Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
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: