Monday, April 30, 2012

Another question I had on Ron Paul

He has a lot of money in gold. Is this important to consider in thinking about his views on monetary policy? Would we be as silent if Congressmen on the other side of the bailout issue had (and kept) lots of money in AIG and GM? What do libertarians think of this? What do public choice theorists think?


  1. He puts his money where his mouth is. Hes also been touting gold since the 70s, including the secular bear market of the 80s and 90s.

    Hes not asking for subsidies to the gold market. he just wants to free the gold market (like the other markets).

    1. But would you say the same of the alternative I proposed?

    2. I assume you are talking about what GM and AIG.

      Those politicians aren't trying to free those markets. They try to get it subsidies to act as a buffer from the market.

      (And was there a reason why my post kept getting deleted in the other thread?)

  2. Daniel, Paul doesn't actually favor tying the dollar back to gold (I don't think). I used to think that too, but I'm pretty sure now he recognizes that the Fed would just screw it up again, and so he favors total competition in currencies.

    1. Your right, Ron explicitly mentioned this in the Paul v Paul debate. But I think Dan's implication is that if gold was allowed to compete with the dollar, its value would rise heavily (earning Paul a nice return on his gold). But the point is that Ron isn't a special interest for the gold mining industry, like other politicians would be for AIG and GM, because Ron just wants to liberalize the gold market along with all of the other markets. The normal crony politicians just want to continue getting special privileges for their favored industry.

  3. No, because no one institution, no one person, including Paul, can control the supply of gold in a gold standard (which is not what Paul is advocating by the way, he's advocating for removing the de facto ban on competing currencies that is brought about by legal tender and taxation laws).

    There is no conflict of interest, because Paul is actually benefited the more the Fed inflates. His gold increases in toilet paper price the more the Fed prints toilet paper money. If anything, his interests would be HARMED if the Fed were not inflating as much as they are.

    Paul owns gold because he expects the Fed to NOT do what Paul wants them to do. He is protecting himself.

    It's interesting how you bring this up with Paul, but you don't bring up any conflict of interest insinuations for inflationist politicians whose interests are benefited by a continuation of the Fed. Where are the comments on Romney or Obama, who are paid huge sums of money from banks that receive bail out money from the Fed, and donate money to politicians who they know are going to squash any attempts to end the fed?

    Where are the calls for public choice theorists to chime in on your advocacy for central banking, hmm?

  4. Daniel: I'm surprised you failed to attack Ron Paul's mining stock holdings -- are these investments not similar to those that led to the historical reputation of Keynes's financial genius -- you can not have it both ways Daniel

    ahh but you "do" so often

    paraphrasing for point -- Ron Paul a master politician continuing to waste "our" time with his unpalatable (to the majority) fringe views by running for president -- since of course "everybody knows" he has no chance of winning -- I am pretty sure "this" is not a straw man -- embellished yes but not straw man

    I am confused is Dr. Paul a master politician because of his congressional wins or because he out communicated your Keynesian golden boy on Bloomberg yesterday -- still to be fair the latter is subjective (I think lol) -- or do you mean to say master manipulator in which case I must inquire why do you want more power ceded to these manipulative doublespeakers

    the "black swan" congressional wins of Ron Paul only reinforce adherence to the idea of eventual dancing variable emergence -- true uncertainty theory Daniel -- this is why thousands continue to come and listen to Dr. Paul speak on cold wet miserable Pennsylvanian days -- this is why your profession is by many held in such low regard -- this is why despite all your modeling you will most likely continue failing to see/respect a transformative -- crisis -- figure -- movement -- and more -- till it is upon you -- the socialistic Weltanschauung is a narrow short sighted one one blah blah blah

    I thank you for your time

  5. Your question is making me giggle. How can you seriously compare a situation where RP advocates for voluntary transactions in gold & silver being tax-free (taxes are theft to libertarians) and someone else advocating the use of force against others (taxes, legal tender laws etc.) to issue a bailout the their favourite State-backed corporation.

    Paul knows perfectly well how your silly Keynesian games will end up - fiat money, inflation, boom-bust cycles, - that's nothing new. He mentioned it in the interview with Krugman. Ron Paul wants to get rid of legal tender laws, capital gains on precious metals etc. to allow people to buy and sell different currency (gold & silver) without being forced to use dollar or being penalised for it (taxes).

  6. Hi

    I read this post two times.

    I like it so much, please try to keep posting.

    Let me introduce other material that may be good for our community.

    Source: AIG interview questions

    Best regards


All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.