Dr. Paul calls out Cain over his stance on Fed Audit

That's incorrect of course,

That is entirely correct.

there's not been a politician in gov't better at predicting what the economy is going to do than Ron Paul.

Irrelevant to the concept of fiat currency.

However I actually think it's possible that money not backed by gold can be kept at a good value, provided the ones issuing it aren't running the printing press all day and waving the magical credit creation wand 24/7/365 like our Fed does and has been doing quite awhile.

It is not possible to run an expanding economy with currency that is pegged to tangibles.

I've been through this before with you. In 1980 there was no personal computer business. In 1985 there was a $5 trillion a annual market for PC's (all brands.) This is about a 13% stake in the the $28 trillion economy. (Source: http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=354) So if you put 13% more goods and services chasing a static monetary supply, remember - there was not a significant increase in gold supplies, what happens? How are other products in the market affected by an effective 13% decline in the money supply? How does this affect the purchasing power of the consumer?

A dynamic economy MUST have fiat currency. This is economic fact. That doesn't mean that the corrupt federal reserve needs to manage it, those are two separate issues.

My original point was only that how can someone support Cain and Paul, when they're so different on so many key issues?

I love all three of my daughters, I love my son as well. They are vastly different, so how is that possible?
 
Last edited:
That's incorrect of course,

That is entirely correct.

there's not been a politician in gov't better at predicting what the economy is going to do than Ron Paul.

Irrelevant to the concept of fiat currency.

However I actually think it's possible that money not backed by gold can be kept at a good value, provided the ones issuing it aren't running the printing press all day and waving the magical credit creation wand 24/7/365 like our Fed does and has been doing quite awhile.

It is not possible to run an expanding economy with currency that is pegged to tangibles.

I've been through this before with you. In 1980 there was no personal computer business. In 1985 there was a $5 trillion a annual market for PC's (all brands.) This is about a 13% stake in the the $28 trillion economy. (Source: GDP-Real (Adjusted) United States) So if you put 13% more goods and services chasing a static monetary supply, remember - there was not a significant increase in gold supplies, what happens? How are other products in the market affected by an effective 13% decline in the money supply? How does this affect the purchasing power of the consumer?

A dynamic economy MUST have fiat currency. This is economic fact. That doesn't mean that the corrupt federal reserve needs to manage it, those are two separate issues.

My original point was only that how can someone support Cain and Paul, when they're so different on so many key issues?

I love all three of my daughters, I love my son as well. They are vastly different, so how is that possible?

I was with you all the way until the end. That analogy doesn't equate. You can love different personality kids, that's not the same as liking many different political stances on issues.

Liking Cain and Paul is the same as liking Paul and Obama.
 
I was with you all the way until the end. That analogy doesn't equate. You can love different personality kids, that's not the same as liking many different political stances on issues.

Liking Cain and Paul is the same as liking Paul and Obama.

Not at all, both Paul and Cain support SHARP reductions in the size and scope of government, for that they are both good men.
 
I was with you all the way until the end. That analogy doesn't equate. You can love different personality kids, that's not the same as liking many different political stances on issues.

Liking Cain and Paul is the same as liking Paul and Obama.

Not at all, both Paul and Cain support SHARP reductions in the size and scope of government, for that they are both good men.

I think you're missing the point. He was just asking a question and the person he asked could give that answer. You trying to say Paul and Cain share some ideas dose not really answer the question that was asked of someone else.

Again, I personally understand why you can like 2 different candidates such as Paul and Cain but I would assume that is because some of the bigger issues such as foreign policy, the Fed, military spending and so on are not big issues to the person that finds both of these candidates attractive because Cain has no position on most of that and on the Fed Paul and Cain are polar opposites.

I honestly am not sure how one can like Cain and Newt at this point seeing as Newt is different on almost every position than Cain as well. Newt seems more in line with Paul over any candidate on the stage and that is why I like him, he is a better spoken Paul. But, I know very little about Newts history, so to someone that knows Newt very well, they might ask “how can you even like Newt if you like Paul or vice versa.”
 
I was with you all the way until the end. That analogy doesn't equate. You can love different personality kids, that's not the same as liking many different political stances on issues.

Liking Cain and Paul is the same as liking Paul and Obama.

Not at all, both Paul and Cain support SHARP reductions in the size and scope of government, for that they are both good men.

As far as I know Cain has yet to speak of any reductions on the size of Government in a debate, maybe I missed it or forgot it because it passed by too quickly. Calling out Obamacare means nothing because Obamacare is not established yet, that would be keeping the Government the same size it is today.

Thank you for the good debate though, I like it when it does not turn nasty.
 
It may not be possible to plug our currency to tangibles, if you're limiting your self to earths limited resources, but we all know that the universe around us does have more then enough. So it's not impossible to plug our currency to tangibles and to have a growing economy, if we use the resources out there. There is a lot more then just the earth.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top