RSS 2.0 FeedRon Paul On Kudlow & Company
by Doug MataconisA fairly good interview and it’s mostly about the fallout from Paul’s drubbing of Ben Bernake:
Competing currencies, the gold standard, and Friedrich Hayek. Just as interesting to watch is the panel that came on after the the interview:
Out of four panelists, only one thinks the status quo still works. And Steve Forbes, who endorsed Giuliani a couple months back, is talking about a gold standard — does he really think Rudy is going to do anything baout monetary policy ?
I don’t know if this is going to go anywhere or not, but there’s something refreshing about seeing stuff like this being talked about somewhere other than a libertarian academic seminar.
Wow think about all the people calling Ron Paul a nut for wanting a GOLD STANDARD. 4 of the 5 financial experts say yes it is a great idea.
What does that say about the people that said Ron Paul was crazy? hmmm do you think maybe they should learn about austrian economics?>
Ronpaul2008.com
WAKE UP AMERICA
Comment by steve — November 9, 2007 @ 2:30 pmsteve – stop with the all caps and have an intelligent discussion
I love the can of worms this discussion is opening up. It’s a discussion that people need to have. The discussion just goes over the heads of the majority of Americans so most people can’t talk about this. It does sound like an academic seminar. If Americans are willing to learn and be smart about issues like these, they will reap the benefits of having a better government. If Americans are too foolish to pay attention, they will keep having a system that will rob them of the fruits of their labour.
And not only that, they will be robbed blind while the rest of us more knowledge people are either extremely angry about the theft or thinking about how to get in on it.
I’ll openly admit it, I am in the process of doing both.
Comment by TanGeng — November 9, 2007 @ 3:47 pmThe funniest part is the neocons trying to smear Ron Paul by pointing out that he supports the gold standard, wants to do away with the Fed, and talks about “sound money,” at a time when the dollar is collapsing and people are fed up with the Fed steering the economy into the ground. This issue is only helping Ron Paul, and in a big way…
Comment by Craig — November 9, 2007 @ 4:47 pmI like Ron Paul’s competing currency idea with gold and silver. In fact, we had it from the Civil War through 1933.
Back before there was a Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury used to print the “greenbacks” themselves. At the same time, gold and silver certificates were issued that gave paper notes that represented the bearer’s ownership of an equivalent amount of gold or silver. (For example: $20 silver certificate was equivalent to $20 worth of silver).
Comment by Kevin — November 9, 2007 @ 6:05 pmThe one guy who was against Paul, Michael Metz, told a complete lie: he said that there was no correlation between the price of gold and the rate of inflation over the past 25 years.
But Metz must know that the price of gold has been artificially suppressed by central banks around the world for years.
I suspect that when the price of gold skyrockets (it’s already started), we’re going to find out that the most fervently anti-gold TV commentators were secretly hoarding huges stashes of the yellow metal in their personal portfolios — bought at the artificially low prices their propaganda helped create.
Comment by Buckwheat — November 9, 2007 @ 6:09 pmHas anyone else noticed Alan Greenspan’s recent favorable comments on the gold standard (here and here)? I don’t recall, but find it highly unlikely he would have voiced these opinions when he was fed chairman. Probably best avoided until the new job stared. ;-)
Comment by Akston — November 10, 2007 @ 2:02 amHas anyone else noticed Alan Greenspan’s recent favorable comments on the gold standard?
On the Daily Show
On Fox Business Network
I don’t recall, but find it highly unlikely he would have voiced these opinions when he was fed chairman. Probably best avoided until the new job stared. ;-)
Comment by Akston — November 10, 2007 @ 2:21 amPaul does not want a gold standard. I can’t believe that even after seeing interviews like this people are still spreading the rumour that he wants to go back to the gold standard. A gold standard is where the price of gold is fixed by the government. All Paul wants to do is legalize gold and silver as legal tender and not tax them. Then, the market will decide the ratio between gold and paper.
Comment by Drena — November 10, 2007 @ 9:04 amDrena,
No, the gold standard of the 20th century was where the price of gold was fixed by the government because ownership of gold was restricted thereby distorting demand. It wasn’t always that way. Paul’s made pretty clear that he thinks we need to be on a gold standard, from what I’ve seen he wants us to allow the price to be determined by the free market and for our currency to be linked to it. That is a gold standard, just not the kind we had most recently.
Comment by UCrawford — November 10, 2007 @ 9:14 am“I wouldn’t exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money.” – Ron Paul http://youtube.com/watch?v=RKQmYfY3R7c
Comment by Drena — November 10, 2007 @ 9:29 amYou’re right, UC, but Drena’s more concerned with the other side of the equation. They always talk about how Paul wants a gold standard, but they never mention that it’s a new kind of gold standard. They just imply that he wants to mindlessly rewind the clock.
This (and “isolationism”) are two of the key things that I feel need to be addressed with a “myths” website.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 10, 2007 @ 9:55 amWhat Paul wants is for money to be produced by the market, not the Fed, and not be biased against by legal tender laws and sales tax. For example, e-gold: http://www.e-gold.com
Private money, not government money – like it was done before.
Comment by Drena — November 10, 2007 @ 10:11 amwhile i am far from an economist and closer to a “spam bot” (im a computer science major), i was under the impression that paul wanted a “gold standard”. not exactly tying the dollar to gold, but he interpreted it as some sort of solid standard, which could be anything decided upon, after some strenuous debate.
which i never understood how currency works these days. it just baffles me how we can just print money and give it out. i dont understand how it gets from the print to the people. some time of federal loan program?
Comment by taylor — November 10, 2007 @ 1:56 pmNo, the gov’t isn’t the one with the printing press. It goes out through the banks in the form of easier credit and lower interest rates.
BTW, would you mind lending a hand?
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 10, 2007 @ 2:31 pmhttp://www.dailypaul.com/node/6607
Drena is right on target. Constitutionally, Congress may fix the standards of weights and measures, not the price of gold. To wit, Congress may enact legislation that states a dollar shall equal .999 oz of fine troy silver. That is a far cry from fixing the price of silver.
Comment by Chris Kachouroff — November 10, 2007 @ 5:41 pmIs Steve Forbes serious? People can easily go in and out of currencies now. Maybe in his neighborhood. Not mine. In mine nobody can name more than two currencies.
These guys kill me. You kow Kudlow would rather die than see an end to the Federal Reserve. Also he’ll take any chance he gets to bash gold.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who understand the modern printing press economy.
Comment by Chris Page — November 15, 2007 @ 10:56 am[...] should compete with each other and replace national currencies. Presidential candidate Ron Paul believes in having at least two government-backed, competing currencies (one in fiat money and one or more backed by hard assets) to take advantage of competition and [...]
Pingback by Daily Dixie: The Fed doesn’t like competition — November 15, 2007 @ 5:03 pm