ok firstly, yes i am an idiot when it comes to economics, which is why im asking. secondly, i would ask some paulfags, but i doubt theyd give me a proper answer. anyway here it is:


Can someone explain to me the logic behind Ron Paul's gold standard sehnsucht? He's so against inflation and producing new money, but with a growing populace and economy, how would producing no new money work? Reading this page

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

i see he cries that "a dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to a dollar in 1913 when the Federal Reserve got in." So does he want to keep the amount and worth of money static? The population of the US in 1910 was about 92 million. Today, in 2008 its 300 million. With a workforce proportionally higher, right? So how would it work?

Isnt that like having a large pizza. between 4 people. lets say there are 4 slices, and each slice is enough to fill each persons tummy. But the population grows to 12 people. There would be 3 people to each slice. There would either have to be more pizzas, right? OR the cost of living would have to go down so as to make a 1/3 of a slice sufficient. What does ron paul say about that? Or does he advocate social darwinism? Where only 1/3 of the population will get the pizza and the other 2/3 will die? IF so, how does that fit in with his being a Christfag?????

Im not a troll, it'd just be cool if someone could explain this to me. Paulfags and Paulhaters alike. And yes I am a retard at economics so forgive me. Just a eurofag taking interest in American politics.