which are cited by my invalidations of Austrian dogma. There isn’t word of principle in the whole of their treatises on interest. By “free market” they mean “arena of predation” as much as any other enemy of the people.

    Maybe I didn’t drop the debate in time for you, but if you have a principle in mind which would have pleased you more than stirring their potty back for fun, lay it on me. That’s a pretty damn wicked place for a purported economic institute. I have no faith in their works, and have yet to behold any even worth knowing of.

    What’s more, I see no reason to take the quality of the posts as examples of the quality of the school of thought, for no one there asked for the standards to be raised.

    What they’re up to is obvious.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  7. Citizen

    HEY ALL
    This Friday June 4th, 2010 the market took a 3.5% nose dive
    Gold went UP 2%!

    Hey Fred and Forest, please don't buy gold,
    leave that to US Free Market Libertarians

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    1. fred the protectionist

      I urge all Libertarians to sink everything they have into Gold.

      C'mon do it, do it do it.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

      1. Lilly

        You must be our Sunday morning extremist.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        1. fred the protectionist

          It is extreme to ask the Libertarians to put their fiat dollars where their mouths are?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        2. SS

          Fred,

          Your posts are like a spinning top of misdirected rage.
          Is that what you were going for?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

        3. EndtheFed

          The thing that is extreme is the extent to which you exaggerate the position of libertarians.

          For example, when a libertarian recommends gold as an investment, it doesn't mean they are telling you to invest everything you have into gold -- that assumption would be considered 'taking it to the extreme'.

          People who can comprehend the intended message understand that the libertarian is simply recognizing that by holding something that is negatively correlated with the dollar, you can effectively reduce risk. Gold happens to be negatively correlated with the dollar.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        4. fred the protectionist

          "For example, when a libertarian recommends gold as an investment, it doesn’t mean they are telling you to invest everything you have into gold — that assumption would be considered ‘taking it to the extreme’. "

          It is not extreme to call out a hypocrite.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        5. longshotlouie

          Sorry guys, Fled does not recognize his own extremist statements. At least not publicly.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        6. fred the protectionist

          Go ahead, sink every fiat dollar you got into Gold. C'mon do it, do it do it do it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        7. EndtheFed

          You obviously don't understand what diversification of risk means.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        8. fred the protectionist

          "You obviously don’t understand what diversification of risk means."

          If the whole world is on the magical 'gold standard' then there is no 'diversification'. You don't 'diversify' money, oh me oh my.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        9. EndtheFed

          We're not on a "magical" gold standard.

          We're referring to reality.

          Again, it is obvious you don't understand the point of diversifying risk, or else you would recognize gold as a hedge against the dollar.

          Look up "negative correlation" in your encyclopedia (google).

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        10. longshotlouie

          He still cannot recognize that each of his statements are extremism.

          The concept eludes him.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        11. Forest

          Nor does this statement carry any weight at all, which you cannot seem to realize:

          EndtheFed clings to a flasehood: "or else you would recognize gold as a hedge against the dollar."

          www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Gold/Gold_inflation_chart.htm

          Hmm... "And, it should be pointed out, gold has lost ground to inflation from its 1980 peak of $850 to now. Adjusted for inflation, $850 in 1980 would be $2,221. Those who bought gold during the last inflation scare are still waiting for the big payoff."

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        12. fred the protectionist

          "it is obvious you don’t understand the point of diversifying risk"

          Well according to you there's no risk in gold, gold is perfect, gold is god; make a calf out of it; so no need to "diversify".

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        13. fred the protectionist

          "extremism."

          It's not extreme to wonder if you put your fiat dollars where your mouth is.

          *eyes left*
          *eyes right*

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        14. EndtheFed

          Marching out that tired example again huh?

          You do realize that $850 was one of the highest gold prices ever until it's recent surge. In fact, gold closed at around $600 per ounce in 1980.

          Adjusted for inflation, $35 dollars spent in 1971 is like spending $180 in today's terms.

          1200-180=1020

          A one thousand dollar increase on a $180 investment is not too bad. Especially when the point of buying gold is to hedge your dollar-denominated investments -- MEANING that you invest dollars, and you reduce potential losses by holding negatively correlated gold.

          I.E:
          If we both made the same investment in 1980 into the stock market but I made some additional investment into gold, I would have a higher net return than you. This is because the gold price in dollars increases as the dollar depreciates.

          "Diversification of risk", and "negative correlation". Look them up.

          Or, stay blissfully unaware. It makes no difference to me.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      2. Citizen

        You've really missed the entire point,
        Gold isn't going up in price, its the FRNs going down in purchasing value.
        Two economic principals at work here
        FRNs are becoming worth-less as the FED churns them out by the box car train load

        Supply (FRNs) exceeds the Demand (people willing to hold them), FRNs value diminishes (inflation) Soon they can be used to start your barbecue, like so many world fiat paper currencies in the past.

        Demand for (Gold / Silver) a hard commodity that is increasing for its Store of Value, Supply is diminishing therefore buyers are willing to pay more FRNs for the SCARCE and desirable commodity for its FUTURE purchasing value.

        The laws of Economics are akin to the laws of nature, they are immutable. When the FRNs are blowing down the street like autumn leaves, no one will bother to bend over to pick them up. You just hold on to your FRNs and good luck!

        Unrestrained currency expansion ultimately results in worthless currency.
        The FED is simply the conduit to that final end. WORTHLESS DOLLARS

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        1. SS

          And, it's not an accident.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        2. fred the protectionist

          "You’ve really missed the entire point,
          Gold isn’t going up in price, its the FRNs going down in purchasing value.
          Two economic principals at work here
          FRNs are becoming worth-less as the FED churns them out by the box car train load"

          Really? Then where's the inflation?

          And if there's no inflation, then where's the harm?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    2. jack

      The "Austrian school" seems to attract the brain dead -- like non-Euclidean geometry. It has no use, because it doesn't even have a fundamental principle which equates to economy -- much less proof of one. Take the baseball bat to "Austrian economists." We should decorate the neighborhood with them -- swinging from every tree.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

      1. SS

        So the Keynesians drive the train off of the track and some idiot wants to go after the Austrians?
        Yepper, it must be those damn Austrians, that were never in authority, that screwed the pooch.

        wow, INGSOC Rules!!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        1. jack

          The Austrians routinely reject mathematics; and they in fact exalt interest — the very cause of failure (not debt)!
          The reason nonetheless that Austrians and Hayek in particular exalt interest (with no mathematic or rational defense whatever), Hayek himself tells us: It makes “banking” (obfuscating the promissory notes of the people) “an extremely profitable business.” (See Mises page, reproducing Hayek’s article: “A Free-market Monetary System.”)
          “Freedom” is Hayek’s first lie, for there is no freedom even from terminal exploitation, when the purported “Free Market Monetary System” is imposed upon the people despite political promises to the contrary, and when it can only multiply artificial indebtedness in proportion to capacity to pay, as the unassenting subjects are forced to maintain a vital circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as ever greater sums of artificial debt, perpetually increased so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt, until of course the sum of artificial indebtedness exceeds their (finite) capacity to pay, destroys their credit-worthiness to maintain a vital circulation — and you have what you have right now, everywhere around you.
          That’s freedom, Mr. Austrian “economists?”
          In fact the lie of your pretended economy can only multiply artificial cost!
          Now, to say you predicted the present failure, even as it is the one possible fundamental consequence of the interest you advocate — that is one of the greatest lies in history.
          But it won’t fly.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        2. jack

          Why Austrians advocate higher interest without even indulging in the math which would be indispensable to proving we benefit from some ostensibly legitimate rate of interest, imposed ostensibly because the only legitimate process is to borrow our own promissory notes into circulation from “banks”? Well, the Austrian “economist’s” God, Hayek tells us: “I am more convinced than ever that if we ever again are going to have a decent money, it will not come from government: it will be issued by private enterprise, because providing the public with good money which it can trust and use can not only be an extremely profitable business; it imposes on the issuer a discipline to which the government has never been and cannot be subject. It is a business which competing enterprise can maintain only if it gives the public as good a money as anybody else.”

          In other words, “competing banks” are merely a continuation in the same fatal processes, to our purported benefit under even higher costs and rates of escalation of artificial indebtednes.

          Effectively, what the Austrians want is to remove the embossed letters which now say “Federal Reserve Bank,” and replace them with Austrian ‘COMPETING’ Bank(s)” — a principle which they refuse to debate, further define, or justify. Of course, any ostensible “competition” would ostensibly, on the contrary, drive interest rates down. But the Austrians tell us that we wouldn’t have borrowed ourselves into this debt mess if higher rates of interest had discouraged excessive/reckless borrowing.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      2. gander

        learn how to use an em dash. its painful to read your ravings.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. jack

      They are the mother of all hypocrits...to hell with those ego centric bastards...

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  8. Freedom4America

    Not sure where you Government Employees, forest and fred the protectionist, get your info from but here are some FACTS.

    In 1971 Gold had an average worth of $40.81 and in 2007 the average price was $695.39 which was an average return of 1703.9696% and an average profit of 1603.9696%

    When you take inflation into consideration, by using the site below, you see that an item that cost $40.81 in 1971 costs $208.93 in 2007 which means you still made a $486.46 profit which equates to a 1192.0117% return.

    Not sure what the figures were on stock market returns from 1971 to 2007 but after taking inflation into consideration they will be a lot less then what you posted we are sure of that. You just put a total but did not take inflation into consideration yourselves.

    Site we got Gold history from - http://www.pensions.gold.org/assets/file/pensions/media/gold_price_chronologyfinal.pdf

    Site we used to calculate inflation - http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/

    Would love to read your comments on this so let's go.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  9. jack

    While the gold standard can neither save us from further multiplication of debt or rectify the other issues before us, simply re-invoking the gold standard would pave the way for immediate loss of "our" monetary gold, for already twenty years ago, the perpetual process of multiplying debt had plunged us from the greatest creditor nation in the world to its lowliest debtor nation. For the very purposes of the lie, "our" currency is now held in immense quantities across the world; and thus even if "we" held gold for money instead of paper, our inevitable collapse under perpetually multiplying indebtedness therefore will mean giving up the last of our former gold, rather than the last of a mere paper, as we tolerate the imposition of a Second Great Depression. I am now even more worried about our financial future, unless we advocate Mathematically Perfected Economy (MPE) in which we mathematically have proven the above, but are also offering a real immediate solution to the current terminal system.
    For more information you can visit the following links:

    www.perfecteconomy.com

    http://endtheecb.ning.com/video/mathematically-perfected

    Kind regards,
    Jack

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    1. fred the protectionist

      The FED is already advocating the um, "Mathematically Perfected Economy (MPE)". When 700 billion dollars leaves the country every year (from the trade deficit) that means American citizens are short 700 billion in cash, so the FED has no choice but to print 700 billion a year lest America suffers massive deflation of dollars.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. jack

        u wouldn´t say that if you understood MPE. Give it a try, looking at your posts it´s made for you!!!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        1. fred the protectionist

          "There is no inflation or deflation, as the currency in circulation is always equal to the current value of existent production across however much of the economy is supported by a circulation.
          Neither the value of money or assets are altered by changing proportions of circulation to indebted assets or services. The value of the money is always consistent in quantity — both in earnability and spendability — with the remaining value of the indebted assets which exist, for which it was issued, and which constitute its immutable value."

          I think I understand, and the mission of the Federal Reserve is to keep the supply of dollars for US Citizens static.

          How you determine the total value of assets of a country is arbitrary, especially since you are trying to determine them in fiat which is also (initially set as) arbitrary, so are the zeros in a fiat dollar arbitrary.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. fred the protectionist

    http://american_almanac.tripod.com/fwhfree2.htm

    Free Trade, The Confederacy, and the Political Economy of Slavery

    by Frederic W. Henderson

    "As the debate on the question of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the doctrine of free trade as the panacea for American economic problems, has raged in the past month, the American electorate have not been told that this nation has once in its history experienced the "magnificent benefits" of truly free market, free trade economics. While President George Bush, and his associates in the fight to ram through "fasttrack" authorization for NAFTA, regale the innumerable advantages of such an agreement, based on such policies, the American people should know, not only that free-trade has historically been an alien and subversive economic principle for this nation, but that the only time that it has actually prevailed on American soil, it produced the living hell known as the Confederate States of America.

    Much as history has been written otherwise, slavery, secession and the great war fought to insure the survival of this nation between 1861-65, was a battle against the destructive policies of what was then known as "British" free trade. The southern Confederacy, along with its doctrines of human slavery, states rights and secession, was the institutionalized manifestation of British free trade policies in America. It was free trade that created slavery, as part of a system that oppressed the majority of the southern population, and turned that section into a despotic, oligarchical nightmare in total opposition to the principles of republicanism upon which this nation was founded.
    .
    .
    .
    "

    It's dejavu all over again.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

    1. jack

      http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-determining-the-value-of-money-property-and-production.html

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Citizen

    "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Thomas Jefferson

    EMPHASIS ADDED
    "deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered"

    The battle is END THE FED, the single greatest threat to Americas survival!
    Gold is only a Store of Value of Last Resort, its a shame that Americans have to move to gold only because the Government has engaged in a grand scheme of Monetary Theft of our wealth though CURRENCY DILUTION...
    Printing FRNs to pay for massive spend thrift crony bail outs.

    Even the Chinese realize, what Fred and Forest deny, that they are holding massive amounts of rapidly declining (Pulp Fiction) American dollars. Soon they will DUMP their FRN's for hard assets in mass.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    1. fred the protectionist

      “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” Thomas Jefferson

      Absolutely, that's right. Private banking institutions are service industries which aren't even a necessary evil. That's why the FED is not a private bank, but a quasi-government entity, and any Libertarian worth their salt knows that any quasi-government entity is a full government entity cause 'dem gubments are tyrants.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

      1. Citizen

        Dear Fred,
        Glad you noticed that point. The FED is a "private" bank given a public charter to serve ONLY THE GOVERNMENT at the expense of We The People!

        The FED is the private piggly wiggly bank of a spend thrift Political Elite. Pork Barrel on wheels with NO RESTRAINTS and it only serves their Crony Political Friends, Big Banks, Big Business i.e. the Military Industrial Complex at the expense of you and me.

        Timmy and Benny have No Audit, No Restraints, and No Accountability.
        Absolute Power, Corrupts Absolutely and that COST US dearly
        An Easy Evil that has effectively dissipated the common citizens wealth.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        1. fred the protectionist

          Absolutely, the FED is a government bank.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        2. Lilly

          Does freddie just play a clown,
          or is he one in real life?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        3. fred the protectionist

          Yeah down with private banks! Up with gubm't banks!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    2. jack

      Ending the FED is NOT or only part of solution. What is your solution?? What are you going to do when you have ended the FED???

      www.perfecteconomy.com

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  12. Dfens

    Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution says: "No State shall ... make any thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" which means states can create their own gold and silver currency. So my question is, if it's such a great idea to use gold and silver coins for currency, why doesn't Ron Paul advocate the state of Texas create their own gold and silver currency? If it works well for Texas, then other states can follow suit. If it doesn't work. then no one else will make that mistake. Better one state should try and fail than the entire US. I mean, does Paul believe his own rhetoric or doesn't he? If he can't sell it at home, why should the rest of us buy into it?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    1. fred the protectionist

      Hehe, yeah Ron Paul keeps forgetting the sentence starts with, "No state shall ...." not "The Government of the United States shall not...."

      Libertarians don't understand the Constitution, like the Liberals who they revile. They misread, misinterpret, and sometimes make stuff up like the socialists. They are just as radical and unConstitutional as the Socialists.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      1. GB

        Fred -
        I'm not a Libertarian, but find your anti-Libertarian comments to be lacking substance.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

    2. Lilly

      Are Fred and Dfens two dingleberries on the same rump?

      It must be a non-English speaking rump because they cannot even comprehend the meaning of that simple sentence. Must've learn to read with the Look/See method.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  13. Citizen

    'The system of banking we have both equally and ever re probated . I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens. [54] – Thomas Jefferson, 1816

    We need to question the "morals" of our two favorite National Socialists Fred and Forest. They sure don't want you and I to buy and hold any gold, we might gain wealth INDEPENDENT of Big Government control! Why that's just down right anti-Nazi thinking.
    I suspect they only have their own immoral "special interests" in mind.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    1. fred the protectionist

      Well at least you got the National (nationalist) part right. I guess that makes you Libertarians inter-Nationalists, like the Comintern.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  14. fred the protectionist

    All the free traders have to do is delay and wait it out, until everyone grows old and dies, then younger generation forgets how well off their parents and grandparents were before subsistence wages. It'll be like in that scene from 1984 where Winston goes to a prole section of town, and asks an old man what life was like before The Party.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

    1. Citizen

      Fred...
      Free trade is not the problem, its only a small part of the broader solution.

      Hitler also preached "protectionism" from competition and targeted the jews and fomented other such fear based and race based paranoid hate speech, eventually he made laws that justified Mass Murder. How far are YOU willing to push your "Protectionist" rant?

      Ron Paul and Ronald Regan have one common message, Government is not the Solution, Government is the Problem.

      RUN AWAY SPENDING and NO RESTRAINT
      MAD MONEY >>>> PULP FICTION!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      1. fred the protectionist

        Are you comparing the founding fathers, and every Republican up till the 1920's, to Hitler?

        Well they were nationalists, as opposed to you Libertarian inter-nationalists who have no loyalty to family, country, state or nation; you'd sell their own children for a buck.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        1. Libertarian777

          Fred I hope you're writing all your comments on a computer designed, built and manufactured in the USA.

          Heaven forbid you purchased a computer made in China/Singapore/Malaysia. We need tariffs on computer imports. Computers should only be made in the USA.

          I'm willing to pay $70/hr (incl. benefits) to workers on the production line to make my $12,000 desktop. NOT

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        2. fred the protectionist

          A processor either comes from Germany or Silicone valley; the power supply, case, plastic keyboard most likely comes from China; the ASUS motherboard comes from either China, Mexico, or Taiwan; the video card is probably from Hong Kong, and the monitor from Japan.

          Ironically the most difficult part to manufacture is the processor, which was also the cheapest component out of everything else I bought. The processor which requires a clean room, massive infrastructure, massive amount of architecture research.

          So far my motherboard's onboard sound produces a high pitched squeal 20% of the time I turn it on, which requires me to reboot to get rid of. And my video card needed replaced.

          The processor, which was the cheapest component, still runs fine.

          Cheap foreign slave labor produces more expensive that are substandard products, and you nutcase Libertarians think it's A-OKAY. (Germany is not cheap foreign labor). You Libertarians are the enemy of the consumer and the worker.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        3. SS

          Yepper, all of them damn libertarians holding elected office messed it all up!!!

          Wait, where are all of these libertarians in public office?

          Frederich, you are a dog barking at your own tail.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        4. EndtheFed

          "Cheap foreign slave labor produces more expensive (products) that are substandard products" -Fred

          Economics proves your claim to be false.

          When a firm that is faced with competition charges a higher price than it's market equilibrium dictates it opens up an opportunity for new firms to enter the industry. The profits provide an incentive to enter the industry to fill the deficit in supply.

          So if the slave-laborers produce more expensive products than the American laborers as you say, there is nothing stopping Americans from undercutting the slave-laborers and restoring the jobs you are so concerned about. Especially if they are better quality as well.

          It really undermines your credibility when your explanations contradict your argument.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        5. fred the protectionist

          "So if the slave-laborers produce more expensive products than the American laborers as you say, there is nothing stopping Americans from undercutting the slave-laborers"

          Wrong. The profit margin for free labor is slimmer then slave-labor. The monopoly of slave-labor continues because their profit margin is so great and its so easy to undercut the competition. Then when the competition (American labor) goes out of business they raise the prices back up above and beyond what an American product would have cost.

          You are the enemy of both the consumer and labor.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        6. EndtheFed

          "Then when the competition (American labor) goes out of business they raise the prices back up above and beyond what an American product would have cost." -Fred

          Fred you ignore economics. How can you assert that your theory is correct if you can't show how accepted economic theory doesn't apply? You are claiming that Americans would allow the Chinese to charge a higher price than it would cost to produce on their own. That's economic irrationality.

          Let's take a look at the economics you are ignoring (or unaware of).

          Pay particular attention to the part of your quote that says "they raise the prices back up above and beyond what an American product would cost", which in the laws of economics results in an opportunity for American Laborers to produce the products on their own. The rational consumer will substitute the less expensive product of the same quality. Therefore, the competition acts as a mechanism that protects consumers from being exploited by producers both foreign and domestic. That's if the products are the same quality.

          If the foreign product is of lesser quality as you said, then the slave-labor has no market share in the market for a similar but higher quality product. The result is two seperate markets, the low quality market (supplied by foreign producers) and the high quality market (supplied by American producers). Consumers who value quality over inexpensive price will purchase the American-made version, and vice versa.

          Please explain how Fred-onomics accounts for this.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        7. fred the protectionist

          "Pay particular attention to the part of your quote that says 'they raise the prices back up above and beyond what an American product would cost', which in the laws of economics results in an opportunity for American Laborers to produce the products on their own. "

          Wrong. It takes allot of initial money to make a factory go, and nobody is going to invest in American labor with the threat of Chinese slave labor undercutting them, so the slave-labor monopoly stands. You don't understand how monopolies operate because Libertarians and neocons love monopolies. You think monopolies are A-OK. You think monopolies provide cheaper consumer items when they do not.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        8. EndtheFed

          Fred said: "nobody is going to invest in American labor with the threat of Chinese slave labor undercutting them"

          If that's the case, what is stopping it from working the other way around? What makes investing in chinese slave-labor any more attractive when they are intentionally opening an opportunity for American labor to under-cut them? That's what selling a more expensive, lesser quality product accompliches. Explain how Fred-onomics accounts for that.

          And,
          Are you aware that a monopoly means a LACK of competition?
          So how can I "love monopolies" but support competition as protection for consumers?

          Make sense when you post.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  15. EndtheFed

    Anybody interested in the facts about gold should read the short but sweet book entitled "The Case For a 100% Gold Standard" by Murry N. Rothbard. I think it's available for free online.

    Don't get your information from blog trolls who don't understand the words that they type.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

    1. fred the protectionist

      "Don’t get your information from blog trolls..."

      Yeah the book might provide a valid argument, which you blog trolls have not provided.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

      1. EndtheFed

        Oh look who it is, surprise surprise.

        Only 3 minutes after I posted.

        The book echoes what I have posted. Nice try though.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

        1. fred the protectionist

          I'm sure the author appreciates your substandard advocacy.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        2. EndtheFed

          Who are you to judge? The guy makes up his own version of economics and now he thinks he's something special.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        3. EndtheFed

          'Fred economics' is going no where.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    2. Forest

      Don't forget to buy some gold from Goldline.com too!

      I mean, don't let the facts that gold has not been a good store of wealth, isn't used by anyone for transaction purposes, isn't used to back a single economy in the world any longer, and isn't even a very good hedge against inflation.

      It's really that simple, Gold is the solution for everything! Trust me!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

      1. EndtheFed

        Did you figure all that out about gold during your two examples that turned out to disprove your own argument?

        hahah.

        The evidence is in the posts. You guys are a mess.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        1. Forest

          "Investors who paid $850 an ounce back then earned 44 percent as gold reached a record $1,226.56 on Dec. 3 in London. The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index produced a 22-fold return with dividends reinvested, Treasuries rose 11-fold and cash in the average U.S. checking account rose at least 92 percent. On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back. "

          Hmmm, an inflation-adjusted return of "22-fold" that NOT GOLD RETURNED or "down 33% in value" that GOLD RETURNED. Hmmmm, that is a tough one...

          You really are supporting the stereotype that Ronulans are horrific at math.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

        2. Libertarian777

          That's NOTHING Forest.

          Zimbabwe's stock market returned 300,000% in 2007!

          http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/africa/2008/01/02/137413/Zimbabwe-stock.htm

          http://mises.org/daily/2532

          Gold only returned 24% in that year!

          I'd have been much better off if I put all my money in the Zimbabwe stock market in 2007.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        3. Forest

          Dude. Zimbabwe suffered horrific inflation... You have to adjust for inflation. It's not complicated.

          Maybe you are missing this part: "On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back. ”"

          AFTER adjusting for a decrease in relative purchasing power of USD, the value of Gold DECREASED EVEN MORE. Thus, it would have been better to hold on to one USD over the past 30 years than gold.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    3. jack

      Effectively, what the Austrians want is to remove the embossed letters which now say “Federal Reserve Bank,” and replace them with Austrian ‘COMPETING’ Bank(s)” — a principle which they refuse to debate, further define, or justify. Of course, any ostensible “competition” would ostensibly, on the contrary, drive interest rates down. But the Austrians tell us that we wouldn’t have borrowed ourselves into this debt mess if higher rates of interest had discouraged excessive/reckless borrowing.

      They are the f problem

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      1. EndtheFed

        You speak as if the Austrian School claims that higher interest rates are always the answer, however that is only true when the rates have been first arbitrarily set below the equilibrium rate that supply and demand for money would dictate.

        There is a reason that the Americans often have negative savings rates.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        1. jack

          Yep. I don't even joust with them any more. They simply won't let you use any prevailing mathematic argument; they don't have a clue what can save us; they even deny the problem; and worst of all, their God Hayek tells us why the Austrians in fact advocate banking at elevated interest rates:

          http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-relevant-historic-quotes.html#FriedrichAHayek

          Because providing the public with good money which it can trust and use can not only be an extremely profitable business;"
          http://mises.org/story/3204

          They are more of the same and do NOT offer solution. They are part of the problem...

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. jack

          This site should be familair for you. More discussions here:

          http://endthefedusa.ning.com/forum/topics/austrian-economics-is-not-the

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. fred the protectionist

    Blast from the past.

    Free trade v. slave trade

    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55/312.html

    "Top of the line Alpine car stereos, some costing up to $1,300 each, are made in China by young women who are paid 31 cents an hour and sit hunched over, staring into microscopes 9[product] hours a day, six days a week, soldering the fine pieces of the stereo," the report said. "Above the women is an electronic scoreboard which monitors their progress in meeting their production quota of 720 stereos a day."

    Gee wiz, didn't you free traders say cheap foreign labor made cheaper consumer goods? Well heck if they are earning 31 cents an hour then those car stereos should cost like 10 dollars, not over a thousand dollars. Oh mah gawd, the free traders were liars, they are in reality neo-Confederates who want to bring slavery back to America.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

    1. EndtheFed

      They make cheaper consumer goods in the perspective of the businessman. Go ahead and tell us how much the businessman charged for the same stereo while it was only manufactured inside the US.

      Without something to compare the $1300 price with, your example is simply an arbitrary number that says nothing about the difference between the price charged for goods produced domestically and foreign.
      Logically, if the stereo was cheaper to produce domestically they wouldn't manufacture it in China.

      At the initial stages of the typical US product life cycle the newly innovated products are usually manufactured inside the US. Once the product has become less innovative, the manufacturing generally becomes outsourced to places with cheaper or more efficient factors of production.

      In other words, innovation allows production of technologies that other countries can't produce yet. This is why the leader of progress must maintain it's relatively high levels of innovation and education in order to sustain it's position in the world.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      1. Forest

        And hence, that difference in wages, along with our costs for oil create a trade deficit.

        And if we have a trade deficit while we are on the gold standard, we might as well just ship our gold overseas right now and slit our economy's throat.

        So what is your point again? That a gold standard is unreasonable? That is a great point!

        "Assuming a gold price of US$1,000 per ounce, or $32,500 per kilogram, the total value of all the gold ever mined would be around $4.5 trillion. This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $8.3 trillion is in circulation or in deposit"

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

        1. EndtheFed

          Okay forest, the floor is yours.
          Let's see your explanation on how trade deficits are caused by the difference in wages and the price of oil, even though the study of economics clearly dictates that trade deficits are the result of currency inflation.

          I'm not talking about "Fred Economics". I'm talking about reality.

          Forest said:
          "So what is your point again? That a gold standard is unreasonable?"

          I'm well aware that you have missed my point. I'll sum it up for you. Inflationary monetary policy is unreasonable and unsustainable. Furthermore, it has destroyed the equilibrium of balance of payments among nations acheived by the true gold standard.

          Don't bother to figure out what the real-life consequences of your theories are, I know you prefer to be blissfully ignorant.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        2. fred the protectionist

          "Let’s see your explanation on how trade deficits are caused by the difference in wages"

          Only a blind man needs a definition on why the sky is blue. Everyone else but neocon/Libertarians know that the massive difference in wages between the US and the 3rd world causes trade deficits.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        3. EndtheFed

          No explanation? Then you concede.

