What Other Alternatives Exist For Getting Off Of Fiat Money?

Posted on | November 29, 2011 | 22 Comments

by Smitty

Ron Paul on money sounds so lucid:

You know your current course is financially suicidal. Those who say otherwise are the ones who are culpable for the current mess.
So, if not Ron Paul’s ideas, and not the status quo, then what?

via Tyler Durden

Category: End The Fed, Gold, Ron Paul, Uncategorized

Comments

22 Responses to “What Other Alternatives Exist For Getting Off Of Fiat Money?”

Anonymous
November 29th, 2011 @ 5:29 pm

If we could elect Ron Paul president of the economy, domestic fiscal and monetary policy I’d vote for him in a heartbeat. Pity.
Ladd Ehlinger Jr.
November 29th, 2011 @ 5:38 pm

Bit Coins.

Sorry, I couldn’t type that with a straight face.
Joe
November 29th, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

I agree. When it comes to economic matters, Ron Paul is great. Even on most social issues, he is great (I agree we need to be more libertarian and federalist and leave those issues to the states).

But on foriegn policy? You have better hope NoKo, Iran, and China all play well on their own.
Anonymous
November 29th, 2011 @ 6:37 pm

The monetary issue IS the same as the foreign policy issue. Soldiers have a habit of not soldiering when they don’t get paid.

The defense industry, just as Eisenhower warned, has found a way to latch on to the Federal Reserve titty. It has become a bureaucracy like any other. When you actually look at the foreign policy of the United States in timeline format, it really does open the eyes to what a bunch of egghead globalists are running our foreign policy.
Adjoran
November 29th, 2011 @ 8:08 pm

Okay, Dr. Paul: WHERE do you propose to get the gold to back the currency?

OR do you propose to DEFLATE our currency by at least 75% to match our reserves?

They have these new inventions called calculators. They start around five bucks – not a bad investment to avoid looking like an idiot.
Quartermaster
November 29th, 2011 @ 8:13 pm

Frankly, I seriously doubt Paul will be elected. I also seriously doubt that we will pose any problem for Iran, the Chinks or Norks. We won’t have the money to do so because the country is ignoring what Paul has to say needs to be done to FedGov. Frankly, I will not be surprised if the Obummer is re-elected as I refuse to overestimate the intelligence of the US voter. If not, Romney and Gingrich are not different enough from the Obummer to matter anyway. They will try to maintain the status quo by tweaking a few things so Joe Six Pack can go back to the couch and be comatose again. Joe Six Pack only cares about not having to worry, and he will listen to anyone that tells him he doesn’t have to and hands him a few goodies to think he doesn’t have to worry.
smitty
November 29th, 2011 @ 9:09 pm

I should hope you type with your fingers, sir.
Michael Todd
November 29th, 2011 @ 11:08 pm

Just something to think about …

The candidates are set. They all have track records and proposals. One candidate understands economics, monetary policy, wants to slash the federal budget, and bring liberty back to America. The others want to “spread democracy” across the globe. None of them offer both.

The reason none of them offer both is because they require adherence to 2 radically opposing governing philosophies. In other words, someone who wants to intervene abroad naturally wants to intervene at home. After all, if government can immanentize the eschaton, why stop at doing so only home or abroad?

You can’t have it all. So, conservatives have a tough choice to make. Domestic liberty or foreign wars. There is no third way.

Since the odds of America being invaded, let alone conquered, is about slim to none, the threat of going the way of Greece seems a lot more imminent to me.
Anonymous
November 30th, 2011 @ 12:16 am

There are more than two choices and foreign wars don’t have to be for the purpose of “spreading democracy”. Confusing national defense and converting the heathens is where we’ve gotten into trouble this past decade. We don’t have to be invaded to be defeated. The reason we were the single biggest winner in ww2 is because we fought it on someone Else’s ground.
Jorge Emilio Emrys Landivar
November 30th, 2011 @ 1:50 am

Well, this election is about the economy. There won’t be much of a US if we don’t fix things here.
Jorge Emilio Emrys Landivar
November 30th, 2011 @ 2:00 am

You do realize the reserve system is a partial reserve, not a full reserve?
Jorge Emilio Emrys Landivar
November 30th, 2011 @ 2:03 am

Unfortunately we are long past the time for tweaking. We don’t need someone who tweaks, we need an iconoclast.
AngelaTC
November 30th, 2011 @ 2:07 am

The guy has never been wrong about anything. He told us in the 90’s that the terrorists were going to attack. He told us that Iraq didn’t have WMDs. He told us Bin Laden was in Pakistan.

You might want to take a long hard look at where you’re getting your info, because Paul tends to cite entities like the CIA and the Pentagon.
AngelaTC
November 30th, 2011 @ 2:10 am

You might want to go to the library and actually read what he’s written on the subject. He doesn’t actually advocate a gold standard. He likes the idea of competing currencies.

Speaking of looking like an idiot, by all means, let’s take your advice and stay on board this sinking ship.
Jorge Emilio Emrys Landivar
November 30th, 2011 @ 6:53 am

Exactly, Paul has been uncannily prescient. That alone gives him massive props in my book.
Jorge Emilio Emrys Landivar
November 30th, 2011 @ 6:54 am

Incidentally this was Hayek’s idea as well.
Republicanmother
November 30th, 2011 @ 7:42 am

The reason for winning ww2 was also that we weren’t trillions in debt and paid for that war with real money; sacrifice for the whole population was needed as the Fed wasn’t up to printing pure money as it was still tied to gold.

It’s interesting to note that “Sir Basil Zaharoff, an international armaments dealer, whose considerable fortune was made by selling arms to both sides in several wars.” that historian Donald McCormick states “Allied statesmen and leaders were obliged to consult him before planning any great attack.” This guy worked WW1, don’t be naive and think that this kind of thing still isn’t going on to the nth degree today.

Anybody who thinks all this is about national defense is naive.
Anonymous
November 30th, 2011 @ 9:50 am

Hmm, sold arms to both sides, seems to be a sound business model, really clever how Sir Basil got that Hitler feller to invade Poland.
As for debt our grew six fold from 41 to 1946 comprising 97.82% of the debt increase from 1900 to 1950. Having our future allies pay us in gold for war material, food and fuel etc. adding substantially to our reserves, it was when they ran out that FDR came up with lend lease. Our war effort was largely financed by our citizenry purchasing war bonds making the foundation of our currency um flexible.

As for Donald McCormick I suspect his hat was made of tinfoil, possibly making it more effective than those made of aluminum foil.
ThePaganTemple
November 30th, 2011 @ 9:56 am

And of course he’s right when he implies Ahmadinejahd And The Mullahs are like a sixties era group of folk rockers. They really just want to be our friends, if we would just play nice with them. Ain’t that right?
ThePaganTemple
November 30th, 2011 @ 10:03 am

So what are these competing currencies going to be based on? Gold? Silver? Both? And what difference does it make whether you have a bunch of competing currencies based on gold or one national currency based on gold? Or perhaps more to the point, what’s the difference between competing fiat currencies and one? It’s still unworkable. The economy would be too big even if there wasn’t any debt, but the debt itself kills the idea right there. I give Paul props for trying to come up with what he probably honestly thinks is a valid solution, but I just don’t think it is.
ThePaganTemple
November 30th, 2011 @ 10:05 am

I, too, seriously doubt that Paul will be elected. I also seriously doubt I can step outside my door with a magic want here in the next few minutes and turn my water maple tree into a big old stack of magic pancakes with butter and syrup.
Bob Belvedere
November 30th, 2011 @ 11:40 am

It was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_McCormick

A British Joe McGinniss, it would seem.