Gold-Bug Austrian Batted Zero: Ron Paul, Competing Currencies: Free Competition in Currency Act

This links to UPDATE 1 below.

It can be exceedingly difficult to follow the commenting threads on YouTube because you really have to look at the date and time of the postings. Someone can raise something he or she brought up earlier that might be above or below the given comment. Regardless, the content of this discussion is worth blogging. If a comment refers to something not above it, just keep reading through to the end. It will end up making sense.

Ron Paul introduced legislation for "competing" currencies: "Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009." Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears he's been doing this each year since at least 2007. The video below pertains to H.R. 4248. Here's a transcript from the Congressional Record.

Here's a summary of what the bill supposedly would do if it were to become law.

Below the video over on YouTube, I added the following comment, which generated a raft of comments particularly from someone with the user name "lomocan." He's clearly a gold-bug of the Austrian-School variety. As far as I'm concerned, he batted zero in this thread.

Before you read this though, I want you to know that there are things about Ron Paul that I like. He's anti imperial. He has never wanted the US to be a colonial power lording it over others or the world.

He really needs though to get out of the "gold-bug" business and throw his weight behind United States Notes, not a simple new issue of the Lincoln type but a note that will meet all of the needs of the US and world right now to the extent any "currency" can whether metal or not.

So, some little old ladies in tennis shoes put their retirement savings in a bunch of a "competitive" currency that ends up not "competing" well. "Competitive" bothers me there. I haven't seen local currencies proposed as other than alternatives to Fed Notes, not to each other. Also, the constitution doesn't limit coinage "money" to gold and silver. He misspoke there. I'm with him on auditing the Fed and ending it though. I'm for taking the step to interest-and-tax-free United States Notes.
TomUsherRLCC 5 days ago

@TomUsherRLCC RP's proposal is either genius or nuts. RP is a credible person. His proposal is a pure free market approach. It appears on the surface to invite chaos. Surely he knows this. It is in some ways the most drastic response. Does RP think our stituation is that drastic? Maybe it is political maneuvering? He goes far right leaving the space to "compromise" to a less drastic solution toward the center?
SuperWorldwide23 5 days ago

@SuperWorldwide23

Yes, legislation can come out the other end with only the name intact and be otherwise unrecognizable from the initial language.

There are a number of alternatives already being used. I suppose you've been exposed to that. There are a number of videos on YouTube about it.

I've liked much of what I've seen.

If he's speaking about those local cooperative efforts, I can't see much harm. They're already much better than Fed Notes.

We can do better though.
TomUsherRLCC 4 days ago

@TomUsherRLCC Any time there is more than one currency in circulation, it's competitive. The safety there is that such currencies must be backed by gold or silver. The Constitution is indeed specific about gold & silver.. see Article 1 section 10. Those "United States Notes" are pure monopoly money... this concept already bankrupted the US once in 1872. The printing press is not the answer, it's a continuation of the problem.
larethdf 4 days ago

@larethdf

There are currencies in circulation now that are designed not to be competitive but cooperative. You're thinking of only one connotation.

There's been no inherent historically demonstrable safety in gold or silver.

The Constitution does not say that Congress must use gold or silver.

United States Notes did not cause national bankruptcy.

Where did you get the idea only certain metals can be the medium of exchange?

Lastly, the "printing press" is part of the answer.
TomUsherRLCC 4 days ago

@TomUsherRLCC

"some little old ladies in tennis shoes put their retirement savings in a bunch of a "competitive" currency that ends up not "competing" well"

EVERYONE (not just gullible old ladies) is FORCED to remain in the current Fed-Notes system; devaluing their savings perpetually & soon it's going to be worthless so why allow to CHOOSE? It's NOT like those "old-ladies" would be forced to save in those competing currencies, they can still save in worthless Fed-Notes, won't they?
lomocan 4 days ago

@lomocan

The choices aren't limited to Fed Notes or what Ron is suggesting.

I wrote above that I'm for interest-and-tax-free United States Notes. Add debt-free and inflation-free to that. I ran out of space — also time; otherwise, I would have mention those aspects too.

