I haven't heard anything from RP that makes me want to vote for him. He wants to dismantle the federal government (good or bad is personal opinion) and send us back. WAY back. Giving states the power to create their own laws. Cutting off all ties from the rest of the world. Wrangling up and deporting every illegal currently in the country and spend more money on closing our borders than educating our children.
Please, if you support RP, tell me what about him is appealing?
Well since you didn't outright insult and attack the man, i'll respond civil. But once again, you are massively misunderstanding his intentions.
First, "sending us way way back", uh you mean to the principles this country was FOUNDED on? Individual liberty and LOCAL government by the people with heavily restricted federal government regulated strictly by the constitution? OMFG! We're gonna die.
Second, Ron Paul has CONSISTENTLY argued for INCREASED CONVERSATION AND TRADE with foreign nations. I don't know HOW you can think he wants to isolate us from the world. You think because he wants to bring ALL the troops home he doesn't want to talk? The troops aren't our ambassadors. WTF? HE ARGUED TO TALK WITH CASTRO AND GOT BOOED IN THE LATINO DEBATE! Where are you getting this notion from? TRADE AND FRIENDSHIP WITH ALL NAITONS, ENTANGLING ALLIANCES WITH NONE!
As far as the illegal immigrants and the educational system are concerned. Once again, WTF? He doesn't want to round em up and send em home, and he doesn't want to build a wall. HE WANTS TO STOP INCENTIVISING illegal immigration. Unfortunately 2\3rds of this message board, most liberals in general, and half the country HAS A FUCKING HARD ON FOR GIVING WELFARE TO ILLEGAL FUCKING IMMIGRANTS! Like i said, i have sympathy for them, and it sucks that they are enticed by employers that will break the law to employ them,BUT WE SHOULDNT SUBSIDIZE THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIONS!
And he jsut WANTS TO GET RID OF THE DEPT. OF EDUCATION, not stop educational spending (which at a state level would need to and would be ABLE to massively increase if we got rid of the income tax, and STOPPED THE FED from ruining the dollar AND stopped waging "war" on nations that pose us no fucking threat!).
He just wants the STATES TO CONTROL IT.
Why? Because all Federal control over education has done is MASSIVELY LOWER THE IQ OF AMERICA.
People can't see that because they are so stupid now, but its true. The literacy rate "way back" (excluding the poor slaves) was MUCH HIGHER than it is now. The number of newspapers and magazines in circulation was hundreds of times higher that it is now.
Public school was invented to cure a NON-EXISTANT problem -- kids not in school. But the federal governments own reports from the era show that NINETY EIGHT PERCENT OF CHILDREN WERE IN SCHOOL!
All the statist wanted was the ability to mold all children in to little fucking widgets to use in their factories. And they wanted to seperate children from their parents and INDOCTRINATE THEM!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
ron has been given plenty of chances to debate and speak his mind. and guess what....he hasnt done jack shit in the polls. nothing, zero, zip. the media and hte powers that be at these debating functions see this. its a waste of time to give him more air time. people know his message, have heard him speak, and are not voting for him.
the guy is 10 times worse at public speaking then bush.
American votes is in no way related to ones capabilities or whats good for America.....Bush being elected is a prime example.
As to Bush's speaking capability....to divide his speaking abilities by a factor of ten will get you an earth worm.....
So, please, enlighten us with your economic wisdom...
I'm done with "chill".
People here are so insulting, and they throw out snide remarks, and chastise and make fun of RP and his supporters. I'm not gonna chill anymore.
Whats the point. The american people, and the people on this boad ... they don't want a civil fucking debate ... they want sensationalism!
So i'll play the game.
Lets go at it.
Come on.
Bring your best fucking argument and insult and cram it down my throat.
I am standing firm on my positions which are entrenched in personal liberty, economic freedom, and peaceful, non interventionist foreign policy.
As far as my great economic wisdom, man i've been talking about the Fed and the dollar and all that ALL over this board for months. There are at least a dozen rock solid books abou how fucked up central bank controlled fiat currency is ... and yet you people think it works because we've "gotten away with it" for LESS THAN 100 YEARS ... and still WE HAD THE FUCKING GREAT DEPRESSION AND THE 70's and the mid to late 80s\early 90s and the late 90s and the year 2002 and now CURRENT.
So. How fucking great is it? It was supposed to get rid of the "business cycles" of the gold standard ... WHICH HAD NOTHING to do with the gold standard.... it had to do with IRRESPONSIBLE BANKS using fractional reserve lending WITHOUT proper disclosure or insurance\rating\regulation.
Instead it has caused MORE cycles of varying intensity, SOME worse, some not so bad ... but ALL OF THEM causing the dollar to get shittier and shittier ...
That's 25 of the last 90 years we've had big economic problems due to the federal reserve.
Is that success?
Is that better than a gold standard?
I'm not gonna explain it all here, because frankly, ya'll just told me america wants fucking cute little soundbytes, and THERE ARE NONE.
You have to do your fucking homework, read a book or two, and dig in to this shit. Monetary policy is DEEP SHIT, and if you begin to grasp it, you realize that Fiat currency STINKS TO HIGH HELL.
"If the American people ever allow banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the corporation that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson
Do you need it spelled out any fucking clearer?
HOMELESS!
notice how jefferson mentions "the corporations that grow up around them" ???
THINK HE KNEW WHAT THE FUCK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT?
Here are some SOUND BITES FOR YOU:
"Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its power but the truth is-the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will."
- Congressman Louis T. McFadden, 1933, Chairman, Banking and Currency Committee
“You have to choose [as a voter] between trusting to the natural stability of gold and the natural stability of the honesty and intelligence of the members of the Government. And, with due respect for these gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the Capitalist system lasts, to vote for gold.” - George Bernard Shaw
“Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value ---- zero.” - Voltaire
"The decrease in purchasing power incurred by holders of money due to inflation imparts gains to the issuers of money--." -- St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, Review, Nov. 1975, p.22
"Without the confidence factor, many believe a paper money system is liable to collapse eventually." -- Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Gold, p. 10
"Emitting bills of credit, or the creation of money by private corporations, is what is expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution." - U.S. Supreme Court, Craig v. Missouri,
4 Peters 410.
"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalistic System was to debauch the currency. . . Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose." -- John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." -- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
WERE THESE PEOPLE ALL STUPID FOOLS?
Or is it, as John Adams said, the majority of Americans who live in "downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation" ?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Well since you didn't outright insult and attack the man, i'll respond civil. But once again, you are massively misunderstanding his intentions.
First, "sending us way way back", uh you mean to the principles this country was FOUNDED on? Individual liberty and LOCAL government by the people with heavily restricted federal government regulated strictly by the constitution? OMFG! We're gonna die.
Second, Ron Paul has CONSISTENTLY argued for INCREASED CONVERSATION AND TRADE with foreign nations. I don't know HOW you can think he wants to isolate us from the world. You think because he wants to bring ALL the troops home he doesn't want to talk? The troops aren't our ambassadors. WTF? HE ARGUED TO TALK WITH CASTRO AND GOT BOOED IN THE LATINO DEBATE! Where are you getting this notion from? TRADE AND FRIENDSHIP WITH ALL NAITONS, ENTANGLING ALLIANCES WITH NONE!
As far as the illegal immigrants and the educational system are concerned. Once again, WTF? He doesn't want to round em up and send em home, and he doesn't want to build a wall. HE WANTS TO STOP INCENTIVISING illegal immigration. Unfortunately 2\3rds of this message board, most liberals in general, and half the country HAS A FUCKING HARD ON FOR GIVING WELFARE TO ILLEGAL FUCKING IMMIGRANTS! Like i said, i have sympathy for them, and it sucks that they are enticed by employers that will break the law to employ them,BUT WE SHOULDNT SUBSIDIZE THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIONS!
And he jsut WANTS TO GET RID OF THE DEPT. OF EDUCATION, not stop educational spending.
He just wants the STATES TO CONTROL IT.
Why? Because all Federal control over education has done is MASSIVELY LOWER THE IQ OF AMERICA.
People can't see that because they are so stupid now, but its true. The literacy rate "way back" (excluding the poor slaves) was MUCH HIGHER than it is now. The number of newspapers and magazines in circulation was hundreds of times higher that it is now.
Public school was invented to cure a NON-EXISTANT problem -- kids not in school. But the federal governments own reports from the era show that NINETY EIGHT PERCENT OF CHILDREN WERE IN SCHOOL!
All the statist wanted was the ability to mold all children in to little fucking widgets to use in their factories. And they wanted to seperate children from their parents and INDOCTRINATE THEM!
1. The whole local government controlling their own states thing didn't work out too well, which is why the federal government stepped in. If a state decided to bring back slavery, guess who'd be brought in to stop it? The FBI, which is one of the organizations he wants to eliminate.
