Metallic Pea

Frustrating People Since 1971.

Good as Gold

with 5 comments

‘[W]hoever gathers money little by little will increase it.’  ~ Proverbs 13:11b


The economy’s slide into recession continues to gain momentum, catching the Powers That Be by surprise, although Ron Paul and others have been sounding the warning of just such an eventuality for years.  The Federal Reserve must bear a large share of the blame due to it’s interference in the market through arbitrary manipulation of the interest rates and reckless and increasing infusions of fiat money which only devalues the dollar and results in inflation.

The Washington government’s solution is to borrow more money from China, Kuwait, and other foreign nations while turning the money printing presses up to 11.  This will have the opposite of the desired effect, being nothing more than hair of the dog that bit us.  The cheques they want to send out to taxpayers will only add to the multi-trillion (trillion with a ‘T’) federal debt and encourage the wanton spending by consumers which also fans the recession.

After all, if printing more money–which is no longer backed by anything of value–is the answer to our economic woes, why can’t we just reduce the tax burden to 0% and print ourselves into prosperity?

 Here is warning number 1,001: Get out of debt and SAVE, SAVE, SAVE.  Regardless of what the misguided Keynesians will tell you, spending does not improve the economy–saving does.

Ron Paul–who has studied economics in excess of 40 years–is the only candidate who appears to understand what is needed to end the recession and ensure long-term fiscal stability: sound money, low taxes, renunciation of empire, and living within our means.

In this video, Dr Paul educates Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke on sound economic policy:



‘[President Johnson] took [Federal Reserve Chairman] Martin to his ranch and asked the Secret Service to leave the room. And he physically beat him, he slammed him against the wall, and said, “Martin, my boys are dying in Vietnam, and you won’t print the money I need.”‘


At one time, Republicans could be counted on to protect the Second Amendment.  (I wonder which part of ‘shall not be infringed’ is so difficult to understand?)

Michael Kinsely (most certainly not a conservative) once made a very astute observation.  If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment as they do the First, it would be mandated by law that everyone carry a gun everywhere.


Here is yet another example of a professing Christian with a low view of Scripture. I’m rendered speechless when someone says something as ridiculous as the following: ‘Over the years, though, [Dowd] said, a Passionist priest led him to find a more powerful narrative of God and discover a “God-glorifying, Christ-edifying view of evolution.”‘ Whaaa?





A Scottish pastor has it partly correct in saying, ‘The definition of a Calvinist as being a person who is miserable at the thought that someone somewhere is actually enjoying themselves is sadly all too typical.’ However, methinks he flew too close to the sun in suggesting that the answer for the Scottish Presbyterians is to delve into the Harry Potter books.





I sure am glad the U.S. spent so much in blood and treasure to ‘free’ Kosovo. Now they can enjoy the ‘Muslim [sic] terror campaign that has killed, raped and maimed countless Christians, burned down churches and ethnically cleansed the region in anticipation of statehood.’ This, as Ron Paul has been pointing out in the presidential campaign, is known as ‘blowback,’ or the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy.





‘Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war; we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what’s going on here?“’ ~ Ron Paul





To me, I confess, [countries] are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for dominion of the world.’ ~ Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India, in reference to Afghanistan, 1898




If you are going to promote tourism for your town, please ensure that you have a qualified copy editor proof-reading your materials.  (Notice the young girl in the centre of the photo.)





To-day’s 1980’s Moment is brought to you by Debbie Gibson:




Written by ninepoundhammer

January 21, 2008 at 12:31 pm

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “The couple will speak at 9:45 a.m., 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. Sunday at First Unitarian Universalist Church, 4700 Grover Ave.” So I realy would call this guy a christian, look at who his audience is. Also funny the article doesn’t say what church he was ordained in. Got to love the world.

    Still not buying the RP gold standard or neo-isolationism. Yeas I do think the Clinton’s were too interventionist and we have no need for troops in Germany. We just need to redeploy them at home and a few places over seas, i.e. South Korea.


    January 22, 2008 at 10:39 pm

  2. Brandon:
    We were on the Gold Standard until 1971–hardly a new or radical idea. When you don’t tie your money to something of value, you decrease it’s value and create inflation. (That is why the dollar is worth 1/14th of its value from when we were on the Gold Standard.) As I mentioned in the post: If printing fiat money is so grand, why not just print our way into prosperity? Why does the government need to tax us when it could simply print all the money it needs? Answer: Because that would make the dollar increasingly worthless as you flood the marketplace with it. A dollar that can be redeemed for the equivalent amount in gold is stronger–much stronger.

    As for the ‘neo-isolationism’ tag–I simply don’t understand that. If minding your own business and refraining from projecting unnecessary military might around the globe is ‘isolationist’, sign me up. Besides, Dr Paul advocates diplomacy and free trade with everyone–including Cuba–that’s not isolationism. As it is now, the U.S.’s foreign policy ‘isolates’ Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Non-interventionism is what George Washington stood for. I’d say Dr Paul is in pretty good company.


    January 23, 2008 at 12:19 pm

  3. Matt:
    There is the fallacy, that gold is a standard. What is gold other than a metal? You can’t run your car on it, cook it for diner, cloth your family, or do most anything else with it that is needed to sustain life. Like many things, it is just a metal that really only has 3 main uses: jewelry, some manufactured good (electronics), and as means of barter. It is no different than silver, diamonds, or crude oil for that manner. Actual oil is more useful as it can be used for other purposes.

    My point is that it is arbitrarily picked as something to fix value to. But even that is flawed because the value goes up and down, it is not fixed in time. If the world really implodes, it isn’t worth anything, see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, you can’t eat it. I do not advocate printing our way to prosperity, al la the Weimar Republic. Money (or gold) is just some arbitrary item we have fixed out hope, but in reality our hopes are really places in the faith of the government to repay its debt and maintain peace, regardless of a gold standard.

    People hold to it like some mythical golded fleese that will solve all our problems. Even if it were true (which it is not), there is no way we could move back to it, the world has moved past that, not just us. As for the idea that adjusting the rates is printing money, that is also false. Don’t confuse the money multipler with printing money. All exchanges on the macro or micro level are based on perceved value.


    January 24, 2008 at 11:32 pm

  4. Your point is taken–but then, nothing has inherent value. Value, as you pointed out, is assigned based upon how much people desire something. How else can we explain sports memorabilia? I agree, I don’t understand why a metal–or shiny rocks (diamonds) for that matter–have such value. Still, gold has, throughout history, been valuable.

    That value is also more preferable than fiat money because it is tangible and fixed. If you have 25 pounds of gold, you have 25 pounds of gold. You cannot inflate it by merely making more–unless you are an alchemist, in which case the whole exercise would become moot.

    There has to be something of value–and somewhat stable–behind money. Throughout history it has been precious metals; that’s just the way it is. I can’t explain it.

    One thing we can agree upon–the current system is not working. I am not married to the gold standard but we must do something different from what we are doing and that has, historically, been the best method devised.


    January 25, 2008 at 11:33 am

  5. true, we just need people who won’t incessantly tinker with things. they need to stop trying to regulate swing by all this interventist federal policy. Set the taxes low, have minimums standards that are full enforced (unlike the opposite we have now), and let the people and states do the rest.

    If individual states or city want to regulate more, let them, i can always more. Not so when the feds tinker, also why i am opposed to how R. Vs. E. was handled, that is a state issue.


    January 25, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: