If Ron Paul Were To Win The 2012 Elections, Would This Be Good Or Bad For Metals Holders?

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
lilbromarky1
lilbromarky1's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 2464
Posts: 292
If Ron Paul Were To Win The 2012 Elections, Would This Be Good Or Bad For Metals Holders?

Do you all ever consider what might happen to people with metals positions if somehow Ron Paul takes the 2012 election?  

Lets say he wins the election in November.  Do you think based on this that we see higher or lower metals prices?  I think it could go either way depending on how you look at it.   Some of his policies are bearish and some are bullish.

For example, cutting defecit spending would slow the grownth of the money supply, thus eventually changing one of the fundamental reasons for owning metals

Also, we know he's a proponent of a gold standard.  This would obviously be bullish for metals especially gold if this were to come true.  

Edited by admin on 11/08/2014 - 06:02

__________________

Like my ideas? Check our blog at: http://backtobasicseconomics.blogspot.com/

DaysGoneBuy
DaysGoneBuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/13/2012
Hat Tips: 176
Posts: 6
It depends

First off, your avatar is awesome!

I have often thought about what you are asking, and the answer I got depends on a few factors. If Ron Paul was able to simply stabilize the existing system thereby strengthening the existing system, I think short term prices would drop but long term (years) owning precious metals would still be the right choice. 

If on the other hand, Ron Paul was able to actually get what he wanted (competing currencies) then it would accelerate the demise of the dollar. Ron Paul is not really in favor of the gold standard. He wants the market to pick the money, he just happens to believe the market will pick gold and silver. His proposal for competing currencies is a bet that Gresham's law will work in reverse, the dollar will die, and we'll never have to "End the Fed" in a formal sense. Over the long term, FRN's would be driven out of the marketplace and while the FED may still exist it would be powerless. In this case, your precisous metals would be revalued relative to all other goods and would be more valuable than expressed in current dollar terms. 

lilbromarky1
lilbromarky1's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 2464
Posts: 292
DaysGoneBuy wrote: First off,

DaysGoneBuy wrote:

First off, your avatar is awesome!

I have often thought about what you are asking, and the answer I got depends on a few factors. If Ron Paul was able to simply stabilize the existing system thereby strengthening the existing system, I think short term prices would drop but long term (years) owning precious metals would still be the right choice. 

If on the other hand, Ron Paul was able to actually get what he wanted (competing currencies) then it would accelerate the demise of the dollar. Ron Paul is not really in favor of the gold standard. He wants the market to pick the money, he just happens to believe the market will pick gold and silver. His proposal for competing currencies is a bet that Gresham's law will work in reverse, the dollar will die, and we'll never have to "End the Fed" in a formal sense. Over the long term, FRN's would be driven out of the marketplace and while the FED may still exist it would be powerless. In this case, your precisous metals would be revalued relative to all other goods and would be more valuable than expressed in current dollar terms. 

Good reply! 

I understand the concept of free market money.  My favorite book ever for Econ along with Hazlitt's econ in 1 lesson is Rothbard's "What Has Government Done To Our Money".  

As long as legal tender laws are in place, and people's rent and mortage must be paid with FRN's, Gresham's Law will work to encourage the spending and circulation of FRN's and cause people to hoard the undervalued money (PMs).  I dont see how competing currencies will reverse Gresham's Law.  It will only accelerate it.

I do agree also though, that long term PM's will rise because of the nature of the system.  When people talk about a balanced budget, I laugh on the inside, because it shows that they literally do not understand this system.  It relies on perpetual monetary expansion, and the main driver of that expansion is government defecit spending.  If Ron Paul were to create a balanced budget, this whole thing would tank within a matter of a couple months.

__________________

Like my ideas? Check our blog at: http://backtobasicseconomics.blogspot.com/

Gold Nugget
Gold Nugget's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 434
Posts: 243
USA is Doomed

I support Ron Paul but he is not going to win simply because he does not sell his message properly.  

He simply makes statements.  He needs more explanation and He needs to tone it down a bit. 

For example he loses a lot of votes because he says he will shut down the military over seas.  Well that is a proper idea but it is too strongly stated.  He would get more votes if he simply said the military budget will be examined or cut some.  

But then the totally corrupted MSM will never support people who tell the truth.  Too much money supporting corruption. 

I might even give him a write in vote in Nov. have to see how the fake election plays out.  

I will never vote for Obama because he is not a Natural Born Citizen.  & almost for sure not even a citizen of USA.,  What total Corruption in Washington DC.  Incredible. 

__________________

‘Nine times out of ten when I see an attractive woman walking down the street, I turn and take another look. Ten times out of ten she does not turn around to check me out.’

tmosley
tmosley's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 14948
Posts: 1674
Ron Paul will simply

Ron Paul will simply accelerate the process that is already in motion, and perhaps lessen the height of the mania (and the depth of the depression) that would have come with a last minute switch to real money.

lilbromarky1
lilbromarky1's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 2464
Posts: 292
tmosley wrote: Ron Paul will

tmosley wrote:

Ron Paul will simply accelerate the process that is already in motion, and perhaps lessen the height of the mania (and the depth of the depression) that would have come with a last minute switch to real money.

Ron Paul would do this. I agree.  Let's get this over with rather than dragging out for another decade.  

__________________

Like my ideas? Check our blog at: http://backtobasicseconomics.blogspot.com/

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Topic locked
Syndicate contentComments for "If Ron Paul Were To Win The 2012 Elections, Would This Be Good Or Bad For Metals Holders?"