          No less than what I was expecting.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        4. fred the protectionist

          Chinese cheap foreign labor does not result in cheaper goods to the US consumer. After the CCP skims off the top, after the People's Liberation Army skims off the top, after the Chinese Communist Government skims off the top through taxes, after the devalued juan skims off the top, after the rich Wallstreet banker who invested in the Chinese factory skims off the top, the price skyrockets from $10 to $1,300. If it were manufactured in America it would be cheaper and of better quality.

          The same thing happened with King Cotton. After the millionaire plantation slave owner skimmed off the top, after the southern state skims of the top through taxes to maintain expensive slave patrols, then slave cotton was no cheaper then cotton picked by freemen.

          And whenever free labor tries to make a competing product (American labor for the 21st century) there is plenty of wiggle room for slave labor to undercut the free labor by a couple of pennies. This effectively establishes a monopoly of slave labor. They didn't call it King Cotton for nothing.

          You free traders are neo-Confederates, you just like slavery.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        5. EndtheFed

          Fred said;
          " If it were manufactured in America it would be cheaper and of better quality"

          Fred do you realize how insane that sounds? Nobody is advocating slave labour. The fact is that if it were cheaper to manufacture in America, at a higher quality, WHY would anyone produce it in China?

          You think it's all part of the 'big plan' to bring back slavery, and yet you call everyone else a conspiracy nut for reasonably doubting massive government as a solution to everything.

          So let me get this straight. You are saying that there is a conspiracy by US businessmen and "libertarians/neo-cons" to operate at a loss by manufacturing their stereos in China long enough for the US to sdopt slave wages..... baaahahahah

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        6. EndtheFed

          How is it that you were able to sniff out such a well hidden conspiracy (lol), yet you can't understand how creating money at interest to the federal reserve enslaves people to debt?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        7. fred the protectionist

          "The fact is that if it were cheaper to manufacture in America, at a higher quality, WHY would anyone produce it in China?"

          Because the profit margin of slave labor is so great, the slavers can undercut free labor. It's called a monopoly, a slave labor monopoly. They only undercut when threatened, but raise prices most of the time to where the consumer pays more, most of the time. See, that's how monopolies work.

          So that little bit by you free traders, "cheaper consumer items," is a load of crap.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        8. fred the protectionist

          "How is it that you were able to sniff out such a well hidden conspiracy..."

          You mean the conspiracy of the slave interests like in the South where they were able to count slaves (who couldn't vote) as 3/5ths a person so they can maintain their presence in Congress disproportionate to the amount of southern freemen?

          The Slave-Interests always conspire behind closed doors, in smoke filled rooms, like a cabal, electing their darkhorse candidates; and you Libertarian/Neocons provide them with free propaganda like the useful idiots you are.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        9. fred the protectionist

          "Really when we say “liberty” it’s code for “slavery”."

          Ironically that's exactly how it went down with pro-slavery Southern propagandists. They threw around the word "liberty" allot too, but for the cabal of southern plantation owners it was code word for "slavery".

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        10. EndtheFed

          Okay, let's see if I'm reading this correctly.

          So according to you Fred, the "slave labour monopoly" controlled by the "secret cabal" of "libertarians/neo-cons" and plantation owning businessmen has been designed to "undercut free labour" by producing more expensive and lesser quality stereos in China long enough to collapse American wages thereby creating a slave-based economy in America. So far their plan has gone undetected (save for two genius blog trolls) largely due to the fact that they use sophisticated trickery like substituting the word "slavery" with "liberty".

          Free trade is really just the globalist conspiracy that enables the evil plan to be put into motion, and the trade deficit is actually just their ruse to syphon the gold from America's reserves (even though real wealth comes out of a printing press at the Fed and gold is nothing more than an ancient relic that no longer has any value or utility in the world).

          The only thing that can save us from the evil clutches of the libertarian/neo-con is to dismantle international trade using protectionist tariffs and by enforcing one-sided agreements. Once we isolate ourselves from the entire world and destroy all of our gains from trade, we will all have job opportunities trying desperately to inefficiently produce essential goods and services that we no longer have easy access to. If that doesn't work out, it's okay because fiat currencies can never fail and the Fed will just bail us all out.

          WTF

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        11. fred the protectionist

          "Free trade is really just the globalist conspiracy that..."

          Yes the rich oligarchs of the world conspire to institute free trade (and open borders) worldwide so they can get richer, they could care less of the consequences like the destruction of the middle class and rise of tyranny.

          You are not part of the conspiracy, you're just a useful idiot that provides them with free propaganda and free votes.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        12. EndtheFed

          Ohhh, I get it. So Ron Paul isn't a "whack job" simply because he believes in "a conspiracy", he just doesn't support the right conspiracy for you.

          The difference between your ideals and the message Dr. Paul is spreading is that your ideals are backed by nothing. You have no economic fundamentals to explain your position. In fact you seem to have made up your own economic justification for many things. An economic model is useful only if it reflects and explains reality, a goal you have come no where close to articulating.

          On the other hand, Ron Paul bases his beliefs on things that are anchored in reality, such as Austrian economics.

          How many crises has Fred-onomics predicted and explained to date? lol

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        13. fred the protectionist

          "The difference between your ideals and the message Dr. Paul is spreading is that your ideals are backed by nothing. "

          You're ideas are backed up by Bush, Algore, Clinton, and the European scribblers of the 19th century (primarily British). This is the great service economy predicted by your free-trade confederates in the 1990's. Enjoy. It's great isn't it. High unemployment, disappearing middle class, Communist countries becoming superpowers, expensive raw materials such as oil and steel, brain drain... Wow isn't this amazing, thanks free traders.

          My ideas are backed up by American First protectionists such Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, the founding fathers, the Constitution, the Union (vs. the Confederacy who are on your side), the original Republican Party, etc.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      2. fred the protectionist

        "They make cheaper consumer goods in the perspective of the businessman."

        Yup, the rich get richer and Americans lose their jobs and vote socialist.

        "Logically, if the stereo was cheaper to produce domestically they wouldn’t manufacture it in China."

        Logically, every American will lose their jobs. There are over 3 billion people on the planet earning Chinese wages, and only a quarter of a billion Americans.

        "innovation allows production of technologies that other countries can’t produce yet."

        Actually innovation and labor saving mechanization is lessened a great deal when you use cheap foreign slave labor.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        1. EndtheFed

          Then the US should work to maintain competitive levels of innovation and education, as I've been saying all along.

          That does not translate into "Americans should earn slave wages". Actually it;s the exact opposite since it is innovation and education that makes a worker productive. Productivity determines wage.

          I don't expect you to understand, considering I have arrived at that conclusion using LOGIC (something you simply must lack).

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        2. fred the protectionist

          "Then the US should work to maintain competitive levels of innovation and education,"

          Translation: Americans should be earning Chinese slave wages to be competitive.

          Translation of the word competitive: Whatever benefits a slave based economy.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        3. EndtheFed

          lol I say "this is not what is meant by these words" and Fred automatically spins it as if they mean exactly what I just explained that they don't mean.

          It's all a big consipracy of neo-cons and libertarians for a slave-based economy, right Fred? Really when we say "liberty" it's code for "slavery".

          So if there is such a consipracy to create "a slaved based economy", why couldn't money creation through debt a part of it?

          Because money creation through debt is real? And it's more fun to be a conpiracy theorist with fake theories? At least be a consistent conspiracy theorist.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  17. Citizen

    That's why Fred and Forest
    are our two favorite Big Government National Socialists (NAZI)

    They believe that Big Government is "entitled" to Print as much as THEY deem necessary at OUR expense.

    Hey Fred and Forest....
    We the People will stop buying hard commodities
    After the Central Bank, the FED, ends Fractional Reserve Banking and stops creating currency out of thin air and thereby STEALING OUR WEALTH!

    Hey Fred... did you get your government subsidy this week?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    1. fred the protectionist

      Big Government National Socialists wouldn't be called NAZI, it would be called BGNS, acronym noob.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

    2. Forest

      What are you talking about Citizen?

      "We the People will stop buying hard commodities"

      What are you 'We the People' going to 'stop buying' and why do I care one bit? Maybe get a job and while you are at it, voluntarily reduce your social security, that would help a lot more than buying a shiny metal.

      I think you wrapped yourself so tightly in that Gadsen flag it's cutting off the oxygen to your brain.

      Nice rhetoric though. Chickens for Checkups!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  18. GB

    Read yesterday that a one-ounce piece of gold can be stretched fifty miles without breaking. Talk about stretching your money (groan).

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

    1. fred the protectionist

      (moan)

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  19. Freedom4America

    fred the protectionist
    June 3, 2010 at 10:57 am

    HAH! See, the Ronulans don’t practice what they preach.

    I rest my case.

    Exactly what are we doing that other Ron Paul supporters aren't doing?

    We are a Realist and the reality of it all is the dollar will crash and will be totally WORTHLESS. It will go the way of the Continental and Confederate currency and just be a collector's item. Whereas Gold and Silver will still have some kind of value once the new currency comes into play.

    Yes, we are sure the government will let you cash in your FRNs for the new currency but at exactly what ratio will it be?

    As for us wanting to purchase Silver instead of Gold that is just common economical sense. JP Morgan is shorting Silver way more than Gold and when CFTC Chairman Gensler finally stops this ILLEGAL shorting Silver will explode. They are also shorting Gold but not to the same extreme.

    Plus Silver is used more than Gold in the Industries to where supply is not keeping up with demand.

    Like we said, come back 3 years from now and see who has the most wealth by purchasing the precious metals to hoarding WORTHLESS FRNs.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    1. fred the protectionist

      Then sink everything you have into Gold, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  20. Bottomline

    The more you invest in gold, the more that you're going to built wealth. Unlike Fred here who thinks you invest in money will get you far.GOOD LUCK in investing in paper money and hold on to it while you still can you FOOL! You can kiss the American Dream Goodbye.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    1. Forest

      Are you not very good at math? There are many ways to 'built (sic) wealth' - gold just happens to be the wrong way:

      "Investors who paid $850 an ounce back then earned 44 percent as gold reached a record $1,226.56 on Dec. 3 in London. The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index produced a 22-fold return with dividends reinvested, Treasuries rose 11-fold and cash in the average U.S. checking account rose at least 92 percent. On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back. "

      But, it is shiny!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

      1. Bottomline

        I may not be good in math, but I know real wealth when I see it and it comes in Gold. & just what makes you think you know everything?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

        1. Forest

          Gotcha...

