Peter Schiff talks about the effects of Obama on economy

[RedLocks]

damn thread made me hungry

[jonquest]

the value of all the gold that has ever been mined on this planet wouldn't even cover half of the US national debt...the combined annual trade deficit and annual budget deficit could export all of america's gold reserves in about six months...you're better off on the paper standard

We can't pay back the debt as it is. We owe money to many foreign nations and we have no means of paying them back anytime soon. Your statement about there not being enough gold to cover the debt is false. Fort Knox alone holds nearly 5,000 tons of gold and gold is currently values around $750/ounce. This equates to an estimate of $120,000,000,000 worth of gold in Fort Knox alone. The annual budget is irrelevant because Ron Paul would be balancing the budget by cutting wasteful government spending. Finally, trade deficits have historically been produced in countries that weren't on a gold standard. Here is an article on the effects of sound money on trade deficits: The Trade Deficit: An Austrian Perspective - Thorsten Polleit - Mises Institute.

[GoldenBoy812]

Interest rates are controlled by the Fed, not by the government. We have no say whatsoever in what the Fed does. And, if they did cause this by making interest lates too low, it wouldn't be the first time they created a financial crisis.

The fed must answer to congress...

We let the free markets do what they want for most of 20 years. They don't regulate themselves. Greenspan, who shared the same idealistic philosophy as you do, admitted recently that he was wrong in deregulating the markets.

Markets were never deregulated, please do not buy into that BS. Under Greenspan, the markets were "differently" regulated.

Banking interests own our government and have owned it since the establishment of the Federal Reserve. They've engineered their system so that they have us by the balls, and most people don't even care how bad the banks fuck us over. If Ron Paul HAD been elected, he would have been approached by these interests and either corrupted, or they would lobby against him in Congress.

That is quite an assumption, especially on the character of the good doctor...

The problems we're seeing now are systemic. Our system is designed to work in favor of banks (all money starts in a bank, and inevitably ends up in a bank). In that system, we can never be free of debt. Ever. And, as I said before, if we pay off our debts, we have no money supply.

That is not necessarily true. It is true that 25% of the government issued debt is held by foreign entities, but the other 75% is held by the US. What this means is that 25% of the debt will need to be repayed via the transfer of GDP (or production). As for the other 75%, leakages = injections...

If government doesn't interfere with the free markets, the government will fail. What else could it possibly do? Our military is already being marginalized by private security forces. Without government interference, the free markets will eventually take over as government, and that is not a particularly pleasant thought.

Then why did this country survive until 1913? There was very little market interference until then...

Oh, and one last thing, if the interest rates hadn't been so low, this crisis would have been a lot worse when it hit. Like I said, the system we live in operates on debt. Our money supply would have hit contraction by now if interest rates had been higher than they already were.

The problem is misappropriated money flowing into the real estate market, more specifically the commercial real estate market. This was ushered by government interference, both in the form of promoting lax borrowing practices, as well as tax incentives for real estate holdings.

The interest rates that are commonly referred to as creating the bubble are those from late 2001 until the end of 2004 (under 2%). As of 2007, the federal funds target rate was as high as 5.25%.

[GoldenBoy812]

the value of all the gold that has ever been mined on this planet wouldn't even cover half of the US national debt...the combined annual trade deficit and annual budget deficit could export all of america's gold reserves in about six months...you're better off on the paper standard

Roughly $2.5 trillion of US government debt is foreign owned... The other 75% is held internally, where interest paid is received by those who pay taxes in one form or another. As i have said in the past, the only instance we have to worry about is paying back foreign debt. Therefore, all this blabbering about "future generations" is rhetoric intended to pray on those who lack the understanding of financial markets. In essence, when future generations repay debt via tax money, they will be repaying themselves.

[maladroit]

why is the usa still hoarding gold in fort knox? does it belong to the government?

