The reason we haven't seen price inflation and rising gold prices yet is because the banks are still sitting on their reserves. Once credit starts to flow again, expect to see continued inflation if not hyper-inflation.
Don't listen to that return135 binge drinker, she obviously can't think for herself. She hooks her thumb to the waistband of another person's already set agenda/opinion and doesn't bother trying to examine the issues to form her own.
he should run , remember churchill no way would he ever have been prime minister if hadnt been the lone voice out in the wilderness , in the 30s people thought he had no career and was a warmongering loser.
now ron paul and schiff are outsiders but if you get hyperinflation people may well remember them .
no one wanted churchill till it looked like hitler would win
"Ron Paul has acomplish a lot lately because of his campaign and his message was heard a lot"
More than you think. I am from south Europe, and allways had socialist ideologist (we have a lot of that here). After hearing and reading about Ron Paul, freedom and austrian economics, I am completely conversed. I have realized socialism is just a lighter fascism and I am completely pro free-market.
The freedom (social and economical) messasge is sounding everywhere.
Complete freedom equates to complete anarachy and chaos.
Complete rule is an absolute authoritarian system.
To have complete freedom is to be subject to a lawless society. No one, given the choice, would be agreeable to that. To co-exist we need some common laws that help us interact.
To have complete rule over every facet of our lives (except for those lucky few in power) would be to have a joyless and demeaning existance and no one wants that (except for those with the power).
So hugolp, the best position is neither of the extremes, but somewhere in the middle. We must combine socialist and free market thought to achieve a cohesive balance. The difficulty is (1) discovering that balance and then (2) maintaining it.
I don't know about the US or Europe, but I don't consider my country has decided on where the centre of gravity lies for this balance, and I know for certain that we don't maintain it. It continues to creep over to more government control.
....kind of like a developing child we need the freedom to make our own mistakes but also limits and boundarys so that we don't get completely out of control and terrorise the neighbourhood.
"There is quite a lot of anarchist arround, so thats not true".
I would suggest that the perception of anarchy is what has western societies (generally) having an increased expectation of government intervention. Whether that perception of increased anarachy in the modern world is true or not I couldn't say...
"with a smaller goverment than the one we have now ... we would be better off."
Agreed. I just don't think we should chuck the socialist baby out with the economic collapse bathwater.
I live in a socialist country and is bad (I live in south of Europe). I guess you have to live it to understand it. Its like a road to nowhere, a slow and unstopable decline.
But between total anarchy and socialism there are other types of goverments. You can have a small goverment for the army and the courts. No anarchy, no socialism. Socialism is a disgrace, believe me. A bunch of adults asking the rest of the adults for all their money with the promise of taking care of them is just a scam.
Don't listen to that timtamtyrant dope head, he obviously isn't to bright. Stick to Ron Paul Philosophy, which is free market and limited government. If you like Austrian economic philosophy watch "Economics in one lesson" on youtube.
Don't listen to that timtamtyrant dope head, he obviously isn't to bright. Stick to Ron Paul philosophy, which is free markets and limited government. Also, if you like Austrian economic philosophy watch "Economics in one lesson" on youtube.
Dont take this wrong Peter in the govt would be a great step, but One or two people doing whats right in the govt would get very little traction. What we need even more is to come together as a people a show a true force and a common message. This is the only true way to acheive any real change.
I'll try to get to the point (sorry, tend to waffle).
No one can live beyond their means.
In short, I think all sections of society have lost sight of this. Your US Republicans are no less guilty than your US Democrats. Both are more concerned with satiating the desires of their voters than with balancing their budgets. That is the nature of the popular vote. The question is, whatever country you live in, how do we fix it? Or at least minimalise the damage...
I don't know why there has to be a conflict between the head and the heart, between being so-called 'liberal' or 'conservative' - which has different meanings depending on the country in which you live. Why can't an individual, such as myself, want the government to balance it's budget and yet maintain its community heart simultaneously?
As as I can see, the real problem lies in the different perspectives of the two main groups - the voters, and those who are voted in.
I believe the former USA president said it best "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".
That sentiment seems to be roadkill now.
Today's western voters have a fallacy in their thinking, whereby they consider that as the politician was voted in by them, the politician then has an obligation to structure government funding in such a way as to benefit every individual voter. Hence the growing societal cry of 'what is the government doing about it?'
The politicians, responsible for creating and implementing legislation to supposedly improve the lot of the country overall are having their legislative judgement affected by the following:
- the god-like feeling from being voted in based on being the most popular;
- in turn wanting to remain popular to keep their votes;
- wanting to additionally soothes the hurts of those special interest groups who provided the funding for their election campaigns.
It seems to me that democratic countries can never truly be wholly free market, there needs to be some socialist component - that area in which the government should have its concerns. Our problems lie in this not being defined, which leads to politicians extending their budgetry concerns to areas in which their voters are hurting, but which aren't essential national concerns. Eg, financial markets. National defence is an essential and immediate national concern. Financial markets are not.
The reason we haven't seen price inflation and rising gold prices yet is because the banks are still sitting on their reserves. Once credit starts to flow again, expect to see continued inflation if not hyper-inflation.
thebastiat 3 years ago
SchiFF 2012
WarDogLRS 3 years ago
Don't listen to that return135 binge drinker, she obviously can't think for herself. She hooks her thumb to the waistband of another person's already set agenda/opinion and doesn't bother trying to examine the issues to form her own.
timtamtyrant 3 years ago
"I'm from Australia." No kidding, mate.
iwanagaa1919 3 years ago
Peter should run for office, man, b/c Obama is about to destroy us for another 4 years.
dlmaniac 3 years ago 3
If Peter ran as a Republican it would not accomplish anything
He should only run as an Independent to build a 3rd party movement.
OpenMind00 3 years ago 2
damn would schiff be an amazing senator! just him getting on the floor and speaking would be so great to balance the nonsense
eesloan4 3 years ago 4
he should run , remember churchill no way would he ever have been prime minister if hadnt been the lone voice out in the wilderness , in the 30s people thought he had no career and was a warmongering loser.
now ron paul and schiff are outsiders but if you get hyperinflation people may well remember them .
no one wanted churchill till it looked like hitler would win
bearsagainstevil 3 years ago
"Ron Paul has acomplish a lot lately because of his campaign and his message was heard a lot"
More than you think. I am from south Europe, and allways had socialist ideologist (we have a lot of that here). After hearing and reading about Ron Paul, freedom and austrian economics, I am completely conversed. I have realized socialism is just a lighter fascism and I am completely pro free-market.
The freedom (social and economical) messasge is sounding everywhere.
hugolp 3 years ago 3
Complete freedom equates to complete anarachy and chaos.
Complete rule is an absolute authoritarian system.
To have complete freedom is to be subject to a lawless society. No one, given the choice, would be agreeable to that. To co-exist we need some common laws that help us interact.
To have complete rule over every facet of our lives (except for those lucky few in power) would be to have a joyless and demeaning existance and no one wants that (except for those with the power).
timtamtyrant 3 years ago
So hugolp, the best position is neither of the extremes, but somewhere in the middle. We must combine socialist and free market thought to achieve a cohesive balance. The difficulty is (1) discovering that balance and then (2) maintaining it.
I don't know about the US or Europe, but I don't consider my country has decided on where the centre of gravity lies for this balance, and I know for certain that we don't maintain it. It continues to creep over to more government control.
timtamtyrant 3 years ago
....kind of like a developing child we need the freedom to make our own mistakes but also limits and boundarys so that we don't get completely out of control and terrorise the neighbourhood.
timtamtyrant 3 years ago
I am more of an action guy than a theoretical guy. I believe theory is ok for a while, but at the end if you dont test it, you have nothing.
> No one, given the choice, would be agreeable to that.
There is quite a lot of anarchist arround, so thats not true.
But the main point is that with a smaller goverment than the one we have now (in USA or in Europe) we would be better off.
hugolp 3 years ago
"There is quite a lot of anarchist arround, so thats not true".
I would suggest that the perception of anarchy is what has western societies (generally) having an increased expectation of government intervention. Whether that perception of increased anarachy in the modern world is true or not I couldn't say...
"with a smaller goverment than the one we have now ... we would be better off."
Agreed. I just don't think we should chuck the socialist baby out with the economic collapse bathwater.
timtamtyrant 3 years ago
I live in a socialist country and is bad (I live in south of Europe). I guess you have to live it to understand it. Its like a road to nowhere, a slow and unstopable decline.
But between total anarchy and socialism there are other types of goverments. You can have a small goverment for the army and the courts. No anarchy, no socialism. Socialism is a disgrace, believe me. A bunch of adults asking the rest of the adults for all their money with the promise of taking care of them is just a scam.
hugolp 3 years ago
Don't listen to that timtamtyrant dope head, he obviously isn't to bright. Stick to Ron Paul Philosophy, which is free market and limited government. If you like Austrian economic philosophy watch "Economics in one lesson" on youtube.
return135 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't listen to that timtamtyrant dope head, he obviously isn't to bright. Stick to Ron Paul philosophy, which is free markets and limited government. Also, if you like Austrian economic philosophy watch "Economics in one lesson" on youtube.
return135 3 years ago
Dont take this wrong Peter in the govt would be a great step, but One or two people doing whats right in the govt would get very little traction. What we need even more is to come together as a people a show a true force and a common message. This is the only true way to acheive any real change.
cevod123 3 years ago
Bull Crap!!! He would run...but would he win? The bully pulpit of the senate would be a GREAT place to sound the alarm!!!
rockme5150 3 years ago
hahaha if you build it.
odin422 3 years ago
he didn't say he will not come. his position is till open.
come on peter just say u will accept the nomination.
KhmerD0g 3 years ago
.....not his cup o tea. And like he said could be pointless.
odin422 3 years ago
yes, it would be pointless but it would give people more hope than obama.
jim rogers, max keiser, ron paul and peter schiff would make a great team.
KhmerD0g 3 years ago
I'll try to get to the point (sorry, tend to waffle).
No one can live beyond their means.
In short, I think all sections of society have lost sight of this. Your US Republicans are no less guilty than your US Democrats. Both are more concerned with satiating the desires of their voters than with balancing their budgets. That is the nature of the popular vote. The question is, whatever country you live in, how do we fix it? Or at least minimalise the damage...
timtamtyrant 3 years ago
I don't know why there has to be a conflict between the head and the heart, between being so-called 'liberal' or 'conservative' - which has different meanings depending on the country in which you live. Why can't an individual, such as myself, want the government to balance it's budget and yet maintain its community heart simultaneously?
As as I can see, the real problem lies in the different perspectives of the two main groups - the voters, and those who are voted in.
timtamtyrant 3 years ago
I believe the former USA president said it best "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".
That sentiment seems to be roadkill now.
Today's western voters have a fallacy in their thinking, whereby they consider that as the politician was voted in by them, the politician then has an obligation to structure government funding in such a way as to benefit every individual voter. Hence the growing societal cry of 'what is the government doing about it?'
timtamtyrant 3 years ago
The politicians, responsible for creating and implementing legislation to supposedly improve the lot of the country overall are having their legislative judgement affected by the following:
- the god-like feeling from being voted in based on being the most popular;
- in turn wanting to remain popular to keep their votes;
- wanting to additionally soothes the hurts of those special interest groups who provided the funding for their election campaigns.
timtamtyrant 3 years ago
It seems to me that democratic countries can never truly be wholly free market, there needs to be some socialist component - that area in which the government should have its concerns. Our problems lie in this not being defined, which leads to politicians extending their budgetry concerns to areas in which their voters are hurting, but which aren't essential national concerns. Eg, financial markets. National defence is an essential and immediate national concern. Financial markets are not.
timtamtyrant 3 years ago
@timtamtyrant Goverment will allways try to get bigger. Period. The rest are excuses.
hugolp 3 years ago