2. Once again, he wants Corporations to speak on behalf of our country, like I said before. Also he doesn't want to bring all of our troops home. He's still going after Bin Laden, and not only that, but from his Website:
H.R. 3216 would authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal, naming private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to fight against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas.
He wants to outsource our wars to corporations, too? Sounds Great.
3. From his website:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
He wants to Physically secure our borders with a metaphysical object?
Website:
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
So what truly makes an American if being born here doesn't count? Now, people who sneak into the country to have their children born here, of course that's not the best option, but being born here is the only thing that "real" Americans have. Does that mean that we should all be deported, leaving the original colonizing peoples their country?
Also, to think that illegal immigrants come here just to be on welfare is idiotic. Yes, there are illegal immigrants who don't want to work that are on welfare. But there are plenty of white people in the same situation.
4. So there was no problem with literacy "way back when". (As long as you only count wealthy white people) And again, the report that you "qoute" (Yes, I know putting the word qoute inside qoutations is a little ironic) Does it include slaves? Poor people who weren't counted as "People"?
And what sort of things are they being indoctrinated with? Evolution?
Also, so there were more magazines and newspapers. So what? You want more trees cut down so everyone can have a say? And plenty of people have a say on the internet (and you can find some literate ones out there, you just have to dig, so don't bash me on this point.)
And the reason the average IQ is lower (and some experts are even wary of using IQ as a measure of intelligence) is because people who have higher IQs have fewer children (about 1.2). So maybe evolution doesn't want "Brainy" people, and is fazing them out?
Anyway, thanks for laying out a few ideas, even with the caps-lock and bold fonts.
You can quote people all you want. In theory, yeah, it all sounds great. And, yes, it is true that if people lose faith in a currency not backed by gold it will become worthless.
1. Just because you've been talking about the Fed and the dollar all over this board for months doesn't give you any credibility as to your economic knowledge.
2. Show me an example of a country that has a long tradition of economic prosperity that does not have a central bank and whose currency is not pegged to another country's.
3. I'll let you have the Great Depression as an example where the Fed screwed up. However, Keynesian Economics had not yet been introduced. There was a small recession from 1973-1975 and that was due to another unknown phenomenon called stagflation. There was no recession from 1975-1980 - real GDP increased in each of those years. There was another small recession from 1981-1982 due to the S&L crisis. Again, there was no recession from 1985-1992. But there was from 1991-1992. And then, we have not had a decrease in real GDP since then.
But hell, I guess GDP numbers don't mean a thing. So just throw some more outdated quotes at me and we'll call it good...
1. The whole local government controlling their own states thing didn't work out too well, which is why the federal government stepped in. If a state decided to bring back slavery, guess who'd be brought in to stop it? The FBI, which is one of the organizations he wants to eliminate.
13th Amendment To The United States Constitution - Slavery Abolished ... maybe you are the one who needs to get a grip on reality. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, remember? Even if he was a racist and wanted to overturn the constitution, do you see 2\3rds of congress approving the repeal of the 13th ammendment? Either way your problem shouldn't be with states rights on this. I'm so sick of slavery being brought up as an argument over states rights.
2. Once again, he wants Corporations to speak on behalf of our country,
How is wanting to TALK with other nations and not make war with them "letting corporations speak on behalf of our country"? Corporations can say whatever the hell they want. You want to ban them from talking to foreigners? :rolleyes: ... where the HELL are you pulling this corporations speaking for America crap? He wants ambassadors and statesmen to speak to foreign nations.
And FYI, all of our little wars are highly profitable to GE and Lockheed and Haliburton ... i would call that "speaking" for America. :rolleyes:
He's still going after Bin Laden, and not only that, but from his Website:
H.R. 3216 would authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal, naming private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to fight against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas.
He wants to outsource our wars to corporations, too? Sounds Great.
Ok. You're right. He wants to leave troops overseas to do the ONE thing they should be doing right now. Going after the ONE known guy who allegedly is behind the 911 attacks. So you think that is a bad idea :rolleyes:
As far as Letters of Marque and Reprisal go, Article I Section 10 of the constitution prohibits the STATES from issuing them, but NOT the federal government. So i can't see any reason to be pissed about that.
And NO, the CURRENT administration has outsourced the war to Blackwater. Ron Paul apparently wants to PAY UPON COMPLETION OF AN ACT. Ie ... not just hand money to blackwater, but say, "bring me his head." basicaly.
What is so wrong with that? You don't believe in an old fashioned "bounty"? Hell we have a bounty on Osama right now.
3. From his website:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
He wants to Physically secure our borders with a metaphysical object?
Website:
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
So what truly makes an American if being born here doesn't count? Now, people who sneak into the country to have their children born here, of course that's not the best option, but being born here is the only thing that "real" Americans have. Does that mean that we should all be deported, leaving the original colonizing peoples their country?
Also, to think that illegal immigrants come here just to be on welfare is idiotic. Yes, there are illegal immigrants who don't want to work that are on welfare. But there are plenty of white people in the same situation.
Guess i'll have to eat my words. This may be Ron Pauls only "flip flop" because i believe i have heard him argue that physicaly securing the border is not the answer. Though, if he is truly freeing up enough money to do this, AND to disuade illegal immigration in the first place, why not? At least its not wasting trillions of dollars on wars. Can't we have a secure border? Do you fundamentaly disagree with securing the borders? Can we at least try, before we give up? Shit how long has the war on drugs gone on with no real results? Lets at least give it an old fashioned heave-ho. I personaly don't think Ron Paul is hard line on a border fence, but i think he does want border patrols. As for birthright citizenship, that was an ammendment to the constitution made to allow SLAVES to have children who are citizens, not protect every fucking illegal immigrant in the world from coming here. Again, do your homework. Maybe the ammendment has outlived its usefulness? Just maybe? And i don't think they come here "just to be on welfare", i said, "they are enticed by jobs that employers illegaly give them" ... but YOU DON'T ENCOURAGE THEM BY GIVING THEM WELFARE!
4. So there was no problem with literacy "way back when". (As long as you only count wealthy white people) And again, the report that you "qoute" (Yes, I know putting the word qoute inside qoutations is a little ironic) Does it include slaves? Poor people who weren't counted as "People"?
And what sort of things are they being indoctrinated with? Evolution?
Also, so there were more magazines and newspapers. So what? You want more trees cut down so everyone can have a say? And plenty of people have a say on the internet (and you can find some literate ones out there, you just have to dig, so don't bash me on this point.)
And the reason the average IQ is lower (and some experts are even wary of using IQ as a measure of intelligence) is because people who have higher IQs have fewer children (about 1.2). So maybe evolution doesn't want "Brainy" people, and is fazing them out?
Anyway, thanks for laying out a few ideas, even with the caps-lock and bold fonts.
We're just gonna have to agree to disagree here man.
I'm not gonna argue all this crap about evolution and breeding habits ... you know as well as i that there can be more than one cause of a problem ... and i'm not gonna go beat this fucking slavery crap to death again either ... like i said, i'm so fucking sick of pussy ass liberals throwing slavery in the face of every person who disagrees with current federal imperialism. Yeah slavery sucked. It was a huge and gross violation of fundamental principles of the constitution. It doesn't mean that because we once had slavery that everything the constitution stands for is wrong. And the constitution doesn't give the federal goverment power to control the education of the state's citizens ... and people (yes, unfortunately excluding blacks who had been recently freed from slavery) were on the average more literate than they are now ... by leaps and bounds, actualy.
So.
???
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Show me an example of a country that has a long tradition of economic prosperity that does not have a central bank and whose currency is not pegged to another country's.
Have you actualy read the history of European central banking?
From Austria, to the Netherlands, to England proper ... ALL of them had HUGE downfalls when the switched to pure fiat currency.
How about the Romans? how did they do?
You want to argue basicaly, that since we have, in the "Keynesian" age, become better at playing this stupid shell game that we are beating the house?
As you said yourself, "In theory, yeah, it all sounds great".
How can you not see the perverse nature of your own arguments.
Fiat currency has CONSISTENTLY proven to be a DISASTER.
Only in the last 100 years has the world been able to "fake it" by making the game increasingly more complex ... and ultimately EXTRACTING THAT WEALTH FROM YOU!
Maybe you think everything is smashing, but what you CANT see is where and how you would be living today if you had all the wealth that you had HONESTLY accumulated in your life with out it being stolen by inflationary policies.
You sound like you know what you're talking about, or atleast you throw out a lot of numbers.
But ask yourself this, what the FUCK does "Real GDP" have ANYTHING to do with The Fed and what we are talking about?
The DEFINITION of Real GDP is that it is INFLATION ADJUSTED!
OF COURSE the economy is fucking growing! (or atleast one would HOPE it always is) ... Americans are smart (sometimes), innovative, and the population has histioricaly grown ... of COURSE the raw output would increase ... INFLATION ADJUSTED.
But you just quoted a number which flat IGNORES the problem we are addressing.
???????????????????????????????????????????
I'm not even gonna argue the "outdated quotes" bullshit.
If you think history doesn't fucking repeat, you don't know shit about history. Our founding fathers weren't stupid, and it wasn't "in theory". THEY TRIED PAPER MONEY. REMEMBER THE TERM "GREENBACK"? Yeah ... WE STILL USE IT!
But they found it to be a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE DESTRUCTIVE SYSTEM! "NOT WORTH A CONTINENTAL" ??? RING A BELL?
George Washington, of the massive inflation brought by WAR AND INFLATION TO FUND THE WAR: "A wagon load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon load of provisions."
Who gives a fuck about Real GDP if no one in THIS country can afford the goods.
Thomas Jefferson in 1786, AGAIN refering to INFLATION and THE WAR IT PAID FOR:
"Every one, through whose hands a bill passed, lost on that bill what it lost in value during the time it was in his hands. This was a real tax on him; and in this way the people of the United States actually contributed those ... millions of dollars during the war, and by a mode of taxation the most oppressive of all because the most unequal of all."
So again.
WHAT SOUNDS GOOD IN THEORY?
Because it is PROVEN not to work.
And it is being proven again RIGHT NOW!
What does the dollar index say these days?
And the REAL irony, the dollar index is weighted against a basket of OTHER WORTHLESS PAPER MONEY.
PFfft.
Our money sucks so bad that its not even worth what other worthless crap was worth 20 years ago. Its actualy 25% less valuable than every other major fiat piece of junk currency out there. So if it's 25% less valuable than other INFLATIONARY currencies in 30 some years, how much REAL inflation have we seen? 30%? 40%? 50%?
Gold and oil are now DOUBLE.
SEems like the answer is 50%
huh?
Good in theory, huh?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I can't even follow your arguments. First you try to bring out some point about recessions with false information. Then you say "OF COURSE the economy is fucking growing!" The very definition of a recession is a shrinking economy. Now apparently you don't see the value in adjusting for inflation when talking numbers, so fine. Let's use nominal GDP. When you use nominal GDP, we have not had a recession since 1938 - been a real rough 70 years in terms of nominal GDP - someone make it stop...
13th Amendment To The United States Constitution - Slavery Abolished ... maybe you are the one who needs to get a grip on reality. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, remember? Even if he was a racist and wanted to overturn the constitution, do you see 2\3rds of congress approving the repeal of the 13th ammendment? Either way your problem shouldn't be with states rights on this. I'm so sick of slavery being brought up as an argument over states rights.
How is wanting to TALK with other nations and not make war with them "letting corporations speak on behalf of our country"? Corporations can say whatever the hell they want. You want to ban them from talking to foreigners? :rolleyes: ... where the HELL are you pulling this corporations speaking for America crap? He wants ambassadors and statesmen to speak to foreign nations.
And FYI, all of our little wars are highly profitable to GE and Lockheed and Haliburton ... i would call that "speaking" for America. :rolleyes:
Ok. You're right. He wants to leave troops overseas to do the ONE thing they should be doing right now. Going after the ONE known guy who allegedly is behind the 911 attacks. So you think that is a bad idea :rolleyes:
As far as Letters of Marque and Reprisal go, Article I Section 10 of the constitution prohibits the STATES from issuing them, but NOT the federal government. So i can't see any reason to be pissed about that.
And NO, the CURRENT administration has outsourced the war to Blackwater. Ron Paul apparently wants to PAY UPON COMPLETION OF AN ACT. Ie ... not just hand money to blackwater, but say, "bring me his head." basicaly.
What is so wrong with that? You don't believe in an old fashioned "bounty"? Hell we have a bounty on Osama right now.
Guess i'll have to eat my words. This may be Ron Pauls only "flip flop" because i believe i have heard him argue that physicaly securing the border is not the answer. Though, if he is truly freeing up enough money to do this, AND to disuade illegal immigration in the first place, why not? At least its not wasting trillions of dollars on wars. Can't we have a secure border? Do you fundamentaly disagree with securing the borders? Can we at least try, before we give up? Shit how long has the war on drugs gone on with no real results? Lets at least give it an old fashioned heave-ho. I personaly don't think Ron Paul is hard line on a border fence, but i think he does want border patrols. As for birthright citizenship, that was an ammendment to the constitution made to allow SLAVES to have children who are citizens, not protect every fucking illegal immigrant in the world from coming here. Again, do your homework. Maybe the ammendment has outlived its usefulness? Just maybe? And i don't think they come here "just to be on welfare", i said, "they are enticed by jobs that employers illegaly give them" ... but YOU DON'T ENCOURAGE THEM BY GIVING THEM WELFARE!
We're just gonna have to agree to disagree here man.
I'm not gonna argue all this crap about evolution and breeding habits ... you know as well as i that there can be more than one cause of a problem ... and i'm not gonna go beat this fucking slavery crap to death again either ... like i said, i'm so fucking sick of pussy ass liberals throwing slavery in the face of every person who disagrees with current federal imperialism. Yeah slavery sucked. It was a huge and gross violation of fundamental principles of the constitution. It doesn't mean that because we once had slavery that everything the constitution stands for is wrong. And the constitution doesn't give the federal goverment power to control the education of the state's citizens ... and people (yes, unfortunately excluding blacks who had been recently freed from slavery) were on the average more literate than they are now ... by leaps and bounds, actualy.
So.
???
1. But who's going to enforce this when the states decide what they're going to allow and disallow? Fine, forget slavery. Let's say state X says it's okay to execute the differently-abled (I think that the new OK term). Do we just have to go along with it?
2. I'm against private armies. Period. I don't care who pays them. To say, "Kill this person and we'll pay you." Are we going to take responsibility for the collateral damage they do? I'm against Blackwater, and I'm against this.
3. I don't know where he's going to get the money without any money being colelcted on a federal level. As far as birthright citizenship, does that mean that everyone born in this country has to apply for citizenship? And to argue that they aren't here for welfare, and in the same breath complain that they are being enticed here for welfare (with all caps again)? I don't get it. If they're not here for welfare, why bring it up?
4. Yes, let's just forget that we had slaves, and that they weren't considered people, weren't counted in a census, and were generally ignored. Let's forget all of that, and let's forget the poor people too, because we have to stop bringing that up. But on the other hand let's use studies that only sampled the upper-class.
And you really think that the upper-class was more literate than they are today?
Seems hard to believe to me.
...not to mention how they kept showing a double shot of McCain and RP every time Paul spoke...just so we could see McCain smirking...reminded me of a fav movie line, "wipe that face off your head, bitch"....
I have to say, I'm not a RP supporter (and not McCain) and even I was getting kind of ticked off at McCains face last night. He looked really smug and arrogant when RP was talking. He looked like an ass.
I can't even follow your arguments. First you try to bring out some point about recessions with false information. Then you say "OF COURSE the economy is fucking growing!" The very definition of a recession is a shrinking economy. Now apparently you don't see the value in adjusting for inflation when talking numbers, so fine. Let's use nominal GDP. When you use nominal GDP, we have not had a recession since 1938 - been a real rough 70 years in terms of nominal GDP - someone make it stop...
I hear you.
But now it sounds like you want to argue the semantics of the "outdated" "historical" definition of "recession" which most of (alot of) the talking heads are saying is no longer relevant.
But either way,
the real question is, who is going to take care of the mess swept under the rug?
In other words, if all of this growth that you are so hot for means that we are okay, how does that jive when juxatposed against the federal debt load.
In other words, if this whole system, being proped up by fiat money, based on t bills and debt ... if all of it is running on what amounts to cooked books ... ie. welfare is unfunded ... not to mention that if everyone tried to "withdraw", the FDIC would be BROKE in seconds ... thats why they would just rather bail out the whole system (talk again of a 500 BILLION DOLLAR bail out today!) either way they cut it, they HAVE TO INFLATE ... so they will just keep the system in tact.
But whats behind it all man?
What happens when the welfare debts become due?
What happens if one more straw gets piled on?
You don't seem to understand that fundamentaly it is ALL a house of cards ... and the cards are funny money ... and at this point all that has to happen is for china to fart out a few million Tbills in to the system and it could fall apart.
That's what i'm saying.
I'm not arguing about real growth ... real growth is based on just that ... REAL HUMAN EFFORT.
Unfortunately, the PAPER DOLLAR DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY HUMAN EFFORT. It is the fucking flip of a switch!
That is why GOLD is so important.
IT REQUIRES HUMAN EFFORT!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
1. But who's going to enforce this when the states decide what they're going to allow and disallow? Fine, forget slavery. Let's say state X says it's okay to execute the differently-abled (I think that the new OK term). Do we just have to go along with it?
2. I'm against private armies. Period. I don't care who pays them. To say, "Kill this person and we'll pay you." Are we going to take responsibility for the collateral damage they do? I'm against Blackwater, and I'm against this.
3. I don't know where he's going to get the money without any money being colelcted on a federal level. As far as birthright citizenship, does that mean that everyone born in this country has to apply for citizenship? And to argue that they aren't here for welfare, and in the same breath complain that they are being enticed here for welfare (with all caps again)? I don't get it. If they're not here for welfare, why bring it up?
4. Yes, let's just forget that we had slaves, and that they weren't considered people, weren't counted in a census, and were generally ignored. Let's forget all of that, and let's forget the poor people too, because we have to stop bringing that up. But on the other hand let's use studies that only sampled the upper-class.
And you really think that the upper-class was more literate than they are today?
Seems hard to believe to me.
You don't understand some of the things you are arguing.
And i have to go to work.
Birthright citizenship is an AMMENDMENT to the constitution that applies to children of NON-CITIZENS ... IE - SLAVES.
IT WAS FOR THE SLAVES!
WTF does that have to do with "everyone born in this country" ... if your parents are fucking citizens, you are a fucking citizen!
Anyhow.
Gotta go.
KNow you'll miss me.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
That is why GOLD is so important.
IT REQUIRES HUMAN EFFORT!
The thing I have always wondering about this theory is why GOLD? There are hundreds of other commodities that could possibly be chosen, why not iron or tungsten? Plus other than being shiny gold doesn't really do anything unless you work in electronics, why not something more useful like copper or oil?
The thing I have always wondering about this theory is why GOLD? There are hundreds of other commodities that could possibly be chosen, why not iron or tungsten? Plus other than being shiny gold doesn't really do anything unless you work in electronics, why not something more useful like copper or oil?
It's not always about what you understand.
Just like Jlew so handily points out when i make a bad "prediction" about the stock market. Sometimes you have to just accept that OTHERS are capable of determining something ... somethings WORTH, particularly ... better than you.
If i had shorted the market today, because i thought it wasn't worth as much as the charts said ... guess what?
No one would give a fuck. I was free to have my opinion, but the market would have proved me wrong ... pretty quickly.
The worth of any item (tangible or not) is determined by the aggregate concerns of ALL participants.
Humanity has collectively agreed that gold is worth significant exchange in the marketplace.
WHY IS GOLD VALUABLE?
Well ... besides the obvious value you point out in that it is a metal that is a shiny bold "royal" color, and maluable, and therefore great for making jewlery that most any girl in the world would love (except the ones who "prefer silver", lol) ...
BESIDES THAT,
gold has value because
a. it REQUIRES EFFORT TO EXTRACT FROM THE EARTH
b. that effort can be measured against the effort to produce SOMETHING ELSE
c. gold can be exchanged for said other item
d. UNLIKE tungsten or iron, gold IS RELATIVELY LIGHT WEIGHT, and therefore not only portable, but because ...
e. IT IS RARE, a small light weight amount is valuable enough to accquire items so expensive that an exhange made with iron or tungsten would be physicaly exhausting to complete. Also, BECAUSE IT IS IN LIMITED SUPPLY, YOU CAN BE ASSURED THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T JUST SUCKER YOU BUY DOUBLING, TRIPLING, OR MULTIPLYING TWENTY FOLD, THE SUPPLY OF IT! Thus, your wealth is protected, because no one has found a way to fool a reputable buyer in to exchanging hard earned wealth for a fraudulent replica of gold. (although fiat money is FOOLS GOLD!)
and finaly
f. IT IS NON PERISHABLE. which is why people don't trade loaves of bread or cabbages.
Plenty of people have made a comment that goes something like "Gold is not the perfect money, but this is not a perfect world. Sure, the supply is potentialy subject to manipulation. But the markets have a way of adjusting to equilibrium, and prices in the market can adjust with relative ease to such swings in the price of commodity money. However, on the other hand, if there is a BETTER money than gold, MAN HAS NOT FOUND IT YET!"
So.
There is your answer.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
b. that effort can be measured against the effort to produce SOMETHING ELSE
c. gold can be exchanged for said other item
d. UNLIKE tungsten or iron, gold IS RELATIVELY LIGHT WEIGHT, and therefore not only portable, but because ...
Plenty of people have made a comment that goes something like "Gold is not the perfect money, but this is not a perfect world. Sure, the supply is potentialy subject to manipulation. But the markets have a way of adjusting to equilibrium, and prices in the market can adjust with relative ease to such swings in the price of commodity money. However, on the other hand, if there is a BETTER money than gold, MAN HAS NOT FOUND IT YET!"
But a, b, and c could be said about any mineral. And with respect to d gold is much heavier than iron, that is why bricks of gold are so damn heavy. And if it is not perfect, why stick yourself to one mineral? Why not make the value of the dollar tied to two things combined (the value of a brick of gold on top of a barrel of oil)?
Sometimes you have to just accept that OTHERS are capable of determining something ... somethings WORTH, particularly ... better than you.
You mean like fiat money?
I completely understand the points you try to make about gold and the gold standard. I just don't think they are anymore relevant or correct than using monetary policy. Yeah, you get a long term price stability. But what do you have to sacrifice for that?
The economy would be much more susceptible to monetary shocks. If you look at when the US last used a real gold standard, pre-1913, you'll see the coefficient variant is much, much higher than when we really understood the implications of monetary policy, post-1946. Well what does that mean? It means deeper, more severe recessions and gives no one the ability to soften them with a tool like monetary policy. This naturally also means a higher rate of unemployment.
You also have to look at the cost of mining gold. Who's going to pay for that? And what about gold hoarding?
And then there is the issue of an increasing population. Gold is a limited resource and cannot expand with an expanding population (again leading to hoarding). There is an estimated 200,000 tonnes of gold on Earth.
Which brings up another interesting question. If we did switch back to the gold standard, how would we do it? So 200,000 tonnes of gold at say $900/oz sets the entire world's gold value at about $5.8 trillion. The current money supply for the United States alone is currently $10.2 trillion.
Sorry, going back to a gold standard is too much trouble. And, really, it just has different pros and different cons than the current fiat system.
I completely understand the points you try to make about gold and the gold standard. I just don't think they are anymore relevant or correct than using monetary policy. Yeah, you get a long term price stability. But what do you have to sacrifice for that?
The economy would be much more susceptible to monetary shocks. If you look at when the US last used a real gold standard, pre-1913, you'll see the coefficient variant is much, much higher than when we really understood the implications of monetary policy, post-1946. Well what does that mean? It means deeper, more severe recessions and gives no one the ability to soften them with a tool like monetary policy. This naturally also means a higher rate of unemployment.
You also have to look at the cost of mining gold. Who's going to pay for that? And what about gold hoarding?
And then there is the issue of an increasing population. Gold is a limited resource and cannot expand with an expanding population (again leading to hoarding). There is an estimated 200,000 tonnes of gold on Earth.
Which brings up another interesting question. If we did switch back to the gold standard, how would we do it? So 200,000 tonnes of gold at say $900/oz sets the entire world's gold value at about $5.8 trillion. The current money supply for the United States alone is currently $10.2 trillion.
Sorry, going back to a gold standard is too much trouble. And, really, it just has different pros and different cons than the current fiat system.
Number 18.
You are missing the boat.
Here is what you fail to account for:
1. The PRIMARY reason a gold standard is desirable is IT RESTRICTS THE ABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT YOU IN DEBT UP TO YOUR EYE BALLS, so that the government can quietly steal your wealth and spend it at will. You CAN NOT DO THIS WITH FIAT MONEY. That gives Government absolute power to STEAL YOUR WEALTH.
2. The "business cycles" that came with a gold standard have NOTHING TO DO WITH GOLD, and EVERYTHING to do with FRACTIONAL RESERVE LENDING ... that combined with dishonest banks, or at least banks that are not operating within a safe reserve margin ... whatever that may be (because if you can't cover everyones money with real wealth, it is NEVER safe ... that is of course ... UNLESS the govenrment is willing to put EVERYONE in to more debt by BAILING OUT THOSE RISKY STUPID BANKS!) ... do you understand this? THE ONLY reason it works now, is because the GOVERNMENT STEALS YOUR WEALTH TO "INSURE" THE BANKS, who have NO reason to keep their risk low, since their premium NEVER goes up, and infact, if they fuck up bad enough, IT GOES DOWN!
