A logical definition of the dollar might be “equal in market value to one five-hundredths of an ounce of gold.” The value of all the dollars in the U.S. monetary base would then be maintained by having the Fed’s open-market operations target the price of gold to keep it near $500 per ounce. Because the real market value of gold cannot run away to zero or infinity, the new monetary control system would be determinate and stable.
What I am describing is not a classic “gold standard.” Back then, gold was the monetary base. Instead, the monetary base would be the same “fiat” currency that we have now. Banks would maintain the value of their dollars the way they do now — by redeeming them with the dollars of the monetary base upon demand.
Um, actually, that IS a gold standard. That's more or less the definition of a gold standard. Are we meant to practice doublethink, and hold two mutually exclusive and antithetical concepts as simultaneously true?
My response:
Mr. Woodhill; The dollar, and money in general, are not units of measuring capital. They are a medium for the exchange of capital. You cannot assign a fixed value to the dollar or to any form of currency, because value is not an objective or objectifiable quality. Nothing in a marketplace has any value except what individuals in the market think it is worth- in their opinion. The dollar's value has not dropped because of a lack of a mythical objective value, but because of America's irresponsible fiscal policies at home and America's irresponsible military policies abroad. Yours, Kris Overstreet.
Althought that's worth discussing on its own, I only bring it up today as an example. Now you know what to expect from this article by Mona Charen. You don't really need to read the article; most of it is doublespeak, essentially attacking Ron Paul for not being a loyal Bush toady. The only relevant point- that Ron Paul is strongly associated with conspiracy theorists and racists, and refuses to denounce them- has been brought up elsewhere by much more credible writers.
A key point in this issue is the fact that last month Ron Paul's campaign accepted a donation for $500 from Don Black, founder of Stormwatch.com (please note I do not hotlink). Stormwatch is essentially the successor of the Ku Klux Klan, with well over 100,000 members online. Stormwatch, the Klan, and dozens of other racist groups openly support Ron Paul, seeing him as their foot in the door of national politics.
Anyway, Ron Paul's campaign responded to Charen's article through spokesperson Jesse Benton. The relevant paragraph is this:
Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his “contribution” is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.
Excuse me? You don't know who he is AFTER you did a Google search on him? You looked him up, but you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS? Could we possibly have a more ham-handed lie, please?
With that thought in mind, let me translate the above:
Ron Paul wants racists- including violent anti-freedom, anti-equality racists- to support his campaign. He will deliberately turn a blind eye to their views during the campaign. He will not disassociate himself from them; he will not directly denounce them; at most he will pretend they are not there. Meanwhile, aside from saying that racism is incompatible to liberty, he will say and do nothing which would oppose the goals of his white supremacist backers. He will only say the absolute minimum required to persuade the credulous that he, himself, is not a racist- and not one word more.
Ron Paul has been given a perfect opportunity to demonstrate his opposition to and intolerance of violent racism, just as Hillary Clinton had the opportunity to demonstrate her opposition to and intolerance of corruption. Hillary recovered from a campaign stumble by taking action. Ron Paul is deliberately, and loudly, taking inaction...
... and, if we're VERY lucky, that will prove to be a stumble he can't recover from.
No comments:
Post a Comment