Thread: Ron Paul 2012!

Paul came in second in the NH Primary tonight, this following a close third place finish in Iowa. After Mitt Romney, stats say he is by far the most consistently supported candidate (though its early days yet of course).

Despite living in Ohio I'm not permitted to vote because I'm still technically a British Citizen. However, as an admirer and long-time advocate of the Constitution I've always advocated Paul's platform of non-intervention and limited government. Having grown up in a relatively socialist country (the UK) it seems increasingly obvious to me that libertarian-influenced, limited government is the only just way for government run. And yet, despite the aforementioned success of the only candidate from either party to advocate this I am at a loss to understand why the media here is so unabashedly biased against Dr Paul. He receives next to no coverage compared to Gingrich (who so far has not even looked close to winning) and Santorum, let alone Romney. More importantly, the coverage he does receive is overwhelmingly negative and ignorant of his relative success. Why is this? Doesn't the media have a responsibility to present a balanced approach. I'm not asking Glenn Beck or any of the blowhards to advocate a candidate, just for the news to actually recognize reality and give the second-placed candidate a little respect. And I have never in all my years following presidential races heard any candidate ever be described as 'unelectable' while receiving that level of popular support.

I can understand why some might disagree with his policies, I can think of a few decent arguments against Paul's platform. But the crucial point is that all those arguments would be common to any Republican. So far nobody has given one single good reason why Ron Paul would be any worse than Romney as president, and IMO there's plenty of reasons why he'd be a good bit better.

Ron Paul 2012! Wake up America.

i stand by ron paul, whether he gets the nomination or not. obama is basically bush's 3rd term...and romney would
be "more of the same". america needs to rid herself of the big gov/corporate bought politicians which infest both mainstream
parties like so many cockroaches. if ron paul doesn't get nominated, i will write him in. whether romney or obama wins
means absolutely nothing to me. they are both political harlots.

Free hand to Iran. Mmmm, that's not too palatable.
Legalised drug cartels. Don't think you should give rewards to those with big guns and light triggers.
Then his God is right garbage is typical.

Honestly, the best solution would be if they all gathered in a room with Obama, and a massive gas pipe exploded. Of course you'd have to have the Vice President in there as well, because he'd be even worse than the rest of the jokers.

If I was American, I'd be saying; get rid of Obama, and I'll vote for whatever Democrat is nominated.

Ron Paul's advanced age is his problem. I, personally, have no problem with it, but the general voting public does.

Charisma, youth, physical stature, these all seem irrelevant to the duties of an elected representative, however they heavily influence voting due to psychological reasons.. and, unfortunately for Ron Paul, he's outgunned in these categories by the likes of Romney.

Originally Posted by dale

america needs to rid herself of the big gov/corporate bought politicians which infest both mainstream

You need to wipe out Congress to do that, not just point fingers at the president.

I'm annoyed at how many people blame the President whenever things aren't going well, and yet, they seem to forget the several hundred Congressmen and Congresswomen who control the majority of the country's political decisions.

Even if Ron Paul somehow miraculously gets elected, he'll find the majority of his proposals blocked and steamrolled in the House and Senate, and then, surprise surprise, people would complain how Ron Paul is just "more of the same."

Originally Posted by Rustgold

Free hand to Iran. Mmmm, that's not too palatable.

There's a big difference between non-interventionism and a 'free hand'. a 'free hand' would be to say 'do what you want and we'll let you', which is essentially isolationism. that isn't what ron paul advocates, nor has ever advocated. what he does advocate is just not military. it's to engage with them using diplomacy centered on free-trade. and with respect to folks who worry about iran having a nuclear weapon, do you really think bombing/invading iran is a wise decision? suppose you did just that, what would be the repercussions? iran is big enough of a military power to cause some serious damage in the event of being invaded but not big enough to provide a threat to the United States. it just isn't and what exactly is the worst that could happen if Iran got the bomb? they aren't going to use it. America and NATO collectively have enough muscle in their little finger to pulverize the middle east into oblivion. the only way i can see Iran doing such a massively stupid and suicidal thing would be if they were driven to a level of such desperation and fear of their sovereign survival that it would be part of some 'scorched earth' policy. and there's only one thing that could cause that, a military attack against them. the point is, attacking iran would NOT make the west safer and would most likely escalate a delicate situation.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

Legalised drug cartels. Don't think you should give rewards to those with big guns and light triggers.

check your facts. ron paul does not advocate legalizing drug cartels. quite the opposite in fact. when you legalize drugs you eradicate cartels, and violent crime will always be violent crime. the drug issue is separate from the crime issue in the same way drug users are separate from criminals. a drug addict has a medical problem, not a legal problem and in any case such distinctions should be left to the states. why? because the drug situation in new mexico is markedly different from the drug situation in maine.


[QUOTE=Rustgold;1494982Then his God is right garbage is typical.[/quote]

you mean the fact he believes in god? well, yes it is typical. but it doesnt disqualify an individual from being a good president.

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

Ron Paul's advanced age is his problem. I, personally, have no problem with it, but the general voting public does.

Charisma, youth, physical stature, these all seem irrelevant to the duties of an elected representative, however they heavily influence voting due to psychological reasons.. and, unfortunately for Ron Paul, he's outgunned in these categories by the likes of Romney.


You need to wipe out Congress to do that, not just point fingers at the president.

I'm annoyed at how many people blame the President whenever things aren't going well, and yet, they seem to forget the several hundred Congressmen and Congresswomen who control the majority of the country's political decisions.

Even if Ron Paul somehow miraculously gets elected, he'll find the majority of his proposals blocked and steamrolled in the House and Senate, and then, surprise surprise, people would complain how Ron Paul is just "more of the same."

i don't agree about the age issue. simply because the demographic of his supporters is overwhelmingly young. so who has a problem with it? fifty-something year olds? that doesn't ring true to me. however i agree with the problems he'll have in the house and senate. there will have to be a great shift in the GOP for him to be able to act effectively, but then there'd have to be a considerable shift anyway for him to get the nomination so i guess if he did get elected president most of the hard work would already have been done. in any case, i imagine many of his proposals (on foreign policy at least) would probably be popular with the democrats.

Originally Posted by luckyscars

Paul came in second in the NH Primary tonight, this following a close third place finish in Iowa. After Mitt Romney, stats say he is by far the most consistently supported candidate (though its early days yet of course).

Despite living in Ohio I'm not permitted to vote because I'm still technically a British Citizen. However, as an admirer and long-time advocate of the Constitution I've always advocated Paul's platform of non-intervention and limited government. Having grown up in a relatively socialist country (the UK) it seems increasingly obvious to me that libertarian-influenced, limited government is the only just way for government run.

You would most likely have the opposite view if you grew up in Iceland.

I would consider voting for Ron Paul if we were living in a robust economy, in fact, I used to be an ardent supporter. My foremost reservation is that he would screw it up (the economy), but also, he believes in the "everyman for himself" concept. There would be no safety net under Paul (or any other of the Republican candidates).

And yet, despite the aforementioned success of the only candidate from either party to advocate this I am at a loss to understand why the media here is so unabashedly biased against Dr Paul. He receives next to no coverage compared to Gingrich (who so far has not even looked close to winning) and Santorum, let alone Romney. More importantly, the coverage he does receive is overwhelmingly negative and ignorant of his relative success. Why is this? Doesn't the media have a responsibility to present a balanced approach. I'm not asking Glenn Beck or any of the blowhards to advocate a candidate, just for the news to actually recognize reality and give the second-placed candidate a little respect. And I have never in all my years following presidential races heard any candidate ever be described as 'unelectable' while receiving that level of popular support

He's getting quite a bit of coverage, but I am opposed to this notion that Romney is the next candidate so why bother wasting you vote on anyone else. That type of rhetoric tends to usurp the entire political process. The supreme courts 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision facilitates the new superpacs, so now, corporations are pumping out crazy money in support whomever they choose, and Romney is their man. There's never been anything like this in the history of American politics. The corporate media is just doing their part to seal Romney's victory.

I can understand why some might disagree with his policies, I can think of a few decent arguments against Paul's platform. But the crucial point is that all those arguments would be common to any Republican. So far nobody has given one single good reason why Ron Paul would be any worse than Romney as president, and IMO there's plenty of reasons why he'd be a good bit better.

Ron Paul 2012! Wake up America.

Yes wake up America. The worst thing that has happened in the last couple of years was the 2010 mid term elections that turned the House of Representatives over to those tea party folks. The best thing we can do is keep Obama and turn the house back over to the democrats.

If you truly believe that deregulation, less government, is the way to go, then know that that's we have now. The stock market crash of October 2008 that lead to our present day woes was the direct result of a completely unregulated financial market. And you want to go back to that, seriously?

Our economy would be in full recovering today if not for the obstructionist right wing.

And one other thing, presidents can not just do whatever they have in mind, they have to deal with congress, as Obama can attest. Ron Paul would be useless in that regard...I think.

Originally Posted by Blood

You would most likely have the opposite view if you grew up in Iceland.

I would consider voting for Ron Paul if we were living in a robust economy, in fact, I used to be an ardent supporter. My foremost reservation is that he would screw it up (the economy), but also, he believes in the "everyman for himself" concept. There would be no safety net under Paul (or any other of the Republican candidates).

He's getting quite a bit of coverage, but I am opposed to this notion that Romney is the next candidate so why bother wasting you vote on anyone else. That type of rhetoric tends to usurp the entire political process. The supreme courts 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision facilitates the new superpacs, so now, corporations are pumping out crazy money in support whomever they choose, and Romney is their man. There's never been anything like this in the history of American politics. The corporate media is just doing their part to seal Romney's victory.

Yes wake up America. The worst thing that has happened in the last couple of years was the 2010 mid term elections that turned the House of Representatives over to those tea party folks. The best thing we can do is keep Obama and turn the house back over to the democrats.

If you truly believe that deregulation, less government, is the way to go, then know that that's we have now. The stock market crash of October 2008 that lead to our present day woes was the direct result of a completely unregulated financial market. And you want to go back to that, seriously?

Our economy would be in full recovering today if not for the obstructionist right wing.

And one other thing, presidents can not just do whatever they have in mind, they have to deal with congress, as Obama can attest. Ron Paul would be useless in that regard...I think.

the problem with the economy is that it is, by and large, built on debt. a country under a Ron Paul-style leadership would have a very difficult time re-establishing itself and would doubtless encounter some very painful truths. a fiat (non-gold based) monetary system is largely to blame for this. the problem with democratic, obama-style leadership is that while it might seem to offer the most hospitable environment to live in, it is an environment that is fast running out of the capability to support itself because it is increasingly undermined and dependent on borrowing, debt and inflation.

it's a difficult thing to say, particularly from myself who always believed wholeheartedly in looking after the less fortunate and 'safety nets', but the fact is if you're unable to support such a system, which America is due to history and population (certainly compared to countries like norway and iceland), but the fact is the only alternative to Ron Paul is to either accept that debt and inflation will increase and the country will go bankrupt. this would happen under any of the other republican candidates too, since all support overseas spending and all support taxation. at least with obama you get some kind of social justice, where the inflation and debt is spread relatively recently between the classes. under a mainstream republican you'd have the same level of spending, inflation and unemployment, more or less, but the rich would get richer. that is an unacceptable situation as far as i'm concerned.

the only real alternative to the obama-romney model it seems it Ron Paul, and with health warning acknowledged. yes the safety nets would decrease and certain demographics would suffer. but at least you'd be giving what the poor do have back to them, together with undermining the ability for banks and corporations to act like rogue traders because their relationship with the criminal federal reserve and their ability to print money and get bailed out would be gone. if you ask anybody, rich or poor, whether they'd rather have a hundred dollars of money or a thousand dollars of green paper, backed by nothing, i would think they'd all go with the former. so while, on the one hand, there may be a price to pay so far as short-term entitlements and capital is concerned, in the long term the wound would heal and the country would get back to genuine economic productivity. which is really the only option, right?

Originally Posted by luckyscars

iran is big enough of a military power to cause some serious damage in the event of being invaded but not big enough to provide a threat to the United States.

So screw the world as long as America is ok? That's so typically Amercian.

