digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Ron Paul - CIGARETTES better than MONEY!!! watch!

youtube.com — Ron Paul in 1983 getting on their ass as usual about destroying our economy, currency and country - why, how and what was going to happen - and that at some point something has to be used that has real value and not this fiat paper money which is now nothing more than the ink and paper that it is printed on, and the only reason it has worked thi...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • flashcat7777, on 10/11/2008, -15/+56www.campaignforliberty.com
  • coveteran32, on 10/11/2008, -24/+61This man has been RIGHT all along! Obama/Mccain are the same.
    • kronix2, on 10/11/2008, -17/+6"Obama/Mccain are the same."

      No, they're not. That may be what you're told to believe at your "freedom" and "liberty" rallies, but they're a world apart on pretty much every issue. I strongly support Obama, but I realise he's far from perfect, and certainly isn't somebody worthy of my unquestioning loyalty and adulation - although nobody is.

      By the way, do you guys see the sheer arrogance of coopting the words "freedom" and "liberty" to imply that only Ron Paul believes and fights for these concepts? It's as bad as Obama's overuse of "hope" and "change", and McCain's "maverick".

      Look, just because you Ron Paul supporters want an anarcho-capitalist state where...

      * taxes and regulation are (virtually) non-existent
      * the roads are built and tolled by corporations, who also build and toll every other service
      * every private citizen has an arms cache large enough to invade a small country
      * the Christian God has a place in government and the state
      * individual states are permitted to pass blatantly unconstitutional laws against abortion, sodomy and gay marriage

      ...it doesn't mean it's going to happen. This isn't necessarily for the right reasons, but it's not going to happen. Deal with it.

      Thanks to the unique history of your nation, people who appeal to the frontier/survivalist "the government can't be trusted" streak within many Americans get support that they wouldn't get in any other industrialised nation. But then, I suppose we outsiders don't appreciate Freedom or Liberty like Dr. Paul's supporters.

      Now, go ahead and bury.
      • Rustymetal, on 10/11/2008, -9/+5Your an idiot
      • poet, on 10/11/2008, -2/+9Wow. I was gonna reply with "You're an idiot" but it seems someone already did--however grammaticality incorrect. I'll just second that.

        You're an idiot; plain and simple.

        Laws are meant to govern the government, not govern the people.
      • tacobueno, on 10/11/2008, -1/+6*By the way, do you guys see the sheer arrogance of coopting the words "freedom" and "liberty" to imply that only Ron Paul believes and fights for these concepts? It's as bad as Obama's overuse of "hope" and "change", and McCain's "maverick".*

        See the thing is, Ron Paul votes and supports legislation in a way that proves he is for "freedom" and "liberty". So those words actually mean something.

        Obama and McCain do not vote and support legislation in a way that proves that Obama is for "change" and "hope" or that McCain is a "Maverick". So those words do not mean anything....
  • Conway, on 10/11/2008, -19/+67He has been the most consistent man in politics. I'm still writing in RP on my vote.
    • mickstephenson, on 10/11/2008, -16/+4Consistency can be attributed to many world leaders, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, stoicism isn't always a virtue.
      Why don't all the Libertarians all go to 1 state probably Texas and live out your romantic wild west fantasy together, and the rest of the world can judge the outcome after 50 years.
      • nubnub, on 10/11/2008, -3/+10o_O
      • akshay626, on 10/11/2008, -5/+17Or how about all you socialist leave the United States since it was started upon Libertarian principles
      • cygnus2112, on 10/11/2008, -4/+8"Why don't all the Libertarians all go to 1 state probably Texas and live out your romantic wild west fantasy together,"

        mickstephenson
        A 22 year-old chap from Stockon-on-Tees (GB)

        How about you socialist wankers worry about your own country?
      • mickstephenson, on 10/11/2008, -6/+3@cygnus It's an ideology I believe to be fundamentally stupid, championed by this idiot who doesn't understand the concept of money, money serves as an intermediary for purchasing commodities, and doesn't prevent anyone from owning commodities or bartering using commodities.
        As for why don't we worry about our own country? Look what you wankers just did to the global economy all by yourselves, worrying about what you do is worrying about my country and I cant imagine anything worse for the global economy than a Libertarian getting control in the US.
      • cygnus2112, on 10/11/2008, -3/+2cygnus2112
        A person from Canada

        Canada's doing just fine. However, you're still an idiot.
      • kronix2, on 10/11/2008, -1/+3"How about you socialist wankers worry about your own country?"