          So is this singular blind devotion a religious thing or an 'I hate anything government' thing?

          Either way, might want to get that looked at... There are other forms to 'store wealth' that historically outperform gold. That is a fact.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

        2. Bottomline

          & You think that a piece of paper builds wealth?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

        3. Forest

          No, hard work builds wealth.

          Investing in ANYTHING at the wrong time, gold, property, stock market, will destroy that very same wealth.

          That being said, historically, even a checking account has significantly outperformed Gold as a STORAGE OF WEALTH over the past 30 years.

          It's not complicated. Families 'A' and 'B' work equally hard, family 'A' buys gold while family 'B' puts it in the stock market.

          30 years later, Family 'A' has amassed a 'storage of wealth' that is 22 times what they started with, while family 'B' has a shiny rock that they need to appreciate 79% more just to BREAK EVEN.

          Gold is just another version of a Fiat currency.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

        4. fred the protectionist

          I urge all Ronulans and Libertarians to invest in gold.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

        5. EndtheFed

          Forest did you forget the discussion we had about Dr. Paul's gold investments?

          You suggested your $10 000 investment into the stock market in the 1970s (when Dr. Paul bought his gold) would have become $220 000, while my $10 000 investment into gold would still "need to appreciate another 79% just to break even".

          However, your math didn't add up. Simply put, my $10 000 investment into gold at a cool $35 per ounce netted me 285.7 ounces of gold. Valued in today's price, my 285.7 ounces of gold are worth over $340 000, outperforming your $220 000 investment by 120 thousand dollars without even earning a rate of return. So much for "not breaking even".

          That's done simply by protecting against the effects of the inflation of the dollar. I could have out-performed you further had I switched my gold holdings back and forth into low risk investments in order to earn a rate of return in the market during times of low inflation.

          Sure, you could have chosen a better investment in retrospect, but in reality we are faced with uncertainty when making decisions about the future.

          One thing that has turned out to be fairly certain is that the government will continue to inflate the dollar, making gold the perfect place for hedging our bets.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

        6. fred the protectionist

          You guys keep saying "inflate the dollar". Well where is all that hyperinflation? Inflation of money would be immediately felt, well, where is the inflation?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        7. EndtheFed

          What part of "the dollar has lost 96% of it's value" don't you understand?

          How about "the dollar only buys 4 cents worth of what it bought at the time of the Fed's inception"?

          Do you understand what is meant by "people must invest and earn a return in order to protect their wealth from confiscation through inflation"?

          Do you care that "we are robbing the wealth of widows and grandmothers and handing it over to the politically connected"?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        8. Forest

          “the dollar has lost 96% of it’s value”

          Really? Have you had 96% of your wealth stolen by central banks? Really?

          So you are telling me that, since 1918 (or whatever year you anti-Fed people choose) you buried a dollar in your backyard, thinking that was a good idea, and had NO IDEA there was a nominal amount of inflation that might cause consumer prices to increase over the next 100 years? Wow, what a cute little utopia you live in.

          So lets say we experience deflation, does that mean central banks are just giving you more wealth?

          Your argument is invalid.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        9. EndtheFed

          Your argument is out of touch with reality.

          Nobody is saying that each individual has lost 96% of their wealth. That would obviously depend on the type of assets you hold and for how long. Everyone's situation is different, so don't act like I'm arguing otherwise. You can read the words I type, can't you?

          I am saying that the purchasing power of the currency that we are being forced to hold is being depreciated by the government. In order to hold a dollar and break even you must invest it and earn at least a 3% return annually.

          This is equivilent to involuntarily paying at least 3% of your return on investment to the government, for nothing.

          If you don't understand that, then I feel sorry for you. I really do.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        10. EndtheFed

          Forest said:
          "So lets say we experience deflation, does that mean central banks are just giving you more wealth?"

          Since deflation cannot happen without inflation happening first, the wealth redistribution caused by inflation has already taken place before the deflation occurs.

          Deflation does return the value of the dollars to people who are still holding them, but what if you had to spend yours before the deflation occured?

          This is why poor people and people on fixed incomes are effected unproportionately.

          I'm getting sick of repeating myself to you. If you don't get it just say so, don't pretend to have answers that you don't even understand.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        11. fred the protectionist

          You Ronulans keep whining about "da FED printin' money by da trillions." Well where is the inflation?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        12. fred the protectionist

          "How about “the dollar only buys 4 cents worth of what it bought at the time of the Fed’s inception”?"

          And New York City was bought from the indians for a couple of dollars. Oh Mah Gawd, there was massive inflation between the 1600's and 1913, the FED must have traveled back in time and created inflation.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        13. fred the protectionist

          "I am saying that the purchasing power of the currency that we are being forced to hold is being depreciated by the government."

          Inflation happened long before the Federal Reserve existed, Ronulan.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        14. EndtheFed

          Did you know there is such a thing as monetary inflation? Not to be confused with price inflation.

          As I've said, learn to distinguish between things that are different.

          "One of these things is not like the other. One of these things is just not the same" - Sesame Street

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        15. fred the protectionist

          Then where is the double digit to hyper inflation? The treasury prints hundreds of billions of new bills every year, almost a trillion. Where is the inflation?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        16. EndtheFed

          Again, what part of "the dollar has lost 96% of it's value", don't you understand?

          America has managed to export inflation through it's system of world reserve currency. Were we to have auditing rights of the Fed's discount window we might be able to guage the real level of worldwide monetary inflation.

          I see you still haven't bothered to distinguish between price inflation and monetary inflation.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        17. fred the protectionist

          "Again, what part of “the dollar has lost 96% of it’s value”, don’t you understand?"

          Again, what part of "that is normal single digit inflation that even happened before 1913", don't you understand?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      2. Forest

        No. After adjusted for inflation, at no point from the 1970's until today will GOLD OUTPERFORM THE STOCK MARKET.

        Look at it from 1980 and the difference is even more stark, lets not worry about our math, let's let Bloomberg do the math:

        Gold Can’t Beat Checking Accounts 30 Years After Peak
        http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=axdpxBrQ9JTg
        "Investors who paid $850 an ounce back then earned 44 percent as gold reached a record $1,226.56 on Dec. 3 in London. The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index produced a 22-fold return with dividends reinvested, Treasuries rose 11-fold and cash in the average U.S. checking account rose at least 92 percent. On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back."

        EndTheFed says: "but in reality we are faced with uncertainty when making decisions about the future."

        Or you could be a Ronulan and blatantly fearing/predicting the end of the world. If Ron Paul was doing as he was saying, he is still looking at ginormous losses on his gold purchases back in 1980/1981 when he was calling for a collapsing economy and violence in the streets.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      3. Forest

        "Investors who paid $850 an ounce back then earned 44 percent as gold reached a record $1,226.56 on Dec. 3 in London. The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index produced a 22-fold return with dividends reinvested, Treasuries rose 11-fold and cash in the average U.S. checking account rose at least 92 percent. On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back. "

        www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=axdpxBrQ9JTg

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        1. EndtheFed

          Read your link again. They are referring to the rate of return on investment.

          It's hard to compare rates of return when gold doesn't earn one. Apples to oranges.
          Gold protects against inflation. You can't dispute that.

          How exactly is it that you think gold investors haven't broken even if they "earned 44 percent"?

          You contradict yourself in your own examples and you expect people to take you seriously. Come on.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        2. SS

          You have no clue what you are posting, and can't see that it doesn't make your argument.

          But thanks for the laugh, forest

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

        3. CHTruth

          Over the last 20 years the average investor earned 3.9% a year, before taxes!
          Inflation grew 3.0% a year.

          When the SHTF you can wipe your face with FRNs, but you will need gold, silver, tobacco, gunpowder, or liquor if you want food.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

        4. Forest

          EndtheFed says “It’s hard to compare rates of return when gold doesn’t earn one.”

          Well, isn’t that a fairly essential component of determining how well something serves as a ’storage of wealth’?

          EndtheFed also can’t figure out: “How exactly is it that you think gold investors haven’t broken even if they “earned 44 percent”?”

          Read the article, and let me quote FROM THE ARTICLE: “On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back.”

          Oh wait, I forgot, Ronulans don’t like numbers. So let me explain WHAT THE ARTICLE CLEARLY STATES, in nominal value, Gold could appreciate 44% over a 30 year timeframe, but on an inflation-adjusted basis you would have paid roughly $2000 an ounce back in 1980.

          For someone who talks about inflation all the time, you really aren’t good at math, are you?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        5. Forest

          EndtheFed says “It’s hard to compare rates of return when gold doesn’t earn one.”

          Well, isn’t that a fairly essential component of determining how well something serves as a ’storage of wealth’?

          EndtheFed also can’t figure out: “How exactly is it that you think gold investors haven’t broken even if they “earned 44 percent”?”

          Read the article, and let me quote FROM THE ARTICLE: “On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back.”

          Oh wait, I forgot, Ronulans don’t like numbers. So let me explain WHAT THE ARTICLE CLEARLY STATES, in nominal value, Gold could appreciate 44% over a 30 year timeframe, but on an inflation-adjusted basis you would have paid roughly $2000 an ounce back in 1980.

          For someone who talks about inflation all the time, you really aren’t good at math, are you?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        6. EndtheFed

          Forest said: "Well, isn’t that a fairly essential component of determining how well something serves as a ’storage of wealth’?"

          Learn to distinguish between things that are different. A storage of wealth maintains the value of the wealth it is storing.

          Not to be confused with a return-earning investment.

          You are arguing that a store of wealth doesn't earn a return like an investment does, which is what I stated at the very beginning of this argument. lol

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        7. fred the protectionist

          You do realize that mediums that "store wealth" undergo far more inflation then the dollar since the FED.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  21. Forest

    Hasn't every gold standard in the history of mankind failed?

    Can anyone name one single country that is currently on a gold standard?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

    1. Bottomline

      Mr. Forest Fred's friend another dependent on government to solve all of your problems. Like I said to Fred! Continue to be blissfully ignorant.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      1. Forest

        What on earth are you talking about?

        There is nothing 'blissfully ignorant' about viewing a US Dollar as a medium of exchange - nor am I 'depending on the government to solve all of my problems'.

        I mean, you could listen to Ron Paul, or you could listen to Warren Buffett (who I would argue is not someone who just sits around depending on the government):

        "Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace," he said. "Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        1. EndtheFed

          Forest said:
          " [gold] has no utility"

          Since gold has many utilities, I'll assume that you are referring to monetary gold. In which case you are still wrong. This is why I've told you to read about how money originates. Gold that is being used as money and not in production is useful (has utility) because it is a medium of exchange.

          As money originated it's usefulness was derived from the fact that it is more marketable than the products of the labourer. For instance, if a man who produced wagons wished to trade for a carton of eggs, how could he break apart his wagon in order to pay for the carton of eggs of lesser value? This is assuming he could even find a seller of eggs willing to trade for wagon parts. Suppose the seller of eggs desired to trade for butter. These are the problems of "direct trade" (barter).

          The problem is solved when indirect trade comes into the equation. The producer of the wagon can trade first for a barrel of butter, not because he wishes to consume the butter directly, but because it allows him to trade for the eggs he desired. Butter is more widely accepted than a wagon, so the wagon producer can now access products through this method of indirect trade that he could not purchase by trading directly.

          The wagon producer bought the butter because it was easily divisible, widely accepted, it had real value, and most of all because it allowed him to purchase the goods he desired through indirect trade. Therefore the butter was useful as a medium of exchange.

          Gold has emerged on the free market as the most useful medium of exchange in the world.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        2. Forest

          Ohhhhkay. So how many indirect transactions do you make with gold today? How many merchants in the United States are equipped to exchange their goods for gold? If it isn't necessary for indirect exchange, what value does it have then?

          Gold is NOT USED AT ALL as a medium of exchange in today's economy. You going to carry a little scale around and scrape flakes off when you want to buy some groceries? Pay your electrical bill?

          Come on, enough with this romanticizing Chickens for Checkups garbage.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        3. EndtheFed

          This time the answer to your problem is found in the origin of fiat money.

          Fiat money was originally a warehouse receipt that entitled it's holder to the property it represented. Banking institutions had to store large amounts of precious metals that were expensive to transport. Therefore it was much more convenient to simply exchange the ownership papers as opposed to physically transporting the gold everytime a transaction occured.

          Paying with gold could be as easy as swiping your debit card.

          You're right, gold is not necessary for indirect exchange, we could use bottle caps. The difference is that bottle caps would be arbitrarily chosen, where as gold has been chosen continuously on the free market. If you understand what makes a medium of exchange valuable at it's origin, then you understand why gold is one of the best possible ones.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        4. Forest

          "where as gold has been chosen continuously on the free market"

          What are you talking about? Is this more Chickens for Checkups reminiscing?

          Who, TODAY, is 'continuously choosing gold on the free market as a form of monetary exchange'? Ronulans? Sorry, the 1-2% of Ronulans that have been hoarding gold, have been doing so since the 1970's in preparation for the **coming economic rapture**, no change there.

          Really, given that the USD is the world's reserve currency, could your statement really be further from the truth in today's environment?

          What percent of the US population owns gold as a store of wealth? How many are mortified and go about spouting how they WANT to abandon US Dollars and move to gold?

          None. Crackpot Austrian Economists ONLY.

          Noone in this day and age is actively demanding to move to a gold standard EXCEPT Ronulans so please stop with the 'free market is choosing gold' - no, YOU are choosing gold. That is it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    2. Bottomline

      Of course hard work builds wealth you moron. & you still haven't answered the question.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    3. EndtheFed

      Forest said:
      "Hasn’t every gold standard in the history of mankind failed?"

      Not before heavily inflated currencies began causing trade deficits that forced governments to refuse to redeem dollars for gold. Had they not repudiated, they would have lost all gold reserves due to the outflow in the balance of payments.

      All fiat currencies seek to immitate the advantages of gold as a medium of exchange without it's limitations.

      The government doesn't like gold's limitations because those same limitations restrict them from creating unlimited quantities of it overnight.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      1. Forest

        So economies that run trade deficits can't be on a gold standard?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        1. EndtheFed

          That depends on your definition of a gold standard.

          A true gold standard is a world wide gold standard. Under a worldwide gold standard, countries won't run trade deficits.

          The key to understanding this is understanding what causes a trade deficit. When a country inflates their currency, their exports become cheaper abroad. Conversely, whatever they import will be more expensive than before they inflated. Therefore they experience increased exports, but they don't want to import as much as they used to. This creates a deficit in the balance of payments, and the country that inflated will then experience an outflow of their reserve money.

          If the reserve money happens to be gold, the country will experience a gold outflow as everyone attempts to redeem their gold. This is unable to happen when every currency exchanges at the same rate (like inside the US).

          Fred is right that trade plays a part because without trade there would be no deficits, but do we really want to give up trade when we can simply take advantage of the natural equilibrium achieved by the true gold standard?

          Afterall, exchange is what allows civilization to expand and progress, because (to borrow from my previous example with the wagon producer) how can we expect the wagon producer to develop his wagon into a motor-car if nobody will trade with him? He would have to waste his talent and spend his time raising his own chickens and eggs.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        2. Forest

          So all countries move to a gold standard? Unbelievable. What Libertarian utopia is this? So lets assume a realistic happening - asymmetric adoption of the Gold standard by the United States. What happens - BAM gold sucked out of the country by trade deficits.

          So, just eliminate trade deficits by... Tariffs? Or should US citizens move their wages back to slave wages which are ALSO set by the government of the competitor?

          Now that's not very Libertarian of you...

          And so, once again, the Libertarian Pandora's Box of Idiocy is opened when Libertarian beliefs are applied to the *real* world.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        3. EndtheFed

          Forest said:
          "What Libertarian utopia is this?"

          Did you know it was once like that?

          Forest said:
          "What happens – BAM gold sucked out of the country by trade deficits."

          I see you missed the entire point. A wold wide gold standard means trade deficits won't happen because everyone has the same currency, like inside the U

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        4. EndtheFed

          Forest Said:
          "What happens – BAM gold sucked out of the country by trade deficits."

          Ahh, I see you've missed the entire point of everything I just explained to you -- more particularly the part about how trade deficits won't happen when everyone has the same currency (i.e. world wide gold standard).

          I guess the logic of "look at the states inside the US, they have the same currency and no trade deficits among one another" doesn't mean anything to you? Hmm... You are a case study.

          Oh well, ya can't say I never tried.

          Forest Said:
          "Unbelievable. What Libertarian utopia is this?"

          Did you know that it used to be that way?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        5. EndtheFed

          Oops. duplicate comment, i thought the first one didn't post. My bad.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        6. EndtheFed

          Forest Said:
          "should US citizens move their wages back to slave wages"

          No they should work to maintain competitive levels of education and innovation. That's what it means to be the leader of progress.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        7. forest

          So, basically you are saying gold as a vehicle of indirect transaction is useless unless there is worldwide adoption, which there is not. Because noone, NOONE, uses, or plans to use, gold as a tradeable currency.

          Chickens for checkups again? You are a barbarous relic that is keeping this country from moving forwards.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        8. EndtheFed

          No, I'm clearly saying that inflation destroys the international equilibrium of balance of payments created by a world wide gold standard.

          I'm saying inflationary monetary policy has destroyed what many economists call "the most stable economic system the world has ever known" (the world wide gold standard).

          Even just having the option to switch between fiat dollars and gold protects against confiscation of wealth through inflation.

          If anything is "keeping this country from moving forwards", it's the inflationary policy that requires everyone to earn at least a 3% minimum rate of return just to break even.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        9. fred the protectionist

          "Under a worldwide gold standard, countries won’t run trade deficits."

          That's because whenever a country started bleeding gold they'd rapidly throw up a Tariff to prevent themselves from bleeding all their gold reserves. Read history, free trader.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

        10. fred the protectionist

          "A wold wide gold standard means"

          A) That would require an international "trade agreement," Oh mah gawd, a trade agreement like NAFTA. Oh mah gawd, that is soooo unconstitutional.

          B) Would never happen.

          C) In reality you Libertarians, if given the chance, would unilaterally put the US on a gold standard and the trade deficit would suck Fort Knox dry of gold in less then 6 months. Then we'd be back on paper money, but this time with an empty Fort Knox.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        11. fred the protectionist

          "how trade deficits won’t happen when everyone has the same currency"

          If the US and China had the same currency, US wages would lower to that of China and China would be able to exercise political influence in America.

          Having the same currency is also political consolidation like the European Union, and gee wiz, I thought you Libertarians didn't like the idea of international political consolidation.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        12. fred the protectionist

          "No they should work to maintain competitive levels of education and innovation."

          Translation: Americans should be earning 50 cents an hour, Chinese wages, to be competitive in this new "global economy". See, Libertarians are more globalist then the neocons. The neocons think they can only go halfway.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        13. EndtheFed

          Fred said: "They'd rapidly throw up a tariff"

          So they create the environment for an outflow of gold, then throw up a tariff to counteract it.