Originally Posted by luckyscars

they aren't going to use it. America and NATO collectively have enough muscle in their little finger to pulverize the middle east into oblivion. the only way i can see Iran doing such a massively stupid and suicidal thing would be if they were driven to a level of such desperation and fear of their sovereign survival that it would be part of some 'scorched earth' policy.

Scorched earth... So peaceful that is.
So the idea is to let everything go to hell and undertake a scorched earth genocide? Is that your 'grand peace' for America vision?

It's so typically American; create a problem, and then go running home crying to mummy when it doesn't go according to plan. America (along with other interests) created Al Queda in the 80s & 90s, then it was prepared to let it run riot until 9/11. If it wasn't for 9/11, America would have allowed its abomination wreak havoc upon numerous communities.

And now we might be seeing the same story with Iran. Iran had a number of decent (relatively speaking) moderate leaders; and what did the Americans do? They had this permanent temper tantrum stemming from the cold war because Iran purchased some USSR weapons instead of paying an exorbitant price for old junk. So Iran had moderate leader after moderate leader lose power until we end up with this nutcase. And now America wants to take its bat and go home, leaving everybody else with the mess it created.

Sorry. America couldn't keep its hands out when it should have, it can at least deal with the mess it created. If America washes its hands of its own mess, then there's no point in America continuing to exist.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

So screw the world as long as America is ok? That's so typically Amercian.


Scorched earth... So peaceful that is.
So the idea is to let everything go to hell and undertake a scorched earth genocide? Is that your 'grand peace' for America vision?

It's so typically American; create a problem, and then go running home crying to mummy when it doesn't go according to plan. America (along with other interests) created Al Queda in the 80s & 90s, then it was prepared to let it run riot until 9/11. If it wasn't for 9/11, America would have allowed its abomination wreak havoc upon numerous communities.

And now we might be seeing the same story with Iran. Iran had a number of decent (relatively speaking) moderate leaders; and what did the Americans do? They had this permanent temper tantrum stemming from the cold war because Iran purchased some USSR weapons instead of paying an exorbitant price for old junk. So Iran had moderate leader after moderate leader lose power until we end up with this nutcase. And now America wants to take its bat and go home, leaving everybody else with the mess it created.

Sorry. America couldn't keep its hands out when it should have, it can at least deal with the mess it created. If America washes its hands of its own mess, then there's no point in America continuing to exist.

scorched earth is what would happen if America DID invade iran. that's ron paul's point with regard to non-interventionism. sometimes 'dealing with the mess' can cause more of a mess. look at vietnam, look at korea, look at afghanistan. none of those countries resorted to 'scorched earth' tactics when they were invaded but none of those countries had the means to. i don't disagree with your view on history (although you are slightly mistaken about a couple of things which aren't significant enough for me to correct you on) or that america is largely to blame for the mess in iran (as well as in numerous other countries) but the issue is the present day and what's best to do and with iran there's two options. either to engage with them militarily (which includes economic sanctions) or peacefully. ron paul advocates the peaceful method - i.e talking to them, trading with them and NOT invading them. i don't see how you can argue with that. the fact is, there is no alternative way to deal with iran that would actually work. you invade them and all that'll happen is another iraq, except worse because iran is a far greater military power than iraq was and may or may not have nuclear capabilities.

you obviously did not read my post correctly. nobody advocates scorched earth. are you mad? i said IF we invade that is what will happen. same goes for north korea. there is no reason to invade iran and america, like all countries, should not be militarily involved with any conflict unless 1) it has the backing of congress through an official declaration of war and 2) it is an existential threat to America. a president's outlook, with regard to war, should only be concerned with those two conditions. i'm sorry if you think that translates as 'screw the world as long as america is okay' (it doesn't, by the way) but the fact is you can either choose to police the world and facilitate democracy, in which case you've got to declare war on half of it (including china, saudi arabia and north korea) which plainly is beyond the capabilities of America or any country OR you can choose to leave other countries alone to determine their own futures. the former does not work financially, it does not work militarily and it does not work morally. the latter does.