$120 billion of gold in fort knox sounds like a lot, but it wouldn't cover the cost of occupying iraq for ONE year (or the cost of bailing out the banks for one month)...even if ron paul yanked the troops out of iraq, disbanded the entire military, and reduced the federal budget to ZERO, there would still be state and municipal deficits...if ron paul abolished all forms of government spending in america, there would still be consumer spending and consumer debt...$120 billion in gold is equal to less than 1% of the annual US GDP - the economy would have to contract significantly to match the reduced money supply (the usa has about $240 billion in total gold reserves)

ron paul would have to ban all imports to keep the pacific rim and the middle east from sucking fort knox dry in less than three months...in order to keep fort knox full of shiny yellow metal, americans would be walking instead of driving/flying, sitting in the dark, and scrounging for basic supplies...same thing is going to happen if america can't pay back it's debt...gold has much more practical uses, like dental fillings and electronics

[GoldenBoy812]

why is the usa still hoarding gold in fort knox? does it belong to the government?

That is not all of our gold. If one studied the history of banking, they would know the reason why gold would be kept in Kentucky...

$120 billion of gold in fort knox wouldn't cover the cost of occupying iraq for ONE year...even if ron paul yanked the troops out of iraq, disbanded the entire military, and reduced the federal budget to ZERO, there would still be state and municipal deficits...if ron paul abolished all forms of government spending in america, there would still be consumer spending and consumer debt...$120 billion in gold is equal to less than 1% of the annual US GDP - the economy would have to contract significantly to match the reduced money supply (the usa has about $240 billion in total gold reserves)

:wtf:

ron paul would have to ban all imports to keep the pacific rim and the middle east from sucking fort knox dry in less than three months...in order to keep fort knox full of shiny yellow metal, americans would be walking instead of driving/flying, sitting in the dark, and scrounging for basic supplies...same thing is going to happen if america can't pay back it's debt...gold has much more practical uses, like dental fillings and electronics

It is hard to grasp the concept if you refer to the value of gold in that of fiat denominations. Instead, refer to it in terms of mass. Regardless, Dr. Paul's monetary policy has very very very little to do with converting all of the current dollars floating around into gold, and much more to do with the concept of competing currencies, and free banking...

[maladroit]

"If one studied the history of banking, they would know the reason why gold would be kept in Kentucky..."

- i guess i have to sign up for a university graduate course if i want to know the reason for that!

[JakeMartinez]

The fed must answer to congress...



Markets were never deregulated, please do not buy into that BS. Under Greenspan, the markets were "differently" regulated.



That is quite an assumption, especially on the character of the good doctor...



That is not necessarily true. It is true that 25% of the government issued debt is held by foreign entities, but the other 75% is held by the US. What this means is that 25% of the debt will need to be repayed via the transfer of GDP (or production). As for the other 75%, leakages = injections...



Then why did this country survive until 1913? There was very little market interference until then...



The problem is misappropriated money flowing into the real estate market, more specifically the commercial real estate market. This was ushered by government interference, both in the form of promoting lax borrowing practices, as well as tax incentives for real estate holdings.

The interest rates that are commonly referred to as creating the bubble are those from late 2001 until the end of 2004 (under 2%). As of 2007, the federal funds target rate was as high as 5.25%.

Like I said before, Ron Paul probably would not have been corrupted. They would have gone around him somehow.

The Fed doesn't have to answer to Congress, only the chairman does, and for all we know he's just a monkey boy for the board of directors.

Before 1913, corporations weren't the size they are now. Capitalism is not a sustainable model without some sort of regulation at least to keep monopolies from forming.

[McDanger]

"Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is wrong morally and economically."

- it's not nearly as wrong morally and economically as taking from the poor and giving to the rich in the form of deficit-causing tax cuts and bank bailouts

Since the so called "poor" don't pay federal income taxes there is no money being taken from them and given to the rich.
The bottom 40% do not pay federal income taxes.

[JakeMartinez]

Since the so called "poor" don't pay federal income taxes there is no money being taken from them and given to the rich.
The bottom 40% do not pay federal income taxes.

But their labor goes to make the rich richer while they hardly ever see a raise for their work.