3. Fractional Reserve Lending will NEVER be inherently safe, but the RISKS can be minimized IF FREE MARKETS are allowed to evaluate and INSURE the banks based on FULL DiSCLOSURE OF BALANCE SHEETS ... note this can NOT be done with FIAT money because the ENTIRE system is a recursive scam at that point (you need to understand how the "reserve" process works to get that. but a dollar becomes nine, becomes 17, becomes 25, becomes etc etc etc ... 1X9 + [(1x9)-10%]+{[1X9]-10%]-10%} ... etc etc etc ... HOW DO YOU INSURE THAT ?
You need to understand that, and you need to understand that The Federal Reserve REMOVES INSURANCE FROM THE FREE MARKET and guarantees the most protection to THE BIGGEST, RISKIEST BANKS ... ENSURING BUSTS!
4.It is FOOLISH to insinuate that the limited availability of gold makes it impractical as a money source for 3 reasons.
a. the lesser reason - SILVER. DUH!
b. IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER HOW MUCH OF IT THERE IS! IT DOES NOT MATTER! ... if the amount of "wealth" in the world goes down in relation to the number of people ... the VALUE of that wealth just goes up ... ie ... since it is more rare, you can purchase more with it ... or conversely YOU NEED LESS OF IT PER PERSON.
c. as said before, THE LIMITED SUPPLY IS THE VERY REASON YOU WANT IT AS A CURRENCY IN THE FIRST PLACE ... and don't forget silver and copper!
What the hell is wrong with leaving the value of wealth to supply and demand, and not some fictional BS notion that the government printing press is a better determiner of how wealth should be "created".
:rolleyes:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Number 18.
You are missing the boat.
Here is what you fail to account for:
1. The PRIMARY reason a gold standard is desirable is IT RESTRICTS THE ABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT YOU IN DEBT UP TO YOUR EYE BALLS, so that the government can quietly steal your wealth and spend it at will. You CAN NOT DO THIS WITH FIAT MONEY. That gives Government absolute power to STEAL YOUR WEALTH.
2. The "business cycles" that came with a gold standard have NOTHING TO DO WITH GOLD, and EVERYTHING to do with FRACTIONAL RESERVE LENDING ... that combined with dishonest banks, or at least banks that are not operating within a safe reserve margin ... whatever that may be (because if you can't cover everyones money with real wealth, it is NEVER safe ... that is of course ... UNLESS the govenrment is willing to put EVERYONE in to more debt by BAILING OUT THOSE RISKY STUPID BANKS!) ... do you understand this? THE ONLY reason it works now, is because the GOVERNMENT STEALS YOUR WEALTH TO "INSURE" THE BANKS, who have NO reason to keep their risk low, since their premium NEVER goes up, and infact, if they fuck up bad enough, IT GOES DOWN!
3. Fractional Reserve Lending will NEVER be inherently safe, but the RISKS can be minimized IF FREE MARKETS are allowed to evaluate and INSURE the banks based on FULL DiSCLOSURE OF BALANCE SHEETS ... note this can NOT be done with FIAT money because the ENTIRE system is a recursive scam at that point (you need to understand how the "reserve" process works to get that. but a dollar becomes nine, becomes 17, becomes 25, becomes etc etc etc ... 1X9 + [(1x9)-10%]+{[1X9]-10%]-10%} ... etc etc etc ... HOW DO YOU INSURE THAT ?
You need to understand that, and you need to understand that The Federal Reserve REMOVES INSURANCE FROM THE FREE MARKET and guarantees the most protection to THE BIGGEST, RISKIEST BANKS ... ENSURING BUSTS!
4.It is FOOLISH to insinuate that the limited availability of gold makes it impractical as a money source for 3 reasons.
a. the lesser reason - SILVER. DUH!
b. IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER HOW MUCH OF IT THERE IS! IT DOES NOT MATTER! ... if the amount of "wealth" in the world goes down in relation to the number of people ... the VALUE of that wealth just goes up ... ie ... since it is more rare, you can purchase more with it ... or conversely YOU NEED LESS OF IT PER PERSON.
c. as said before, THE LIMITED SUPPLY IS THE VERY REASON YOU WANT IT AS A CURRENCY IN THE FIRST PLACE ... and don't forget silver and copper!
What the hell is wrong with leaving the value of wealth to supply and demand, and not some fictional BS notion that the government printing press is a better determiner of how wealth should be "created".
:rolleyes:
This is getting old.
1. I consider it my own responsibility to manage my debt, not the government's. If you are referring to the national debt, I agree that I don't agree with such a high level. But that's more attributable to an irresponsbile president's fiscal policy, not monetary policy.
2. This is my last post in this topic because you obviously take anything said completely out of context and I am tired of having to defend things I never said. I never said that business cycles have to do with gold. I said being on the gold standard lessens the ability to react to these cycles and creates deeper recessions.
3. I understand fractional reserve lending.
4. a.So you're saying that when we run out of gold, we just move to silver. Then when we run out of silver, we move to another metal. If we just keep moving from metal to metal, then who cares what backs our money? Yeah, copper. That's a precious metal.
b. You mean deflation. You should ask Japan about that.
c. Repetitive.
Finally, you don't seem to have an answer on how we would convert.
Again, there are just as many cons to the gold standard as there are to fiat. But you don't want to seem to acknowledge any of them. If the gold standard was really what you claim it to be, then why would we have ever switched? Must be a conspiracy...
1. I consider it my own responsibility to manage my debt, not the government's. If you are referring to the national debt, I agree that I don't agree with such a high level. But that's more attributable to some irresponsbile presidents' and congresses' fiscal policy, not monetary policy.
1. I consider it my own responsibility to manage my debt, not the government's. If you are referring to the national debt, I agree that I don't agree with such a high level. But that's more attributable to an irresponsbile president's fiscal policy, not monetary policy.
It is not I who isn't getting this, it is you, sir.
How you can sit there and say the ABILITY TO PRINT MONEY OUT OF NOTHING doesn't have MORE of an affect on the US Debt than the president's lame ass programs, is BEYOND COMPREHENSION.
1. THE NATIONAL DEBT IS MONITARY POLICY.
If you don't understand that, then you are right, you should just stop posting here.
US TREASURY BONDS ARE ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL GOVENRMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR "DOLLARS" PRINTED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
It's pretty simple.
The government uses the promise that YOUR productive capital can be stolen through both inflation and income tax in order to pay interest on a NEVER ENDING DEBT in order to secure money.
Everytime the government needs money, it issues DEBT to get "MONEY" ... the debt is REAL ... YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT WITH WORK ... YOU ... YOU YOU YOU! But the government doesn't do fucking jack shit, and neither does the banker who is getting filthy fucking rich on it ... he just flips a switch and makes some binaries in a bank account, or ink on a piece of paper ...
BUT THE GOVERNMENT GOES IN TO DEBT.
What the fuck does YOUR "own responsibility to manage YOUR debt" have ANYthing to do with US Fiscal Policy?
WTF?
2. "I said being on the gold standard lessens the ability to react to these cycles and creates deeper recessions." ...
you mean that being required to back the ILLUSION of wealth with the actual legal responsibility to PAY SUCH WEALTH ON DEMAND lessens the ability to react to these cycles?
Well, yeah ... duh!
I'm not gonna argue, if you operate in the real world, YOU HAVE TO ACT LIKE IT.
Your silly notion that the Government can continue to put YOU and ME in to DEEPER AND DEEPER DEBT (printing MORE AND MORE "money") and NEVER PAY THE CONSEQUENCE is what is fucking absurd.
At SOME point, the house of cards MUST fall.
Again, go ask Rome, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, England ... ASK ANY OF THEM.
And your silly argument about "ongoing prosperity being connected to fiat money" ... man that is as dumb as saying in 2000, "Look, we went 200 years without being attacked by airplanes plowing in to builidings ... your a fucking idiot if you think some terrorists could plow planes in to buildings! Look, history proves you wrong. Its never happened!" .... Pffft.
Having a gold standard REQUIRES ANY BANK TO OPERATE AS A HONEST BUSINESS ... meaning, if they issue notes (cash) ... THEY MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO BACK THAT WITH.
When you say gold lessens the ability to correct from a business cycle, what you don't follow is that
ALL YOU ARE DOING IS ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO GO FURTHER IN TO DEBT IN ORDER TO BAIL OUT THE BANKS!
What is so fucking hard to understand about that?
Fractional reserve lending is fractional reserve lending, regardless of whether that fraction is 90%, 50%, 10%, or what it currently is now ... ZERO PERCENT ... there are NO RESERVES ... only MORE PAPER ... and if the banks only AT MAXIMUM have ONE piece of paper in their vaults to cover NINE depositors' dollars ... then all it will take is for TWO of them to walk in the door, and the bank is shit out of luck ... maybe you don't follow the logic, or you say i'm making it too simplistic, but that is how it works ...