        I seem to remember something about a US banking crisis on the cusp of triggering recessions across the world...
      • avengingturnip, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1And we got our banking system from England. Thank you very much, would you please take it back?
    • csstudent, on 10/11/2008, -1/+7Just an fyi - he has endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I would strongly urge you to vote for him.
    • ericmerrill, on 10/11/2008, -1/+5Don't soil the good man's name by making him this election's Ralph Nader.
  • MedicSean37, on 10/11/2008, -14/+56I'm so proud of this man.
  • jtamps, on 10/11/2008, -14/+46After this is all over, he'll even have the decency to refrain from saying:

    "I told you so."

    This man is one in 6 billion.
  • undino, on 10/11/2008, -10/+5125 years later, he is still standing up for having a strong dollar. /cheers to Ron keep on fighting!
  • ChappyChaps11, on 10/11/2008, -17/+10This guy is awesome haha.
  • hugolp, on 10/11/2008, -9/+24It doesnt matter. People want to hear that they can take more credit and keep on buying plastic chininese stuff. People dont want to hear that they have to work hard. Hopefully this crisis will wake them up.
  • cheeseron, on 10/11/2008, -5/+34i'll trade three cattle for yonder xbox 360
  • CanadaKyle, on 10/11/2008, -13/+8Ron Paul knows what he is doing... thank god!
  • dogslayeggs, on 10/11/2008, -10/+14Ron Paul is my idol.
  • FizzanoMatrix, on 10/11/2008, -9/+3Daaaamn..
  • RonPaulTOLDu, on 10/11/2008, -15/+13Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement
    www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

    “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.” - Woodrow Wilson

    “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

    "History records that money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.”
    President, James Madison

    "Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." The New Freedom ~ Woodrow Wilson, 1913

    “This Act (the Federal Reserve Act, Dec. 23rd 1913) establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Woodrow Wilson) signs the Bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalised… The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency Bill.” - Congressman Charles Lindbergh Sr.

    “When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is - The Fed has usurped the government!!” - Congressman Louis T. McFadden

    “Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States.” - Barry Goldwater

    "Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World." -Henry Kissinger
    • JoeB4ever, on 10/11/2008, -8/+2those have to be the most boring/irrelevant quotes
    • JoeB4ever, on 10/11/2008, -1/+4My bad, you just copy and paste that in every Ron Paul submission
    • Azerael, on 10/11/2008, -0/+4I really want to digg you up for that, but it takes up so much space it just ends up being more annoying than enlightening.

      tl;dr
  • akshay626, on 10/11/2008, -3/+11In the 1950's a carton of cigarettes cost like a nickel, now it's $5. Damn taxes and inflation.
    • Fungus53, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2You think that's bad? It's £6 for a 20 pack over in the UK.
    • cashman57, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3$5 a carton?
      What?
      It is $35.00 a carton here. Where do you live?
  • RAGEdemon, on 10/11/2008, -4/+31This is where democracy Epic Fails.

    The presidential race has become a popularity contest. No-one really cares what the man being elected knows or how intelligent he is (in gfact intelligence in a candidate is frowned upon by a lot of southerners).

    Democracy only works where the civilians vote responsibly for the most fit to run candidate. NOT what religion he is or the color of his skin or where he was born.

    What good is a democracy where the people are easily led, uneducated, irresponsible fanatics?

    The only real way to save democracy is to make sure all candidates have equal advertising funds, that each is publicized equally, and that each's stance on issues is clearly available so the public can make an informed choice. I also feel that there should be come kind of system to allow only those who know about the issues to vote to discourage blind voting and "loyalty".

    Only then, on a level playing field, can good men like RP win.

    If McCain is elected, i don't think the world has enough patience to forgive America once again after 8 years of bush.

