Why the Chinese government wants you to vote Ron Paul

    How’s that for linking two huge issues in one title?  China is in the news constantly, and though it’s primarily event driven, people can’t help but notice that they have become a world player.  Ron Paul continues to languish far behind even the mid- tier candidates in the Republican race for the White House, but has made enough waves to achieve some level of interest outside the blogbowl.

    Ron Paul has a lot of ideas that on the surface look like winners for America.   He has stood for sound fiscal policies since his arrival in Washington.  To change this into an easily understood political term, he has been obstructionist.  This has created a situation that makes his run for the White House an excercise in futility.  It is unlikely that a grassroots campaign can give him the push he needs to become one of the heavy hitters in the race, and he will get no backing on the hill.  He has no allies….change that…he has few allies, and all of them have whacko credentials a mile long.  Even if elected,  it is inconceivable that he could lead our government because there is just no way that he could achieve concensus on any of the major issues facing our country.

   The Chinese would love to see it though.  Ron Paul’s free trade stance would make the deep water ports they are building in Mexico a cash cow when our Southern border becomes as porous for Chinese goods as it is currently for illegal immigrants.  Free Trade is the new Chinese mantra.  The use of slave labor, ignoring International environmental laws, and incredibly lax quality control standards on exported goods make them the world leader in death exportation, and they are doing it with an aplomb that would make Kruschev jealous.  Unchallenged by our current leaders, their trade practices would be encouraged by a Ron Paul administration.

   Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance is another good reason for the Chinese to salivate like Pavlov’s dog everytime they hear his name.  Based on his non-interventionist beliefs, the Chinese have to see a Ron Paul presidency as the final ingredient to reacquiring Taiwan.  A man who is unwilling to use the military outside our borders, (and no matter his rhetoric, thats exactly how he feels), can hardly be expected to honor mutual defense treaties signed by prior adminiistrations.  He feels they are a mistake, and in this case he may be right.  Other than its thorn in their side implications, Taiwan has no real strategic value to the United States.

     The Chinese hold nearly a trillion dollars worth of U.S. debt.  A return to the gold standard would not only make this a much more secure investment, but going forward would allow them to hammer us into the ground economically.  Yeah,we’re back to that idiotic free trade thing again.

   Ron Paul would ignore China’s record of human rights abuses, their continual dumping of dangerous goods on U.S. markets, and their now obvious efforts at imperialsm.  China is proving by their action that they are not just a dangerous competitor, but a completely rogue nation with designs on world domination.  Ron Paul  would be the perfect president in light of this.  If he were Bill Clinton they could even donate to his campaign.


31 Responses to Why the Chinese government wants you to vote Ron Paul

  1. bret says:

    Mkay, ya lost me again. The reason China keeps their currency so crappy is because they want to keep competitive with our currency – they don’t want to get screwed. Can ya blame them?

    The thing with a gold standard is, which you don’t understand apparently, is that if we tied our currency to an asset (Whatever it is, you can pick salt or iron if you want, gold is just a reasonably nice proxy) that would mean whatever deals we had with other countries would have to be brought up to that standard. So China could play funny games with their currency, but it would mean squat. If they printed a shitpile of cash, so what, the market would realize that fact and adjust the exchange rate. That’s what you see happening with international currency exchange rates right now (problem is, none of them are backed by any hard assets).

    Personally, I think if we removed the belligerent US presence, many of the fragmented countries would reunite on their own. E.g., Korea (I’ve lived there, if you care), China, Iraq/Kurdistan, I mean look at Germany and Vietnam. Good examples.

  2. bbartlog says:

    Switching to the gold standard would probably not help someone who was sitting on a trillion worth of US bonds, though it would depend on how it was done. In any case I’m skeptical that Ron Paul would be able to pull off that part of his agenda. The military and foreign policy aspects are things he could accomplish, at least in part, if he were Commander in Chief.
    But I think a bigger problem with your attempted slam is that *all of the things you’re complaining about are already happening*. There is already a deep water port at Lazaro Cardenas, ramping up for rail traffic to Kansas City. Trade with China is already growing rapidly. We already sold out the Taiwanese (in 1978). Did Bush and Clinton do anything about Chinese human rights abuses? Why no.
    Now if you’re trying to compare and contrast with someone like Kucinich, maybe these criticisms make sense. But if you’re saying that Ron Paul is somehow *different from the other Republicans* in terms of how trade with China would be handled, I’d be curious who you’re thinking of…

  3. bret…what i understand is, if we tie our currency to an asset we limit our currency. In a world where no one else does that puts us at a disadvantage.

    bbartlog…so you’re saying hurry the process along by electing someone that wants us to get our asses kicked by every third world country that doesn’t obey the rules?

  4. bret says:

    Criminy – that is wrong. Look at it this way. In a world where everyone is buying things with monopoly money, and they look over here and it costs $5 for a car, they are going to go “Jesus shit, wtf does it cost $200k for a Yugo here?”

    See what I mean? The thing that an asset-backed currency does is constrain our government from making wild promises and interfering globally (and locally). So this is why I get frustrated with folks I otherwise agree with about war – they are completely wrong on economics, because it all comes back to economics. Without the ability to inflate and print money like nuts, the gubmint couldn’t pay for the crap it does. Period.

    So when you say “we limit our currency” you’re partly right and partly wrong. You eliminate, not just limit, the horrible boom/bust cycle that results from all paper currencies. But what you do is set the free market FREE.

    For a great example, just look at Zimbabwe. Think it can’t happen here? The Fed just dumped $54B into the economy TODAY ALONE.

  5. bret says:

    I’d like to clarify a bit… the “prosperity” you get during the boom cycle is fake. If somebody hands you a million bucks today, you’re rich, yes. But if that somebody hands a million bucks to a lot of people, guess what happens? Prices go up. Suddenly, it’s not so great to be a millionaire, is it? Look at what’s happening in the housing market.

    What you are seeing is purely, and singly, the consequence of government intervention in the market, where it does not belong and does no good.

  6. hi bret…i just read about it. like three articles on why bobby is going to lose his home…

    a question then…in light of the fact that several nations (north Korea, Columbia,Venezuela, and Iran to name a few) are printing our currency almost as fast as we are, how does the gold standard make our currency more stable?

  7. mike says:

    I’m not sure that your viewpoint of where Ron Paul stands on trade is legit. It seems to me that Paul is opposed to free-trade agreements and treaties such as NAFTA and the WTO.

    As a member of the WTO, your ability to have taxes and tariffs on imports becomes much more limited. It is also possible for corporations of the WTO to challenge your countries’ ability to decide how best to regulate the market.

    I imagine that Paul being a constitutionalist, wants federal control of trade. This is one of the most explicit roles of the federal government outlined in the constitution. To cede that power to a foreign organization is the globalist’s agenda. If in the Constitution, the Congress is given the power to tax and tariff imports and exports, why should we wrap ourselves in agreements that limit our government’s ability to uphold the Constitution? (seeing as how the Constitution is the place from which they draw all of their authority.)

    So if China starts running all of their junk down our throats (I shouldn’t say starts, because thats what’s happening right now..) Anyways we need to look to Congress to be responsible for this. And Congress’ hands are tied thanks to our trade agreements. Peace out Constitution!

  8. hi Mike..I like what you say here, but it’s not what Ron Paul advocates. He advocates free markets…which is bad for any nation that obeys the international laws applying to same. China is a lawless government as it concerns trade, and is reaping an incredible profit. Ron Paul has not come out officially against anything china does. If you can cite something that proves that comment wrong I’ll be happy to retract my statement.
    thanks for coming by

  9. mike says:

    With an asset based currency people know that their currency is being devalued unfairly. They can compare the value of their dollar to the value of a hard asset.

    If you cared to pay attention over the past 10 years, you would see that the value of gold and silver has gone up, the value of gas has gone up, as well as other commodities. This is largely due to inflation, which is an excessive amount of currency being issued in proportion to real economic growth.

    You sound like you’re curious I would urge you to look into these matters for yourself as it is not a very simple thing to grasp at first. Partly because it is very simple, but that it flies in the face of what the establishment has tried to tell people for so many years. The system we live in can’t carry on the way that it works. The debt that we have is increasing at an exponential rate and we’re running out of credit with the world.

    If we’re so concerned about China why are we borrowing billions of dollars a day from them? Did you know that China owns all kinds of our national parks, thanks to the Federal government “monetizing the debt.” These people in charge of our government are the real treasonous people.

    They are the globalists. They are the one’s that want real free-trade in the way you describe (and its already set up). They want to create a global market on which everyone in the world has to compete. It sounds like a good idea but what it basically will end up being is a leveling out with our middle class being eroded down into a equal playing field with the rest of the world. Thats exactly whats going on now with all of our industries being moved out into the third world, into places like China.