          Then you end up with a managed economy bound to fail economically like the soviet union.

          OR they could have simply not inflated their currencies, and continued to enjoy the most stable economic system the world has ever known. See what happens when guys like Fred are allowed to take the reigns? Forget the world's most stable system, Fred wants to be able to inflate to benefit himself at the expense of grandmothers and widows.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        14. EndtheFed

          Fred said:
          "A) That would require an international “trade agreement,” "

          Actually it's a lot less complex than having every nation with it's own freely fluctuating currency. I thought that was one of your arguments against the ending the Fed; you said the result would be chaos as everyone inside the US begins making their own currencies and regulating the value against one another? That doesn't apply when it supports my argument, huh? How convenient it must be to have no use for reason or consistency.

          Fred said:
          "B) Would never happen."

          It already has happened.

          Fred said:
          "put the US on a gold standard and the trade deficit would suck Fort Knox dry of gold in less then 6 months"

          Yes the trade deficit, which is caused by inflation.

          That's why you would have to deflate the dollar or revalue the gold before you could put the heavily inflation-damaged US back on a gold standard. 'Fred Economics' dictates that we 'protect' all American industries, essentially isolating us from the entire world and creating a country that is completely reliant on itself to produce EVERYTHING it needs. You would do away with the gains from trade that allow civilization to expand sustainably.

          We'd be back on trade in no time, once the people began to starve.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        15. EndtheFed

          Fred said:
          "I thought you Libertarians didn’t like the idea of international political consolidation"

          There is a difference between international monetary consolidation for the purposes of unlimited inflation, and for the purposes of limited inflation. Learn to distinguish between things that are different.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        16. Forest

          "Did you know it was once like that?"

          Yes, it was, and it FAILED.

          Did you also know that when all countries were on the gold standard, life expectancy was 30-45 years? It is now 67. So stop romanticizing the past - you don't live there.

          Times change.

          The supply of gold doesn't even grow with the United States population, but hey, who cares about facts?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        17. EndtheFed

          Forest said:
          "Yes, it was, and it FAILED."

          Go ahead and name one example of a gold standard that failed in the absense of inflation.

          It is quite clearly inflationary monetary policy that has failed.

          Forest said:
          "The supply of gold doesn’t even grow with the United States population, but hey, who cares about facts?"

          The supply of money doesn't need to grow with the population. That's why I've told you time after time to read about the concept of purchasing power. But hey, who cares about the economics of reality?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        18. fred the protectionist

          You fruitloop wanted to know what happened when there was a trade deficit, while the US was on a gold reserve, and I told you: we threw up a massive tariff. You should look at the history of Tariffs in the US before the FED, Tariffs rapidly went up and down and up and down, much like inflation and deflation massively went up and down and up and down. It was economic chaos you cannot fathom.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        19. fred the protectionist

          "There is a difference between international monetary consolidation for the purposes of unlimited inflation, and for the purposes of limited inflation. "

          Wrong. You lunatics want the world to consolidate into one single currency, and then in your next breath you act shocked when someone suggest the Amero. You are a walking-talking contradiction.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        20. EndtheFed

          I see you still have a hard time distinguishing between things that are different.

          Maybe you should do some of those puzzles for kids that have a bunch of identical pictures except for one that has a minor difference. Try picking out the different picture a few times and you might get the hang of it.

          "One of these things is not like the others...." lol

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        21. fred the protectionist

          Daaaaang, a world-wide single currency is worse then the Amero, conspiratorilly speaking. Contradiction man.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        22. EndtheFed

          Again, learn to distinguish between things that are different.

          Let's go through it sloowwwllly so you can understand.

          A world wide GOLD standard is real money, with a natural limitation to inflation.

          A world wide fiat currency is fake money, with no limit to inflation.

          One is created with debt, one is no man's liability.

          The fact that you can't understand this distinction showcases the fact that fiat currency inflation is a HIDDEN tax, emphasis on the "hidden". Most people don't understand, and it's up to the people who can comprehend to protect the sheep from the wolf.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        23. fred the protectionist

          Oh so you think it's OK the world (is forced to) consolidate into one currency (gold), but you recoil in conspiratorial horror when someone suggests North America consolidates their currency into the Amero.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      2. Forest

        So for the first 4000 years worth of economies that this magical rock was based upon, they are ALL NONEXISTENT and EVERY SINGLE ONE failed because of... Trade deficits?

        Come on. Gross oversimplification.

        Not a single country in the WORLD is on the gold standard... Is it a conspiracy? BOOGEDY NWO BOOGEDY or is it just not feasible?

        Funny, Ronulans are all about free markets - except gold, lets manipulate the price and supply of GOLD by tying it to the largest economy on earth.

        Genius.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    4. Flip Wilson

      Where has a gold standard ever failed?
      Keep the rhetoric for your mommy and give us the hard evidence.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

      1. Forest

        "Where has a gold standard ever failed?"

        Name me ONE COUNTRY IN THE WHOLE WORLD that is on a gold standard today.

        The fact that NOT ONE COUNTRY IN THE WHOLE WORLD is on a gold standard is not enough evidence for you? Or is it all some global conspiracy?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        1. EndtheFed

          Read the facts and you will find that inflation is the cause of the downfall of the gold standard.

          Inflation of a currency causes a deficit in the balance of payments for that country. The trade deficit causes a reserve outflow. In order for a country who is on the gold standard to continue inflating the currency, they must repudiate on their obligations to redeem the currency for gold, or else their gold reserves are depleted. THUS inflation ruins gold standards.

          It doesn't get any more clear than that. If you can't present economics to prove that inflation doesn't destroy gold standards then you concede.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        2. fred the protectionist

          Free Trade in combination with dirt cheap transportation costs brought about by the internal combustion engine is the cause of the downfall of the Gold Standard.

          I'd rather not get rid of the internal combustion engine, so Free Trade has to go instead.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  22. a-52

    I like gold. It's nobody's damn business how much I make or what I invest in.

    I hate this social justice crap, getting something for nothing. The free market requires a trade. I'm sick of this progressive crap ripping me off for all these years, the waste is sickening.

    Creating money through debt versus the government buying gold to make money, which to you think is more reliable? If debt is not repaid, the system falls apart, which is right where we are.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

    1. fred the protectionist

      Why do you want to drain the US of all gold reserves in record time? That's what would happen with your free trade + gold standard, then we'd be back to square one with paper money except this time with an empty Fort Knox. That would be bad.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      1. EndtheFed

        The Broken Record strikes again.

        Trade deficits are caused by inflating currencies. Look it up.
        Therefore inflation would drain the gold, not free trade or the gold standard.

        With free trade and a world gold standard (and NO INFLATION), there is no loss of gold amongst nations because there is no trade deficits.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

        1. fred the protectionist

          Wrong, trade deficits are caused by cheap foreign labor.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

        2. EndtheFed

          Okay then, go ahead and explain how a trade deficit could develop between two nations using the same currency.

          Can't wait to see the rationale behind this. Fred Economics at it's best.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

        3. fred the protectionist

          "Okay then, go ahead and explain how a trade deficit could develop between two nations using the same currency."

          If 95% of Americans were earning 50 cents an hour there would be no trade deficit,. Of course if China and America had a political and economic union say like between Nebraska and Colorado were in a political and economic union, then there would be no trade deficit.

          You Libertarians are the true Globalists, neocons are just tinkerers.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        4. EndtheFed

          Are you going to provide reasons or examples?

          Or has 'Fred Economics' transcended logic and reason?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        5. Forest

          "Assuming a gold price of US$1,000 per ounce, or $32,500 per kilogram, the total value of all the gold ever mined would be around $4.5 trillion. This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $8.3 trillion is in circulation or in deposit"

          So all of the gold in the WORLD doesn't even equal money in circulation.

          Wait, what is our trade deficit again? And how would we buy the gold to move onto a gold standard?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        6. EndtheFed

          Forest said:
          "So all of the gold in the WORLD doesn’t even equal money in circulation."

          That's because the dollar has been depreciated in terms of gold. That's what inflation IS; creating more paper money than there is gold that it represents.

          Once again, if you had read about (and understood) purchasing power and inflation like I told you many times, you wouldn't make such foolish comments.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      2. But...

        Gold is worthless and useless. Who cares if there's none of it in Fort Knox?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        1. fred the protectionist

          Actually, even though the US is not officially on a gold standard, our gold reserves do strengthen the dollar.

          Foreign governments like China hope and pray the US people will get stupid one day like elect a politician who would return the US to the gold standard, then they could suck us dry of gold and have a big gold reserve themselves.

          If we had absolutely no gold in the vault the dollar would actually be weaker, so the gold in the Reserve Banks act as a sort of quasi gold standard, strengthening the dollar a bit. It is important.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

    2. Forest

      "Creating money through debt versus the government buying gold to make money, which to you think is more reliable?"

      Ummm, but in order to buy gold... wouldn't the government still have to 'create money'?

      You don't really make any sense at all, but that makes less sense than the rest of your ramblings.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  23. Citizen

    Fred is wrong as usual, just know that he's the consummate
    Big Government National Socialist (NAZI) he's always been.

    He doesn't like Libertarians because WE refuse to drink the Cool-aid!

    Go Dr Paul, keep up the message, its having the intended affect

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

    1. fred the protectionist

      Actually, foreigner, Henry Clay protectionism is what built America. You guys are tearing everything down.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  24. Yvonne

    I came across this
    Executive Order 6102 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Executive Order 6102 is an Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933 by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt ”forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates.” It required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933 all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve….

