Thread: Ron Paul 2012

Originally Posted by tommo

The price of gold has skyrocketed recently. It's no where near the same as 100 years ago.
They can still stockpile gold and create false worth.

It's not about the "price" of gold. It's about the value in relation to goods and services. 100 years ago, an ounce of gold could buy approximately the same amount of oil as an ounce of gold can buy now. Money loses value, but commodities are much more stable.

Here's a chart for the last 50-ish years.

Ok.... so.... both resources that are being mined. That's two things that are very similar. Hence the term "black gold".

What about actual products?
You could buy a good computer for an ounce of gold now (obviously if you convert it in to money first coz no one would accept gold). Could you do that in 1990? No way.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

It's not about the "price" of gold. It's about the value in relation to goods and services. 100 years ago, an ounce of gold could buy approximately the same amount of oil as an ounce of gold can buy now. Money loses value, but commodities are much more stable.

Here's a chart for the last 50-ish years.

I see a pretty significant change in the past 10 years. 10 years ago an ounce of gold could buy about 20 barrels of oil; today it's roughly 9.

Supply and demand. They point is that the money is based upon a commodity with a limited supply so while supply and demand can fluctuate the value of gold cannot be deflated due to any intervention apart from gold miners finding more.

And stockpiling to to drive prices up, and then releasing it to plummet the prices?
Or do you want to set up restrictions on that? Wouldn't be very libertarian-like.

Your dollar would equal to a finite amount of gold, driving the price of gold up means your dollar would be worth more for the period of time it's being stockpiled. The stockpilers wouldn't actually benefit in any way because selling their gold would add more to circulation and correct the supply imbalance. Rather, those not stockpiling their gold would benefit most from a stockpiling situation because demand would increase on them.

The only reason the oil cartels got away with it is because they all unanimously agreed to raise the price of oil, had one single cartel defected from their operation it would have crashed the whole scheme. Besides, they weren't stockpiling anything, they were taking advantage of their monopoly.

Originally Posted by tommo

Ok.... so.... both resources that are being mined. That's two things that are very similar. Hence the term "black gold".

What about actual products?
You could buy a good computer for an ounce of gold now (obviously if you convert it in to money first coz no one would accept gold). Could you do that in 1990? No way.

First of all, you can buy several good computers with an ounce of gold now; second, it has nothing to do with a change in the value of gold and everything to do with the advancement of technology. A computer is cheaper to build and in much greater supply today compared with 22 years ago.

Originally Posted by Supernova

I see a pretty significant change in the past 10 years. 10 years ago an ounce of gold could buy about 20 barrels of oil; today it's roughly 9.

If you are going to try to make price comparisons like that you better start researching; in order to do it accurately you'll have to know the relative increase in demand for oil compared to gold, the relative production rates, what spills or mine disasters have happened over that time, the effects of war in the middle east on the price of oil, etc. etc.. You should be able to look at the chart, however, and see a closer correlation between the value of oil and gold as compared to the value of us dollars and gold.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If you are going to try to make price comparisons like that you better start researching; in order to do it accurately you'll have to know the relative increase in demand for oil compared to gold, the relative production rates, what spills or mine disasters have happened over that time, the effects of war in the middle east on the price of oil, etc. etc.. You should be able to look at the chart, however, and see a closer correlation between the value of oil and gold as compared to the value of us dollars and gold.

He said that an ounce of gold today can buy approximately the same amount of oil as it could 10 years ago. I simply pointed out that, according to the data he provided, that is not true.

EDIT: Ok, I misread his post. Perhaps we should look at some data for 1912 and compare.

There IS no perfect form of money; they all have downsides. But paper money that the government doesn't even CONTROL anymore, is virtually ALL downside. It would be different if perhaps Congress and the Treasury Dept. had the power to determine the money supply, instead of a shady as FUCK organization who has no regulation or oversight, and is unelected...

Shady? See this: News Headlines

WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF YOU?! (They won't like what they find... never does someone say "Oh golly gee, Jenny! Don't you just LOVE the Federal Reserve having total control over our money?!" And even then it's sarcasm.)

Wow.... yeah I'm pretty sure that article deserves a thread of its own....
The Fed is looking to launch its new monitoring software, appropriately named the Sentiment Analysis And Social Media Monitoring Solution, in December of 2012, according to the Fed's request for proposal.

Prophecy has come true.

Rest assured, on the first day it becomes active I will be voicing my dissent for them. Multiple times.

I will be wishing them a hearty "Fuck you!" as soon as that happens.

I cannot express in text how creepy and shady that is.

"Don't mind us, we're just... collecting data. Harmless data, you can go on with your business."

OK, now I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means. And I'd like to HOPE that elections aren't rigged... but this is seriously fishy. Does this graph make ANY sense, especially when you consider that Nevada is a very libertarian place (Take a look at Las Vegas...)

And I had my first suspicions the night OF when CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and New York Times all had different results, but reported the same precincts in...



I mean, c'mon. Ron Paul didn't campaign at ALL in Florida, and he got nearly twice as many votes. But he campaigns for days in Nevada and doesn't even outperform his old numbers?

I think this is just another case of media blackouts and sheeple mentality, but then again I wouldn't put it past them to rig elections if they thought the candidate would be a disaster (to their own interests).

Have you ever been to Nevada? They still think we're at war with the Indians over there.

And you can't use Las Vegas as an example to claim Nevada is Libertarian. Las Vegas only exists because they didn't want to pass any sort of law that would give Indians a leg up in the world.

Burning Man also takes place in Nevada, but only because they don't know about it.

Originally Posted by cmind

I think this is just another case of media blackouts and sheeple mentality, but then again I wouldn't put it past them to rig elections if they thought the candidate would be a disaster (to their own interests).

The Nevada GOP pulled this same shit at the state convention in 2008 where they attempted to prevent Ron Paul delegates from attending. I would absolutely not put it past them.

I trust the other states, because the numbers add up, and there's really no evidence for fraud (Ron Paul performed very well, based on his efforts, in the first four.) But those numbers do NOT fucking add up for Nevada, nor does the fact that it took the Nevada GOP 48 hours to count only about 20,000 paper ballots, when it took Iowa one night to count over 100,000.

It's just a messy situation, and I'm not entirely favoring fraud as the answer, but I can't rule it out. The Nevada GOP is corrupt as hell (even for GOP standards.)

EDIT: I forgot. The number of ballots cast in multiple precincts did not equal the number of caucus-goers who attended each caucus. But then again, hundreds of dead people voted in South Carolina's primary... so there have to be flukes somewhere. (How does that even happen in this day and age?!)

So who is actually crazy enough to still not support Ron Paul. And What is overall wrong with you?

I bet if you go looking for Ron Paul Supporters it may just be a way to find the most sophisticated people that we have avaliable to us.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Who the fuck is Ron Paul?

LOL

On the internet plus not knowing Ron Paul equals massive contradiction. Actually no candidate is more well supported than Ron Paul when it comes to the internet.

Originally Posted by knight31

So who is actually crazy enough to still not support Ron Paul. And What is overall wrong with you?

I bet if you go looking for Ron Paul Supporters it may just be a way to find the most sophisticated people that we have avaliable to us.

Hi, Ron! *waves*

I found this entertaining.

Why are the Ron Paul supporters not participating in the income tax thread? It seems like you would be all over it. It was one versus three for hours last night.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why are the Ron Paul supporters not participating in the income tax thread? It seems like you would be all over it. It was one versus three for hours last night.

I usually just check my subscriptions; I don't like being involved in many threads. (I didn't see it but I'll check it out.)

Ron Paul doesn't support a sales tax either, sorry but you're still on your own.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Ron Paul doesn't support a sales tax either, sorry but you're still on your own.

Please quote where I said he does.

He wants to get rid of the income tax (what that thread is about), Captain Insight.