    If you want a change from that status quo than you need to re-examine what’s happening in the world, and what Dr. Paul’s position are in that respect.

  10. Whats your complaint? America virtually survives on Chinese manufacturing and loans, so in essence, America is completely beholden to the largesse and social system of the Communist Party of China. Bravo, America, bravo!

    So if they take over Taiwan, why do you care? You already completely encourage the Communist Party of China to rule the USA where it counts, what difference does it make if an obscure island off its coast is annexed. It would be the third land grab China has made in the last 100 years (a little part of India, Tibet, and possibly Taiwan), while the US has grabbed Phillipines, Hawaii, Guam, Peuto Rico, Virgin Islands, and various other helpless ports of call while invading over 100 sovereign nations in 120 years. So, hell ya’, worry about Taiwan. You know what the difference will be after Taiwan is absorbed by the Communist Party of China? Are you saying Hong Kong is a bad place to be? Any worse than Taiwan is now?

    But you want armageddon, do ya’, just for an island off the coast of China. You know Chian Kai-Shelk killed 25,000+ of the original inhabitants of Taiwan when he invaded it in 1949 (when it was called Formosa), right?

  11. hi mike…i’ll itemize so that i can address each point.

    commodities tend to be cyclical and precious metals are where we run when we fear an unstable economy, or global disrutions Gold and silver traded higher in 1979 than they did all the way through 2005 according to
    it gives gold prices, and you should have a look…the numbers are very obvious as they relate to the last 30 years of history.

    i know the system is broke, and i know that we can’t sustain the type of inept leadership we have experienced dating back to before i was born. I don’t agree that Ron Paul is the answer.

    because they are who will loan us the money? We coddle china, I think because we fear them…fair enough?

    what you say here directly mimics what I’ve read from Ron Paul as regards his trade policy. So I guess he is an economic globalist.

    The middle class is eroding because the middle class is stupid. We elect these people, and as a group we deserve what we get.

    Hey, while you’re around. Tell me how Ron Paul has helped me over the last 20 years? I’ve been helping pay his salary but can’t figure out what he has done for central indiana

  12. Hi Marc. Nice post…uhhh….i don’t support the trade situation with China, I do not give two shits if Taiwan is taken by China, it’s just the EZ one to use an example because people understand it. I said it strategically has no purpose for us. Which was wrong because we do spy on China from there.
    I concur with you on land grabs, and again couldn’t care less except that the islands you mention protect our southwestern flank from the imperialistic warmongering japanese.

    I knew something like that about chiang, but you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. Chiang was a piker in the killing department. You seem real kneejerk upset about the taiwan thing. Anything you should be seeking professional help for, or would you like to discuss it?

  13. mike says:

    From Ron Paul’s campaign site:

    “So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

    The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.

    The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

    NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

    And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.

    Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

    We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America. ”



    I would like to know what literature you are reading which espouses that Ron Paul is a free-trade globalist.

  14. mike says:

    “what you say here directly mimics what I’ve read from Ron Paul as regards his trade policy. So I guess he is an economic globalist.”

    Ron Paul is in favor of the constitutionalist position. I don’t think that makes him a globalist.

    From Paul’s site:

    “So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.”


  15. mike says:

    “what you say here directly mimics what I’ve read from Ron Paul as regards his trade policy. So I guess he is an economic globalist.”

    Ron Paul is in favor of the constitutionalist position. I don’t think that makes him a globalist.

    From Paul’s site:

    “So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.”

  16. This is one of the more uninformed pieces (or an intentionally deceptive hit piece) I’ve ever seen.

    Paul for open borders? Do you even read the man’s platform?

    “hi Mike..I like what you say here, but it’s not what Ron Paul advocates. He advocates free markets…which is bad for any nation that obeys the international laws applying to same”

    Incorrect as well. While Paul is a free market proponent he is, just as Mike said (and you incorrecty contest), Paul is against our participation in the WTO, UN, NAFTA and other doublespeak “trade agreements.”

    Seriously, the entire article is 180 degrees off base.

  17. Barry Day says:

    Hi CJ — interesting post. Based upon the interviews (Ron Paul @ Google, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg) and his writings, http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=698), I don’t think you and Ron Paul are talking about the same “gold standard”.