Clearly, US Notes are another alternative, and they're better than Fed Notes or a free-for-all or going back on the Gold Standard or anything else I can think of (other than a moneyless society).
TomUsherRLCC 4 days ago

@TomUsherRLCC

"Also, the constitution doesn't limit coinage "money" to gold and silver. He misspoke there"

Constitution doesn't limit money to gold & silver but it says the GOVT can ONLY declare gold & silver as legal tender.

A1S8 of Constitution allows Congress to COIN money (not print it) & A1S10 prohibits states from making anything other than gold & silver a tender. Founders weren't stupid, they knew corruption of paper-money hence they didn't allow govt to print its own paper either
lomocan 4 days ago

@lomocan

The Constitution doesn't say that Congress is limited to using gold or silver. The Congress is not one of the states or any combination of states.

I agree with you that it says "coin." It has said that all of our lives.

When they wanted to use other than something that would fit the definition of coin, they should have amended the Constitution.

We are talking about reform here. Amend the Constitution.

Brains didn't stop with "The Founders."
TomUsherRLCC 4 days ago

@TomUsherRLCC

"I'm for taking the step to interest-and-tax-free United States Notes"

Ok, so we're in debt because of the govt & now you want to handover the money-supply to politicians? Seriously? Contrary to what may've heard from "certain" sources, govt ALREADY controls the money & its made a mess of it & we DON'T need more of the same; Fed gives 94% of its profits (interest on Treasuries) BACK to govt while only govt has the power to issue & increase out debt as it has
lomocan 4 days ago

@lomocan

I'm not an anarcho-capitalists. The logical extension of that would be back to a sole monarch/emperor with all sovereignty vested in him alone.

We're talking about reform. We aren't limited in what we can do. We aren't limited in how we reshape the government. Reform can include amending the Constitution to prevent inflation.

Also, we can't divorce fractional-reserve lending from the equation.

Anyway, if we are going to have full and proper reform, many issues become moot.
TomUsherRLCC 4 days ago

This has been flagged as spam [actually, it was a side-by-side duplicate and I took it as unintentional on lomocan's part]
lomocan 3 days ago

@TomUsherRLCC

"There's been no inherent historically demonstrable safety in gold or silver"

Seriously, you've no clue, my friend. People are running towards gold & silver because they ARE safe instruments of storing purchasing power since no one can "print" gold & silver out of thin air

"The Constitution does not say that Congress must use gold or silver"

It says Congress can only COIN, can it COIN PAPER or only metals?
lomocan 3 days ago

@lomocan

People running to the devil doesn't prove it's a good idea. The debate is monetary reform. For many reasons, I am not for gold and silver being the money.

Your statement concerning coining is irrelevant to my statement that Congress is not limited to gold or silver. You changed the subject.

People holding gold and/or silver have lost wealth in mammon when gold and silver "values" fell. Gold is no guarantee.

I have already made clear the Constitution can be amended.
TomUsherRLCC 1 day ago

@TomUsherRLCC

"I wrote above that I'm for interest-and-tax-free United States Notes"

Issued by almighty govts ie politicians & bureaucrats who've put us in so much debt & created Fed? NO WAY.

"Add debt-free and inflation-free to that"

Paper money is NEVER "inflation-free" because whoever has the power to issue it, keeps on printing & the more they print, higher the inflation.
lomocan 3 days ago

@lomocan

I said the Constitution can be amended.

Pegging volume to defined productivity can prevent inflation and deflation.

Rules can be violated by evil people whether there's a gold standard or everyone is forced to carry around physical gold or silver coins or not.

How do I pay my ISP, send gold coins? A note for coins is fiat money: M1, M2, M3...
TomUsherRLCC 1 day ago

@TomUsherRLCC

"Brains didn't stop with "The Founders.""

Not really but they weren't exactly idiots, they knew that paper-money has always been misused by whoever had the power to issued, even Constitutional Congress did that & that's exactly why many Founders said that they'd reject the whole Constitution if allowed Congress to issue paper-money.