    Despite the dire threat of ten years in prison there was only one prosecution under the order and the order was ruled invalid by federal judge John Wolsey in this case on the technical grounds that the order was signed by the President, not the Secretary of the Treasury as required.[1] The circumstances of the case were that a New York attorney, Frederick Barber Campbell had on deposit at Chase National over 5000 ounces of gold. When Campbell attempted to withdraw the gold Chase refused and Campbell sued Chase. A federal prosecutor then indicted Campbell on the following day (September 27, 1933) for failing to register his gold.[2] Ultimately the prosecution of Campbell failed but the authority of federal government to seize gold was upheld. The case forced the Roosevelt administration to issue a new order under the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, which was in force for a few months until the passage of Gold Reserve Act on January 30th, 1934….

    The limitation on gold ownership in the U.S. was repealed after President Gerald Ford signed a bill legalizing private ownership of gold

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  25. sirachman

    @Bishop153 Just watch it change again if he decides to run for prez...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  26. Bishop153

    two years ago they said Ron Paul was a lunatic. Now they treat him like an ambassador... kind of funny

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

    1. Forest

      Not sure who you mean by 'they', but Ron Paul is for sure still treated by a lunatic in many, many circles.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      1. yep

        They treat him like that in the economically illiterate circles (and others).

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      2. SS

        And they are still running in circles.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  27. Panpiper

    @TheGoalSetter You are wrong, gold has enormous industrial value. It is the best conductor that exists, suffers absolutely no chemical erosion, etc.. If gold were plentiful, we would not be using copper for electrical wiring, we would not be using lead for radiation shielding, etc., as gold is better. Your computer would simply not work if it was not for the gold used in it's circuits. These are just some examples. Gold would be valuable even if people did not value it for aesthetic reasons.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

    1. fred the protectionist

      People do not value gold for aesthetic reasons anymore, unless your a gang banger or a shallow hollywood actress. There are better things in life that are pleasing to the eye then a piss colored rock that has the hardness of lead. A fast car, a plane, a fast computer, a well tended garden is more valuable then the piss colored rock.

      Gold's high price now is just as artificial as the "fiat dollar" you guys keep whining about. It's price is artificially kept up by fear, and fear alone, not because of it's aesthetic properties.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

      1. Citizen

        Fred your just wrong again, you missed Ron Paul's message by a mile. But that's typical of a Big Government National Socialists (NAZI) dude like you!

        Its not "aesthetics" and its not "just as artificial as the “fiat dollar""
        The Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are fast becoming "Not worth the paper they're printed on"

        Us "Ronulans" (your typical dis) prefer to hold a tangible hard commodity, GOLD, that our current National Socialists regime isn't able to INFLATE with more diluted FRNs

        Fred, go ahead, stuff your mattress with FRNs and sleep well!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

        1. fred the protectionist

          "a tangible hard commodity"

          OH I get it, a "tangible hard commodity" opposed to a "tangible soft commodity."

          Foreigner.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        2. Forest

          The Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are fast becoming “Not worth the paper they’re printed on”

          Not true:

          "Measured against a basket of currencies from the Group of 10 nations proportioned by how they trade against each other, the greenback is up about 3 percent since 1975, according to Bloomberg Correlation-Weighted Currency Indexes. "

          Not true... Gold can be a pretty crappy 'store of value' as well, I mean its has been trounced as a 'store of value' over the past 30 years:

          "Investors who paid $850 an ounce back then earned 44 percent as gold reached a record $1,226.56 on Dec. 3 in London. The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index produced a 22-fold return with dividends reinvested, Treasuries rose 11-fold and cash in the average U.S. checking account rose at least 92 percent. On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back."

          Ooooohhhhh shiiiinnnyyyyy!!! Me likey!

          Keep your shiny rock, the adults have better things to do with their money.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        3. SS

          Forest, you ignorant biatch ....

          Read the damn paragraph again, in English:
          “Measured against a basket of currencies from the Group of 10 nations proportioned by how they trade against each other, the greenback is up about 3 percent since 1975, according to Bloomberg Correlation-Weighted Currency Indexes. ”

          Measured against a basket of toilet swirling currencies, the dollar is up about 3% over a 35 year period. Bragging about this is equivalent to you bragging about your three inch pecker because your boyfriend only has two and a half inches.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      2. EndtheFed

        Fred said: "[gold]’s price is artificially kept up"

        Milton Friedman said that too. He said that's the reason that if we removed gold's connection to the dollar we would see it's price drop to about six dollars per ounce.

        He was wrong. Immediately after the dollar and gold were no longer connected, gold prices increased by over 800 dollars.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

        1. Forest

          Sucka.

          "On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back.”

          www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=axdpxBrQ9JTg

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        2. EndtheFed

          Your link is talking about RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

          Gold doesn't earn a rate of return.

          It protects against inflation. That's the point we're making.

          Sure if we could all invest in retrospect we would all want to make a 22 fold increase, but how would we know THEN that we weren't going to lose all of our money to risk, or to inflation?

          Nobody is saying gold is a better investment for rate of return, but just about everybody understands that gold is a protection from inflation (except you and Fred, apparently).

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        3. SS

          The Forest Is Thick

          LMAO

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

        4. EndtheFed

          Here's a perfect example of how illogical Forest and Fred are.

          I post a comment that states nothing aside from FACTS; I referred to a quote by Milton Friedman, and explained how his prediction that gold would drop in value was proven to be wrong by a whopping $800 increase per ounce. There is no opinion in this post, and the information I used is verifiable and true. Yet, I still receive 2 thumbs down.

          Sorry that you don't like the truth guys. I'd be pissed off too if someone kept ruining my bubble of blissful ignorance.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        5. fred the protectionist

          Wow a flaming free trader made a bad prediction, how unusual.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  28. johny344

    I think what people forget is that Fox is a business, just like the others. And they do whatevers profitable. Ron Paul wasn't profitable back in 2007/2008, but McCain was. Now that more people are leaning towards the opinion of Ron Paul, I wouldn't be surprised if Fox backs him. I could be wrong, but I hope I'm not.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

    1. B.D.Harper

      They will back him. It's either him or Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination, and Mitt Romney is too "establishment" to endorse, not to mention they never really loved him over at Fox.

      What we really need to worry about is independents - Paul has tremendous support among independent voters. We should try to convince every single independent we know to register republican so they can be involved with the republican primary and really represent the candidate they've been shown to support. Whether you're actually a republican or not is irrelevant, if you don't play a part you won't see him on the general election's ballot.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      1. Bottomline

        I'm an Independent voter and Dr. Paul done a great job convincing me to vote for him.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  29. TheGoalSetter

    Gold has no real (barter) value. It has the same value as paper currency...that which the buyer is willing to pay for it. Things with real valure are seeds, water, guns, etc. Gold, other than aesthetic value, simply has no value. And it is precisely that aesthetic value that makes it useful ONLY IN TIMES OF LUXURY! That's why rulers of great empires have always sought it out. But if the global economy is destroyed, there are no great empires...thus, gold is a bad doom's day investment.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

    1. longshotlouie

      Gold has been valued as a means of storing wealth for thousands of years and will continue to be so.
      A box full of FRN's could end up being virtually worthless, but not a box of gold.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

      1. fred the protectionist

        Good you Libertarians sink everything you have into Gold, go ahead. Practice what you preach.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

        1. Freedom4America

          Fred,

          Not sure where others are but we are putting everything we have in Silver and not Gold. Plus Copper-Clad Lead, Long Shelf Life Foods, a Garden and also land.

          You keep getting those WORTHLESS FRNs and let's see who has the most wealth in a few years.

          Dr. Ron Paul/Dr. Rand Paul 2012

          "ONLY Doctors WILL HEAL America"

          There is Hope for America in 2012

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

        2. fred the protectionist

          HAH! See, the Ronulans don't practice what they preach.

          I rest my case.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

        3. Forest

          "You keep getting those WORTHLESS FRNs and let’s see who has the most wealth in a few years."

          Right, so using your insane methodology, if you had bought gold 30 years ago and I had invested in the stock market, I would have TWENTY TWO times the amount of wealth, whereas you would still be 79% away from even GETTING YOUR MONEY BACK.

          That, my friend, is the difference between you and your family owning your house and putting in a pool, instead of renting a single-wide and staring at a shiny rock.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        4. GB

          Hyperbole will get you nowhere.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    2. Well..

      Then why do gold and silver emerge as the chosen medium of exchange on the free market whenever/wherever they are available? There are very good reasons for this. I trust you'll find them in due time.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      1. fred the protectionist

        Gold and silver are not the chosen medium of exchange on the free market whenever/wherever they are available? They only pop up during economic downtime.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  30. akai1sora

    Who did the US Mint sell all the gold eagles to in May? I haven't seen them offered online through their site.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  31. continuityofliberty

    I still have my Ron Paul 2008 sign - my daughter told me to keep it so "if he doesn't win, we can use it next time."

    She's only seven but my wife and I brought her to the caucus with us in 2008 to help her understand the process, and we'll do so again in 2012.

    She wants to put the 2008 sign in the yard now but out of respect for Ron I'll wait until he announces he's decided to run.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  32. boswellchrome

    could make a "HOW TO" vid on gold investing
    i don't trust fox.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  33. loafie79

    im voteing smart next time, im going with my gutt, i want RP to win so bad.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  34. Aracuru

    I AM VOTING RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT IN 2012!!! I DID IN 2008 AND I AM GOING TO DO IT AGAIN!

    RON PAUL for President 2012!!!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  35. devilmirror1

    So now Dr. Paul is Fox's favorite guest. Will it trash him again in 2012 on Presidential election?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    1. fred the protectionist

      Ask Dr Nostradamus, i'm sure he'll know.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      1. Bottomline

        Fred and Forest like to think they know everything which they don't.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        1. EndtheFed

          They expect to tell Ron Paul that he is wrong, but they don't understand monetary inflation or the basic laws of supply and demand.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

Leave a Reply