    It’s pains me to hear people dismiss Ron Paul as they say, “Oh, he’s that guy who wants to go back on the gold standard” as they roll their eyes. And before I really understood the history of our monetary system in the U.S., and indeed the world, I was one of them. Clearly, the gold standard failed, the 70s and early 80s really sucked, who would want to go back to that mess?

    People equate the words “gold standard” with the currency system we’ve had since 1913, and more recently the Bretton Woods currency system that lasted from the post WWII era until Nixon closed the “gold window” and ended central banks’ convertibility of dollars into gold in 1971.

    The U.S. monetary systems that we’ve labeled “gold standards” in this country have *all* been destined for failure. Why? Because all the government did was fix the price of gold in dollars, without necessarily restraining the printing press that churns out Federal Reserve Notes. Essentially, we had a mechanism that allowed the government to “cheat” all along — while our Treasury publicly declared that the price of gold was *fixed* at a specific value in dollars, there was no absolute restraint to the Federal Reserve System printing paper money when we needed it (initially to finance wars, eventually both guns and butter).

    There are books about this topic, but this Web page (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gold_Inflation.asp) does a pretty good job of hitting the historical high points (or low points — can you imagine the government confiscating all your gold today?)

    You are right in that gold is ultimately just a commodity, and that it is not a perfect inflation hedge. In fact, while the chart to which you refer in your response to Mike does show gold close to its peak, in inflation-adjusted terms, the price of gold is still MUCH lower than that peak price since the dollar’s purchasing power is so much less today. As the article mentions, in inflation adjusted 2006 dollars, gold’s peak price in 1980 was $2,000, and it lost 84% of its value by 2000/2001.

    So what’s the point of this response? Ron Paul is not looking to return us to the “gold standard” as those words are widely interpreted. He is, as he says in the Google interview, “against the idea that government can print as much money as it wants” (to paraphrase).

    Ultimately, money is trust. The price of gold, gas, milk, butter, and even the price of US dollars against other (equally intrinsically useless) fiat currencies show that trust in our government and its monetary system is declining at an alarming rate. We can hide our heads in the sand, or we can ask if it’s possible to change the direction that we’re going.

    Every central banker understands and professes that sound money is critical to economic growth. But what they don’t say is that the presence of a central bank that has a complete monopoly on the legal tender in a nation’s economy inherently undermines sound money as people accept the dogma that inflation is something that you “manage”, and deflation is something that you fear.

    Inflation hurts savers, but benfits of debtors (but guess what — do banks make more money from savers, or debtors)? And why do we fear deflation? Is it a bad thing that a computer today is cheaper than it was a decade ago?

    What Ron Paul *does* want to do is legalize competition in the domestic money supply. That’s a first step towards providing sound money that rewards production, savings, and investment, as opposed to artificially stimulating debt, consumption, and speculation.

    So what is a “real” gold standard? It’s simply where the government provides a currency that is convertible into a specified quantity of gold (or siliver, or whatever commodity you like) *without artificially fixing the commodity’s price*. In other words, the government can’t just “talk the talk”, it must walk the talk. Because if the government provides convertibility between paper money (or zeros in your checking/savings account) and a commodity WITHOUT fixing the price of the commodity, the purchasing power of that money in terms of that commodity will be preserved forever.

    In other words, in the Roman empire, the price of a nicely-tailored suit was an ounce of gold. Give or take a bit, that same ounce of gold today will buy you a nice suit (in Hong Kong, even a custom tailored one!)

    But I can still hear someone asking now… “But wait, why would we want our currency tied to the value of a commodity as volatile as gold?” Of course, gold would not be nearly as volatile if it was priced in gold :). The problem is that gold is priced in our fiat currency that is subject to credit expansion, credit contraction, liquidity booms, busts, and all sorts of speculative excesses.

    So to answer your last question about what Ron Paul has been doing for you in central Indiana over the past 20 years… I came to the conclusion that he’s been writing, speaking, and thus educating me to stand up for a moral government based upon a moral monetary system.

    As I transitioned from a Ron Paul skeptic to a Ron Paul supporter, I spent weeks of free time reading his speeches and writings at http://www.ronpaullibrary.org, and following up those readings with additional primary references.

    No other candidate has the corpus of work, and thought, that Ron Paul has made available through his efforts in public service. The guide to practically implementing a Constitutional federal government is there (www.ronpaullibrary.org), and while we can still engage in healthy debate around the fine points, it’s a much healthier dialog then, “Yeah, Republicans suck, man.”

