Explain how you feel it really does that? If anything, it limits our GDP and wealth as a nation. It's only an object of desire just like anything else folks desire. Wealth is created.
Money whether paper gold or even wooden nickles amounts to a measurement to exchange for the barter of goods.
It is a standard to which wealth can be measured. Gold and silver is a universality recognized measurement of that wealth around the world. Wooden nickles are not.
A country does not need to create (print) more money. As a countries GDP increases or decreases, the value of that money (exchange rate) will, in turn, increase or decrease as compared to foreign currency/money and allow more or less purchasing power respectively.
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
A country does not need to create (print) more money. As a countries GDP increases or decreases, the value of that money (exchange rate) will, in turn, increase or decrease as compared to foreign currency/money and allow more or less purchasing power respectively.
Well first, thats non-sense that governments don't need to print more money. If that were the case, why didn't we stop at the first coining of money back in the late 1700's? Second, ignoring your first statement, doesn't the rest of that happen today without being on the gold standard?
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
That's not exactly how it was intended to read. I am referring to how we are currently printing money out of thin air with nothing to back it. Gold doesn't back it, Silver doesn't back it. GDP doesn't back it. We print it when ever we want as much as we want.
Yes it does but as it is currently being done you also have to factor in how much money is being printed when compared against GDP. If our GDP increases in comparison to other economies the value of our money should also increase. But because we have no real standard of money and we can print as much as we want the value of the "notes" continually decreases despite the fact that our GDP may be increasing.
Assume I (government) have one ounce of gold. It is standardized that one paper dollar will represent that gold. One ounce of gold (one dollar) will buy 1000 pounds of "X". Now I print two of those dollars but still only have that one ounce of gold. Now that same "dollar" only buys 500 pounds of "X".
You could accomplish the same thing with an constitutional amendment that would limit printing of money to a percentage of what our GDP is but that would require an amendment and that is less likely to happen than returning to the gold standard.
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Sorry big bulls, you are mixing 2 issues. It's the spending that is an issue not what's backing it. Our GDP is precisely what is backing our dollar. That's not a problem. We generate wealth as I said before. Throwing us on the gold standard would limit our wealth generatin, destroy gold and the private ownership of such. There isn't enough out there. Therefore, if you want the money supply to grow, you would be forced to do exactly what you are against. Print more money and dilute the value of gold.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Yes, it has everything to do with the Constitution and no it doesn't say anything about gold or silver here but it does specifically say "to coin".
To coin is, and always has been, defined as........ to strike or make money from metal.
**** That's correct. But the coinage doesn't have to be gold or silver. It could be iron, copper, nickel, aluminum, etc. If you don't like carrying paper money around, you can go to the bank and buy rolls of nice metal quarters for example, for ten dollars in paper money. Do you really think folks want to walk around loaded down with pockets full of quarters, nickels, and dimes?
Have you ever been paid in quarters, nickels and dimes?
Picture buying a new set of tires at $97 each and paying with quarters, dimes, and nickels and it becomes pretty obvious why we use paper currency.
In other words, the Constitution doesn't require gold or silver be used as money. And you don't have to use paper, it's just more convenient.
--------------------------------------------
Maybe one of us should read the constitution again because unless we are looking at two different versions of the United States Constitution the one I am looking at does not say "with out the consent of Congress" when referring to the states coining money and paying debts in gold or silver.
**** You're correct. The prohibition on states coining their own money is absolute. They can't even do it with the consent of Congress. I was reading ahead of myself, but the prohibition is even stronger than I erroneously stated.
-----------------------------------------------
So, as I have been saying all along....... money made of anything but gold or silver or at a minimum backed by gold and silver is unconstitutional. It specifically says that the states must pay all debts in gold or silver. If they do not have gold and silver money or paper money backed by gold and silver how exactly are they suppose to pay debts?
**** Please show us where it says anything about gold or silver except for a prohibition on states creating their own coinage, that is prohibiting the states from allowing anything but gold or silver as legal tender.
And no, it doesn't say the states must pay all debts in gold or silver. It prohibits the states from coining their own money. Section 10 covers all the things that states are not allowed to do, or are allowed to do only with the consent of Congress
---------------------------------------------
I really don't know what is so hard to understand.
**** I agree but you don't seem to understand. Show us where the authority of Congress to "coin money" requires the use of gold or silver.
And by the way, Article 1, Section 8, clause 6 provides for the "Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States."
--------------------------------------
.
May The Sheep Be With You
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
Didn't Paul himself say that he has no expectation of winning? I'm not arguing, I'm asking. I thought I heard a talking head report this recently.
No. A candidate that isn't anxious about power like Bachmann. How awful.
Besides, this has nothing to do with being electable. If he's not the Republican nominee, that's mostly the choice of Republican voters.
Larry Sabato's crystal ball (updated after Iowa's results) puts Paul behind the Grinch and Santorum.
Quote:
BigBuck22, as I said in the thread I started about RP most people are not nearly as conservative and/or constitutional as they like to tout. Deep down it seems that they prefer to keep voting for same ole "establishment insiders" they have been voting for over the last hundred years and keep expecting different results and whine about it when they don't get them.
Here, Santorum makes the pursuit of happiness an issue.
Quote:
Sorry big bulls, you are mixing 2 issues. It's the spending that is an issue not what's backing it. Our GDP is precisely what is backing our dollar. That's not a problem. We generate wealth as I said before. Throwing us on the gold standard would limit our wealth generatin, destroy gold and the private ownership of such. There isn't enough out there. Therefore, if you want the money supply to grow, you would be forced to do exactly what you are against. Print more money and dilute the value of gold.
Technically, Ron Paul supports hard money -- not exactly the Gold Standard.
"He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would prevent monetary inflation (and, thus, would inhibit price inflation), but adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."
