U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican known for his Libertarian views, today announced he will vie for the GOP presidential nomination next year.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54660

Ron Paul announces White House bid
Texas Republican says nation has strayed from Constitution

      U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican known for his libertarian views, today announced he will vie for the GOP presidential nomination next year.

      "We have lost our way and strayed from the free society our Founders secured for us in the Constitution, but there's no reason the principles that made us the greatest nation ever can't be restored," he said.

      "We merely need to respect and follow the rule of law - the U.S. Constitution - and elect leaders determined to stand firm in its defense," he said.

      Paul, 71, who ran for the office in 1988 under the Libertarian Party ticket, made his announcement on C-SPAN's Washington Journal program and immediately afterward filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission.

      He said he will pursue lower taxes, to protect the United States from the threat to its independence that various international agreements provide, to secure its national borders, to protect citizens' privacy from government intrusion and to reverse the trend of government taking private property from citizens.

      "My concerns for the future of our country are deeply held. The Republican Party has floundered in its effort to shrink the size of government and restore our constitutional republic," he said. "Instead, in recent years our deficits have exploded, entitlements are out of control and our personal liberties are threatened. We have embarked on a dangerous and expensive foreign policy, acting as the world's policeman and nation builder."

      Paul, said the U.S. very simply no longer can "afford the extravagance of this ever-growing and intrusive government, both at home and abroad."

      "Last year alone our long-term obligations increased by $4.6 trillion dollars," he said.

      The problems are not particularly complex, however, Paul insisted.

      "Liberty once again must become more important to us than the desire for security and material comfort. Personal safety and economic prosperity can only come as the consequence of liberty. They cannot be provided by an authoritarian government. To expect the government to take care of us from cradle to grave undermines the principles of liberty," he said.

      He said the nation's current direction is completely wrong.

      "Returning to the dark ages of dictatorship is no substitute for resuming the most modern and grandest experiment known to man - promoting human liberty by strictly limiting the arbitrary power of government," he said.

      Central planning is "intellectually bankrupt" and has undermined the moral principles of the United States," he said. "Our planners and rulers are not geniuses, but rather demagogues and would-be dictators - always performing their tasks with a cover of humanitarian rhetoric."

      He said the collapse of the Soviet system surprised many, but not devotees of freedom.

      They, he said, "have understood for decades that socialism was doomed to fail. Communism, like all socialism, failed intellectually and failed practically. And so too will the welfare/warfare state fail, and then our cause will be heard. The love of liberty will not die."

      He said a free society is based on the key principle that the government, the president, the Congress, the courts and the bureaucrats are incapable of knowing what is best for each and every one of us.

      "They don't know how to run the economy, regulate our lives or manage a world empire," he said.

      Government as "a referee" is fine, but not more.

      "The time has come for a modern approach to achieving those values that all civilized societies seek."

      Paul long has been an advocate of strict constitutional adherence and belief in a small government, including low taxes, individual liberties and less Washington influence.

      The National Taxpayers Union consistently ranks Paul as a leader on the issues of taxation, and he advocates more controls on immigration.

      Representing the 14th district in southeastern Texas, he believes amnesty is not the solution to the flood of illegal immigrants moving into the nation today. He opposes abortion and supports the use of vouchers that parents can use for private and parochial schools.

      He's supported a resolution to abolish the Department of Education so states, cities and communities can resume control of educating their children.

      He's been especially vocal in his denunciations of plans such as the "Trans-Texas Corridor," a superhighway project that opponents argue would be used to bring Chinese goods through Mexico directly into and through the U.S.

      Why? The ultimate goal, he said, is not simply a superhighway, "but an integrated North American Union - complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy and virtually borderless travel within the union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether."

      Plans for such a "North American Union" were cited as the No. 1 story on WND's list of 10 most underreported stories for 2006.

      The January 2007 edition of WND's monthly Whistleblower magazine, which explores this topic in-depth, is titled "PREMEDITATED MERGER: How our leaders are stealthily transforming the U.S.A. into the North American Union."

      Paul would join a field that features John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, but also could include Newt Gingrich, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, John H. Cox, Alan Keyes and others.

(Attachment image004.png is missing)

(Attachment image005.png is missing)

You know, he's so close to being right that it's all the more
frustrating that he remains so wrong.

His argument about socialism being doomed to failure is dead-on. But
he misses the point that building a Berlin Wall along our Southern
border is just as doomed to failure as the real Berlin Wall was.

There's a very good reason that the Dollar is no longer the favored
currency in the world, and it's not the war in Iraq. It's that
investors prefer big currencies. When you add up the wealth of all of
Europe, the Euro becomes a bigger currency than the Dollar. The
Dollar will never again become the dominant currency. But an Amero
most certainly would dominate (at least for a little while, until the
EU expanded or Asia adopted a single currency).

If Ron Paul would get over his fear of Mexicans and gays, I'd vote
Republican for the first time in more than ten years. But, sadly,
just like the socialist regimes he mentioned, his own vision of a
walled-off Ozzie and Harriet version of the United States is doomed to
failure. I only hope most Libertarians realize this and support our
own party's candidates instead.

Rob

P.S. I wonder if Ron Paul would be so opposed to a single currency if
it excluded Mexico and only included the U.S. and Canada and still
called it a Dollar. (We already have the highways into Canada like
the one proposed for Mexico, and I don't hear him calling for those to
be bulldozed.) If he'd support such a U.S.-Canadian currency, then I
think it's obvious what he thinks of Mexicans.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54660

Ron Paul announces White House bid
Texas Republican says nation has strayed from Constitution

      U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican known for his

libertarian views, today announced he will vie for the GOP
presidential nomination next year.

...
      He said the collapse of the Soviet system surprised many, but

not devotees of freedom.

      They, he said, "have understood for decades that socialism was

doomed to fail. Communism, like all socialism, failed intellectually
and failed practically. And so too will the welfare/warfare state
fail, and then our cause will be heard. The love of liberty will not
die."

...
      He's been especially vocal in his denunciations of plans such

as the "Trans-Texas Corridor," a superhighway project that opponents
argue would be used to bring Chinese goods through Mexico directly
into and through the U.S.

      Why? The ultimate goal, he said, is not simply a superhighway,

"but an integrated North American Union - complete with a currency, a
cross-national bureaucracy and virtually borderless travel within the
union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent
another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether."

      Plans for such a "North American Union" were cited as the No.

1 story on WND's list of 10 most underreported stories for 2006.

      The January 2007 edition of WND's monthly Whistleblower

magazine, which explores this topic in-depth, is titled "PREMEDITATED
MERGER: How our leaders are stealthily transforming the U.S.A. into
the North American Union."

      Paul would join a field that features John McCain, Mitt Romney

and Rudy Giuliani, but also could include Newt Gingrich, Tom Tancredo,
Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, John H.
Cox, Alan Keyes and others.

This isn't quite true what you say about relative size of euro and
dollar.

The countries in the European Monetary Union have a collective
Nominal GDP of $10.1 trillion. The United States has a nominal GDP
of $12.5 trillion. (2005 IMF data)

-Derek

You know, he's so close to being right that it's all the more
frustrating that he remains so wrong.

His argument about socialism being doomed to failure is dead-on.

But

he misses the point that building a Berlin Wall along our Southern
border is just as doomed to failure as the real Berlin Wall was.

There's a very good reason that the Dollar is no longer the favored
currency in the world, and it's not the war in Iraq. It's that
investors prefer big currencies. When you add up the wealth of all

of

Europe, the Euro becomes a bigger currency than the Dollar. The
Dollar will never again become the dominant currency. But an Amero
most certainly would dominate (at least for a little while, until

the

EU expanded or Asia adopted a single currency).

If Ron Paul would get over his fear of Mexicans and gays, I'd vote
Republican for the first time in more than ten years. But, sadly,
just like the socialist regimes he mentioned, his own vision of a
walled-off Ozzie and Harriet version of the United States is doomed

to

failure. I only hope most Libertarians realize this and support our
own party's candidates instead.

Rob

P.S. I wonder if Ron Paul would be so opposed to a single currency

if

it excluded Mexico and only included the U.S. and Canada and still
called it a Dollar. (We already have the highways into Canada like
the one proposed for Mexico, and I don't hear him calling for those

to

be bulldozed.) If he'd support such a U.S.-Canadian currency, then

I

think it's obvious what he thinks of Mexicans.

>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54660
>
>
> Ron Paul announces White House bid
> Texas Republican says nation has strayed from Constitution
>
>
>
> U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican known for his
libertarian views, today announced he will vie for the GOP
presidential nomination next year.
> ...
> He said the collapse of the Soviet system surprised many,

but

not devotees of freedom.
>
> They, he said, "have understood for decades that socialism

was

doomed to fail. Communism, like all socialism, failed intellectually
and failed practically. And so too will the welfare/warfare state
fail, and then our cause will be heard. The love of liberty will not
die."
> ...
> He's been especially vocal in his denunciations of plans

such

as the "Trans-Texas Corridor," a superhighway project that opponents
argue would be used to bring Chinese goods through Mexico directly
into and through the U.S.
>
> Why? The ultimate goal, he said, is not simply a

superhighway,

"but an integrated North American Union - complete with a currency,

a

cross-national bureaucracy and virtually borderless travel within

the

union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would

represent

another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty

altogether."