At some point, if people get nervous and want their money ... you know what happens? THE GOVENRMENT EITHER HAS TO STRAIGHT BAIL OUT THE BANKS BY LETTING THE FED OUTRIGHT PRINT MORE CASH in the form of some bullshit deal ... like this (where is that $20 billion coming from? THEY JUST PRINT IT) ... or they have to either decrease the reserve ratio, or they have to decrease the Fed Funds Rate, or the Discount Window, OR THEY HAVE TO ISSUE MORE BONDS AND TAKE ON MORE DIRECT DEBT.
ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT, THE GOVERNMENT TAKES ON DEBT TO BAIL OUT THE BANK!
That is a DIRECT result of MONITARY POLICY.
It has fucking ZERO to do with the dumbass who is president at the time or some fucking budget set up in washington.
ALL MONEY IS DEBT. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT DEFLATION TRY PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT.
If we pay down the national debt by 50%, you would LITERALY see a HUGE WAVE OF DEFLATION. Infact it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE To pay down that debt, because banks are allowed to issue loans at NINE to 1 on that debt, and therefore for EVERY dollar paid off of the debt, the banks would have to massively increase their reserves (which would NOT be possible, because by definition, you are retracting the money supply, so where are they gonna find more of it to add to their "reserves"?) , or call loans to keep their 9 to 1 ratios in line ... since they lost one of their "1" 's in the 9 to ONE ... so they would have NINE that need to get "called" as well.
DO you follow ANY of this?
Try reading some Eustice Mullins or G. Edward Griffin ... it MAY change your perspective. But honestly, you sound pretty hopelessly entrenched.
:(
[btw. if you want to talk about getting off the fed, we would have to talk about competing currencies. but to be honest, with the dollar as weak as it is, there are some significant problems their as well. Blunt analysis? There ain't no easy way out. ... its gonna be a HARD FALL, either way you take it]
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
What on gods green earth does YOUR personal financial stability have to do with THE GOVERNMENT?
You understand that YOUR PERSONAL debt load, thanks to uncle sam is $400K PLUS?
ARe you prepared to submit that today and NEVER see it again?
If we want to extinguish the national debt, EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA would owe $400,000 ... and then ... NO ONE WOULD HAVE ANY MONEY.
Literaly.
Think about that.
Then start to cry.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I'd have to pay off my entire mortgage tomorrow, I wouldn't have much money left either. I'd actually be havy in the negative. Does that mean I'm in big trouble?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
What on gods green earth does YOUR personal financial stability have to do with THE GOVERNMENT?
You understand that YOUR PERSONAL debt load, thanks to uncle sam is $400K PLUS?
ARe you prepared to submit that today and NEVER see it again?
If we want to extinguish the national debt, EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA would owe $400,000 ... and then ... NO ONE WOULD HAVE ANY MONEY.
Literaly.
Think about that.
Then start to cry.
How is that ignorant? I placed the blame on irresponsible fiscal policies. Maybe you can enlighten me in non-rhetoric filled English. If possible, in this brief explanation, could you try only capitalizing the leading letters of sentences and the first letter of proper nouns as well? I find that much easier to read.
If I'd have to pay off my entire mortgage tomorrow, I wouldn't have much money left either. I'd actually be havy in the negative. Does that mean I'm in big trouble?
Peace
Dan
You don't get it.
THE MONEY WOULD NOT EXIST.
IT WOULD BE EXTINGUISHED.
The Federal Debt is THE BACKING for our money.
Doesn't it strike you as funny that DEBT is backing a currency? Instead of GOLD, it is "DEBT"?
Huh.
Well that "debt" is YOUR HUMAN EFFORT.
So everytime the government wants more money, it offers YOUR EFFORT as backing.
Hey the sheeple are good for it, just give me the loot.
You people are hopelessly uninformed on this.
You need to stop arguing points you don't even understand on some minimal level, and start reading some books.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
How is that ignorant? I placed the blame on irresponsible fiscal policies. Maybe you can enlighten me in non-rhetoric filled English. If possible, in this brief explanation, could you try only capitalizing the leading letters of sentences and the first letter of proper nouns as well? I find that much easier to read.
Thank you.
What the fuck have i said that is rhetoric?
I'm giving you facts and truth!
The truth is, you can not have irresponsible fiscal policy with out irresponsible monitary policy.
This is like blaming guns for violence. It is the criminal that creates the violence, not the gun!
It is the ability to print money that enables the government to spend more than it has. Can you not see that by definition? Without fiat money, the only way for the government to get new money is to issue legitmate bonds ... bonds that are paid for by existing commodity money ... backed by human effort transformed in to gold backed currency ...
... that is how an honest government would function ... it wants to take on debt, it must extract it from the populace complicitly! ... with fiat money, that wealth is extracted through the hidden and insidious device of inflation!
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
What the fuck have i said that is rhetoric?
I'm giving you facts and truth!
The truth is, you can not have irresponsible fiscal policy with out irresponsible monitary policy.
This is like blaming guns for violence. It is the criminal that creates the violence, not the gun!
It is the ability to print money that enables the government to spend more than it has. Can you not see that by definition? Without fiat money, the only way for the government to get new money is to issue legitmate bonds ... bonds that are paid for by existing commodity money ... backed by human effort transformed in to gold backed currency ...
... that is how an honest government would function ... it wants to take on debt, it must extract it from the populace complicitly! ... with fiat money, that wealth is extracted through the hidden and insidious device of inflation!
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
It only becomes hard to comprehend because of the tone that it is written in. If you would debate without the extreme arrogance, people are, many times, more willing to accept your point even if they do not agree with it. People who happen to disagree with you are not beneath you. They just have a different take on issues whether you see them as right or wrong.
Outside of that, the Government would still be able to run a debt if we were placed back on the gold standard. They would be able to borrow just as much without the ability or intention of paying it back.
Doesn't it strike you as funny that DEBT is backing a currency? Instead of GOLD, it is "DEBT"?
Huh.
Well that "debt" is YOUR HUMAN EFFORT.
So everytime the government wants more money, it offers YOUR EFFORT as backing.
Hey the sheeple are good for it, just give me the loot.
You people are hopelessly uninformed on this.
You need to stop arguing points you don't even understand on some minimal level, and start reading some books.
Dude, not sharing your opinion is not the same as being stupid and uneducated. And you are very good at presenting your opinions in a way that doesnt make anyone want to stop up and listen.
My simple question was innocent enough. I have personally put myself into deep debt as I bought an apartment. How is that fundamentally different from the state owing money to external sources?
And as others have pointed out, it's not something inherent in the fiat system that you have a tremendous deficit. That's all policy from your current government.
A response without CAPS and 7 !!!!! after every sentecne would be much appreciated.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
Well since you didn't outright insult and attack the man, i'll respond civil. But once again, you are massively misunderstanding his intentions.
First, "sending us way way back", uh you mean to the principles this country was FOUNDED on? Individual liberty and LOCAL government by the people with heavily restricted federal government regulated strictly by the constitution? OMFG! We're gonna die.
Second, Ron Paul has CONSISTENTLY argued for INCREASED CONVERSATION AND TRADE with foreign nations. I don't know HOW you can think he wants to isolate us from the world. You think because he wants to bring ALL the troops home he doesn't want to talk? The troops aren't our ambassadors. WTF? HE ARGUED TO TALK WITH CASTRO AND GOT BOOED IN THE LATINO DEBATE! Where are you getting this notion from? TRADE AND FRIENDSHIP WITH ALL NAITONS, ENTANGLING ALLIANCES WITH NONE!
As far as the illegal immigrants and the educational system are concerned. Once again, WTF? He doesn't want to round em up and send em home, and he doesn't want to build a wall. HE WANTS TO STOP INCENTIVISING illegal immigration. Unfortunately 2\3rds of this message board, most liberals in general, and half the country HAS A FUCKING HARD ON FOR GIVING WELFARE TO ILLEGAL FUCKING IMMIGRANTS! Like i said, i have sympathy for them, and it sucks that they are enticed by employers that will break the law to employ them,BUT WE SHOULDNT SUBSIDIZE THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIONS!
And he jsut WANTS TO GET RID OF THE DEPT. OF EDUCATION, not stop educational spending (which at a state level would need to and would be ABLE to massively increase if we got rid of the income tax, and STOPPED THE FED from ruining the dollar AND stopped waging "war" on nations that pose us no fucking threat!).
He just wants the STATES TO CONTROL IT.
Why? Because all Federal control over education has done is MASSIVELY LOWER THE IQ OF AMERICA.
People can't see that because they are so stupid now, but its true. The literacy rate "way back" (excluding the poor slaves) was MUCH HIGHER than it is now. The number of newspapers and magazines in circulation was hundreds of times higher that it is now.
Public school was invented to cure a NON-EXISTANT problem -- kids not in school. But the federal governments own reports from the era show that NINETY EIGHT PERCENT OF CHILDREN WERE IN SCHOOL!
All the statist wanted was the ability to mold all children in to little fucking widgets to use in their factories. And they wanted to seperate children from their parents and INDOCTRINATE THEM!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
American votes is in no way related to ones capabilities or whats good for America.....Bush being elected is a prime example.
As to Bush's speaking capability....to divide his speaking abilities by a factor of ten will get you an earth worm.....
I'm done with "chill".
People here are so insulting, and they throw out snide remarks, and chastise and make fun of RP and his supporters. I'm not gonna chill anymore.
Whats the point. The american people, and the people on this boad ... they don't want a civil fucking debate ... they want sensationalism!
So i'll play the game.
Lets go at it.
Come on.
Bring your best fucking argument and insult and cram it down my throat.
I am standing firm on my positions which are entrenched in personal liberty, economic freedom, and peaceful, non interventionist foreign policy.
As far as my great economic wisdom, man i've been talking about the Fed and the dollar and all that ALL over this board for months. There are at least a dozen rock solid books abou how fucked up central bank controlled fiat currency is ... and yet you people think it works because we've "gotten away with it" for LESS THAN 100 YEARS ... and still WE HAD THE FUCKING GREAT DEPRESSION AND THE 70's and the mid to late 80s\early 90s and the late 90s and the year 2002 and now CURRENT.
So. How fucking great is it? It was supposed to get rid of the "business cycles" of the gold standard ... WHICH HAD NOTHING to do with the gold standard.... it had to do with IRRESPONSIBLE BANKS using fractional reserve lending WITHOUT proper disclosure or insurance\rating\regulation.
Instead it has caused MORE cycles of varying intensity, SOME worse, some not so bad ... but ALL OF THEM causing the dollar to get shittier and shittier ...
1929-1939, 1975-1980, 1985-1992, 2000-2002, 2007-???
That's 25 of the last 90 years we've had big economic problems due to the federal reserve.
Is that success?
Is that better than a gold standard?
I'm not gonna explain it all here, because frankly, ya'll just told me america wants fucking cute little soundbytes, and THERE ARE NONE.
You have to do your fucking homework, read a book or two, and dig in to this shit. Monetary policy is DEEP SHIT, and if you begin to grasp it, you realize that Fiat currency STINKS TO HIGH HELL.
"If the American people ever allow banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the corporation that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson
Do you need it spelled out any fucking clearer?
HOMELESS!
notice how jefferson mentions "the corporations that grow up around them" ???
THINK HE KNEW WHAT THE FUCK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT?
Here are some SOUND BITES FOR YOU:
"Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its power but the truth is-the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will."
- Congressman Louis T. McFadden, 1933, Chairman, Banking and Currency Committee
“You have to choose [as a voter] between trusting to the natural stability of gold and the natural stability of the honesty and intelligence of the members of the Government. And, with due respect for these gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the Capitalist system lasts, to vote for gold.” - George Bernard Shaw
“Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value ---- zero.” - Voltaire
"The decrease in purchasing power incurred by holders of money due to inflation imparts gains to the issuers of money--." -- St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, Review, Nov. 1975, p.22
"Without the confidence factor, many believe a paper money system is liable to collapse eventually." -- Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Gold, p. 10
"Emitting bills of credit, or the creation of money by private corporations, is what is expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution." - U.S. Supreme Court, Craig v. Missouri,
4 Peters 410.
"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalistic System was to debauch the currency. . . Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose." -- John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." -- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
HERE JUST READ THE WHOLE GODDAMN LIST OF quoteS
WERE THESE PEOPLE ALL STUPID FOOLS?
Or is it, as John Adams said, the majority of Americans who live in "downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation" ?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
1. The whole local government controlling their own states thing didn't work out too well, which is why the federal government stepped in. If a state decided to bring back slavery, guess who'd be brought in to stop it? The FBI, which is one of the organizations he wants to eliminate.
2. Once again, he wants Corporations to speak on behalf of our country, like I said before. Also he doesn't want to bring all of our troops home. He's still going after Bin Laden, and not only that, but from his Website:
H.R. 3216 would authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal, naming private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to fight against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas.
He wants to outsource our wars to corporations, too? Sounds Great.
3. From his website:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
He wants to Physically secure our borders with a metaphysical object?
Website:
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
So what truly makes an American if being born here doesn't count? Now, people who sneak into the country to have their children born here, of course that's not the best option, but being born here is the only thing that "real" Americans have. Does that mean that we should all be deported, leaving the original colonizing peoples their country?
Also, to think that illegal immigrants come here just to be on welfare is idiotic. Yes, there are illegal immigrants who don't want to work that are on welfare. But there are plenty of white people in the same situation.
4. So there was no problem with literacy "way back when". (As long as you only count wealthy white people) And again, the report that you "qoute" (Yes, I know putting the word qoute inside qoutations is a little ironic) Does it include slaves? Poor people who weren't counted as "People"?
And what sort of things are they being indoctrinated with? Evolution?
Also, so there were more magazines and newspapers. So what? You want more trees cut down so everyone can have a say? And plenty of people have a say on the internet (and you can find some literate ones out there, you just have to dig, so don't bash me on this point.)
And the reason the average IQ is lower (and some experts are even wary of using IQ as a measure of intelligence) is because people who have higher IQs have fewer children (about 1.2). So maybe evolution doesn't want "Brainy" people, and is fazing them out?
Anyway, thanks for laying out a few ideas, even with the caps-lock and bold fonts.
1. Just because you've been talking about the Fed and the dollar all over this board for months doesn't give you any credibility as to your economic knowledge.
2. Show me an example of a country that has a long tradition of economic prosperity that does not have a central bank and whose currency is not pegged to another country's.
3. I'll let you have the Great Depression as an example where the Fed screwed up. However, Keynesian Economics had not yet been introduced. There was a small recession from 1973-1975 and that was due to another unknown phenomenon called stagflation. There was no recession from 1975-1980 - real GDP increased in each of those years. There was another small recession from 1981-1982 due to the S&L crisis. Again, there was no recession from 1985-1992. But there was from 1991-1992. And then, we have not had a decrease in real GDP since then.
But hell, I guess GDP numbers don't mean a thing. So just throw some more outdated quotes at me and we'll call it good...
13th Amendment To The United States Constitution - Slavery Abolished ... maybe you are the one who needs to get a grip on reality. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, remember? Even if he was a racist and wanted to overturn the constitution, do you see 2\3rds of congress approving the repeal of the 13th ammendment? Either way your problem shouldn't be with states rights on this. I'm so sick of slavery being brought up as an argument over states rights.
How is wanting to TALK with other nations and not make war with them "letting corporations speak on behalf of our country"? Corporations can say whatever the hell they want. You want to ban them from talking to foreigners? :rolleyes: ... where the HELL are you pulling this corporations speaking for America crap? He wants ambassadors and statesmen to speak to foreign nations.
And FYI, all of our little wars are highly profitable to GE and Lockheed and Haliburton ... i would call that "speaking" for America. :rolleyes:
Ok. You're right. He wants to leave troops overseas to do the ONE thing they should be doing right now. Going after the ONE known guy who allegedly is behind the 911 attacks. So you think that is a bad idea :rolleyes:
As far as Letters of Marque and Reprisal go, Article I Section 10 of the constitution prohibits the STATES from issuing them, but NOT the federal government. So i can't see any reason to be pissed about that.
And NO, the CURRENT administration has outsourced the war to Blackwater. Ron Paul apparently wants to PAY UPON COMPLETION OF AN ACT. Ie ... not just hand money to blackwater, but say, "bring me his head." basicaly.
What is so wrong with that? You don't believe in an old fashioned "bounty"? Hell we have a bounty on Osama right now.
Guess i'll have to eat my words. This may be Ron Pauls only "flip flop" because i believe i have heard him argue that physicaly securing the border is not the answer. Though, if he is truly freeing up enough money to do this, AND to disuade illegal immigration in the first place, why not? At least its not wasting trillions of dollars on wars. Can't we have a secure border? Do you fundamentaly disagree with securing the borders? Can we at least try, before we give up? Shit how long has the war on drugs gone on with no real results? Lets at least give it an old fashioned heave-ho. I personaly don't think Ron Paul is hard line on a border fence, but i think he does want border patrols. As for birthright citizenship, that was an ammendment to the constitution made to allow SLAVES to have children who are citizens, not protect every fucking illegal immigrant in the world from coming here. Again, do your homework. Maybe the ammendment has outlived its usefulness? Just maybe? And i don't think they come here "just to be on welfare", i said, "they are enticed by jobs that employers illegaly give them" ... but YOU DON'T ENCOURAGE THEM BY GIVING THEM WELFARE!
