quote:Federal agents on Wednesday raided the Evansville, Indiana headquarters of the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Codes (NORFED), an organization of "sound money" advocates that for the past decade has been selling what it calls Liberty Dollars, a private currency it says is backed by silver and gold stored in Idaho, with a total of more than $20 million in circulation, according to the group.
In the comments I found this little gem:
quote:The Federal Agents should be reminded that in the court case First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly the US currency (federal reserve notes) are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Read the ruling:
The linked case is essentially drivel, especially this:
quote:That said Federal Reserve Notes do not conform to Title 12, United States Code, Sections 411 and 418. Title 31 USC, Section 462 (392), insofar as it attempts to make Federal Reserve Notes and circulating Notes of Federal Reserve Banks and National Banking Associations a legal tender for all debts, public and private, it is unconstitutional and void, being contrary to Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits any State from making anything but gold and silver coin a tender, or impairing the obligation of contracts.
...
The Constitution states, "No State shall make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a legal tender in payment of debts." The above referred to enactments of Congress state that the Notes are a legal tender. There is a direct conflict between the Constitution and the Acts of Congress. If the Constitution is not controlling then Congress is above and has superior authority from the Constitution and the People who ordained and established it.
Article I, Section 10 is a list of powers prohibited to states, not Congress. The state didn't make federal reserve notes legal tender: Congress did.
I looked up the case to see if anyone had done a legal analysis of it. Instead, I got a host of the scariest websites I've come across in a long time. I've never seen "international banking cartel" used so much.
It was just strange to find so much paranoia one hop from the Washington Post.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y'know, I love Ron Paul to death, but my fellow supporters make me feel really stupid sometimes.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a way, I take it as a sign that the Post is on to something interesting and possibly important.
Boy, though, that's really scary that they are trying to advance this liberty dollar that is backed by precious metal deposits they say they have squirrelled away. Look, if you want a gold standard, show me the money. Give me some gold to hold in my hand. Otherwise, you're just another pretender. Copper dollars. Sheesh.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are some really dumb people on that site. I think I lost an IQ point just for logging on to it. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Y'know, I love Ron Paul to death, but my fellow supporters make me feel really stupid sometimes.
I hear you. When I first joined my local Ron Paul meet up group, I was astonished by how many conspiracy theorists there were. They were a little creepy with really bad logic.
I am very familiar with Alex Jones and have discounted him. There are previous posts where I have discounted the whole 9/11 inside job thing. I know the lingo and subtle jabs. I almost quit the group.
However, when you have a message of limited government and more personal liberties, you are bound to attract the fringe.
I was worried that is all the Ron Paul campaign was--the fringe elements of society. Then November fifth happened. He has gotten more coverage and money. Just yesterday he got close to $300,000 more dollars.
The dollar is tanking. War in Iran is looking possible. No other candidate seems to be talking the issues to the people.
Love him or discount him, he is addressing what is important to me. I trust him more then anyone. He certainly doesn't try to charm anyone or couch (or hide) his message in language determined by pollsters.
Now our group is doubled in size, and all the new people are professionals who are non conspiratorial. I hope he can make the transition to a more main stream audience.
The members from my meet up group would indicate he can.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The dollar is dropping in value. But will going on a gold standard revive it?
My understanding is that Ron Paul doesn't want to go back to the gold standard. What he really wants to do is stop the federal reserve from monetizing bad debt.
Case in point: During the recent mortgage crises the Feds printed 40+ billions dollars. It is this increase in the money supply and artificial low interest rates that is causing people to loose faith in the dollar.
He thinks the market should liquidize bad debt. Or as he asked Benanke (paraphrase), "How can you fight inflation with printing more money which is a causes of inflation?" Here is that recent exchange from November 8th. He is my hero.
He does favor creation of competing currency that is backed by a commodity that can't be printed to monetize debt for either social programs, war, or bailouts. I have heard him make suggestions like taking the sales tax off of gold and letting it be used as currency.
I haven't heard his comprehensive plan yet, but I like his theory and I think it is very possible to find a realistic solution.
He thinks all budgets passed by Congress should be budgeted with available money. Ending the monetization of debt is his primary goal.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole idea of going back to the gold standard is ridiculous. Gold is prone to speculation much worse than our currency and is generally deflationary. I recently watched a dumb Fed conspiracy theory video that tried to claim that the Fed was intentionally causing inflation by printing money. The Fed prints money because the demand for money is constantly rising. Our population is growing and wealth is rising. If we didn't print money then deflation would occur almost instantly. By printing money the Fed is able to control inflation.
Also, the gold standard basically proved itself to be a failure. Inflation used to be wildly unpredictable and that was with an economy that was hundredths of our current size.
posted
There are very few professional economists who recommend going onto the gold standard. Those who do typically think that there is very little friction in the market, which has been pretty much shown to be not true. There is less friction in the market here than in developing countries, but there's still enough to make a gold standard a bad idea. Deflation is but one of the many reasons why it's a bad idea.
Generally, I'm in favor of many tools being available to economists to control business cycles. Moving to a gold standard would take away some tools, without providing much in the way of benefits.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
