• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

...does Ron Paul really know something?

Aluisious

Aluisious

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Location
San Jose
Moto(s)
2016 Multistrada 1200S
Name
Frank
Many Ron Paul supporters act like borderline cultists, but I was reading up on gold and stumbled across this article written by Ron Paul:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul319.html

I encourage you to read it, it's a good exposition on gold, fiat currency, and the problems with waging pointless wars and spendthrift fiscal policy.

I'd have voted for Ron in the primary if I could after reading that. Too bad he probably won't get into the general election, because that's some sane talkin' right there. So much better than any of the prattling bullshit Hillary or some Mormon are offering, at least.
 
He actually makes sense. As opposed to "hope, experience, and charity" the other candidates.
 
Everytime I hear him speak I ask myself, "Why is he running as a Republican?". Everything he says sounds like Libertarian speak. Is he a Republican just to give himself a better shot at success?
 
Eric in Davis said:
Everytime I hear him speak I ask myself, "Why is he running as a Republican?". Everything he says sounds like Libertarian speak. Is he a Republican just to give himself a better shot at success?
Click to expand...

Yup!

Otherwise he'd go the route of all the other 3rd party members... (not saying he wont this time, but it gives him a better chance)
 
I think Republicans hate/fear him so much because he is pretty much everything they really should be (except for drug policy) but have drifted so far away from.
 
I didn't read the whole way through, so I don't know if he mentions this: but I think speculators buy gold because even if demand stays the same, supply will decrease with time and the price of gold will increase. The fact that its properties are static makes it predictable. I don't think speculators buy it for security vs fiat money.
 
There's been a lot of stuff written under a Ron Paul banner. Not all of it is good.
 
Seems like a VERY long winded essay on the gold standard.

What is he proposing we do? Kinda funny how people can latch onto the "guns don't kill people" argument, yet would believe paper currency is the root of all evil. :wtf

BTW: I like a lot of what the guy says, but this rant is pointless. Funny how he tries to bolster his argument with liberal reference to "the founding fathers". If he wants to be a modern republican he'd better ask "what would Jesus do" too. :)
 
Last edited:
Can You Trust A Politician...

...who is not even remotely familiar with the concept of nuclear fusion?

That's the question that comes to mind after reading that of the question that was posed to John Edwards at a campaign event in New Hampshire recently:

Another man, Howard Epstein, asked Mr. Edwards whether he supported nuclear fusion in the context of mining on the moon.

“You are over my head now,” said Mr. Edwards in a frank response that may very well have been shared by audience members who were not science-minded. “You are asking me if I would support what?”

I realize that I'm an unrealistic dreamer, but sometimes I think it would be nice if people who were running for high office had a grander view of the universe than petroleum -v- ethanol.
 
WTF does nuclear fusion have to do with mining on the moon?
 
santa said:
even if demand stays the same, supply will decrease with time and the price of gold will increase. The fact that its properties are static makes it predictable.
Click to expand...

The gold supply isn't necessarily "static." If a huge new gold deposit is found somewhere, like maybe under melting permafrost in Siberia, then the supply of gold would go way up. Conversely, if every gold miner on Earth decided to go on strike simultaneously, an artificial shortage would be created.

Under a gold standard, we'd have a money supply that was under the control of Mother Nature and gold miners, as opposed to a money supply under the control of the Federal Reserve. It's not clear -- at least to me -- what the advantage of the former would be.
 
RideToLive600RR said:
guess you should

Dicwad
Click to expand...

The REASON I didn't google it is because I was commenting on your quote. You implied a presidential candidate should know about theoretical fusion research. I'm technically inclined (although definitely not as much as yourself) and didn't know.

IMO the person asking the question was probably an idiot out to prove how smart they were.

Oh yeah, and the correct spelling is Dickwad :nerd
 
vaara said:
The gold supply isn't necessarily "static." If a huge new gold deposit is found somewhere, like maybe under melting permafrost in Siberia, then the supply of gold would go way up. Conversely, if every gold miner on Earth decided to go on strike simultaneously, an artificial shortage would be created.

Under a gold standard, we'd have a money supply that was under the control of Mother Nature and gold miners, as opposed to a money supply under the control of the Federal Reserve. It's not clear -- at least to me -- what the advantage of the former would be.
Click to expand...

Y'know what the odds against thousands of tons of easily extracted gold just hangin' out waiting to be found are?

People have been scratching away in the dirt for thousands of years to find gold. The stuff that's left now isn't cheap to produce.

There's LOTS of gold in the oceans for example, the only problem is it costs more to extract than it's worth.

At least gold has a tangible value, as it is useful for many things. Paper money is useful for very much less. I don't trust the Fed more than "Mother Nature," either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top