American Politics Law and Entertainment News

Ron Paul: I am not a racist, my Hero is Black

January 09, 2012 By: Keiron Jackman Category: Campaign 2012, Politics, birthers, tea party

Apparently Congressman Paul has never heard the statement, “I am not a racist, my best friend is Black,” as if being a racist and keeping minority friends is mutually exclusive. Paul has maintained this type response to every inquiry that questions his feelings toward minorities, particularly Blacks. And despite repeated attempts to question him, Paul has not directly addressed his personal feelings, but rather has chosen to deflect these inquiries by stating facts that do not concern his own opinion. Paul’s character, in my opinion, speaks more to prejudice rather than racist, as racism depicts a superiority doctrine.

In response to questions surrounding his controversial newsletters at the recent ABC News/Yahoo Republican 2012 Presidential Debate, Paul emphasized that he considers MLK and Rosa Parks his personal heroes. He also added that drug convictions and death penalty sentences are disproportionally imposed on Blacks more than any other racial group. Yet no one has bothered to ask Paul why he considers MLK and Parks his heroes, or why he voted against acknowledging them as so; or why he waited until 2011, after his most promising election bid, to cosponsor Congressman Barney Frank’s bill to end the prohibition on marijuana. A bill Barney Frank has introduced every Congress since 1995. Paul has been in Congress since 1976.

Congressman Paul may be old but so far he has handled the racist label in a manner that would put Goldwater, Thurmond, and Wallace to shame. He demonstrates his wisdom and political savvy by maneuvering to appease both sides.  Never giving too much: leaving enough to satisfy the racists that support him, yet giving just enough to doubt for those who want to believe he is not. By emphasizing that Blacks are disproportionally prosecuted and executed he leads his non-racist supporters and doubters to believe he is concerned about the plight of Blacks (how can he be racist if); and to his racist supporters, Paul is simply stating a fact (racist even acknowledge but couldn’t give a hoot about) or saying what he needs to say to get into office since being openly racist is taboo.  The funniest thing about his reference to the War on Drugs is that although he mentions this in response to racial accusations, ending the War helps both minorities as well as the majority – Whites will not be prosecuted as well. In terms of pure numbers Whites will benefit more from ending the War on Drugs.

But what is most disconcerting about Ron Paul is that he shares the same disgust for President Lincoln as do most, if not all, racists. Lincoln angers racists because he ended the economics of discrimination and gave real meaning to equality for all under the Constitution. He was also the impetus for the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment, women’s suffrage, and arguably the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In an interview with Tim Russert, Paul called the Civil War “senseless” and that Lincoln waged the War in order to “enhance and get rid of the original intent of the Republic.” This is a misguided view but it demonstrates a misunderstanding of U.S. history. Paul also went on to say, after brushing off Russert’s assertion that slavery would be still be in place, that “Lincoln could have bought the slaves,” and slavery would have ended. This shows Paul’s ignorance of the facts. For someone who claims to be a constitutionalist and an expert concerning Founder’s intent he is far from the truth. Lincoln did indeed try to purchase the slaves and even appropriated funds for such a purchase, but in order for Lincoln to buy the slaves the South had to be willing to sell. The South was not willing to give up their economic system of exploitation. They were willing to die in order to keep the system of slavery and exploitation in place.

Suggesting that freedom had a monetary value after many Blacks fought and died in the Revolutionary War is insulting. Not only is it insulting, Paul marginalizes the true extent to which slavery divided the country by characterizing it as he did. Many Whites were lynched for opposing slavery, newspaper reporters were beaten and lynched; Senator Sumner was beaten on the Senate floor so badly for his anti-slavery beliefs that he was blinded from his own blood, suffered head trauma, lost consciousness, and injured his spine. He walked with a limp for the rest of his life.  John Brown, the famous abolitionist, led a charge at Harper’s Ferry to free slaves from their owners and was later hanged for doing it. The country was frustrated, and torn apart, and these incidents just listed were only a few events from that time.

Ron Paul has a lot to answer for. What he said to Tim Russert on Meet the Press concerned an important part of American history. Slavery, racism, and his feelings toward Blacks is as important as it is to his adherence to the Constitution. How the smallest of Americans are treated reflects the largest upon our Nation. Considering the history of Blacks and what they endured to attain the American dream of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Paul should be at least more respectful. Blacks as a people are patriotic in the face of abuse and unequal treatment. They have fought for freedom at home and abroad when they did not have the freedom themselves. Shame on Paul!

You may view the interview yourself, his comments about slavery is in last minute of the youtube video:

You may view his time in office here more specifically on his own House.gov website:


28 Comments to “Ron Paul: I am not a racist, my Hero is Black”

  1. Ras-Al-Ghoul says:

    Well, you just proved that he doesn’t approve of Lincoln because of an altogether another reason, not that he hates Lincoln because he is racist. He might be a weirdo in following his peculiar brand of ideas, but that doesn’t make him a rasict.
    And actually he’s fighting against the very same mentality: a political correctness who rushes to tag political opponents with ‘discrediting’ names and uses any kind of fallacious gymnastics + media bias and summary falsifications to hit the target.

  2. USS Constitution says:

    This article is ridiculous.

    For starters, Lincoln promised NOT to free the slaves. And he didn’t until after the war was over. As a matter of fact, 4 Northern States still had legalized slavery throughout the entire war.

    When he did free slaves, he didn’t do it for those northern states. He only freed those in the southern states, in an attempt to hurt the Southern states. He didn’t do it out of the goodness of his heart.

    Lincoln did NOT really try to buy the slaves. The South seceded months before he got into office. He passed around a plan in 1 northern state, which was floated not as being an alternative to war, but that it would reduce the time(and costs) of the existing war. This was rejected based on the simple fact that neither was true, and that it wouldn’t reduce the war that was already raging. That it would actually hurt the northern states who would then be forced to reorganize their economies in the middle of a war.

    This is nothing at all like what other countries did. You can’t up and suggest it during the middle of a war and think it’s going to pass.

    Furthermore, while slavery was an issue that caused the south to succeed, States rights was actually not about slavery itself, but rather than states were supposed to be allowed to leave the union if they want. It was not about the 10th amendment.

    And btw, it was a simple fact of the time that people had a price on them. Blaming Ron Paul for history now?


    Ron Paul wasn’t even in office in 1995, so I’m not sure what the author is even talking about there.

    However, you can see Ron Paul talking about the racism behind the drug wars back in 1988.


    He even went further than just that, and talked about the CIA’s involvement in the drug war.

    Which just goes to highlight the complete lack of research in this article and the fact that the author is just playing the race card for their own political agenda.

  3. What a waste of time. You have no idea what you’re talking about in this post.

  4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE9VXaRYbFI

    The author of Ron Paul’s racist newsletters is in the above link.

    I grew up thinking Abe was our best president- because that was what I was told in public school. Do we ever ask, well, how was slavery ended all around the world? Did other countries have a civil war? Nope.

    It was a war to exert and entrench federal power over the states and end once and for all the (common at the time) question if a state could leave the union.

    Just imagine if a Vermont or Texas could leave? Would that be so bad? Who cares? Peace out! Or maybe I’d move there.

  5. You are confusing your self and confusing your audience with this article, i’d take it to the toilet and wipe my own a$$ with it.

    GO RON PAUL!!!

  6. Santorum for President says:

    Obviously you all have been brain washed by the Ron’s lies. He is a racist old man who can’t get his lies straight. What kind of leader allows racist comments to publish under his name but Rosa is his hero. BS! Allah forbid we have something serious to be done in the white house and Ron says congress handle it the same way you have handled the budget & super committee for the last YEAR and I’ll sign off on it. Not to mention his son doesn’t like the civil rights act of 1964. WTF, get over it. Like father like son. He truly believes in act now ask questions later. What an A-hole. At least Santorum knows what he’s voting for and actually stands for. Santorum for president and I approve this comment. ATTENTION all brain washed: Feel free to comment

  7. Rick Santorum is a corrupt flip flopping war mongering racist. He was voted the MOST CORRUPT CONGRESSMAN IN 2008!

    Here he demonstrates Racism: http://youtu.be/HpRIjY58vy0

    Here’s a portrayal of his corruption:

    Heres another flip flop:

    Now go round up as much negative Ron Paul propoganda as you can! Theres plenty more Santorum dirt out there!

    Oh, and heres some photos of your racist Dr. Paul: http://www.5k.com/

  8. Santorum for President says:

    First of all that nomination came from a liberal advocacy group out of millions of groups. Thats hardly legitimate. They have a first amendment right to say what they want to and he didn’t accept that like Ron accepted those racist comments. Get real. At least Santorum is being recognized for something. If people aren’t talking about you then you’re not doing something right. Join the rest of the haters. Santorum may have made some questionable remarks but nothing as vulgar as Ron. Why don’t you take a minute and think about Ron Paul’s inconsistencies. I must commend Ron for his ability to control so many like you. I guess Ron is starting a new “almost” cult. He’s almost racist but he’s not. After all he does have black hero’s. Ron is almost good enough but he recognizes the competition in Rick. Did you see the debate? Weak. His comments were more of an attack on Santorum then Obama or any other republican candiate. This is not Santorum v. Paul. He was all over the place. I’m not sure if he really is republican or libertarian. I don’t think he even knows. He’s a incoherent confused libertarian. Ron Paul has run for president how many times? Please give it up. If you’re not going to vote for Santorum then vote for someone who can be taken seriously. Ron’s a joke just like Perry and if he wins the republican seat then this world really is coming to an end.

  9. Ron Paul is not a racist. He is a pacifist.

  10. And if you don’t publish my previous comment, maybe you should think about the meaning of cowardice and censorship. Ron Paul believes in freedom, including freedom of speech. I’m not even an American citizen, and I want to send him money to continue his campaign. We have a society built on debt. Without debt, the whole Ponzi scheme comes crashing down.

    Watch Mike Maloney’s ‘Debt Collapse’ video on YouTube. Then try to tell me that Ron Paul is wrong.

    Feel free to wipe this one if you publish the other, Keiron.

  11. Keiron Jackman says:

    I don’t think he’s a racist, I think he’s prejudice, a bit different and insensitive to minorities. How can one dislike the Civil Rights Act, and talk about liberty in the sense that someone should be able to discriminate against someone bc of their race. Race is a large part of American history and anyone who disrespects that part of US disrespects America. Do you know that women got the rights they have because of the 14th Amendment. Do you know had it not been for Lincoln there would be no 14th Amendment and the state would be able to take your property and discriminate against you arbitrarily. This is what you are missing maybe I’ll do a post on the 14th Amendment and its importance. When a business or an employer discriminates against you bc of your sex its the 14th Am your lawsuit rests on. I don’t expect everyone to understand this because it is not general knowledge I only began to understand this after I went to lawschool. I don’t mean to admonish you I am only informing you. You are free to post what you want and very seldom do I refuse to post comments. Look at the interview with Russert and look at his attitude and tone when he talks about the most bloodiest battle Americans have been involved in

  12. I’m not criticizing your constitution, Kieran.

    As far as I recall, the original US government was funded solely by duty on booze and tobacco, and there wasn’t even an income tax until 1913 or thereabouts. Now you get taxed (as we do) a rate between 70 and 85% of your income. It’s top-heavy.

    I am a UK citizen. We have a similar top-heavy, corrupt government here, but we don’t have your problem with firearms, thank God. And we have more freedom of speech. We’ve accomplished this through statute and case law alone, with NO constitution. How? Because of the humanity of The Man on the Clapham Bus. This is why Ron Paul’s small government will work. Communities will take care of their own.

    We abolished slavery in the UK long before you did, and we did it without killing 600,000 people. Listen to the message!

  13. Keiron Jackman says:

    Yea, but you don’t understand that your citizens (back in the 1800s) did not have the same freedoms we did. Your government was strong enough to where what the King said went. The citizens could not defy the govt/monarch like the citizens did here at the time. Remember the Americans resisted the british, the most powerful nation at the time, and they felt like they could do what they wanted. Sort of like kids w/o parents. Over here it was marshall law the central govt was weak and could not regulate like the UK could. Two different nations with different difficulties. The federal govt wanted to end slavery but the individual Southern states did not. Think about what you said, if it was not such a big deal don’t you think after 10K people died they would have given up the slavery thing. They did not they wanted to treat blacks as property. Today, We are two different places, nobody in UK dies from lack of dental care, to get your teeth cleaned in America without insurance is $115 the average cost of insurance a month is more than that. I think you take a lot for granted, yea you pay a lot but you don’t go hungry like ppl go hungry here. A mother killed herself and her kids in texas because she was poor and was denied food assistance. Does that happen in the UK

  14. As I understand it, your taxation levels are lower than ours, so you’re expected to pay for your own medical insurance. We don’t automatically get free dental treatment. It’s only for children and people on income benefits. All working adults are expected to pay for their dental treatment, albeit at subsidised rates. In practice, the waiting lists are so long, many adults choose to pay privately. As regards other health care, and food assistance, a lot of people fall through the net. I don’t think we can get rid of all welfare support, though. Thanks to central government and population pressure, the days are long gone where a man could walk into the woods with an axe and build a home for his family. It is illegal. We even have laws that prohibit most forms of hunting, fishing or trapping. Since society does not allow a person to take care of themselves, it is duty bound to ensure that everyone has at least the basics. In that regard, we can never take a step back.

    But the kind of government that Ron Paul envisions will be able to restore a lot of freedoms to the American people. He is anti-war, anti-corruption, anti-FED, anti-big government. He will slash spending, pare away unnecessary laws that make America uncompetitive in the global market, and bring about a fair monetary system – not based on debt – that will free you from slavery of constantly struggling to make ends meet with a rapidly devaluing currency thanks to deliberate inflation of the money supply. Look at the US national debt! It’s scary huge. It can never be paid back. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is willing to do something about it, and is not prepared to let the American public pay the price with the sacrifice of their savings and pensions. Watch that Mike Maloney lecture. It’s bloody scary, what your government is doing to you! Admittedly our government is doing the same, but at least we get fed, and our politicians aren’t all millionaires and billionaires. ;)

    I have traveled extensively in the States, and I am familiar with your history and your culture. It is a shame that it was such a violent transition. BTW, we had our share of bloodshed over here in Europe, but our monarch has been little but a figurehead ever since we got a proper parliament going.

  15. Keiron Jackman says:

    Good video, but again he’s taking things out of context, assuming what he is saying about the drug law/war is true. Now if I were to catch a bad guy that is surrounded by other bad guys whose sole purpose is to protect the first bad guy from the police and getting caught how would I do it. How the heck are you gonna get him (remember limited resources not like we could just bomb randomly). YOU have to get close. How do you get close? Hmmm go undercover. Now what would you want to be if you are going undercover to get a murdering SOB like Noriega? I don’t take you can come up and introduce yourself or try to sell him magazine subscriptions, now would you? U GOTTA SELL HIM DRUGS!!! or at least BUY it. Why else would anybody talk to Noriega, to say hi, how are you, tell me about your life? Everyone knows what he does and what he’s interested in. Shoot you couldn’t get Brittany Spears to sign your piggy bank if you tried – and you expect the Govt to take out Noriega without selling or buying drugs. We have to look outside the Box

  16. Kieran, you’ve got to look at the big picture, man. Drugs are a symptom, not the cause. We’ve had drugs for centuries, for thousands of years. Druggies have not been a problem until this last century. Why? Because of the way we live today. Our society. And why the drugs lords? Because thre’s big money to be made in illegal activities. It’s hard to make an honest dollar. We’re all getting poorer. Flashy cars, expensive clothes, some people just gotta have these things. You can take out a drug lord, but there will always be some wannabe ready to step into his shoes. Destroy the industry, it’s the only way.

    You’re missing the big picture. Trust me, Kieran. Watch “Debt Collapse – the case for $20,000 gold” by Mike Maloney on YouTube. Watch it. Come back to me, look me in the eye, and tell me that Ron Paul isn’t the only candidate willing to save his country. Those other guys are all corrupt. Elitists. They want to keep the status quo. We’re in the end game now. We haven’t even got a decade. Bloody hell, man, we haven’t even got five years.

    Stop worrying about whether Ron Paul is racist. Stop worrying about whether he’s a nut for wanting to dissassemble Big Government. Wake up to what your country is doing to you. The Ponzi scheme that is the US of A.

    Watch Mike Maloney’s “Debt Collapse”. Then come talk to me.

  17. The major reason I support Ron Paul?

    “The Federal Government­’s been oversteppi­ng its Authority for a long time and nobody who’s run for President in over 100 years has saw fit to point out, remedy or attempt to correct this in any way, shape or form. The Press isn’t doing it’s job, in many cases its assisted in hiding the facts and is Guilty of neglecting what is not only it’s Right but also what many of us see as their obligation­!”

    It’s now granted itself the Authority to Round up anyone they put the ‘Terrorist label’ on, ship you off to Gitmo, without trial, No lawyer AND, they’re “legally prevented from allocating the funds” to bring you back IF they find out they’re wrong. You’re permanetly dissappear­ed, even Pinochet didn’t go there.

    Since you’re so quick to dismiss him ask yourself this:
    Is there any remote possiblity they may at some point decide to redefine or reinterpre­t Terrorist to include someone who shares values different than theirs?

    If its a maybe, is it a insurmount­able stretch to lump “questiona­ble lifestyle’­s and behaviors” into that label. Is it?

    10 years ago did you think one day our Government would.
    1. Sanction the use of the military to round up US citizens.
    2. Stick them into a Jail outside of the USA.
    3. Prevent them from returning to the USA.
    4. Deny them their constituti­onal rights in the process
    Cause they just did and again, the press is absent and silent.

    So, I challenge you.. Name even one of the other running puppets who is willing to stand up and to prevent the Federal Governments further intrusion into our lives. You can’t, because they would push even further into our lives. The fact you are somehow OK with this would tend to indicate you have no respect for what it would mean to “Be a Great Country” We are becoming something similar to USSR and China with everyone including YOU totally oblivious to reality.

  18. If the man is racist, he would not have wasted his precious tie providing care for the povert srticken Blacks as he did. No true racist would care about helping any Black, that’s part of what being racist is. Teh fact that we now have so-called Conservatives throwing the race card around after bitching about it employment for many years now, is disgusting, You pukes are the reason Young Republicans are a dying breed and if the Republicans blow this election, they may never win another one.

    Because of the hatred and vitriol displayed by the establishment, I will not vote for the establishment’s nominee if it isn’t Ron Paul. There are millions who feel the same. Keep casting your stones, but do not come looking to us for votes in November. The Democratic party long abandoned the pursuit of freedom in this nation, but the Republicans are now doing the same. This election is not about what Registered Republicans want, it’s about what Americans want. I wish I could slap some of you right here and now through the computer.

    Mitt Romney could not beat John McCain in 2008, who could not beat Barry Soetoro. WTF makes you people think we want Mitt? That is trading one Harvard elitist our for another. Give me a break.

  19. Wow Teresa, I think your accountant is really ripping you off. Howcome you are getting taxed 70-85% of your income in the UK?
    I suggest you fire your accountant and find one that has an idea of what the income tax rate is. You can start by checking http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/basics.htm#6

    The NHS is not nearly as terrible as you portray it to be, or at least it hasn’t been so in my experience (Edinburgh), and it is actually a lot cheaper for the taxpayer than American healthcare. It’s not because the British government is awesome (it isn’t), but because of how economies of scale work. Check http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

    I’m not an American, but I’d say Ron Paul is wrong about pretty much everything except for his stance on the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror” – though the idea of letting the legalization of drugs be an issue for the states is just plain stupid and unworkable, as the legalization in one state would completely undermine the possibility of enforcing drug control in other states. It has to be either legalization for the whole country or none at all, the former being preferable in my opinion.

    I don’t think he is actually a racist, but I find his idea of allowing the private sector to discriminate on the grounds of race quite apalling (which was once a big talking point of his after the Civil Rights Act), or to leave it as an issue to be solved at the state-level. His argument always boils down to upholding the Constitution, but he doesn’t bother to ever admit the possibility that he is not interpreting it right, or to ponder whether an originalist interpretation is really the best. He treats his own interpretation as though it were self-evident, ignoring the enormous pile of US Supreme Court precedents through which federal initiatives have been upheld as constitutional.

    I find his McCarthyite rhetoric regarding property rights very misleading and damaging for political debate. In many interviews he used this terrible analogy of “I always tell my patients that there is no such thing as a pinch of pregnancy” to escape questions about whether state intervention in some areas really constitutes a slippery slope. The fact that the United States has had a mixed economy for most of its history, and that the most “socialistic” moments of it haven’t produced anything like the Soviet gulags doesn’t appear to make him doubt his initial premises.

    He also never addresses the reasons why mainstream economists dislike the idea of abolishing the Fed, and doesn’t give serious thought to the possibility of massive deflation wrecking the economy (which is, no doubt, what would happen if the US returns to the Gold Standard).

  20. Do you people not realize how close we are to financial disaster? WTH is Mitt’s great plan to balance our budget? He does not have one. The moment our dollar collapses or we become insolvent, will also be the moment we all lose our freedoms, permanently

  21. Damian, we get taxed when we spend our taxed income on stuff that has already been taxed before it hits the shelves. We pay taxes on top of taxes on top of taxes! We all do! When you buy gasoline in the UK, OUT OF YOUR TAXED income, nearly half of what you hand over to the gas station attendant is ‘duty’. That’s TAX! Add in other taxes (road user’s tax, community tax, tax on utilities, 20% VAT on everything you buy, and, hell, it’s not hard to come up with the figures I’ve quoted.
    We’re taxed up to our eyeballs!
    Watch Mike Maloney’s presentation on YouTube – “Debt Collapse” and wake up to what’s going on.
    Way to go, Josh.
    Hear, Hear, Timothy Tuck.

  22. Teresa, I think you are overstating the proportion of your income that is spent on the specific taxes you mention. The taxes you pay for utilities and road maintenance are imposed in order to finance those services, and if the private sector would be running them you would have to pay even more (France has learned that in recent years, and hopefully the US will learn that someday).

    To treat the 20% VAT as a 20% income tax is plain stupid, as this would only be accurate if you would spend the whole of your income on consumer products, and the whole of the tax would be transferred to the consumer (which businesses have an incentive not to do). Many of the consumer products families purchase are not even reached by VAT (i.e. certain food and drink), or only pay a 5% VAT. In the case of people earning more than 150,000 pounds per year (i.e. the only ones that have a 50% income tax rate), the proportion of their income affected by VAT is even smaller since most of it is either saved or invested. Being a UK taxpayer myself over the 150,000 pound threshold, I frankly don’t see 75-80% of my income leaving in the form of taxes.

    As for Mike Maloney’s video, I’ve watched it before and was unconvinced, because I believe the conclusions he draws from historical financial bubbles are utterly flawed. Money in the twenty-first century is not worth what it was in 1900? No shit Sherlock! He conveniently ignores all the depressions that happened before the world left the golden standard. For a brief summary of why the Golden standard doesn’t work, I suggest you read http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gold.htm

  23. Damian,

    I can see that you’re still impressed by the big numbers. And the numbers keep getting bigger. Bigger and bigger. Just like a beautiful big balloon. Up, up and away…. Oh, such a lovely six figure salary. Puts you in the top 1%, doesn’t it? Feels good. I know. I’ve enjoyed a six figure income too. Except the top rate of tax was 40% back then, not 50% as it is now.

    Forty years ago, my dad was a labourer. Menial work. He bought an average house for £2000. At a multiple of 2x his salary. He also supported a family of 7. All on a labourer’s wage. Mum was able to stay at home and raise us, which is a good thing. For a start, she made sure we all did our school homework. And I learnt to pay attention to the numbers.

    Twenty years ago, as a young physics graduate, I got a job in a factory. Menial work. I earned £3 an hour. Back then, you could buy an average house for £15,000.

    Today I work in a shop. Another menial job. I earn £6 an hour. An average house costs over £150,000.

    So in two decades my wages have doubled. But house prices have gone up tenfold. Something has gone badly wrong, wouldn’t you say?

    Oh, I get it. It’s that stealth tax called INFLATION.

    Yep, I work in a shop. DIY. I love my work. Beats a desk job any day. I mostly lift cement and blocks and timber. But I also put out the price labels. In the last two years, I’ve seen a price hike on most of our goods of about 30%. Some items – especially the cheap plastic crap we import from China – have gone up 233%. Meanwhile, my wages have gone up 3%.

    Are you seeing a pattern? I sure as hell am. Our government is defaulting on its debt. So is the American government. So are all the bloody governments.

    I wish Ron Paul would come here and sort OUR shit out.

  24. Damian,

    The gold standard does not cause deflation and depression. Incorrect pricing of gold under the gold standard causes deflation and depression. Have you read Jim Rickards’ “Currency Wars” yet? I suggest you do. He explains this myth clearly. Mr Rickards knows a lot more about economics than either you or I.

    You say you avoid VAT by saving or investing your money. Are you sure? I thought the point of saving or investing was that you got to spend your money later. Unless you intend blowing the lot on bread and milk, I imagine that you’ll encounter a lot of tax. There’s tax on your savings interest, CGT and income tax when you cash out of your investments plus the dreaded VAT when you finally spend your money. Meanwhile, inflation has been steadily gnawing at your savings and investments. The longer you save, the more you lose. ;)

  25. Kieran,

    Watch Mike Maloney’s “Debt Collapse” presentation – full length video available in the public domain on YouTube – and make your own mind up.

    Ron Paul has been yelling about this for decades. I don’t care if he’s against peanut butter jelly sandwiches or wearing beige pants after labor day, he’s dead right about the mess we’re in.

  26. There’s also a documentary Mike Maloney did called, “Why Gold & Silver”. Also available in the public domain on YouTube. If the “Debt Collapse” presentation got you mulling things over, you might enjoy the documentary.

    Cheers mate. And thank you for being such a fair host.

    Teresa in the UK

  27. Keiron Jackman says:

    so he describes what everyone sees. No solutions except to eradicate government. That is not the solution. I dont think when we were living in caves and huts we needed much government, and if we were still living like that I would agree with Ron Paul. He’s selling a fantasy. You don’t realize we all have a different version of our own perception of freedom, freedom for you is one thing, freedom for another means one can monopolize resources because he owns it and sell it to you for ANY price. Freedom means that if you work for me I should pay you minimally because I know there are others in a depressed economy that would work for less. Freedom is the freedom to bring workers from 3rd world countries to work for $10/ day and send them back to mexico at night. Freedom is the liberty to charge you a HEAFTY price for medical care because you are rich and I know you have the money and you want to live. That’s freedom and liberty for some, the freedom to contract. You think its a good idea bc you think everyone or a majority of people hold your morals and beliefs. WRONG. If you disagree with me that means you are for rules and regulations (government) and we are back here where we started. If you agree with me then you can move to Somalia, Afghanistan, or Haiti. There is no government in fact all some of those governments provide is for national defense. They are not in the lives of the people. Show a place with little to no government that functions and I will believe you. Even GOD has a government why shouldn’t we.

  28. Well Teresa, once again you’re simply pointing out something I’ve already acknowledged in my last response. It is no news that a six figure income today is worth a lot less than it was several decades ago, and that inflation has accumulated over the years making everything more expensive, including houses.

    The problem with your argument is that it doesn’t take into account the fact that, unlike basic commodities, there is only a fixed amount of land and that population increases at a much faster rate than the construction of houses. If we were on the gold standard, the price of housing and wages would be similarly impaired. The amount of basic commodities that the average worker can get for every hour of his labour, unlike housing, has increased over the decades despite inflation. So yes, numbers keep getting bigger and bigger, but so does the purchasing power of everyone (though admittedly not every year, and especially not during a recession).

    Inflation in the UK in the last two years has gone up 7%, while wages have gone up 4,08%. This difference has very little to do with the government’s monetary policy, since similar or greater differences have been observed in EVERY recession, even when the UK and the US were on the gold standard. The explanation is quite simple: employers tend to shy away from investing (or producing) during recessions driven by the fear that their investments won’t produce adequate returns, or that the demand for their products will shrink. For this reason they lay off people in an attempt to reduce their production costs and avoid losses, so logically production also decreases. Workers are just as scared as employers, and they bear the consequences of unemployment a lot more, therefore they will be willing to work for less or (depending on the strength of the unions) for a similar wage. The reduced supply of goods drives prices up, so at the beginning of a recession inflation is likely to rise – until the demand for products becomes noticeable for firms (there is always a time lag), at which time prices will begin to drop unless the government intervenes through the central bank to keep prices stable and interest rates low – if it doesn’t, deflation will take care of turning the recession into a depression, like it did in the market crash of 1929 (as well as in all the other depressions before that).

    At a time of economic expansion the exact opposite of this happens, and wages go up as employers become more optimistic about the future, while inflation also goes up but not as fast as wages. At this time, the government will intervene to cut back the money supply to prevent inflation from going nuts.

    Mike Maloney is basically recycling an old argument from the Austrian School of Economics that has been debunked more times than creationism. For a recent example of its failure, just see the Japanese crisis of the 1990s caused by the government’s unwillingness to increase the money supply for fear of inflation. The abolition of the fractional reserve system (i.e. what Ron Paul wants) and the return of the gold standard would effectively kill the economy by forcing the banks to back their loans with gold, thus stopping them from lending money to the entrepreneurs that need loans to expand their businesses or keep them afloat. What happened in the US is mostly the result of the collapse of real estate prices, prompted by years of speculation and fueled by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It has nothing to do with the fractional reserve system or with fiat money.

    The UK is taxing its citizens enough as it is, and therefore to overcome the recession all it needs to do is to make spending cuts where it must and try to keep people working and consuming (i.e. fire public employees only as a last resort), or else face the prospect of a shrinking internal market. The US, however, has mistakenly kept the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which greatly constrains its ability to reduce its deficit, and spends way too much on healthcare and the military. In a time of crisis, they should adopt a single-payer healthcare model like that of Canada or the UK (we pay for the NHS, per capita, less than half than what Americans pay for their Medicare), and stop war-mongering – perhaps the only virtue of Ron Paul.


Leave a Reply