grondilu (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1080
|
 |
April 01, 2011, 06:39:33 PM |
|
Amongst important US politics, I think Ron Paul is the more likely to ever introduce bitcoin in mainstream media.
I'm curious to have your view on this.
|
|
|
|
goatpig
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1364
Armory Developer
|
|
April 01, 2011, 07:09:43 PM |
|
I presume he'll wait long after bitcoin turns into a commodity recognized by the american market place before mentioning it
|
|
|
|
|
rezin777
|
|
April 01, 2011, 07:12:12 PM |
|
I presume he'll wait long after bitcoin turns into a commodity recognized by the american market place before mentioning it
Ron Paul is no spring chicken.  |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
April 01, 2011, 08:23:11 PM |
|
Amongst important US politics, I think Ron Paul is the more likely to ever introduce bitcoin in mainstream media.
I'm curious to have your view on this.
I'd be willing to bet his son Rand does first. After all, it was Rand that was willing to bitch about how his toilet in Kentucky has to abide by California's water conservation laws, and doesn't work on a single flush. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
JohnDoe
|
|
April 01, 2011, 08:51:53 PM |
|
No idea if he'll mention it but it is certainly in our best interest that he gets elected president because he would probably block any attempts by the government to attack Bitcoin during his term. He may even push and pass his Free Competition in Currency Act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sortedmush
|
|
April 01, 2011, 09:11:35 PM |
|
Can't wait until Ron Paul is president of the US! When people start seeing Ron Paul break his promises, they'll have no choice but to think for themselves  |
|
|
|
|
|
JohnDoe
|
|
April 01, 2011, 09:28:43 PM |
|
Like I said... Goldbug. He doesn't care about other alternatives.
So basically you ignore evidence that he doesn't only care about gold and repeat the exact same thing? K, nice talking to you. |
|
|
|
|
Atlas_
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
April 01, 2011, 09:44:26 PM |
|
Ron Paul has actually accepted the idea of competing currencies in refutation of just a single gold standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
April 01, 2011, 11:41:36 PM |
|
Government likes a currency it can confiscate easily.  |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
April 01, 2011, 11:44:15 PM |
|
Like I said... Goldbug. He doesn't care about other alternatives.
So basically you ignore evidence that he doesn't only care about gold and repeat the exact same thing? K, nice talking to you. Oh, I read it all right. And that reading tells me that the legislation is tailored for metals-backed currencies, anything else would be an 'unintended consequence'. It doesn't actually address banking reform directly, which is central to the implementation of monetary systems. Currencies without monetary systems can't make substantial economic impact. It would be like Bitcoin without an ecosystem of exchanges. I get that Libertarians think that such a thing will arise magically, and I also get that we will look back at gold and remember it as a fashion statement. Be careful of confirmation bias. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
Distribution
|
|
April 02, 2011, 12:57:01 AM |
|
I bet he'll mention it in passing sometime. Maybe before the next presidential campaign (which is coming soon) I'll bring it up. We have a thing here in Florida every year, the Liberty Summit, which always has Ron Paul as a speaker. I'll try to get it in there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
JohnDoe
|
|
April 02, 2011, 01:10:42 AM |
|
Oh, I read it all right. And that reading tells me that the legislation is tailored for metals-backed currencies, anything else would be an 'unintended consequence'. It doesn't actually address banking reform directly, which is central to the implementation of monetary systems. Currencies without monetary systems can't make substantial economic impact. It would be like Bitcoin without an ecosystem of exchanges. I get that Libertarians think that such a thing will arise magically, and I also get that we will look back at gold and remember it as a fashion statement.
Unintended consequence? I hope you are trolling. Section 2 is the bill, the rest of the stuff about no tax on metals are just a bonus, they could be scraped and the effects of the bill would be the same. He is basically saying 'let there be free banking'. Also you have to be extremely brainwashed to think that currencies can't be successful unless someone else forces you to use them. |
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Beckenham
|
|
April 02, 2011, 07:22:37 AM |
|
"I have no idea" because I've never heard of Ron Paul.
Isn't he a drag queen from the 90's?
|
|
|
|
ledskof
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
April 02, 2011, 09:58:06 AM |
|
Can't wait until Ron Paul is president of the US! When people start seeing Ron Paul break his promises, they'll have no choice but to think for themselves What promises has he broken so far? You do realize how long he has been making promises, how long he has been acting upon those promises, and how long he has been in government right? Anyhow, I don't see why Ron Paul would have any reason to mention a start up currency unless he just some how learned all about it and got really excited about it. I doubt he'd make himself that easy of a target on TV though. Basically *every thing* he says is rock solid, which is why the media has to just sound retarded to try and make him look bad. Sure I disagree with him about religious stuff, but most people are actually religious, while I am not. If on the other hand he got a really strong understanding of bitcoins and understood the beauty behind it, he might have some terrific insight into what kind of impact a prolific bitcoin market could have on the economy. |
|
|
|
|
|
sortedmush
|
|
April 02, 2011, 10:44:36 AM |
|
Can't wait until Ron Paul is president of the US! When people start seeing Ron Paul break his promises, they'll have no choice but to think for themselves What promises has he broken so far? You do realize how long he has been making promises, how long he has been acting upon those promises, and how long he has been in government right? He may not have broken any promises yet. I just think he will. And if he does, I think it'll be better for society than if he keeps his promises. Because faith in the idea that we can pick other people to do all our thinking for us will start to erode. |
|
|
|
|
grondilu (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1080
|
|
April 02, 2011, 10:49:19 AM |
|
He may not have broken any promises yet. I just think he will. And if he does, I think it'll be better for society than if he keeps his promises. Because faith in the idea that we can pick other people to do all our thinking for us will start to erode.
Good point. Thanks for having thought of that for me  |
|
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
April 03, 2011, 01:20:09 AM |
|
Can't wait until Ron Paul is president of the US! When people start seeing Ron Paul break his promises, they'll have no choice but to think for themselves What promises has he broken so far? You do realize how long he has been making promises, how long he has been acting upon those promises, and how long he has been in government right? He may not have broken any promises yet. I just think he will. And if he does, I think it'll be better for society than if he keeps his promises. Because faith in the idea that we can pick other people to do all our thinking for us will start to erode. The problem with electing Ron Paul for President is not so much that he will break his promises, but rather that he won't be able to fulfill them. There's a difference. Even if he manages to get elected he will likely have a hostile congress to contend with and will find it very difficult to accomplish anything. Presidents don't have as much power to change the system as we like to think. |
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution
|
|
April 03, 2011, 01:49:36 AM |
|
Can't wait until Ron Paul is president of the US! When people start seeing Ron Paul break his promises, they'll have no choice but to think for themselves What promises has he broken so far? You do realize how long he has been making promises, how long he has been acting upon those promises, and how long he has been in government right? He may not have broken any promises yet. I just think he will. And if he does, I think it'll be better for society than if he keeps his promises. Because faith in the idea that we can pick other people to do all our thinking for us will start to erode. The problem with electing Ron Paul for President is not so much that he will break his promises, but rather that he won't be able to fulfill them. There's a difference. Even if he manages to get elected he will likely have a hostile congress to contend with and will find it very difficult to accomplish anything. Presidents don't have as much power to change the system as we like to think. Very true. It's not like he hasn't been an elected official for 11 terms. He's had plenty of opportunities to go back on his principles, be bribed, or play that game of politics. But one thing he will be able to do is slow the "progress" of government by vetoing bills. Even if they eventually end passing anyway, it will take time to constantly have to go back and vote on vetoed bills. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
April 03, 2011, 02:03:44 AM |
|
Agreed. And I would vote him in solely for the purpose of vetoing every fucking bill that crossed his desk. And as a statement to the people who say he's "unelectable". But I do wonder if perhaps slowing down the decay of the system is worse than just letting it collapse so that new life can occur?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
