Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Aulirophile]

https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/

Is the direct link to donate if anyone wants to.

[kegkilla]

damn 16.1 mil and still going strong... unless his flow drops off real hard hes gonna break kerry's 5.6 mil one day record

[Soriak]

Broke the November 5th record on 4pm heh - that's pretty impressive, especially for an online-only fundraising. The last million took 3hrs to raise and he'd need $1.25 million in the next 4hrs for the $6m mark... he can do it!

[Tolanin]

Originally Posted by Lithose

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
-Jefferson

They were wiser then you think.

Jefferson saw the flaws in our current system hundreds of years before it was ever implemented. Really, these guys were a bright bunch, we would do well to listen to what they were saying.

jefferson didnt know shit about how our current system would turn out and he did not have any idea what post industrial revolution economics would look like.

You cannot take the economic policy of a guy who lived in a world with blacksmiths and so on and think it is relevant.

He was smart, but he wasnt prescient, and to take quotes from him and try to apply them to things he never knew or even dreamed of and say that its what he meant is dishonest.

[Tallyn]

Originally Posted by Tolanin

jefferson didnt know shit about how our current system would turn out and he did not have any idea what post industrial revolution economics would look like.

You cannot take the economic policy of a guy who lived in a world with blacksmiths and so on and think it is relevant.

He was smart, but he wasnt prescient, and to take quotes from him and try to apply them to things he never knew or even dreamed of and say that its what he meant is dishonest.

You can't discount Jefferson's thoughts just because he lived a long time ago in a "different world." If age devalued thought then no one would take lessons from the Bible, Plato, Sun Tzu, or any other of dozens of sources of historical wisdom. Disparage his perspective as you will, but Jefferson directly lays out a cause and chain of effects that are observable in our modern economic life. The fact that we're debating the role of central banks at all makes his thoughts relevant.

[Lithose]

Originally Posted by Tolanin

jefferson didnt know shit about how our current system would turn out and he did not have any idea what post industrial revolution economics would look like.

You cannot take the economic policy of a guy who lived in a world with blacksmiths and so on and think it is relevant.

He was smart, but he wasnt prescient, and to take quotes from him and try to apply them to things he never knew or even dreamed of and say that its what he meant is dishonest.

So the problems with banking institutions creating wealth that they do not posses through loans and then subsequently requiring that the wealth, which did not exist in the first place, be paid back more then double is not a problem?

Oh, wait, that is the problem in the current economic system. It's also the problem Jefferson was describing (Though his was akin to bank-notations.).

Many modern economists, Keynes, Friedman and others who literally helped build the economic system that we use today, often give credit to writings by early economic philosophers, like Adam Smith ( or others Depending on which school of economics your in.) But yeah, because these guys didn't exist in a post industrialist world, they had no fucking clue how an economic system would work, right. (This is sarcasm, because anyone who has studied even a day of economics knows your completely wrong.)

[Tolanin]

Originally Posted by Lithose

So the problems with banking institutions creating wealth that they do not posses through loans and then subsequently requiring that the wealth, which did not exist in the first place, be paid back more then double is not a problem?

Oh, wait, that is the problem in the current economic system. It's also the problem Jefferson was describing (Though his was akin to bank-notations.).

Many modern economists, Keynes, Friedman and others who literally helped build the economic system that we use today, often give credit to writings by early economic philosophers, like Adam Smith ( or others Depending on which school of economics your in.) But yeah, because these guys didn't exist in a post industrialist world, they had no fucking clue how an economic system would work, right. (This is sarcasm, because anyone who has studied even a day of economics knows your completely wrong.)

Last i checked bank loans dont create wealth, they only create money.

Giving credit to people because they did ground work in an industry or field is totally different from taking the words of those people totally out of context and applying them raw to our lives today. I highly doubt keynes or friedman or anyone would want us to use adam smiths version of economics. Just like while every physicist gives credit to Newton none of them think that newtonian physics is the be all end all to it anymore. So I dont see how i was wrong, giving credit to people who did great breakthrough work is totally different from trying to say that those people were right 100 percent and all their ideas easily translate to modern life.. thats just insane.

Also i fail to see how banking is that bad of an institution. They provide a service people want, i put my money im not using in the bank, someone who wants it more takes the loan, everyone is happy. This doesnt create wealth at all in any sense other than maybe some sense of trade creating wealth and loans being a form of trade... but do you really wanna come out against trade?

[Tallyn]

Originally Posted by Tolanin

This doesnt create wealth at all in any sense other than maybe some sense of trade creating wealth and loans being a form of trade...

Our modern banking system leads to growth of the money supply without a corresponding growth in real assets. This is unarguable, and gives privately owned institutions a large degree of influence over the economy at large.

Fractional-reserve banking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Lithose

So the problems with banking institutions creating wealth that they do not posses through loans and then subsequently requiring that the wealth, which did not exist in the first place, be paid back more then double is not a problem?

The bank is providing a service. They're giving you money you don't have, so you can either get some gratification (ie purchase something) or invest in a business opportunity. You pay for that with the interest.

They do actually possess the money - people "loan" it to them in checkings or savings account, CDs, etc. The "risk" inherent with such a loan (including the risk of inflation) and some incentive is why banks pay interest.


On topic: I'd like to say that I called it - $6,024,000

[qLir]

I think it's going to be closer to 6.4 as the official figure. Phone donations accounted for like a $400k jump at some point, as the starting total was 11.5 and now we're at about 18. That does cover donations from I believe the 12th-16th, as they added them on the 11th (I think) last. You have to assume the majority of that is from today, though.

[Tolanin]

Originally Posted by Tallyn

Our modern banking system leads to growth of the money supply without a corresponding growth in real assets. This is unarguable, and gives privately owned institutions a large degree of influence over the economy at large.

Fractional-reserve banking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

fractional reserve banking does not create wealth, it just creates money.

So much of this hate for banking seems to stem from some irrational fear of private companies.

[Cadrid]

$18 million when the campaign's goal is $12 million is insane. Sure, the Tea Party $10 million goal wasn't reached (nor did any reasonable person think it would be), but Paul has broken the record (again) in online donations, and has further solidified his position as a very serious and potential candidate.

Point to the figures of Clinton, Giuliani, Romney or what have you; Paul's ability to raise such a huge amount of money entirely from private citizens (and spend it wisely) speaks volumes. Every time I hear a Ron Paul ad on the radio or see one on TV I smile, because it means we have a chance. Not "we" the Ron Paul supporters, but "we" as a country.

Argue against his economic policy, point to the follies of a gold standard, but he is the only feasible candidate that promises to turn the country around away from the "conquistador" agenda that infested this country 60 years ago

[Lithose]

Originally Posted by Tolanin

Last i checked bank loans dont create wealth, they only create money.

Wow, are you really going to back peddle in to semantics?

Banks loan money that they do not currently have and have no way of obtaining. There for that money is created. Banks require that the money be returned in higher amounts then what it was loaned out, which is the part of the process that creates wealth. Unfortunately because the money never actually existed in the first place, the wealth had to be "created" by other banks creating money.

You could argue that the devaluation of the currency offsets the wealth creation, so indeed the banks don't "create" wealth. However, you would be factitious in your claims because you would of course be overlooking the fact that money hasn't devalued itself enough to liquidate even a fraction of the debt.

Originally Posted by Tolanin

I highly doubt keynes or friedman or anyone would want us to use adam smiths version of economics.

Actually Friedman loves Smith's vision of economics, it permeates a great deal of his work. The thing about economics is that it is very cyclical, patterns of economic hegemony go way back to the Italian principalities and the dutch.

[Lithose]

Originally Posted by Soriak

The bank is providing a service. They're giving you money you don't have, so you can either get some gratification (ie purchase something) or invest in a business opportunity. You pay for that with the interest.

They do actually possess the money - people "loan" it to them in checkings or savings account, CDs, etc. The "risk" inherent with such a loan (including the risk of inflation) and some incentive is why banks pay interest.


On topic: I'd like to say that I called it - $6,024,000

No, thats not how banking has worked for centuries...Banks don't loan you other people's money, ever. What they loan you technically doesn't even exist.

Banks "possessing" the money to cover loans through holdings in the bank is a popular myth that is a dinosaur of banking.

Economists fear banks because the system of wealth creation that banks use is positively ludicrous and can't be sustained, eventually it will collapse, its only a matter of when.

Edit* Just read the wiki article, it will give you the dirty summary of the banking system we use. If you want to research more on it, well, there is literally fuck tons of literature on the subject, you can start with Jefferson

[FulorianC]

It was a straight line chart after people started waking up, people were calling 6 mil by noon. Easily plotted.