also, what is your issue with America? nobody with any knowledge of history denies the sins of various american governments through history. but what exactly do you want 'us' to do about it? constantly apologize and give everybody on the planet a billion dollars and a villa in the florida keys? i'm british by the way (you obviously didn't read the original post either or you'd know that and wouldn't keep calling me a 'typical american'). do you also expect britain to pay reparations to every one of its former colonies? how far back do you want to go? perhaps the italians should give every citizen in every country the roman empire ruled over dictatorially a villa in tuscany? there comes a point where you have to, without ignoring history, move on from it and think about how the present is and the future ought to be in realistic terms as opposed to whining about past injustices. the only way, and the right way, for america to redeem itself for its past sins is to stop the behavior that caused those sins to occur. and the best way to do that is to BRING THE TROOPS HOME and for everybody to mind their own damn business.

Originally Posted by luckyscars

the problem with the economy is that it is, by and large, built on debt. a country under a Ron Paul-style leadership would have a very difficult time re-establishing itself and would doubtless encounter some very painful truths. a fiat (non-gold based) monetary system is largely to blame for this.

Yes our economy is built on consumer debt, no that’s not the problem. How do you blame fiat money?

Once upon a time back in the early 1970’s, other countries sought to take advantage of the negative U.S, trade balance brought on the cost of the Vietnam war. They began demanding that the U.S. fulfill it’s promise to redeem their dollars for gold. The freaking French, for example, depleted the U.S. gold reserve by $191 million. Bastards! President Nixon realized that this was not a good thing. With the old gold standard, anyone or any nation with dollars could redeem them for gold at anytime. He must have imagined a scenario where the U.S. Bullion Depository known as Fort Knox was reduced to nothing more than an heavily fortified empty warehouse. Devaluing the dollar didn’t seem like a viable option so he chose to close the gold widow to stabilize the economy, and it worked. Besides, fiat money is much more flexible and provides greater control over the money supply.

the problem with democratic, obama-style leadership is that while it might seem to offer the most hospitable environment to live in, it is an environment that is fast running out of the capability to support itself because it is increasingly undermined and dependent on borrowing, debt and inflation.

First, let’s stop the GOP from undermining. The only way to do that is to vote them out. Then we can pump up the economy and worry about the nation’s debt later. That’s the idea.

it's a difficult thing to say, particularly from myself who always believed wholeheartedly in looking after the less fortunate and 'safety nets', but the fact is if you're unable to support such a system

But we are able.

but the fact is the only alternative to Ron Paul is to either accept that debt and inflation will increase and the country will go bankrupt.

I don’t believe inflation is tied to national debt but I could be wrong. Ron Paul’s plan is to liquidate debt by cutting $1 trillion in spending in the first year alone. The Departments of Energy, HUD, Commerce, Education and more all gone along with 440,000 federal government jobs. That’s 440,000 more people applying for unemployment benefits, unless he cuts that too. $1 trillion removed from circulation. A drastic reduction in consumer spending which will lead to reduced demand followed by reduced production followed by more layoffs and a downward economic spiral.

Ron Paul or any conservative president at this time maybe just what the Mayans predicted. Really, he/they hold the recipe for a potential global economic meltdown. It happened already in October 2008 and the only reason were not in the midst of a 2^nd Great or Greater Depression is because the world’s nations bailed out their financial institutions as we did, a necessary evil. But Ron Paul is constitutionally opposed to that too.

We need to do the exact opposite and increase spending by $1 trillion building bridges, damns, highways, anything to create more jobs.

the only real alternative to the obama-romney model it seems it Ron Paul, and with health warning acknowledged. yes the safety nets would decrease and certain demographics would suffer. but at least you'd be giving what the poor do have back to them, together with undermining the ability for banks and corporations to act like rogue traders because their relationship with the criminal federal reserve and their ability to print money and get bailed out would be gone.

Yea, wall street crashes anyway, banks and corporations fail, everything comes to a standstill. Sounds like doom and gloom doesn’t it, but are economy is much more global now then it was in 1929, we simply can’t afford another great depression. Generally speaking, when the going gets tough, war breaks out – big war. It just doesn’t get any more perfect than that.