>
> Plans for such a "North American Union" were cited as the

No.

1 story on WND's list of 10 most underreported stories for 2006.
>
> The January 2007 edition of WND's monthly Whistleblower
magazine, which explores this topic in-depth, is

titled "PREMEDITATED

MERGER: How our leaders are stealthily transforming the U.S.A. into
the North American Union."
>
> Paul would join a field that features John McCain, Mitt

Romney

and Rudy Giuliani, but also could include Newt Gingrich, Tom

Tancredo,

While I'm certainly not a currency expert, I think the following page
shows why GDP alone, ignoring other factors like deficits, is not a
good predictor of a strong dollar. In fact, GDP can rise, but if
deficits outpace the rise in GDP, the dollar actually becomes less
attractive to foreign investors:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FJ14Dj01.html

Rob

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Well, again, I'm not an expert, but I know that an individual can have
a large GPP (gross personal product - i.e. salary) but not be wealthy,
because of a large personal debt due to overspending. So, I would
guess that a large GNP (gross national product) doesn't equal wealth
as long as it's accompanied by a large national debt. One of the
criteria of admission to the European Union's Euro currency is that a
country's debt does not exceed 60% of that country's GDP. In 2005,
the U.S. public debt was 64.7% of GDP. I think that this why the Euro
is becoming the favored currency despite the Dollar being backed by a
slightly larger GDP. Meanwhile, Canada's debt was 32.2 per cent of
GDP in 2004. The Amero would be backed by a combined GDP with a lower
debt percentage (and rules of entry like the Euro's would make
investors more confident about our economy).

But again, I'm not an expert -- this is just my gut reaction when I
hear people like Ron Paul claim that a unified currency for North
America could only be bad for the country. I'm an international
standards guy (the company I work for helps businesses achieve ISO
9000 and other standards compliance), so I see the knee-jerk
opposition to standardized currency much as I see the knee-jerk
opposition to adopting the metric system for measurement, i.e., silly.

The real problem is that the government is so intrusive that
everything must be measured in one currency. If banks could issue
their own notes (as in Hong Kong), and barter didn't require
conversion of everything into dollars for tax purposes, an
international currency wouldn't mean as much, since those who didn't
want to use it would have other options.

But really -- I think this misses the point. Ron Paul has no problem
with sharing a currency with another country. He has a problem with
sharing a currency with Mexico. I don't know if this is a personal,
visceral reaction of his to Mexicans, or if he's just pandering to the
Texas Republican xenophobes. And I honestly don't know which of those
two I consider worse.

Rob

Well then, which metric would you propose to use to "add up all the

wealth"?

>
> While I'm certainly not a currency expert, I think the following

page

Well said Rob...I agree it's not the gross of economic transactions.
It's the quality of the income, balance sheet and the price of the
particular revenue producing asset relative to those issues. And I
appreciate your comment about Mr. Paul. I sent him $100 but will lobby
on behalf of the issue you are raising here.

Best regards,

Mike

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Thanks Derek...I appreciate what you are saying although foreigners have
lots to say about our currency as they hold massive amounts of it. I
fear this fact alone will undermine the other issues you mention.

Mike

Mike:

No question this is an important fact - it extends to those European
countries as well. Last I checked something like 45% of US public
debt was held by foreigners. I think this is a second order cause of
the coming devaluation of the dollar though. Of far more importance
is the massive unfunded entitlement liability.

-Derek

Thanks Derek...I appreciate what you are saying although foreigners

have

lots to say about our currency as they hold massive amounts of it. I
fear this fact alone will undermine the other issues you mention.

Mike

________________________________

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-

discuss@yahoogroups.com]

On Behalf Of Derek Jensen
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:43 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Why the Amero could surpass the Euro
when the Dollar can't

I will point out that American nationalism is one of the major

bulwarks

against one-world government and a hence a large contributor to

freedom

in the world today.

American nationalism is the reason we don't have:

1. US subject to the Kyoto treaty
2. US military subject to the International Criminal Court
3. Foreigners making decisions about our currency

and many other horrible things the UN is capable of cooking up.

Well said Rob...I agree it's not the gross of economic transactions.
It's the quality of the income, balance sheet and the price of the
particular revenue producing asset relative to those issues. And I
appreciate your comment about Mr. Paul. I sent him $100 but will

lobby

on behalf of the issue you are raising here.