  18. Barry Day says:

    Oh, and with regard to China: You really should read the following series of essays: http://econ.ucsc.edu/~mpd/InternationalFinancialStability_update.pdf

    They take you on a deep and well-documented dive to understand the “why” and the “how” of what China is doing vis-a-vis the U.S. in its managed currency float and export-driven growth. Additionally, it explains what factors can/will change this trend over time.

    Basically, it explains that China is artificially keeping its currency (RMB) low to drive economic growth through exports. It does this by limiting purchases of RMB, and fixing the price at which RMB are exchanged for USD.

    Practically speaking, when an exporter in China sells plastic trinkets to Wal-Mart and is paid in USD, the People’s Bank of China (PBC) forces the exporter to exchange those USD for RMB at the fixed rate. The PBC then “sterilizes” those “inflows” by selling a bond for an equal amount of RMB as is given to the exporter. That bond is typically bought by a Chinese bank or insurance company. Simply put, the bond buyer exchanges existing RMB for a bond that pays a (low) interest rate, and that bond goes on the books of the bank as a reserve asset. The result of this sterilization is that the conversion of incoming USD into RMB received by the exporter does not result in new net RMB in the monetary system — thus reducing the immediate inflationary impact of continuing to receive all of our paper dollars.

    But then the PBC has to do something with those USD that it just bought at an artificially high price from the exporter. It’s easiest to buy our Treasury bonds. Lather, rinse, repeat a trillion times… and China has a massive foreign exchange surplus comprised largely of our debt.

    But what’s the endgame? Since our Federal government is proving incapable of living within its means, EVENTUALLY we will overwhelm our trading partners’ (in this case China’s) appetite for our bonds. China knows they will not be able to keep their currency pegged this low forever — they’re already fighting inflation despite sterilizing inflows, as those bonds they issue become reserve that allow banks to make loans and further increase their money supply.

    When you read the paper above, you’ll see that China’s goal is entirely pragmatic — they have a few hundred million people who are un/underemployed (imagine 2/3 of our country just sitting around with nothing to do…), and they need to turn them into productive, taxpaying citizens. So for the moment, the selective and highly managed application of foreign direct investment (FDI) allows them to develop more mature capital markets and the management and technological skills to use that capital effectively. Additionally, by keeping their currency artificially low, they prolong the amount of time that FDI can profitably exploit their people — thus maximizing the overall number of jobs created and the acquisition of intellectual capital.

    What is resulting over there is a tremendous growth of their middle class. Within the next 4-10 years, the growth of this middle class as a domestic market will eclipse our importance as an export market. As that happens, China will be gradually less concerned with supporting the export business, and currency controls will be further relaxed.

    As the Chinese middle class begins competing with us for goods, and as the RMB strengthens against the USD, China as an exporter of cheap goods will turn into China as a voracious consumer. Everything we need to live (food, energy, and plastic trinkets) will be more expensive, because we will be competing with 1.3 billion consumers *and* competing with a weaker currency in global markets.

    Like it or not, this is our current trajectory. It has absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Mitt Romney. It has to do with China, in its totalitarian government’s rational self-interest, encouraging the prolonged exploitation of its un/underemployed people in order to maximize job creation and growth of their tax base. In other words, if China DIDN’T aggressively manage its currency, and DIDN’T aggressively manage foreign direct investment, the huge disparity in labor and other manufacturing costs would have disappeared in a manner of a few years at most… and fewer net jobs would have been created. Again, don’t just take my word for it… read the above paper and additional references, and draw your own conclusions.

    Ironically, some analysts smugly think we’re “winning” as we trade our paper dollars for China’s manufactured goods. It seems like a free ride, but in the end, the joke is on us. You see, the intellectual capital we’re exporting more than makes up for the declining value of China’s dollar reserves.

    So where does Ron Paul come in? Short of going to war, we can’t change what China is doing. But if we even want to TRY and change what China is doing with respect to the environment and human rights, the continued debasement of our currency further weakens our position in trade and diplomacy.

    A sound, and strong, currency with a free market economy is the only way to slow the capital flight that’s moving jobs and opportunities overseas. If we embrace the entrepreneurial spirit that encourages equal competition domestically as well as internationally, stop having a government that serves corporate interests, and radically reduce our tax burdens, we won’t be worried about job growth. People will be more empowered to become owners, as opposed to just employees, and instead of worrying about job growth, we will be worried about finding workers.