I ask myself this question, why wouldn’t history repeat itself, the stock market crash of 1929, the great depression, war for resources? We’re less than 4 years removed from the last close call and here we are thinking about trying it again.

if you ask anybody, rich or poor, whether they'd rather have a hundred dollars of money or a thousand dollars of green paper, backed by nothing, i would think they'd all go with the former.

If you ask me I’ll take the thousand.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

So screw the world as long as America is ok? That's so typically Amercian.

And now we might be seeing the same story with Iran. Iran had a number of decent (relatively speaking) moderate leaders; and what did the Americans do? They had this permanent temper tantrum stemming from the cold war because Iran purchased some USSR weapons instead of paying an exorbitant price for old junk.

Yup, they shouldn't have done that! Now they're gonna get it!

Originally Posted by luckyscars

the problem with democratic, obama-style leadership is that while it might seem to offer the most hospitable environment to live in, it is an environment that is fast running out of the capability to support itself because it is increasingly undermined and dependent on borrowing, debt and inflation.

So if a Democracy isn't the answer, what then? Autocracy? Benevolent dictatorship? Unless you meant to capitalize the d, and meant the political party.

We just got out of 8 years of Republican leadership, and I don't think the debt went down too much. In fact, a big part of the Obama (successful) electoral platform was to extract America from the costly wars begun under the Republican tenure, which he has fulfilled.

Originally Posted by luckyscars

it's a difficult thing to say, particularly from myself who always believed wholeheartedly in looking after the less fortunate and 'safety nets', but the fact is if you're unable to support such a system, which America is due to history and population (certainly compared to countries like norway and iceland)

The system is possible, but needs to be better managed. The question is, will you give up some tanks and bombs to feed and educate the less fortunate? A hand up is better than a hand out, btw, if you're trying to redesign the system.

Originally Posted by luckyscars

, but the fact is the only alternative to Ron Paul is to either accept that debt and inflation will increase and the country will go bankrupt.

I'm surprised he hasn't put this on his campaign buttons. "Ron Paul for President, vote for me or you will go bankrupt."

Originally Posted by luckyscars

social justice... but the rich would get richer. that is an unacceptable situation as far as i'm concerned.

Social Justice and the American Dream take turns kicking each other in the junk.

"life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" - James Adams

The whole concept of the American Dream is for the poor to get rich, and the rich to get richer. "according to ability or achievement" isn't followed by "until we think you've got enough, then you sit back and smoke cigars in the Hamptons."

Originally Posted by Capulet

So if a Democracy isn't the answer, what then? Autocracy? Benevolent dictatorship? Unless you meant to capitalize the d, and meant the political party.

yes. i meant the democratic party. i apologize, i'm afraid i'm not always as consistent with my capitalization as i should be.

Originally Posted by Capulet

We just got out of 8 years of Republican leadership, and I don't think the debt went down too much. In fact, a big part of
the Obama (successful) electoral platform was to extract America from the costly wars begun under the Republican tenure, which he has fulfilled.

you're right that the debt did go up under george w bush. there's two reasons for that: firstly (and largely) it was the war on terror and foreign policy in general that sucked the budget dry. there's no question that those wars were illegal. there was no declaration of war from congress and in the case of the iraq war a flagrant disregard of international law and the united nations. the former issue is more troubling since i personally don't see the united nations as being a particularly legitimate organization, but whatever your views on it the fact is it was illegal on multiple counts. the decision to go to war was therefore against the constitution and, ergo, counter to traditional republicanism. on that basis the actions of the george w. bush presidency should not be considered that of a 'republican government'. at the very least mainstream republicans who advocate such wars are RINOS (republicans in name only, which is slightly ironic since that is exactly the name they've started branding RP with). but i digress. foreign policy was responsible for a large portion of that debt increase, which is an action a ron paul presidency would assuredly not repeat since avoiding such wars is an integral part of his platform (and he doesnt seem like a liar). the other reason why the debt went up under GWB was because government grew or stayed the same size (depending on how you define 'government') compared to it had under clinton but WITHOUT the taxation needed to fund it. the bush tax cut, a cynical way to pander to corporate america, remained in effect in spite of 9/11 and they borrowed money to pay for government. this culture of debt was partially to blame for the 2008 banking crisis also, since it fundamentally weakened the dollar while stagnating the economy.

The question is, will you give up some tanks and bombs to feed and educate the less fortunate? A hand up is better than a hand out, btw, if you're trying to redesign the system.

i disagree. the question is not between tanks and feeding/educating the less fortunate. remember the phrase 'give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll feed himself forever'? to me that's the only answer. for the following reasons:

1) increase benefits, entitlements (the supply of fish, if you will) and you will increase the burden on central government
2) a 'benefits culture' creating lack of incentive to work for some (not, not all. some people obviously are unable) and thus a crippling of economic activity
3) micro-managing the economy by central government, which has been proven time and again not to work because government is generally not good at this
4) greater intrusion into civil liberties - i.e the nanny state. not many people think of this when promoting social justice, but for the government to effectively manage redistribution of wealth it necessarily requires a large degree of power over individual freedom. consider the amount of data government would need to have on its citizenry in order to 'know' who is the underfed and less-fortunate. what you'd essentially be requiring is a police state where social security is able to monitor virtually every aspect of an individual's economic status. they'd have to know your bank balances, your savings, your property/properties, your assets. everything. without that 'feeding the hungry' would equate to little more than throwing loaves of bread into a mob. that kind of behavior is unjust and unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Blood

Yes our economy is built on consumer debt, no that’s not the problem. How do you blame fiat money?

Once upon a time back in the early 1970’s, other countries sought to take advantage of the negative U.S, trade balance brought on the cost of the Vietnam war. They began demanding that the U.S. fulfill it’s promise to redeem their dollars for gold. The freaking French, for example, depleted the U.S. gold reserve by $191 million. Bastards! President Nixon realized that this was not a good thing. With the old gold standard, anyone or any nation with dollars could redeem them for gold at anytime. He must have imagined a scenario where the U.S. Bullion Depository known as Fort Knox was reduced to nothing more than an heavily fortified empty warehouse. Devaluing the dollar didn’t seem like a viable option so he chose to close the gold widow to stabilize the economy, and it worked. Besides, fiat money is much more flexible and provides greater control over the money supply.

with respect, if that's the conclusion you draw then you clearly don't understand economics. money (as in the paper stuff) is not some tool you can change at will to be 'flexible' and to 'stabilize the economy'. even if we disregard the fact that the US constitution* explicitly states that gold and silver is the only legal tender in the united states (Art. I Sec. 10 Cl. 1) then we still see terrible problems in the use of such a system.

if you want to understand this properly you need to go back a lot further than the 1970's. consider why we have inflation, inflation is nothing more than a fancy word for debt. back in ancient civilization, commodities were the only means to trade. and, guess what, it worked. consider a civilization like, i don't know, the cherokees prior to european invasion. in the cherokee nation, economic activity essentially consisted of the following:

1) you went out an hunted a buffalo and brought back some meat to camp but your tomahawk got broken during the hunt
2) in the camp you met another man who had made a tomahawk. you liked the tomahawk.
3) the man said he was hungry. he had not hunted a buffalo that day because he had been busy making the tomahawk.
4) you both wanted something the other man had. so you offered the man with the tomahawk six ounces (or the cherokee equivalent) of buffalo meat in exchange for the tomahawk.
5) the man said you could have the tomahawk, but he wanted seven ounces of buffalo meat.
6) you agree. he gave you the tomahawk. you gave him the buffalo meat. he gets to eat and you get the means to hunt.


now consider the alternative scenario:


1) you went out to hunt buffalo but came back early because your tomahawk broke.
2) you met the same man. he was hungry. he had a tomahawk. you needed the tomahawk but had nothing to give him in exchange for it.
3) you say the following to the man "give me the tomahawk and i promise you i will give you seven ounces of meat from the buffalo i will bring back". the man is
not sure if you will do this, so you grab a stick and write (assuming cherokees had writing) in the earth 'i promise the pay *his name* the amount of seven ounces
of the buffalo i will bring back.'
4) the man is hungry, so he agrees. he gives you the tomahawk.
5) you go out and find a buffalo. you hurl the tomahawk at one but the buffalo survives and runs away with the tomahawk sticking into its flank. little do you know,
but that buffalo was the last buffalo.
6) you return to camp. the man who gave you the tomahawk approaches. he is still hungry and asks you for the buffalo meat. he points at what you wrote in the earth.
7) you say 'i have no buffalo meat.' he is unhappy and asks for the tomahawk back. you tell him the tomahawk is stuck in the side of the vanished buffalo and is gone.
he points at what you wrote it the earth. you shrug. you tell him again there is no buffalo meat, because there is no buffalo meat.

the first scenario shows how austrian (non fiat based) economics work. the second is for keynsian (fiat based) economics. in the first scenario we see how a realised and obtained commodity can be used to secure a transaction without the need to rely on confidence, which is really just another word for 'self-illusion'. in the allegory i just wrote, its clear that 'the hunter' is the government, though in reality it could be anyone seeking to borrow money. it's the 'demand' aspect of economics. 'the tomahawk-maker' is the taxpayer, though equally it could represent anyone who provides demand. the buffalo meat and the tomahawk provide both sides of the transaction, the supply-demand. you could substitute either for just about anything of any physical nature. perhaps we could think of this in terms of mcdonalds and consider the tomahawk to be a hamburger and the buffalo meat to be a five dollar bill. it really makes no difference, the crucial thing is that in the second (fiat-based) example only one half of 'the deal' actually is real. real meaning actually owned by the subject of the trade. on that basis, the tomahawk-maker is duped into a promise that he will receive what he wants. often it seems like it works and the debt is fulfilled. when somebody gives you twenty dollars for, i don't know, a video game you want you assume that twenty dollars has worth because you can go ahead and spend it at the grocery store. but the problem is, there's no guarantee because ultimately that twenty dollars is backed by nothing. it goes to the grocery store or wherever, and then somewhere else and so on, until ultimately it most likely arrives in the hands of the government, who then invest it in something else - a korean building project, a french nuclear power-plant, a war in libya. meanwhile inflation builds up on that twenty dollars at a changing rate (but almost always up) until finally it comes back to you. by which time you discover that the twenty dollars no longer is enough to buy that video game, or any video game, because inflation means that video games now retail at forty dollars. and so on. this requires more and more money to be printed, exhaustively so, to make up for the lost value of the currency. inevitably you'll either get to the point where twenty dollars is worth what twenty cents was worth fifty, sixty or a hundred years ago (depending on how quickly that inflation happened), or else you'll have a financial collapse, what's known as a 'bubble burst', or more colloquially still a 'stock market crash' where prices have risen to the point where the economy can no longer support them.

this then causes business to become noncompetitive and the economy to stagnate; resulting in 'deflation', a rapid devaluing of the currency, akin to what occured in Wiemar Germany in the 1930's. but it is not inevitable. no country that has ever stuck to a commodity based monetary system has EVER suffered these kinds of things. throughout history, empires have fallen for a variety of reasons and, yes, sometimes it is monetary. there was debt in the middle ages, no doubt, but with one crucial difference. that debt was never built into the money itself. the gold-standard is the most popular form of a commodity based monetary system, and for one good reason: it retains value regardless of economic circumstance. often we hear of 'the price of gold rising' and, less often, 'the price of gold falling', but this is somewhat misleading because the fact is gold ONLY rises or falls in value relative to currency. the only reason gold is more expensive now than it was ten years ago is because the dollar (and virtually every other currency) is so weak in comparison. it never has anything to do with virtues or flaws in the gold itself. because a gold ring, watch, chain, etc is always a gold ring, watch, chain, etc in much the same way that buffalo meat is always buffalo meat, or a tomahawk is always a tomahawk. the value is in its material matter. the same is not true for dollar bills. you can't eat a dollar, a pound, a yen. you certainly cannot a euro. fiat money has no more value than that 'empty promise written in the earth by the cherokee.' discounting the fact you could, i suppose, burn it for warmth or wipe your rear end with it. it is paper after all, sort of.

that, in a nutshell, is the problem with fiat money.

* the constitution also prohibits international treaties and bills of credit, i.e paper money, by the way. i'm sure most people dismiss this as fusty old nonsense but i like to think the constitution to be pretty damn important since it's what every president supposedly swears to uphold