Best regards,

Mike

________________________________

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lpsf-

discuss@yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Rob
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:15 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lpsf-

discuss@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Why the Amero could surpass the Euro

when

the Dollar can't

Well, again, I'm not an expert, but I know that an individual can

have

a large GPP (gross personal product - i.e. salary) but not be

wealthy,

because of a large personal debt due to overspending. So, I would
guess that a large GNP (gross national product) doesn't equal wealth
as long as it's accompanied by a large national debt. One of the
criteria of admission to the European Union's Euro currency is that

a

country's debt does not exceed 60% of that country's GDP. In 2005,
the U.S. public debt was 64.7% of GDP. I think that this why the

Euro

is becoming the favored currency despite the Dollar being backed by

a

slightly larger GDP. Meanwhile, Canada's debt was 32.2 per cent of
GDP in 2004. The Amero would be backed by a combined GDP with a

lower

debt percentage (and rules of entry like the Euro's would make
investors more confident about our economy).

But again, I'm not an expert -- this is just my gut reaction when I
hear people like Ron Paul claim that a unified currency for North
America could only be bad for the country. I'm an international
standards guy (the company I work for helps businesses achieve ISO
9000 and other standards compliance), so I see the knee-jerk
opposition to standardized currency much as I see the knee-jerk
opposition to adopting the metric system for measurement, i.e.,

silly.

The real problem is that the government is so intrusive that
everything must be measured in one currency. If banks could issue
their own notes (as in Hong Kong), and barter didn't require
conversion of everything into dollars for tax purposes, an
international currency wouldn't mean as much, since those who didn't
want to use it would have other options.

But really -- I think this misses the point. Ron Paul has no problem
with sharing a currency with another country. He has a problem with
sharing a currency with Mexico. I don't know if this is a personal,
visceral reaction of his to Mexicans, or if he's just pandering to

the

Texas Republican xenophobes. And I honestly don't know which of

those

two I consider worse.

Rob

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> , "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
wrote:
>
> Well then, which metric would you propose to use to "add up all

the

wealth"?
>
> >
> > While I'm certainly not a currency expert, I think the following
page
> > shows why GDP alone, ignoring other factors like deficits, is

not a

> > good predictor of a strong dollar. In fact, GDP can rise, but if
> > deficits outpace the rise in GDP, the dollar actually becomes

less

Mike:

The other way to look at it is those holders of US public debt should
be the far more nervous party of the prospects of a dollar
devaluation.

I don't envy China's position right now at all. They need to keep
buying long US treasuries to maintain the RMB-USD peg, leaving them
massively exposed to a USD devaluation, in which case their export
industry gets hammered as does the value of their forex holdings. In
my view, the joke is on them.

Disclosure: I hold zero US treasury securities myself, and I make a
point to keep my US dollar holdings as low as possible. The proximal
event I see is that once the subprime mortgage mess spills into the
middle class, the political pressure on the fed to inflate is going
to be like we've never seen.

-Derek

Thanks Derek...I appreciate what you are saying although foreigners

have

lots to say about our currency as they hold massive amounts of it. I
fear this fact alone will undermine the other issues you mention.

Mike

________________________________

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-

discuss@yahoogroups.com]

On Behalf Of Derek Jensen
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:43 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Why the Amero could surpass the Euro
when the Dollar can't

I will point out that American nationalism is one of the major

bulwarks

against one-world government and a hence a large contributor to

freedom

in the world today.

American nationalism is the reason we don't have:

1. US subject to the Kyoto treaty
2. US military subject to the International Criminal Court
3. Foreigners making decisions about our currency

and many other horrible things the UN is capable of cooking up.

Well said Rob...I agree it's not the gross of economic transactions.
It's the quality of the income, balance sheet and the price of the
particular revenue producing asset relative to those issues. And I
appreciate your comment about Mr. Paul. I sent him $100 but will

lobby

on behalf of the issue you are raising here.

Best regards,

Mike

________________________________

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lpsf-

discuss@yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Rob
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:15 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lpsf-

discuss@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Why the Amero could surpass the Euro

when

the Dollar can't

Well, again, I'm not an expert, but I know that an individual can

have

a large GPP (gross personal product - i.e. salary) but not be

wealthy,

because of a large personal debt due to overspending. So, I would
guess that a large GNP (gross national product) doesn't equal wealth
as long as it's accompanied by a large national debt. One of the
criteria of admission to the European Union's Euro currency is that

a

country's debt does not exceed 60% of that country's GDP. In 2005,
the U.S. public debt was 64.7% of GDP. I think that this why the

Euro

is becoming the favored currency despite the Dollar being backed by

a

slightly larger GDP. Meanwhile, Canada's debt was 32.2 per cent of
GDP in 2004. The Amero would be backed by a combined GDP with a

lower

debt percentage (and rules of entry like the Euro's would make
investors more confident about our economy).

But again, I'm not an expert -- this is just my gut reaction when I
hear people like Ron Paul claim that a unified currency for North
America could only be bad for the country. I'm an international
standards guy (the company I work for helps businesses achieve ISO
9000 and other standards compliance), so I see the knee-jerk
opposition to standardized currency much as I see the knee-jerk
opposition to adopting the metric system for measurement, i.e.,

silly.

The real problem is that the government is so intrusive that
everything must be measured in one currency. If banks could issue
their own notes (as in Hong Kong), and barter didn't require
conversion of everything into dollars for tax purposes, an
international currency wouldn't mean as much, since those who didn't
want to use it would have other options.

But really -- I think this misses the point. Ron Paul has no problem
with sharing a currency with another country. He has a problem with
sharing a currency with Mexico. I don't know if this is a personal,
visceral reaction of his to Mexicans, or if he's just pandering to

the

Texas Republican xenophobes. And I honestly don't know which of

those

two I consider worse.

Rob

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> , "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
wrote:
>
> Well then, which metric would you propose to use to "add up all

the

wealth"?
>
> >
> > While I'm certainly not a currency expert, I think the following
page
> > shows why GDP alone, ignoring other factors like deficits, is

not a

> > good predictor of a strong dollar. In fact, GDP can rise, but if
> > deficits outpace the rise in GDP, the dollar actually becomes

less

You are probably right Derek...it is pretty scary.

Mike

Admittedly, your numbers (2006) are newer than mine (2004 and 2005),
but I think we're both setting ourselves up for embarrassment given
that we're using CIA ("we have slam-dunk proof of WMDs in Iraq") data.

But I guess I'll dig the hole a little deeper by citing yet another
CIA statistic, which is external debt (though at least this one uses
the U.S. Treasury department number instead of the CIA one):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

It just blows me away that the U.S. has nearly a quarter of the
world's external debt. But our GDP is less than 1/5 of the world's.

So given that I can't find a reputable source for these numbers
(surely we all agree that the CIA isn't reputable), I'll withdraw my
argument that the Amero would definitely give us a more stable
currency. But I still say that all this various "evidence" shows that
Ron Paul's suggestion that a unified currency would be disastrous for
our economy is simply false. If our economy experiences a disaster,
it will be due to overspending and heavy borrowing, not due to sharing
a currency with our nearest neighbors.

Rob

1. Where are you getting your data for Canada? The World Factbook

says that

Canadian Debt as % of GDP was 65.4% as opposed to US @ 64.7% (in 2006)
2. Following your line of reasoning, I actually looked at the public

debt

statistics for those countries in the EMU. It's attached below. Note I
don't have public debt data on Luxembourg so I conservatively

assumed it to

be zero. Slovenia and Luxembourg are not actually zero in terms of

debt or

of course GDP, but are so small that they round to it when considered in
trillions of dollars with one decimal.

You can see the following conclusions:

A. Debt as a % of GDP is HIGHER in Euro-land (69.3%) than it is in
Dollar-land (64.7%)
B. Total GDP is higher in the US than in those countries with the

Euro as

their currency.

I'm sorry but your arguments just aren't supported by the data.

   Country Debt ($tn) GDP ($tn) Debt / GDP Austria $0.2 $0.3 63.0%

Belgium

$0.3 $0.4 90.3% Finland $0.1 $0.2 37.7% France $1.4 $2.1 64.7%

Germany

$1.9 $2.8 66.8% Greece $0.2 $0.2 104.6% Ireland $0.0 $0.2 22.8% Italy
$1.9 $1.8 107.6% Luxembourg $0.0 $0.0 0.0% Netherlands $0.3 $0.6 50.8%
Portugal $0.1 $0.2 65.7% Slovenia $0.0 $0.0 29.0% Spain $0.4 $1.1

39.9%

Total Euro $6.9 $10.0 69.3%

United States $8.1 $12.5 64.7%

>
> Well, again, I'm not an expert, but I know that an individual

can have

> a large GPP (gross personal product - i.e. salary) but not be wealthy,
> because of a large personal debt due to overspending. So, I would
> guess that a large GNP (gross national product) doesn't equal wealth
> as long as it's accompanied by a large national debt. One of the
> criteria of admission to the European Union's Euro currency is that a
> country's debt does not exceed 60% of that country's GDP. In 2005,
> the U.S. public debt was 64.7% of GDP. I think that this why the Euro
> is becoming the favored currency despite the Dollar being backed by a
> slightly larger GDP. Meanwhile, Canada's debt was 32.2 per cent of
> GDP in 2004. The Amero would be backed by a combined GDP with a lower
> debt percentage (and rules of entry like the Euro's would make
> investors more confident about our economy).
>
> But again, I'm not an expert -- this is just my gut reaction when I
> hear people like Ron Paul claim that a unified currency for North
> America could only be bad for the country. I'm an international
> standards guy (the company I work for helps businesses achieve ISO
> 9000 and other standards compliance), so I see the knee-jerk
> opposition to standardized currency much as I see the knee-jerk
> opposition to adopting the metric system for measurement, i.e., silly.
>
> The real problem is that the government is so intrusive that
> everything must be measured in one currency. If banks could issue
> their own notes (as in Hong Kong), and barter didn't require
> conversion of everything into dollars for tax purposes, an
> international currency wouldn't mean as much, since those who didn't
> want to use it would have other options.
>
> But really -- I think this misses the point. Ron Paul has no problem
> with sharing a currency with another country. He has a problem with
> sharing a currency with Mexico. I don't know if this is a personal,
> visceral reaction of his to Mexicans, or if he's just pandering to the
> Texas Republican xenophobes. And I honestly don't know which of those
> two I consider worse.
>
> Rob
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@> wrote:
> >
> > Well then, which metric would you propose to use to "add up all the
> wealth"?
> >
> > >
> > > While I'm certainly not a currency expert, I think the following
> page
> > > shows why GDP alone, ignoring other factors like deficits, is

not a

I think probably Ron Paul's point is that having a fiat currency
controlled by a non-elected entity(the Fed), is bad enough, but it
would be even worse to have our currency partly controlled by
foreigners (with respect to setting interest rates). I seriously
doubt that you could get Ron Paul to say that having a currency with
Canada or any other country would be a good thing.

Admittedly, your numbers (2006) are newer than mine (2004 and 2005),
but I think we're both setting ourselves up for embarrassment given
that we're using CIA ("we have slam-dunk proof of WMDs in Iraq")

data.

But I guess I'll dig the hole a little deeper by citing yet another
CIA statistic, which is external debt (though at least this one uses
the U.S. Treasury department number instead of the CIA one):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

It just blows me away that the U.S. has nearly a quarter of the
world's external debt. But our GDP is less than 1/5 of the world's.

So given that I can't find a reputable source for these numbers
(surely we all agree that the CIA isn't reputable), I'll withdraw my
argument that the Amero would definitely give us a more stable
currency. But I still say that all this various "evidence" shows

that

Ron Paul's suggestion that a unified currency would be disastrous

for

our economy is simply false. If our economy experiences a disaster,
it will be due to overspending and heavy borrowing, not due to

sharing

a currency with our nearest neighbors.

Rob

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>

wrote:

>
> 1. Where are you getting your data for Canada? The World Factbook
says that
> Canadian Debt as % of GDP was 65.4% as opposed to US @ 64.7% (in

2006)

> 2. Following your line of reasoning, I actually looked at the

public

debt
> statistics for those countries in the EMU. It's attached below.

Note I

> don't have public debt data on Luxembourg so I conservatively
assumed it to
> be zero. Slovenia and Luxembourg are not actually zero in terms

of

debt or
> of course GDP, but are so small that they round to it when

considered in

> trillions of dollars with one decimal.
>
> You can see the following conclusions:
>
> A. Debt as a % of GDP is HIGHER in Euro-land (69.3%) than it is in
> Dollar-land (64.7%)
> B. Total GDP is higher in the US than in those countries with the
Euro as
> their currency.
>
> I'm sorry but your arguments just aren't supported by the data.
>
> Country Debt ($tn) GDP ($tn) Debt / GDP Austria $0.2 $0.3

63.0%

Belgium
> $0.3 $0.4 90.3% Finland $0.1 $0.2 37.7% France $1.4 $2.1 64.7%
Germany
> $1.9 $2.8 66.8% Greece $0.2 $0.2 104.6% Ireland $0.0 $0.2

22.8% Italy

> $1.9 $1.8 107.6% Luxembourg $0.0 $0.0 0.0% Netherlands $0.3

$0.6 50.8%

> Portugal $0.1 $0.2 65.7% Slovenia $0.0 $0.0 29.0% Spain $0.4

$1.1

39.9%
>
>
>
> Total Euro $6.9 $10.0 69.3%
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> United States $8.1 $12.5 64.7%
>
>
> >
> > Well, again, I'm not an expert, but I know that an individual
can have
> > a large GPP (gross personal product - i.e. salary) but not be

wealthy,

> > because of a large personal debt due to overspending. So, I

would

> > guess that a large GNP (gross national product) doesn't equal

wealth

> > as long as it's accompanied by a large national debt. One of the
> > criteria of admission to the European Union's Euro currency is

that a

> > country's debt does not exceed 60% of that country's GDP. In

2005,

> > the U.S. public debt was 64.7% of GDP. I think that this why

the Euro

> > is becoming the favored currency despite the Dollar being

backed by a

> > slightly larger GDP. Meanwhile, Canada's debt was 32.2 per cent

of

> > GDP in 2004. The Amero would be backed by a combined GDP with a

lower

> > debt percentage (and rules of entry like the Euro's would make
> > investors more confident about our economy).
> >
> > But again, I'm not an expert -- this is just my gut reaction

when I

> > hear people like Ron Paul claim that a unified currency for

North

> > America could only be bad for the country. I'm an international
> > standards guy (the company I work for helps businesses achieve

ISO

> > 9000 and other standards compliance), so I see the knee-jerk
> > opposition to standardized currency much as I see the knee-jerk
> > opposition to adopting the metric system for measurement, i.e.,

silly.

> >
> > The real problem is that the government is so intrusive that
> > everything must be measured in one currency. If banks could

issue

> > their own notes (as in Hong Kong), and barter didn't require
> > conversion of everything into dollars for tax purposes, an
> > international currency wouldn't mean as much, since those who

didn't

> > want to use it would have other options.
> >
> > But really -- I think this misses the point. Ron Paul has no

problem

> > with sharing a currency with another country. He has a problem

with

> > sharing a currency with Mexico. I don't know if this is a

personal,

> > visceral reaction of his to Mexicans, or if he's just pandering

to the

> > Texas Republican xenophobes. And I honestly don't know which of

those

> > two I consider worse.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%

40yahoogroups.com>,

> > "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well then, which metric would you propose to use to "add up

all the

> > wealth"?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > While I'm certainly not a currency expert, I think the

following

> > page
> > > > shows why GDP alone, ignoring other factors like deficits,

is

not a
> > > > good predictor of a strong dollar. In fact, GDP can rise,

but if

> > > > deficits outpace the rise in GDP, the dollar actually

becomes less

Wow. Look at the UK.

Funny thing is, if you polled people on the top 10 countries on earth
in which to live, I bet you that, except for New Zealand and
Australia, those top 10 countries would be very similar to those
appearing on the poll I described.

Admittedly, your numbers (2006) are newer than mine (2004 and 2005),
but I think we're both setting ourselves up for embarrassment given
that we're using CIA ("we have slam-dunk proof of WMDs in Iraq")

data.

But I guess I'll dig the hole a little deeper by citing yet another
CIA statistic, which is external debt (though at least this one uses
the U.S. Treasury department number instead of the CIA one):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

It just blows me away that the U.S. has nearly a quarter of the
world's external debt. But our GDP is less than 1/5 of the world's.

So given that I can't find a reputable source for these numbers
(surely we all agree that the CIA isn't reputable), I'll withdraw my
argument that the Amero would definitely give us a more stable
currency. But I still say that all this various "evidence" shows

that

Ron Paul's suggestion that a unified currency would be disastrous

for

our economy is simply false. If our economy experiences a disaster,
it will be due to overspending and heavy borrowing, not due to

sharing

a currency with our nearest neighbors.

Rob

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>

wrote:

>
> 1. Where are you getting your data for Canada? The World Factbook
says that
> Canadian Debt as % of GDP was 65.4% as opposed to US @ 64.7% (in

2006)

> 2. Following your line of reasoning, I actually looked at the

public

debt
> statistics for those countries in the EMU. It's attached below.

Note I

> don't have public debt data on Luxembourg so I conservatively
assumed it to
> be zero. Slovenia and Luxembourg are not actually zero in terms

of

debt or
> of course GDP, but are so small that they round to it when

considered in

> trillions of dollars with one decimal.
>
> You can see the following conclusions:
>
> A. Debt as a % of GDP is HIGHER in Euro-land (69.3%) than it is in
> Dollar-land (64.7%)
> B. Total GDP is higher in the US than in those countries with the
Euro as
> their currency.
>
> I'm sorry but your arguments just aren't supported by the data.
>
> Country Debt ($tn) GDP ($tn) Debt / GDP Austria $0.2 $0.3

63.0%

Belgium
> $0.3 $0.4 90.3% Finland $0.1 $0.2 37.7% France $1.4 $2.1 64.7%
Germany
> $1.9 $2.8 66.8% Greece $0.2 $0.2 104.6% Ireland $0.0 $0.2