    Having such an economy will give us a powerful platform for diplomacy to advance the cause of freedom and human rights. What better way to stand for freedom than to have an economy strong enough, with so many jobs and opportunities, that we again open the door to LEGAL immigration, and again become a refuge for huddled masses yearning to breathe free?

  19. bret says:

    Hey dude, the “cyclical” “value” of commodities, like gold and silver, is completely caused (100%) by two things: 1) increases in supply, and 2) increases in the supply of paper currency. See how that works?

    So, mine output expands at something like .5% each year. Meanwhile, inflation (excluding “food and energy” hahaha) expands at least around 3-4%, and probably more like 10%. See the problem? That is why prices rise. Note that it doesn’t happen uniformly … government interference in the ethanol market via subsidies has resulted in a nice headline on drudgereport: “milk prices rise to record highs.”

    Counterfeiting is a problem, but MORE counterfeiting is not the solution. That is what the FED does when it injects “liquidity” into the system – these are loans to the banks to pay off folks demanding their money, because the banks don’t have to keep 100% reserves (for every dollar they have deposited, they loan out sometimes 10 or 100, each at interest, it’s how they make cash – bigtime problems if you get a “run” on the bank).

    I think you are operating from the assumption that an economy that is nationalized will outperform a free-market, and that simply is not the truth. If the US were to go back to an asset-backed currency, that would put an extraordinary amount of pressure on the rest of the world to do the same, because our dollar would be huge, and I mean HUGE – it would be the most attractive investment on the planet. You don’t have to use gold, you can use oil, or moonrocks – so long as the commodity is relatively plentiful and doesn’t suffer large fluctuations in supply, it’ll work just fine.

    Here’s the problem of international trade. The Chinese suspect that we are devaluing our currency faster than they are, so that is why they keep pressure on their currency, which is what you hear politicians whining about. The Chinese are right, though. Government statistics are anything but reliable (check out NASA’s y2k bug in their global warming data, laf!).

    Re: Paul, he is not an “economic globalist” but rather a “free marketer” … the “globalists” are in favor of managed trade, meaning government controlled trade agreements, etc. That type of stuff produces only serious problems (look at the immigration problems since NAFTA).

    I’ve wandered a bit, so I’ll shut up now.

  20. Michael says:

    You must realize the history of silver in the last 30 years. It’s easy to look at a chart; however, there was a big push in the late 70’s to buy silver. A lot of the buzz was created by a wealthy family in Texas (The Hunt Brothers) that was aggressively acquiring silver assets to hedge their wealth against inflation. In 1979 the Hunt brothers and a few wealthy arabs had acquired 1/2 of the worlds silver supply, driving the price of silver through the roof in 79 and early 1980.

    COMEX and the FED moved in to stop the Hunt brothers acquisition of the worlds silver supply by implementing higher margin requirements. This caused the silver market to crash, on March 27, 1980 the price per ounce of silver was cut in half. Thus driving the hunt brothers into bankruptcy and countless investors lost millions (including my family that invested in the silver boom).

    A couple of things we should note here is:

    In 1965 the US stopped producing silver coins and replaced them with copper/nickel alternatives. The funny things is, the old “silver” coins were worth more than the new “non-silver” coins and this remains true today.

    If the currency was backed by silver, this would have prevented the hunt brothers from trying to buy up all the silver in the world. Why you ask? Because they wanted their dollars invested in hard assets to stop or slow inflation of the federal reserve notes (dollars).

    Now, onto the rest of your article. You mentioned China and Taiwan. Is there a reason to go to war over China “reacquiring” Taiwan? We didn’t say much when Hong Kong went back to china. You must realize that Hong Kong is still one of the wealthiest, free markets in the world. China stepping in didn’t want to touch the mechanics of such a good economy. Such is the same for Taiwan. I have clients that have lived and are very familiar with China. Try to look beyond what the Mass Media tells you. I will tell you this, it’s easier to start a business in China than it is here in the US, because of all the license fees and red tape us business owners have to go through.

    Human rights you say? I think we all have to drive around some of the major cities to see some of the most horrific human rights violations. I think we should focus on our country for a few years.

    Now onto the free trade. China is routing things to Mexico so it can take advantage of NAFTA. You can thank the last 20 years of the US administration for that. This is exacerbated if we move forward with the NAFTA superhighway. Porous borders? China and every other country in the world will have wide open gate to drive through.

