Will the poor stay poor under Ron Paul's Monetary Ideas?
Submitted by zrih1 on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 10:24
Is there anything wrong with a world where there are clear winners and losers and those with the most toys (money) are the winners?
Why should I care that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have estates worth 60 billion a piece? Or that these other 100 richest people have estates in the 11 digits? I mean I'm worth a grand total of negative $250,000. That is, I'm in the hole $250,000. But I still get by.
My beef is with the fact that there are billioniares and a billion people worldwide who are malnutrioned and 16,000 kids that die daily. Do these people matter?
Should I support a system where this kind of inequality occurs?
Do DailyPaulers have a problem with a system like this?
»
Look at the people behind "fiat money"
They are the "super rich".
And they are the majority of people in the World...
because most people don't think twice about the money system.
social credit does not equal socialism
social credit and the national dividend should be explored. The Austrians will never do it because they misinterpret money as a commodity. Money is also whatever the government accepts in payment of taxes, and no it does not have to be inflationary if the voters have brains.
Money is a commodity
Money is a commodity in almost every way except that having more of it in a society decreases that societies actual wealth. Wealth being goods and services or the value of the money that represents goods or services. You cannot simply add more money to a society to make it more wealthy. Otherwise it acts exactly like a commodity. It is bound to the laws of supply and demand like anything else. If you increase the supply of money you decrease the demand for money which is the unit of trade representing goods and services. Having control of the means of increasing the money supply gives you the control over the redistribution of wealth and the ability to steal value from the goods and services produced by the people using that money and unaware of the manipulation. It is immoral and it is our system of unbacked paper money
"It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
— Thomas Paine
"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com
It would be easier to climb out of poverty, if...
free markets were allowed to work, taxes were low, and inflation was reigned in.
Ron Paul 2012
www.josiahgarber.com/blog
www.heirloomgardenpro.com
www.mennonitesforronpaul.com
I like SilentBoom's answer
"The unequal distribution of wealth is due to the distortions of the value of the currency itself through the manipulation of interest rates or the total money supply by printing or rates. The fractional reserve banking system further amplifys the fed's rates to inflate the supply of money. Legislation aimed at equalizing the distribution of wealth actually does the opposite and confuses the cause of the distortion. In a truly free market with sound money, we would have a huge middle class and small rich and poor classes. Charity could surely handle that. As many have said below."
CHANGE hurts
FOR a short term ,,NOT long term...NO pain NO gain...weee
The poor will always be poor
They are poor for a reason.
if you were to redistribute the wealth in this country evenly, so that every person were to have exactly the same amount of wealth...in a generation or less, the rich would have the money back and the poor would be poor again.
It's not a lifestyle, it's not a lack of advantage, it's a hand to mouth mentality that makes people poor. It's consumption over savings, it's today over tomorrow, it's instant gratification over preparation.
What do you think about the war on drugs?
How about Operation Wall Street?
Shout it today!
http://www.youshouts.com/index.php
I believe you're right.
I believe you're right.
...
Free Market Can Help the Poor
Under our current corporatist/crony capitalist system it's really the ultra rich and corporations who reap the benefits. There will always be people with more and people with less, and there should be since not everyone is the same, but you would probably see a more equitable distribution of wealth in a truly free society.
Many regulations and taxes take the greatest toll on mom & pop operations and mid sized companies. The big companies can either lobby for loopholes or absorbe the costs, so they're actually protected. This holds back people in the middle class and damages social mobility.
My home state of New Hampshire has no income tax, sales tax, and a relatively low regulatory burden and it also has the lowest poverty rate in the US. See here http://www.dailypaul.com/node/59301
A welfare state tends to make everyone poorer, and while it might benefit a few people who are having a tough time, it can also make them dependent rather than getting them back on their feet. Private chairity can provide short term relief for those people who really need it, and a free economy would be more productive so you'd see few people who would have to rely on the kindness of others.
There really are some people who could work and probably make what they get from social security or some other program, but what's their incentive to get a job for 20K a year if they draw 11K in social security plus government housing, and food programs? They make the same either way. What would you do?
In the absence of these programs, the alternative would be to take a low paying job, and if the person wanted to improve their lot, they could try hard to do good work, gain experience, and hopefully work their way up to a better job.
Even in terms of foreign aid, there is some evidence that aid money given to poor nations doesn't help them improve the lives of the people in those countries, and that these countries become dependent of foreign aid. Try looking at the approach that kiva.org has taken. You can personally give a small low interest loan to an entrepenuer in a poor country and help them get what they need to build a business. If enough people took that approach these small entrepenuers would be able to provide jobs as well as goods and services in their communities. Economies are built from the bottom up.
The unequal
The unequal distribution of wealth is due to the distortions of the value of the currency itself through the manipulation of interest rates or the total money supply by printing. The fractional reserve banking system further amplifys the fed's rates to inflate the supply of money. Legislation aimed at equalizing the distribution of wealth actually does the opposite and confuses the cause of the distortion. In a truly free market with sound money, we would have a huge middle class and small rich and poor classes. Charity could surely handle that. As many have said below.
"It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
— Thomas Paine
"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com
The highly talented and the ass busters will always do better
HYDROMAN
and the loafers will always be poor.
Here`s a great idea for you , adopt a "povert" with your own resources.
Don`t steal from others to satisfy your conscience.
"Since 1789 the only government on Earth that has the power to crush the American people`s liberties across the board is the government of the United States"
Robert Higgs
Yes, LOL,
Someone once asked me "But if Ron Paul was elected, how would the lazy people do? " How ridiculous, to expect the people to work hard to earn as much as do the lazy? How unfair! But how wonderful to live in a free society where one has a chance if they bust their butt and use their mind to make more money.
That's not my point.
I'm asking is there a money system where so many won't suffer from starvation? Because if there is, I'm for that one.
In all honesty, there is no
In all honesty, there is no perfect system.
By allowing the market to be unfettered by the heavy hand of government, prices will always be the lowest they can be. Also, with a gold standard, prices will tend to drop as time moves forward because of increases in productive capacity. The lower the price/wage ratio, the more people will be able to afford, the less poor they'll be. Wealth should not be defined by how much money you have, but by how much the money you have can buy. In other words, the free-market makes the poor better off; however, there will probably always be some poverty no matter what system we use.
"My theories explain, but cannot slow the decline of a great civilization. I set out to be a reformer, but only became the historian of decline."
- Ludwig Von Mises
"My theories explain, but cannot slow the decline of a great civilization. I set out to be a reformer, but only became the historian of decline."
- Ludwig Von Mises
Ron Paul's monetary ideas
Ron Paul's monetary ideas give everyone the equal opportunity for a job and wealth. In the third world where people are starving to death, they don't have that opportunity because they don't have free markets. It is not true that free markets only have two classes -- the super rich and the super poor. Only in countries where there is rampant corporatism (government in bed with big business) does that happen. Which I believe is where that idea comes from.
----------
"We will never give up. We will never give in." - Dr. Ron Paul
----------
"We will never give up. We will never give in." - Dr. Ron Paul
The illusion
that we can end poverty is one of the main reasons we are in the shape we are in. "The poor will always be with you."
There will always be richer and poorer.
If you gave everyone in the world an equal amount of money to start, within days there would be poor people again.
Like it or not, there will
Like it or not, there will always be poor people in the world for whatever reason and has been for centuries. Here in America, the poor stay poor under democrats and republicans regardless of the promises made. There will still be poor amongst us even if Ron Paul was president. As a citizen of this country, I don't expect my government to save the world but I have expectations of myself. I make sure I do what I can to help my brother in need by volunteering with the homeless, donating money, offer medical assistance like dressing changes (wound care) for free, and try to inspire others to find solutions to improve their conditions. Improving this world should start with the individual, that is you. The government just needs to get out of our way and let us keep our money so we can do better for others.
As long as the sun rises and sets there will always be kind charitable and resourceful people and there will always be greedy selfish stingy people. You have decide where you belong and not others should belong.
Just my opinion and lead by example.
"Every generation needs a new r3VOLution"- Thomas Jefferson
Wealth distribution
Wealth distribution is again, something best left up to the market and to PEOPLE.
To your point:
1) Financial "winners" and "losers" is indeed fine. Anyone who says different lacks understanding. A system that attempts to equalize wealth will be inherently enormously inefficient and EVERYONE will suffer for it. Because the grand total prosperity would be enormously lower. Forced wealth redistribution is the equivalent of saying: because that person is poor, everyone must be poorer.
2) The free market results in the most efficient economy we know of. That means that it will result in the greatest overall sum of prosperity. Yes, there will be some not as prosperous as others, but:
a) they have equal opportunity to become prosperous
b) the most prosperous will have more to help those less prosperous
3) The current fraudulent money system supports this absurd concentration of financial power. If we had hard money, it would not be possible (maybe why some people are against hard money---it takes their power away).
This is related to an article I want to write. Some people think there isn't enough gold to be money. They're right: there isn't enough gold for banks to control the nations of the world. There isn't enough gold for the government to go into $10 trillion in debt. There isn't enough gold for consumers to go into trillions of debt. There isn't enough gold to support an unsupportable system. Personally, I consider that a "good thing" :)
Utopia is reserved for ....
the believers in an after life.
I would much rather be poor and free, than poor and a slave.
That is really the only statement that matters.
You may disagree with that statement, but that is your right as a free human being.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
When more people are able to care for themselvse there is MORE
Charity and Goodwill towards others. Like when you fly, put your own air mask on 1st before reaching out and helping others with theirs. There will always be equality not matter how hard we try to eradicate it. Not everyone can be the BEST at EVERYTHING! Life is not fair---PERIOD!
When government has the power to give you everything you need, it also has the power to take away from you everything you have. DR Paul has talked about this many times.
FREEDOM FORCE: http://forums.libertylove.org/?q=node/139
SURVIVAL RESOURCE: http://forums.libertylove.org/?q=node/158
ART: http://forums.libertylove.org/?q=node/360
MUSIC: http://forums.libertylove.org/?q=node/880