22.8% Italy

> $1.9 $1.8 107.6% Luxembourg $0.0 $0.0 0.0% Netherlands $0.3

$0.6 50.8%

> Portugal $0.1 $0.2 65.7% Slovenia $0.0 $0.0 29.0% Spain $0.4

$1.1

39.9%
>
>
>
> Total Euro $6.9 $10.0 69.3%
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> United States $8.1 $12.5 64.7%
>
>
> >
> > Well, again, I'm not an expert, but I know that an individual
can have
> > a large GPP (gross personal product - i.e. salary) but not be

wealthy,

> > because of a large personal debt due to overspending. So, I

would

> > guess that a large GNP (gross national product) doesn't equal

wealth

> > as long as it's accompanied by a large national debt. One of the
> > criteria of admission to the European Union's Euro currency is

that a

> > country's debt does not exceed 60% of that country's GDP. In

2005,

> > the U.S. public debt was 64.7% of GDP. I think that this why

the Euro

> > is becoming the favored currency despite the Dollar being

backed by a

> > slightly larger GDP. Meanwhile, Canada's debt was 32.2 per cent

of

> > GDP in 2004. The Amero would be backed by a combined GDP with a

lower

> > debt percentage (and rules of entry like the Euro's would make
> > investors more confident about our economy).
> >
> > But again, I'm not an expert -- this is just my gut reaction

when I

> > hear people like Ron Paul claim that a unified currency for

North

> > America could only be bad for the country. I'm an international
> > standards guy (the company I work for helps businesses achieve

ISO

> > 9000 and other standards compliance), so I see the knee-jerk
> > opposition to standardized currency much as I see the knee-jerk
> > opposition to adopting the metric system for measurement, i.e.,

silly.

> >
> > The real problem is that the government is so intrusive that
> > everything must be measured in one currency. If banks could

issue

> > their own notes (as in Hong Kong), and barter didn't require
> > conversion of everything into dollars for tax purposes, an
> > international currency wouldn't mean as much, since those who

didn't

> > want to use it would have other options.
> >
> > But really -- I think this misses the point. Ron Paul has no

problem

> > with sharing a currency with another country. He has a problem

with

> > sharing a currency with Mexico. I don't know if this is a

personal,

> > visceral reaction of his to Mexicans, or if he's just pandering

to the

> > Texas Republican xenophobes. And I honestly don't know which of

those

> > two I consider worse.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%

40yahoogroups.com>,

> > "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well then, which metric would you propose to use to "add up

all the

> > wealth"?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > While I'm certainly not a currency expert, I think the

following

> > page
> > > > shows why GDP alone, ignoring other factors like deficits,

is

not a
> > > > good predictor of a strong dollar. In fact, GDP can rise,

but if

> > > > deficits outpace the rise in GDP, the dollar actually

becomes less

That would be about as counterproductive to libertarian ideals as you
could possibly get. This "all or nothing" approach is impotent, and
suicidal. This is what Bruce Bartlett was talking about when he said
the Libertarians should stop running candidates altogether, because
it's counterproductive to their goals.

Helping Ron Paul make as big a splash as possible, and giving him
every last spare dime you have to give, should be every sensible
Libertarian's number one goal. And I mean NUMBER ONE. Voting for
your own party's candidate is like stomping your feet and holding your
breath.

wealth"?

Some economists would suggest you deal with utility, not wealth. So
say we use a simplified transform, and treat utility as log(wealth),
we then sum up the logs of each individual's wealth. This helps to
account for the fact that there is little difference in "happiness" in
going from a wealth of 1,000,000,000$ to 2,000,000,000$. But if your
wealth goes from 10$ to 1,000,000,005 that changes your life. Same
increase in "wealth", but totally different increase in utility.
Thinking in utility can help gain insights into economic issues.
Claude Shannon is known to have done well in his investing using a
utility=log(money) model.

I agree a log(wealth) model has better explanatory power among
individuals , but certainly not countries.

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
<thebrokenladder@...> wrote:

Clay:

Honestly, what "sensible" Libertarian would give "every last spare dime you
have to give" to *any* presidential candidate of *any* party? I donate what
I can afford to the candidates I support, but I'm not so stupid as to
jeopardize my mortgage even for Ron Paul.

As David Nolan is often quoted, if the Republican Party truly stood for the
values represented by those heroes such as Barry Goldwater, there would be
no need for a Libertarian Party to exist. Sadly, it does not, and therefore
we must participate in and continue to support the LP.

Terry Floyd