    • midhqel, on 10/11/2008, -2/+9America is not supposed to be a democracy, never ever should be. While it is not and has not for a long time America is supposed to a Constitutional Republic with each citizen being born with freedom and rights. Sadly we have fallen very far and most people are totally unaware of it. :-(
      • poet, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3Wow. How ignorant are people to digg you down for stating the fact. America IS a Constitutional Republic. America IS NOT a democracy. Ask ANY representative, senator, mayor, governor, councilmember, etc.
        People need to start educating themselves or we are just as ***** as we are now.
    • Headinawheel, on 10/11/2008, -5/+0I didn't digg you either up nor down, however, I do not agree with your arguments.

      Aside from the regionalism, for which it is not substantiated, I find problem with your fifth paragraph. Stating that all candidates should have equal advertising funds only opens up the floodgates to underground cronyism. Due to supply and demand, if they all have equal footing financially, there would be other means for deciding factors. Thus, group bias takes effect and cronyism would ensue. Media, not being a true third party, would surely side one way, however each media station would side whichever way the cronyism would side with.

      Thus, it would fall upon whosever constituency would be most powerful.

      Also, your idea that there should be some kind of system to only allow people understanding of the issues raises an important problem; what about people who do not agree with you on an issue? People have different opinions on an issue, would you say they don't deserve to vote because they differ from you on it? They must be wrong, and therefore, not understanding of the issue at hand, apparently. Otherwise, they'd side with you entirely.

      Regardless from which side, Republican or Democrat, a position such as this is totally unacceptable, no matter which world you live in, first or third.
    • Jacolyte, on 10/11/2008, -0/+4I think the best thing to do would to strip all "party" associations.

      Politics is not sports, so we shouldn't have little "teams"

      You cannot sum someone's beliefs strictly on party affiliation, which is what a lot of Americans seem to think.

      I've seen people vote for candidates who shared absolutely NO common values. The only thing shared was a label, and that was their party affiliation.

      If we eliminated party affiliations, people would be forced to research a candidate for once in their ***** lives, rather than assume that the candidate is "on their side" because they are a "republican" or "democrat"
      • dpc2376, on 10/12/2008, -0/+3George Washington was not formally part of any political parties and warned about the formation of political parties and how it could potentially divide the nation.

        WASHINGTON’S FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
        http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/farewell ...

        "All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all
        combinations and associations under whatever plausible
        character with the real design to direct, control,
        counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action
        of the constituted authorities, are destructive of
        this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency.
        They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial
        and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the
        delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a
        small but artful and enterprising minority of the
        community; and, according to the alternate triumphs
        of different parties, to make the public administration
        the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous
        projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent
        and wholesome plans digested by common
        councils and modified by mutual interests. However
        combinations or associations of the above description
        may now and then answer popular ends, they
        are likely, in the course of time and things, to become
        potent engines by which cunning, ambitious,
        and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the
        power of the people and to usurp for themselves the
        reins of government, destroying afterwards the very
        engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
    • poet, on 10/11/2008, -1/+3"This is where democracy Epic Fails."
      The United States of America is not a Democracy. It is a constitutional Republic. Say it with me now, "I pledge alliegance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands." Simple. and true.

      "The presidential race has become a popularity contest."
      The popular vote is of course, a vote on popularity. It has no bearing on the election of the president itself, as such is determined only by the electoral college.

      "The only real way to save democracy is to make sure all candidates have equal advertising funds, that each is publicized equally,"
      That's called socialism.

      "If McCain is elected, i don't think the world has enough patience to forgive America once again after 8 years of bush."
      The difference between McCain and Obama being elected, is none. They both further corporate oligarchy agenda.

      These are facts.
      That is all.
  • coldkodiak, on 10/11/2008, -13/+6Ron Paul has been saying the same ***** for more than 30 years. There have been several recession in those thirty years. There also have been incredibly prosperous periods.

    The United States continues...
    we will pass this crises... Ron Paul will still be ranting. Life goes on.

    Ron Paul has his points, but he's not truly correct in any form. The problem is corruption and greed, and mistrust, basic human flaws. The system isn't broken, the people running it were.
    • cygnus2112, on 10/11/2008, -2/+8Of all the nominees who ran for President, Ron Paul was the only one who has been right on all issues.

      The problem includes corruption and greed, but not mistrust. If anything, the problem is with trust.
      • Archos, on 10/11/2008, -1/+4But the American people couldn't face these truths and instead wanted change THEY could believe in. And that's not a whole lot change . . . .
    • dopplerdog, on 10/11/2008, -0/+4If a system requires people to be incorruptible, uninterested in wealth, and perfectly trustworthy in order to function properly, then it's the system that's broken, not the people.
  • carynyao, on 10/11/2008, -6/+12Can I digg this again and again and again....
    • LeviTheSmith, on 10/11/2008, -1/+1Are you suggesting that you're using scripts to digg this story an unlimited amount of times?
      • carynyao, on 10/11/2008, -1/+3Do you have the script? 'Cuz I'd to use it on this story
      • LeviTheSmith, on 10/11/2008, -2/+1HAX HAX I'M TELLING A MOD UR GUNNA GET BANNED LOOLOL OLL OLOL OL LOOLOLO LO OLO LOLLLO N00B N00B N00B USING SCRIPTZZZZZZZZZZ HAXA XHAXHAX L:PP:OOLLOL
      • MarrinArkanon, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1we could just link everyone we know to this video.. call it "ron rolling"

        anybody with me?
  • ericmerrill, on 10/11/2008, -2/+2man, wasn't there a book where people used cigarettes as a form of currency?
    • kelsosmythe, on 10/11/2008, -0/+6No, I think that was prison.

    • Bloodweaver, on 10/11/2008, -1/+0King Rat?
    • StingingNettle, on 10/11/2008, -0/+4The German Weimar republic used ciggarettes and whiskey as a form of currency during their peiriod of hyper inflation. You can read about it here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/m ...
    • ericmerrill, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1my reference was one flew over the cuckoo's nest, i remember now. i was thinking 1984 for a minute, but that was just victory cigarettes.

      anyway, it's an interesting thought, as is StingingNettle's reply!
  • CanadaKyle, on 10/11/2008, -5/+1I feel like a cigarette!
  • Butter66, on 10/11/2008, -11/+5if I'm not mistaken, doesn't ron Paul stand for complete government deregulation? I thought that deregulation of the market contributed to this mess
    • excalibrax, on 10/11/2008, -2/+5Technichally he is for complete government deregulation using the constitution as an outline. The governments job is to coin money and to back money via commodities such as gold/silver which is to what he was refering. We have printed so much money in comparison to the commodities that we have stored to back them that the dollar is not worth as much in comparison to the commodities anymore.
    • Singularitarian, on 10/11/2008, -3/+8It was government manipulation of the economy that caused this mess. Read some of Ron Paul's writings on this topic.
    • Stevethegreat, on 10/11/2008, -0/+10Deregulation? Are you ***** kidding me? The governmentally backed FED created an inflationary rally for at least a decade now, with real inflation nowadays being at about 10%, this means that every year your money loses 10% of its value as the same commodity is 10% more expensive today than it was exactly a year ago.

      Regulating the money is the prime regulation of all, the "deregulation" you speak about was an eye-wash that the politicians used to actually regulate even more behind the scenes. Today US economy is more regulated than EVER, stop the crap...
      • PeppermintPig, on 10/16/2008, -0/+1Hate to break it to you, but real inflation is higher than that. Before the bailout it was at least 13 percent. Now... ugh.. I don't want to think about it.
  • kolobcreek, on 10/11/2008, -1/+7Its a shame how little Americans know about money. And how little interest the have in learning about our monetary system.
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/11/2008, -0/+5Questioning authority is not emphasized in school.
  • alamedaman, on 10/11/2008, -0/+26look! he's been consistent for 25 years! try getting Mccain to be consistent for 25 minutes!
    • Buzzpatrol, on 10/11/2008, -0/+7To be fair. 25 minutes listening to McCain feels like 25 years...
  • KittySpark1es, on 10/11/2008, -2/+18Help end the Federal Reserve
    www.endthefed.us
    11/22/08 Nationwide protest
  • PhilThePhenom, on 10/11/2008, -3/+12My god, if Obama gets elected I hope he reaches across party lines and makes this man Secretary of the Treasury.
    • LordByr0n, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Obama is no better then McCain he just knows how to deliver a speech. Does anyone ever notice that the word 'change' comes up in every election. Hell its the only word that is constantly being put in political slogans.
      • socialrebel, on 10/11/2008, -2/+1well, der. black people are always asking for change
  • bonk2k, on 10/11/2008, -0/+10Of course cigarettes are better than money. Have you ever tried smoking a dollar bill?
  • Berkana, on 10/11/2008, -3/+15I agree with Ron Paul that the ability to manipulate the money supply by creating credit (which is then spent as money in the economy) is the root of the problem, but I disagree with his solution of resorting to gold and silver. The problem today is that privately owned banks manipulate the money supply and create money out of thin air by means of fractional reserve banking; the power to issue money properly belongs to the government working in service of the people, it should not be the exclusive right of privately owned banks that lend it into existence and into circulation, and charge interest on it.:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yvRZoM-2r8
    Even gold and silver are "fiat" in the sense that get only work as money due to societal agreement. Anything that society agrees to use as money will work as money. The problem isn't fiat money; the problem is inflationary debt-based money. The channel island of Gurnsey has very successfully operated under a fiat-currency system:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey#Economy
    The reason it works is that the supply is stable; if it were to grow while the economy's need for money remains stable, inflation would result. If the population or the economy were to demand more money than were in circulation (for example, due to hoarding), a monetary contraction would result. The reason our current fiat currency is not stable is that all the money we have in circulation is borrowed money—all of it consisting of principal—but the money owed is principal + interest. In other words, our total debt exceeds the total money supply. As bankers make it hard to borrow more money into circulation, the repayment of debts naturally contracts the money supply, and as the money supply contracts after an inflationary period, the economy suffers. This is the root of the problem; it is sufficient to solve this problem without resorting to gold or silver. Gold and silver based currency may prevent inflation because its supply cannot be easily increased, but it does nothing to solve the problem of monetary contraction by interest payments. (See the youtube link above.)
    • cashman57, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2The gold coins I bought when the Clintons were president will buy me more food and fuel today. In no sense is gold and silver "fiat". That's absurd.
      • Berkana, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2I know gold and silver have maintained their value today because inflation has made the dollar worth more, but the point Ron Paul was making about paper money is that people use and accept it as money, giving it artificial value. The same could be said of any form of money, even gold; gold is only worth something because people consider it valuable. Apart from people considering something to be valuable, nothing has value that isn't immediately useful, gold included. Gold as money only *represents value* in that it can be spent to obtain something that is actually useful; gold by itself is pretty useless unless you're into jewelry or corrosion resistant electronic connectors.

        In a society where food and clothing and other goods are bartered as the medium of exchange, the food actually has value; it can be eaten, worn, used, etc. Gold, on the other hand, has no intrinsic value except that people agree to use it as money. But if this is so of gold, it can be so of anything, even paper. The problem with paper money is not that it is paper, but that it has been abused and is too easy to inflate. If mechanisms are in place to keep whatever currency from being inflated, it too will maintain its value, regardless of what it's made of.

        Consider the fact that aluminum used to be a precious metal worth more than gold or platinum. The tip of the Washington monument was capped with a pyramid of solid aluminum. But as a precious metal, aluminum only had value because people accepted it as a precious metal; once aluminum became easy to refine and produce, it lost its precious status, though it too is a commodity metal. Any commodity, even printed bills and paper currency, will work as currency if the custodians of its quantity do not inflate it for short term gain.

        The real problem is not what commodity our money is based on, but the fact that interest takes money out of general circulation and accumulates it with the bankers. see the Youtube clip I linked above. Even a gold based system will eventually fail if the bankers accumulate wealth without productivity by charging interest.
    • Magnolit, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Berkana, I recommend you to read Murray's book "What has government done to our money" .
      It's available on mises.org .
      • Berkana, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2I am familiar with the Von Mises school of monetary policy, and as I said, I have subtle disagreements with them.

        I don't support the gold standard for the reasons stated in the two documentaries "Money as Debt" and "Money Masters":
        http://digg.com/business_finance/Our_Debt_based_Mo ...
        http://digg.com/educational/A_History_of_Fractiona ...
        1) switching to the gold standard right now would put all the power of all money into the hands of those who have all the gold—in many cases, these are the same as the banks. You know full well that they wouldn't spend the gold (or gold backed currency) into the economy to circulate freely; they would merely lend it into the economy and demand more than was lent out in return. (Their lending would far out-strip their spending, I can guarantee that.) This would end up putting all the gold out there into the hands of the bankers.
        2) If we had never gotten off the gold standard, then I would support staying on it, but now that we've been off gold for decades, our money supply has inflated for decades. Going back to gold right now would cause an even worse monetary contraction than what we're seeing.

        The only really viable solution right now is to remove the power to inflate money via fractional reserves from the banks and give the power to issue money back to the government, and to do so in a way that prohibits the government from inflating the money supply so the money retains its value like gold does. (The world gold supply is growing though, because gold is being mined and old gold is being recovered from waste electronics.) Limited growth of the money supply should be permitted to accommodate for growth of commerce and trade needs, because otherwise insufficient liquidity could hurt the economy, but the growth of the money supply must never be permitted to outstrip the economy's need for liquidity, or inflation will occur. When the need for circulating money exactly matches the money supply, there is no inflation; when the need outstrips the supply, recessions and deflation happen; when supply outstrips need, inflation happens.
  • chopsky, on 10/11/2008, -2/+7"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.' - Francisco D'Anconia (Atlas Shrugged)
  • megaton, on 10/11/2008, -3/+6I'm a HUGE Ron Paul supporter, but there's one flaw with his argument: there is no physical material in the world that can act as a sustainable standard. Either there isn't enough to go around (gold, for example), it breaks down during a necessity crisis (anything without intrinsic value), or is naturally volatile (food, for example).

    I get what he's saying, but the trend is from one standard to another as each successively broke down, just as the paper standard did now or the gold standard before it. In each case, it's preceded by a period of depression, just as we're about to witness.

    The purpose of any standard is to instill accountability that counterbalances human greed. The problem with the paper standard is that accountability (i.e. oversight and regulation) is managed by humans, which puts two cooks in the same kitchen, stirring the same pot. Inevitably, caught up in their haste and excitement, the two will eventually work together to tip the pot and spill the soup.

    However, the paper standard has one distinct advantage above all others, and that is to support a global economy and population the size of ours. Any standard based on a tangible asset eventually either reaches its limit to support (the need outweighs the supply), or new assets are found or created which devalue the currency, causing the inevitable inflationary behavior.

    A standard based on an agreed-upon value system can support accelerated population growth, provided enough diversity exists within the pool. In an intertwined, global economy such as ours, we have the benefit of such support. In a sense, the value of the populace to the world at large acts as the standard, limiting how far a given economy can rise or fall. The peaks and valleys ultimately normalize over time, effectively shielding what would have been a much more exaggerated ebb or flow.

    On the other hand, such an intangible standard does have one major caveat: the potential for a complete and utter global collapse. But, if you like any semblance of the life you have (internet, cellphone, tv, whatever) and wish to enjoy it without the expense of 98% of the rest of the population, the standard has to be based on an intangible asset, because it's impossible to build a sustainable credit system without it.

    And credit is--like it or not--what governments need to operate on the grand scale necessary to govern such a massive, global populace.
    • THEROC, on 10/11/2008, -2/+2The gold standard didn't break down. it was ended for political reasons.
      Not enough gold? One of the main reasons people use gold as money is because it scarce. You could have a gold standard even if there was just one ounce of gold on the planet. Well, w/e i think you're trolling.
  • crazyhorse1972, on 10/11/2008, -0/+4I have used cigarettes as money. 7 cigarettes bought an extra dinner from the house man, who got an extra meal at every meal time for cleaning the ward.
  • exspasticcomics, on 10/11/2008, -0/+4he's so young! LOL...
  • Buzzpatrol, on 10/11/2008, -0/+9Ok, ***** it! I have never been a Ron Paul supporter but this does it. I'm jumping the Shark. He's just ***** awesome!
    • TheAlphaNick, on 10/11/2008, -0/+0you mean hopping on the bandwagon?
  • superflydugg, on 10/11/2008, -0/+5goddamn that's concise.
  • AaronRoss, on 10/11/2008, -0/+5pual is one of the very few politicians that is truly honest...maybe that's why he doesn't have a lot of support from his party, a TRUE maverick.
  • kawaiirobo, on 10/11/2008, -0/+8Wow, what a novel concept of backing money with something of real value, who would have thought....
  • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2*Better than paper money
  • crowbarred, on 10/11/2008, -0/+4Why was/is this man never president? evangelistics must envy this power. Unlike evangelistics he uses it for good.
  • tehxen3, on 10/11/2008, -6/+5Cigarettes better than money, why? Because Ron Paul says so? Core inflation has since 1980s been lowest in human history. Money supply system works just fine.
    I'll take Chicago School of Economics and Milton Friedman over Austrian School any time.
    • cashman57, on 10/11/2008, -2/+4LOL!!
      That's funny. Have you been paying attention at all?
      When Ron Paul said we would face a currency crisis I took it to mean I had to get rid of as much currency as possible. I buy gold coins and I have never been sorry.
      I will take reality over your "Chicago" economics.
      In the real world your statements are a joke.
      The sad part is you believe them.
      • harlowsmonkeys, on 10/11/2008, -1/+4Historically, gold has NOT been a very good investment. Long term, stock market beats it. If you are going to talk about "reality" and the "real world", you should actually be looking on real data over significant periods, rather than just short term results since you succumbed to the innate human desire to believe in mysticism and to join herds and became a Paul fan.
      • PeppermintPig, on 10/16/2008, -0/+1Gold is a good instrument, but fractional reserve banking has undermined the ability to properly judge its value.

        Some individuals who support Ron Paul are mystics and some are not.
  • jasonliman, on 10/11/2008, -5/+2I think Ron Paul is a wonderful man. He is very intelligent and you can tell from his speech.
    I am not a smart dude, and I admit I am below average. My opinion may not fit your taste, but I just want to point out several things about Ron Paul.
    One of the cons about Ron Paul is that he doesn't know how to convert the complexity of his speeches into a simple sentence for the general public. He is too smart, and it would be better for him to simplify his sentence, because while people are trying to remember his point but unclear about the definition, so, less is more.
    Indeed Ron Paul has all the good intention for America, but he fail at publicity, in comparison to Obama or McCain, http://www.ronpaul.org, http://www.barackobama.com or mccain.com or even the http://campaignforliberty.com, Ron Paul clearly fail at presenting his image positively. I am sure he will have a better chance if he hire some top designer in the Country to repackage his images. such as website, poster, and such.
    Another thing is that he is always way too serious. I understand running for president is a serious business but he need to smile more, he can be humor and firm at the same time, so it would be easy for the general to get to know him.

    People nowadays no longer look at what's inside you, but rather look at the visual appearance. These are he things he need to improve, use simpler words, redesign the campaign, and smile more.

    Digg me down if you don't like it.
    • sragland, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2I think you're just too dumb to understand.
    • King0007, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1You know what.....I Dugg you up. You are so right. I have supported Dr. Paul for years, but his speeches go way over the head of the average American. If he could of spoke like Romney, or Obama, he would of been president. Clear concise and demands respect.....This is why he lost in my opinion. It is not his fault, and I will always respect Ron Paul and support his views.....he would of made the best president in history.

      When I was watching the debates.....I was on the edge of my seat just waiting for Ron Paul to tell these other idiots to STFU. It never happened...and now we have McCain and Obama.......Sad.
  • JONNYREBEL, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Great!!!!! A golden Oldie!!!! I am with "Conway" I Still Going to Writing Him in to.
  • insomniac8400, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2It works in prison.
    • PeppermintPig, on 10/16/2008, -0/+1Notice, the country is becoming more like a prison. Fitting then that cigarettes are a preferred commodity of exchange.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.