    Is China’s currency backed by anything? The biggest complaint on Chinas currency is that they price fix it against the dollar. Even though realistically it could be worth .50 on the dollar. Now imagine if the US dollar was backed by gold, silver or some other hard asset. Yes, the current US dollars held by China would increase in value, however, this would eventually balance out and would even cause Chinas currency to lose value if it was not backed by a hard asset.

    One other quick note, you should take a deep look at the Petrodollar. That is the major contributing factor to the USA economic stability. That is why oil is so important to the United States. Imagine if all the middle east countries only accepted the Euro to purchase their oil. This is being talked about in the middle east right now.


  21. […] Why the Chinese government wants you to vote Ron Paul How’s that for linking two huge issues in one title? China is in the news constantly, and though […] […]

  22. […] Why the Chinese government wants you to vote Ron Paul     How’s that for linking two huge issues in one title?  China is in the news constantly, and though […] […]

  23. Barry Day says:

    Thank you for taking the time to write and share with such passion and insite. I will read the collection of essays.

  24. hi barry…sorry i didn’t get back to you sooner, but I have a day job. We are currently dealing with a massive influx of chinese competition for the commodity we produce, and so 6 days a week is common. i haven’t even had time to read your comments yet, but what I’ve read of the one tells mer you do have an incredible insight on chinese trade practices and purpose. Thanks, and I’ll read the essays.,

    Mike: same as above. Gold and silver both shot the moon in the last half of the seventies. Their was a lot of economic turmoil at the time, not just the hunt brothers.
    thanks for coming by

    bret: only partially right on either count. Commodities such as gold have so many vatiables attached to their value the only thing you know for sure is it is valuable. A lot of people get burned buying gold. No, I think an economy guided by sound business practices, and fiscally responsible government will perform better than free markets. There is no way you can achieve anything close to honest free markets, when the rues are different for everybody, or ignored.

    If any of you would like to do a guest blog lemme know….some of these points are very well made, but damn they’re long. *s*

  25. Hi Chuck…hard to argue with you..i can tell you know it all…explain to me how free trade will control the chinese leviathan currently crashing down the mountain toward us, and no stealing from barry

  26. […] China Conundrum Fellow seeker criminyjicket wrote: The Chinese would love to see [Ron Paul elected President]. Ron Paul’s free trade stance would […]

  27. Kevin Houston says:


    you said:
    “A man who is unwilling to use the military outside our borders, (and no matter his rhetoric, thats exactly how he feels), can hardly be expected to honor mutual defense treaties signed by prior adminiistrations.”

    Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, and everytime I’ve heard him speak ont he issue, he is always careful to point out that it is Congress’ job to decide whether or not to defend Taiwan, not the President. It is the President’s job to carry out Congress’ decisions.

    So, who really cares what Ron Paul’s views on declaring war, and when wee should, and for whose interests…. He has already stated that he won’t be the “decider” on this issue, it will fall to Congress (as the Constitution mandates)

    So if 218 members of the House, and 51 members of the Senate think we should defend Taiwan from Chinese occupation, then War will happen, regardless of Ron Paul’s opinion. Likewise, if 218 members of the House or 51 members of the Sentate think we shouldn’t waste american treasure or blood defending them, then it won’t happen.

    This is my biggest reason for supporting Ron Paul: his adherance to the constitution. Perhaps it would be better if the President made these decisions all by himself, but until there is a constitutional amendment to that effect, this is the way it is.


  28. Hi Kevin…you are neglecting the fact that an anti-war president needs only to veto a declaration of war, and it will require a veto proof majority in congress to pass…a higher standard by far than a simple majority. I’m not saying thats bad, but it’s feasible.

    thanks for coming by

  29. Bret says:

    Hey criminy – like, um, an “economy guided by sound business practices and fiscally responsible government spending” sounds pretty much like the lessaiz-faire capitalist “free market” system that I, and everybody else who’ve read up on it, endorse. 🙂 That doesn’t sound like a very managed economy to me.

    The Chinese are going to be a force to be reckoned with because they have a huge supply of cheap labor. That’s just the way it is. There will be winners and there will be losers, but intervening in the market creates a LOT more losers in the long run than it does winners in the short run.

    For a great example, just look at Zimbabwe.

    We watched Last King of Scotland the other night … another great example. The best of intentions, the worst of policies.

  30. […] seeker criminyjicket wrote: The Chinese would love to see [Ron Paul elected President]. Ron Paul’s free trade stance would […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: