GOP debate

[Razgovory]

Yes.  It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with.  Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.

People on your side love Huntsman because they know he's a wuss & would get mauled in the general election.

Why do you guys not love Obama then?

[MadImmortalMan]

Perry's leadership is basically to ignore problems and put them off as long as possible and pray.

Sounds like the perfect credentials to go to Washington. 

[DGuller]

Yes.  It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with.  Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.

People on your side love Huntsman because they know he's a wuss & would get mauled in the general election.

No, people on our side love reason.  You won't understand.

[derspiess]

No, people on our side love reason.  You won't understand.

Doubtful 

[Princesca]

It ties well to the idea of libertardians that the government that governs best is the government that is bound, gagged, and blindfolded.

I am not entirely sure Fiat currency has been such an unqualified succes that only tards would question it.

That is not to say I think basing it on gold is a great idea.

Actually, I believe I read in one of his books that even Ron Paul doesn't believe we should get back on the gold standard, though he thinks we should not have gone OFF the gold standard. Jumping from fiat currency to gold-backed currency would be too drastic a move to be feasible. The most common approach I have read about is that the USD would be backed by a basket of commodities, which should (theoretically) help it be somewhat more stable in value. His notion is just that it needs to be backed by something of value so that it cannot simply be invented out of thin air.

[DGuller]

The most common approach I have read about is that the USD would be backed by a basket of commodities, which should (theoretically) help it be somewhat more stable in value.

If there is one thing that is stable, it is the price of commodities.

[Princesca]

The problem with Ron Paul is that his ideas are much better explained in his books. He is not a good orator, plain and simple. His voice gets wavery, which makes him look like he has Parkinsons or something, he talks too fast, and trips over his words. That's why RP adherents in the audience still applaud, because they know his positions from having read them. If I only knew about Ron Paul from watching him, I would have written him off as a fringe candidate, as most people do. Reading his books are what helped me to understand his real message.

His point about Iran is not something that I believe most Americans have the logic skills to understand anymore - like how most people can't understand the difference between 'can' and 'should'. He's basically saying that you can't blame a country for wanting nuclear weapons, not that he's going to be jumping for joy if they do, or that he thinks they SHOULD, or that it would be a good thing. It gives that country "street cred" in the international community that you don't get if you don't have them. So why wouldn't they want them? Of course they do. And where do you draw the line about who gets to have them and who doesn't? And why should we, alone, carry the burden of making that decision? If Israel feels Iran is a threat, let them deal with Iran. If the global community feels Iran is a threat, let us all deal with Iran together. He's just arguing that embargoes don't really work as a means of conflict avoidance. And the US should not be acting solely in this, riding in like some B-movie cowboy to police the world. Those military engagements begun in the Bush years, in tandem with entitlement programs, are a big reason why we're in the financial position we're in. Ron Paul goes a step further to add that, if we didn't have fiat currency, we probably wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. When a nation has to sacrifice to pay for a war, it's far more likely to be either a) done quickly or b) not entered into at all, because only the most noble causes will inspire that kind of prolonged sacrifice.

I haven't thought out my position on this... so I'm not saying I agree or disagree. But this is his philosophy having read both of his "general platform" books.

Of the candidates, Ron Paul remains my favorite for his proven consistency, his economic foresight, limited government philosophy, and his passion for not involving the US in aggressive wars, but I don't think he's electable, and no one else on that stage interests me at all, so I will probably be going third party again this year if those are my choices. 

Remarkably countries went to war over stupid shit when there was a Gold Standard as well.  People don't oppose the Ron Paul because they don't understand him.  They understand him perfectly well.  To suggest different is patronizing and delusional.  People don't want to return to the Gold Standard anymore then the want to arm our military with muskets and lances.

No one is arguing that non-fiat currency wouldn't prevent misguided wars. But the truth is that the average American doesn't have to share in the sacrifice anymore, as long as we keep kicking the can down the road via further currency devaluation. The idea of a victory garden, or giving up silk stockings for parachutes, or goods rationing, is unheard of these days. When wars are "cheap" from the perspective of the average person, there's no real disincentive to getting involved in quagmires like Iraq.

[Princesca]

The most common approach I have read about is that the USD would be backed by a basket of commodities, which should (theoretically) help it be somewhat more stable in value.

If there is one thing that is stable, it is the price of commodities.

Hence the BASKET OF. And commodities don't have to be precious metals, in case you weren't aware of the definition. 

[ulmont]

The most common approach I have read about is that the USD would be backed by a basket of commodities, which should (theoretically) help it be somewhat more stable in value.

If there is one thing that is stable, it is the price of commodities.

Hence the BASKET OF. And commodities don't have to be precious metals, in case you weren't aware of the definition. 

Non-metal commodities are not known for their stability either.

The world cotton market is as volatile as only a commodity market can be.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/cotton

[MadImmortalMan]

QE cotton

[Valmy]

I am intrigued by this idea of a currency based on cotton.

[Viking]

I am intrigued by this idea of a currency based on cotton.

Isn't the current one a cotton and linen based currency?

[MadImmortalMan]

yes


That's why the price spiked like that. Bernanke was using up the world's supply making cash.

[Razgovory]

No one is arguing that non-fiat currency wouldn't prevent misguided wars. But the truth is that the average American doesn't have to share in the sacrifice anymore, as long as we keep kicking the can down the road via further currency devaluation. The idea of a victory garden, or giving up silk stockings for parachutes, or goods rationing, is unheard of these days. When wars are "cheap" from the perspective of the average person, there's no real disincentive to getting involved in quagmires like Iraq.

The idea that I should be reduced to poverty because the government makes a mistake does not strike me as an improvement over the current system.  Arguments predicated on the idea that I (and everyone else), should suffer more due to decisions of others aren't going strengthen your case. 

[MadImmortalMan]

The idea that I should be reduced to poverty because the government makes a mistake does not strike me as an improvement over the current system.   

Indeed. That IS the current system.