"We are talking about reform here. Amend the Constitution"

So that politicians & bureaucrats can issue money????? NO WAY.
lomocan 3 days ago

@lomocan

Once the supply is constitutionally pegged to defined productivity, that will be that.

I'm not interested in having to carry gold.

You don't like this coercive representational democracy. I don't like the system either, but I have to start somewhere.
TomUsherRLCC 1 day ago

@TomUsherRLCC

"United States Notes did not cause national bankruptcy"

Lincoln had almost bankrupted the country with his "greencraps",people didn't want them at first since they weren't stupid to accept paper as money & govt-issued paper was (& IS) unconstitutional but he promised that he'd redeem them for gold but he retracted & FLOODED economy with greencraps & caused MASSIVE govt-debt so much so that $1 in gold-coin was worth several "paper dollars", you're seriously clueless, pal.
lomocan 3 days ago

@lomocan

1) Lincoln didn't pay the interest the banksters wanted.

2) It's irrelevant to the issue now that there were people who complained back then.

3) I'm not talking about creating any debt at all. I'm talking about eliminating the debt and never paying interest again.

The US Notes I'm talking about are debt-free.
TomUsherRLCC 1 day ago

@TomUsherRLCC

"Your statement concerning coining is irrelevant to my statement that Congress is not limited to gold or silver. You changed the subject"

I didn't change the subject, as per Constitution, Congress is limited to COINING money, there's NOTHING irrelevant about my point, you're obviously the trying to run away from the argument without recognizing the obvious. [1]
lomocan 5 hours ago

@lomocan

You said, "Constitution doesn't limit money to gold & silver but it says the GOVT can ONLY declare gold & silver as legal tender."

I said you are wrong. When you discovered that I'm right and you're wrong, you changed the subject to coining metals without acknowledging that you didn't know what you were talking about.

TomUsherRLCC 1 hour ago

@TomUsherRLCC

"People holding gold and/or silver have lost wealth in mammon when gold and silver "values" fell. Gold is no guarantee"

NOTHING has FIXED "value", it's subjective. Gold's value IN TERMS OF "dollars" increases/decreases with increase/decrease in supply of dollars & strength.Further,when gold is money, your statement becomes inconsequential; let me reverse the situation, how much would the "value" of dollar-bills be if it were NOT money?????? ZERO,it'd just be pieces of paper [2]
lomocan 5 hours ago

@lomocan

My point was addressing your incorrect statement that "People are running towards gold & silver because they ARE safe." I said they are not a guarantee, and I'm right, just the way I was right about your incorrect statement that the Constitution requires that gold and silver be the only legal tender.

Fixed values have nothing to do with what you had said or my reply to it. The subject was safety.

I wasn't talking about gold being the only fiat currency and neither were you.
TomUsherRLCC 1 hour ago

@TomUsherRLCC

I could refute each of your argument,let me hit crux of the matter. Govt created Fed so govt & EVER CORRUPTIBLE nature is at fault for that. We're in debt NOT because of Fed but because of GOVT since ONLY GOVT can issue Treasuries/debt & interest on Fed-owned Treasuries is GIVEN BACK to govt so if govt was so smart as you propose then it'd've issued only as many Treasuries as Fed is willing to buy to sustain "required"money-supply but govts are by nature greedy & irresponsible [3]
lomocan 5 hours ago

@lomocan

That has nothing to do with amending the constitution to peg the money supply to defined productivity: inflation, deflation, supply, demand, total money, and rate of circulation.

Exactly where did you study political economics?
TomUsherRLCC 1 hour ago

@TomUsherRLCC

You've probably watched & were inspired by Bill Still videos and/or Kucinich but they're both clueless about how the system actually works. We're in debt because govt is SPENDING TOO MUCH so it must issue Treasuries/debt to cover the expenses. Today, money is "created" when govt issues Treasuries & Fed buys them so govt ALREADY controls the money-supply indirectly & govt is the one putting US into debt & in this light, it's ridiculous to propose "govt-issued-money". [4]
lomocan 5 hours ago

@lomocan

I communicate with Bill. I've been into this issue about gold though since 1967. What about you?

Dennis has been learning primarily from Stephen Zarlenga. I've read and heard Michael Hudson, James Galbraith, Ellen Brown, Zarlenga and many, many others: Thousands of hours. And you?

I've read and heard the Austrians at length. You?

We are in debt because we borrowed, but you call my idea for a constitutional amendment to end government borrowing ridiculous.
TomUsherRLCC 1 hour ago

@TomUsherRLCC

It's Keynesian MYTH peddled by govts & central bankers that "money-supply should grow with productivity" to justify their printing of more money & thereby surreptitious STEALING of people's wealth/purchasing-power. More money = inflation. Money need NOT grow, in fact, if money-supply does NOT increase drastically in short-run like in case of gold then it means GRADUALLY FALLING PRICES ie a unit of money earned today will buy MORE goods/services in the future, that's GOOD [5]
lomocan 5 hours ago

@lomocan

You wrote, "More money = inflation." You are wrong again. There can be increases with deflation.

In connection with my proposed constitutional amendment pegging supply to productivity and ending government borrowing, I already mentioned "defined productivity: inflation, deflation, supply, demand, total money, and rate of circulation."

I am not Keynesian. I'm neither a central banker nor monetarist.

Eliminating both inflation and deflation doesn't steal anything.
TomUsherRLCC 25 minutes ago

@TomUsherRLCC

"A note for coins is fiat money"

A note for NOTHING SPECIFIC as in the case of paper-money is fiat ie this system is forced onto people; a gold-certificate against gold held by govt is NOT fiat since the bearer has a claim on ACTUAL, TANGIBLE asset.

"You don't like this coercive representational democracy"

US is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC not a democracy, although leaders are chosen democratically, Constitution protects people from tyranny of majority.(IF its followed) [6]
lomocan 5 hours ago

@lomocan

You wrote, "a gold-certificate against gold held by govt is NOT fiat" Wrong.

Fiat means the choice of legal tender. If gold is chosen, it's still fiat.

Saying that the US is a representational democracy without mentioning other things that it is does not make the statement that it is a representational democracy incorrect. It is a representational democracy whether one adds that it is also bicameral, a federation, limited, & many other things that would more than fill the page.
TomUsherRLCC 2 minutes ago


UPDATE 1: From here down constitutes more posting on YouTube after this blog post was first posted.

@TomUsherRLCC
"You said, "Constitution doesn't limit money to gold & silver but it says the GOVT can ONLY declare gold & silver as legal tender."
I said you are wrong. When you discovered that I'm right and you're wrong, you changed the subject to coining metals without acknowledging that you didn't know what you were talking about."
You're not getting what I meant, I've said govt can only declare gold & silver as tender but people're free use OTHER currencies AMONGST THMSELVS [1]

@lomocan
No where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is limited to gold and silver. The Constitution does not expressly prohibit the federal government from coining copper or nickel, for instance, to tender as payment of its obligations regardless of restrictions upon the states. Whether the Supreme Court interprets it one way or another is another matter.

@TomUsherRLCC
"My point was addressing your incorrect statement that "People are running towards gold & silver because they ARE safe." I said they are not a guarantee"

People run to them because they ARE safe BECAUSE they're LIMITED IN SUPPLY hence they keep their value in the long-run as opposed to paper-money which can printed as much as govt/Fed wants & thereby it loses its value; money is like any other commodity, more there is of it, the more it loses its value (purchasing power) [2]

@lomocan
You don't listen. A constitutional amendment enforced by the people would make your issues moot. Again, inflation is not merely a matter of more money. If it's parked, it doesn't raise prices. Saving money faster than it's printed can bring on deflation.

@TomUsherRLCC
"just the way I was right about your incorrect statement that the Constitution requires that gold and silver be the only legal tender"

Look it up, it's the ONLY legal tender under the Constitution. Congress is permitted to only COIN money & states are prohibited from using anything other than gold & silver as tender, both of these taken together equal to (any rational person) the fact that gold & silver are legal tender [3]

@lomocan
I've already said the federal government can coin in copper or nickel or many other metals. You are placing a restriction upon the federal government that applies specifically to the states while the federal government under the Constitution has many powers reserved to itself alone. What you are saying is that logic dictates that the federal government coin in gold or silver so the states have such to pay debts. That though does not prevent federal coins of copper or nickel.

@TomUsherRLCC
"You wrote, "More money = inflation." You are wrong again. There can be increases with deflation"
Anyone who understands basic economics, would understand that inflation basically means that growth in money-supply is bigger than the growth in goods & services in the economy; this is most obvious when hyperinflation hits a country & currency-austhorities go on "creating" more & more "money" & prices of everything skyrocket. [4]

@lomocan
Look, if you don't understand how money parked in foreign accounts or just hidden in a mattress directly relates to inflation/deflation, that's not my problem.

@TomUsherRLCC
"I am not Keynesian"

Anyone who makes arguments about money-supply needing to grow with "supply, demand, circulation of money & yada yada" IS a Keynesian since that was Keynes' argument ie to achieve an economy "without inflation, deflation, stable prices" etc etc & it was just an argument for powerful people & govts (politicians & bureaucrats & "economic experts") controlling the money & thereby the people & everything else so yes, you're a Keynesian; it's ELITISM [5]

@lomocan
How long is it going to take you to catch on to the idea of a constitutional amendment requiring money that is free of debt, interest, inflation, deflation and taxes? You think that's Keynesian, do you? You think that's elitist? Who has the most gold, the poor or the superrich elitists? If you are simply talking about whether I'm closer to Keynesian ideas concerning stimulus versus being a deficit hawk, that's different; but that's not my context.

@TomUsherRLCC
"You wrote, "a gold-certificate against gold held by govt is NOT fiat" Wrong.
Fiat means the choice of legal tender. If gold is chosen, it's still fiat"

No, I meant govt should be restricted to using gold to conduct its business since it'd need some standard currency to do that BUT I'm NOT advocating govt FORCING people to use any currency for transactions AMONGST PEOPLE; people'd be free to use silver, coppoer or seashells for all, for transactions AMONGST THEMSELVE. [6]

@lomocan
It's clear that regardless of whether or not you were limiting your point to the government, you were claiming that gold certificates tendered by the federal government would not be fiat. I was not addressing the issue of what the people might otherwise use. Anything decreed to be money is fiat money (decreed money). The idea that fiat money is other then gold or silver is a corruption of the term "fiat" and the product of gold proponents.

@TomUsherRLCC
"We are in debt because we borrowed"

Oh yea, & what does it do with it? It uses to finance it's operations.
If you handover the money-supply to govt (read politicians & bureaucrats & "experts") then it does NOT matter whether they borrow or not because they can just print more money at will & they'll've all the "economists" & "experts" justifying that so it'll basically be the same system & govt will still keep on stealing people's savings/purchasing-power by printing more [7]

@lomocan
You continue ignoring a constitutional provision restricting the people's government from borrowing and/or issuing money that would cause devaluation of that money. Regardless of inflation, my statement is correct that the government is in debt because it borrowed.

@TomUsherRLCC
Your whole argument is pro-ELITISM since you believe that politicians, bureaucrats & "experts" should control money & people be at their mercy as they necessarily will be under such system no matter what you THINK.

Your Elitist attitude is further evidenced by your argument that you've talked to this & that & you've studied this & that, that's just APPEAL TO AUTHORITY; your unwilling to entertain & weigh an argument on ITS OWN STRENGTH & VALIDITY shows your lack of insight [8]

@lomocan
A constitutional amendment eliminating the national debt & government borrowing & the over supply of money is not elitist. I also advocate a moneyless, classless society.

You aid the Plutocrats. They have the most gold & the most to gain from rising gold prices. They will sell off taking profits off sucker little fry, like you.

As for naming names, I didn't claim I agree 100% with them or that I'm right because they hold to some position.

You missed the point.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.