Humble Foreign Policy
“… a simple, humble foreign policy makes us less vulnerable and less targeted on the world stage.”
Ron Paul, SmallGovTimes.com editorial on Entangling alliances
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
“… a simple, humble foreign policy makes us less vulnerable and less targeted on the world stage.”
Ron Paul, SmallGovTimes.com editorial on Entangling alliances
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
In general, I like RP’s take on foreign policy but please tell me why a grown educated man would want to move to the gold standard?
I haven’t delved into his views on the Treasury Dept., but I’m guessing that it comes from a recognition that government creates artificial inflation by printing more money than it takes out of circulation.
Yes, but think about a world where the value of your currency is based upon a commodity.
Currently the value of our currency is based upon trust. Granted, trust ebbs and flows but it can be managed by your actions and commitments. A commodity (or set of them) is open to be owned, discovered or found irrelevant by anyone.
I’m not anti Ron Paul, but I find it unsettling to see how adamant he is with this gold standard platform. Should we take a closer look at our economic policies – yes, but taking a step back toward colonial era solutions seems misguided.
I wouldn’t yet say Paul is misguided or that he wants to (unknowingly) take a step backwards. Besides, don’t you think calling it a “colonial era solution” is somewhat of a loaded statement, kind of like using the phrase “urban sprawl?” We’re so much wiser in the 21st Century.
I vaguely remember having discussions about this in my economics classes in college … specifically that there should be a limit that keeps the government from creating too much money. Paul might argue that without a gold standard (or a system based on another commodity), where folks can cash in their money for a fixed supply of the commodity, what restraint exists? Economy in a slump? Need more money? Just print it! Who cares about inflation? Besides, there *never* was any economic growth until after the gold standard was abolished.
Wow, so we’re way off topic here now, but that’s blogging! Good discussion. I’m going to have to whip out my Henry Hazlitt books when I get home tonight (a fellow that’s much wiser than me on the topic).
PS – Below is what I found about RP’s view on hard/soft money via Wikipedia (the source of all truth on teh innernets).
Our currency is loosely based around oil, a commodity driven by market demand, and a form of “belief capital,” a worldwide faith in the economic prowess of the U.S. As oil prices increase and faith in the U.S. economy decreases, the American dollar loses value.
Two problems arise from this system. As the dollar loses value, foreign investors are in a better position to buy into our markets. This can be good, but the further our currency declines in value the more likely our economy can be controlled by other countries. Very bad. The worst case scenario can be seen in Mexico where the peso has zero value. Foreign investors own a good chunk of the businesses (and resources) in Mexico and the general public cannot pull themselves out of poverty.
Second, Congress has the ability to print money. When the government spends money, it doesn’t spend tax dollars; it prints it. Congress then pays printed money to large corporations for government programs and services. By the time this *added currency* makes its way to the general public, it has declined in value. Somewhere around 90% of personal income tax dollars goes to pay interest on our debt to the Federal Reserve, a pseudo-public institution controlled by private bankers.
As a strict Constitutionalist, a Ron Paul Presidency would have very little control over the Fed or the Treasury other than appointing chairs and vetoing bills that are fiscally irresponsible.
Thanks David. I would imagine that RP would be very busy vetoing fiscally irresponsible bills, too!
There wasn’t any intentional loaded statements in my post; what I was trying to elude to was that a gold standard economy is historically something from the colonial era. It worked in that environment because those who wanted to use gold as the standard of the economy had a lot of it.
Again, I’m not anti-Paul (I’m not even NPP) but if RP is looking for econimic reform I’d put more faith in revisiting economic policies than pulling on peoples heart strings by using the term “gold standard.”
My big hang up with this topic and RP is that he doesn’t seem to leave any room that this policiy might be conjecture.
@stelmo: I meant that largely in jest (hence the cheesey smilie), b/c I do know where you’re coming from … though as an aside I think that some RP opponents and non-Constitutionalists (whether they acknowledge it or not) would use “colonial” as a derogatorily dismissive term (i.e., in the same way some *blog Czar* might call my housing development “Suburban Sprawl” in order to prop up his position). I also recognize that you’re not anti-RP.
It’s worth noting that while the gold standard was around in colonial days, it wasn’t abandoned domestically until the 1930′s and internationally in the 1970′s. The shift occured (IMHO) because of the bad economic theory from the likes of Major Douglas (Social Credit economics) and John Maynard Keynes. Unfortunately, I missed out on Macroeconomics at CC b/c the adjunct prof. who was going to teach it was “let go.”
I would hope RP would not go back to the exact same system (as noted in the quoted blurb), but I can see your point about using the term “gold-standard” and how it all comes across. One criticism I have is that he’s a little too blunt at times in casting his vision.