We're just gonna have to agree to disagree here man.
I'm not gonna argue all this crap about evolution and breeding habits ... you know as well as i that there can be more than one cause of a problem ... and i'm not gonna go beat this fucking slavery crap to death again either ... like i said, i'm so fucking sick of pussy ass liberals throwing slavery in the face of every person who disagrees with current federal imperialism. Yeah slavery sucked. It was a huge and gross violation of fundamental principles of the constitution. It doesn't mean that because we once had slavery that everything the constitution stands for is wrong. And the constitution doesn't give the federal goverment power to control the education of the state's citizens ... and people (yes, unfortunately excluding blacks who had been recently freed from slavery) were on the average more literate than they are now ... by leaps and bounds, actualy.
So.
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Have you actualy read the history of European central banking?
From Austria, to the Netherlands, to England proper ... ALL of them had HUGE downfalls when the switched to pure fiat currency.
How about the Romans? how did they do?
You want to argue basicaly, that since we have, in the "Keynesian" age, become better at playing this stupid shell game that we are beating the house?
As you said yourself, "In theory, yeah, it all sounds great".
How can you not see the perverse nature of your own arguments.
Fiat currency has CONSISTENTLY proven to be a DISASTER.
Only in the last 100 years has the world been able to "fake it" by making the game increasingly more complex ... and ultimately EXTRACTING THAT WEALTH FROM YOU!
Maybe you think everything is smashing, but what you CANT see is where and how you would be living today if you had all the wealth that you had HONESTLY accumulated in your life with out it being stolen by inflationary policies.
You sound like you know what you're talking about, or atleast you throw out a lot of numbers.
But ask yourself this, what the FUCK does "Real GDP" have ANYTHING to do with The Fed and what we are talking about?
The DEFINITION of Real GDP is that it is INFLATION ADJUSTED!
OF COURSE the economy is fucking growing! (or atleast one would HOPE it always is) ... Americans are smart (sometimes), innovative, and the population has histioricaly grown ... of COURSE the raw output would increase ... INFLATION ADJUSTED.
But you just quoted a number which flat IGNORES the problem we are addressing.
???????????????????????????????????????????
I'm not even gonna argue the "outdated quotes" bullshit.
If you think history doesn't fucking repeat, you don't know shit about history. Our founding fathers weren't stupid, and it wasn't "in theory". THEY TRIED PAPER MONEY. REMEMBER THE TERM "GREENBACK"? Yeah ... WE STILL USE IT!
But they found it to be a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE DESTRUCTIVE SYSTEM! "NOT WORTH A CONTINENTAL" ??? RING A BELL?
George Washington, of the massive inflation brought by WAR AND INFLATION TO FUND THE WAR: "A wagon load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon load of provisions."
Who gives a fuck about Real GDP if no one in THIS country can afford the goods.
Thomas Jefferson in 1786, AGAIN refering to INFLATION and THE WAR IT PAID FOR:
"Every one, through whose hands a bill passed, lost on that bill what it lost in value during the time it was in his hands. This was a real tax on him; and in this way the people of the United States actually contributed those ... millions of dollars during the war, and by a mode of taxation the most oppressive of all because the most unequal of all."
So again.
WHAT SOUNDS GOOD IN THEORY?
Because it is PROVEN not to work.
And it is being proven again RIGHT NOW!
What does the dollar index say these days?
And the REAL irony, the dollar index is weighted against a basket of OTHER WORTHLESS PAPER MONEY.
PFfft.
Our money sucks so bad that its not even worth what other worthless crap was worth 20 years ago. Its actualy 25% less valuable than every other major fiat piece of junk currency out there. So if it's 25% less valuable than other INFLATIONARY currencies in 30 some years, how much REAL inflation have we seen? 30%? 40%? 50%?
Gold and oil are now DOUBLE.
SEems like the answer is 50%
huh?
Good in theory, huh?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
1. But who's going to enforce this when the states decide what they're going to allow and disallow? Fine, forget slavery. Let's say state X says it's okay to execute the differently-abled (I think that the new OK term). Do we just have to go along with it?
2. I'm against private armies. Period. I don't care who pays them. To say, "Kill this person and we'll pay you." Are we going to take responsibility for the collateral damage they do? I'm against Blackwater, and I'm against this.
3. I don't know where he's going to get the money without any money being colelcted on a federal level. As far as birthright citizenship, does that mean that everyone born in this country has to apply for citizenship? And to argue that they aren't here for welfare, and in the same breath complain that they are being enticed here for welfare (with all caps again)? I don't get it. If they're not here for welfare, why bring it up?
4. Yes, let's just forget that we had slaves, and that they weren't considered people, weren't counted in a census, and were generally ignored. Let's forget all of that, and let's forget the poor people too, because we have to stop bringing that up. But on the other hand let's use studies that only sampled the upper-class.
And you really think that the upper-class was more literate than they are today?
Seems hard to believe to me.
I have to say, I'm not a RP supporter (and not McCain) and even I was getting kind of ticked off at McCains face last night. He looked really smug and arrogant when RP was talking. He looked like an ass.
I hear you.
But now it sounds like you want to argue the semantics of the "outdated" "historical" definition of "recession" which most of (alot of) the talking heads are saying is no longer relevant.
But either way,
the real question is, who is going to take care of the mess swept under the rug?
In other words, if all of this growth that you are so hot for means that we are okay, how does that jive when juxatposed against the federal debt load.
In other words, if this whole system, being proped up by fiat money, based on t bills and debt ... if all of it is running on what amounts to cooked books ... ie. welfare is unfunded ... not to mention that if everyone tried to "withdraw", the FDIC would be BROKE in seconds ... thats why they would just rather bail out the whole system (talk again of a 500 BILLION DOLLAR bail out today!) either way they cut it, they HAVE TO INFLATE ... so they will just keep the system in tact.
But whats behind it all man?
What happens when the welfare debts become due?
What happens if one more straw gets piled on?
You don't seem to understand that fundamentaly it is ALL a house of cards ... and the cards are funny money ... and at this point all that has to happen is for china to fart out a few million Tbills in to the system and it could fall apart.
That's what i'm saying.
I'm not arguing about real growth ... real growth is based on just that ... REAL HUMAN EFFORT.
Unfortunately, the PAPER DOLLAR DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY HUMAN EFFORT. It is the fucking flip of a switch!
That is why GOLD is so important.
IT REQUIRES HUMAN EFFORT!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You don't understand some of the things you are arguing.
And i have to go to work.
Birthright citizenship is an AMMENDMENT to the constitution that applies to children of NON-CITIZENS ... IE - SLAVES.
IT WAS FOR THE SLAVES!
WTF does that have to do with "everyone born in this country" ... if your parents are fucking citizens, you are a fucking citizen!
Anyhow.
Gotta go.
KNow you'll miss me.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The thing I have always wondering about this theory is why GOLD? There are hundreds of other commodities that could possibly be chosen, why not iron or tungsten? Plus other than being shiny gold doesn't really do anything unless you work in electronics, why not something more useful like copper or oil?
Listen, pal, I don't want to think about who my parents are fucking.
Fine Birthright citizenship only applies to non-citizens.
So do we apply that retroactively? Kick everyone out?
It's not always about what you understand.
Just like Jlew so handily points out when i make a bad "prediction" about the stock market. Sometimes you have to just accept that OTHERS are capable of determining something ... somethings WORTH, particularly ... better than you.
If i had shorted the market today, because i thought it wasn't worth as much as the charts said ... guess what?
No one would give a fuck. I was free to have my opinion, but the market would have proved me wrong ... pretty quickly.
The worth of any item (tangible or not) is determined by the aggregate concerns of ALL participants.
Humanity has collectively agreed that gold is worth significant exchange in the marketplace.
WHY IS GOLD VALUABLE?
Well ... besides the obvious value you point out in that it is a metal that is a shiny bold "royal" color, and maluable, and therefore great for making jewlery that most any girl in the world would love (except the ones who "prefer silver", lol) ...
BESIDES THAT,
gold has value because
a. it REQUIRES EFFORT TO EXTRACT FROM THE EARTH
b. that effort can be measured against the effort to produce SOMETHING ELSE
c. gold can be exchanged for said other item
d. UNLIKE tungsten or iron, gold IS RELATIVELY LIGHT WEIGHT, and therefore not only portable, but because ...
e. IT IS RARE, a small light weight amount is valuable enough to accquire items so expensive that an exhange made with iron or tungsten would be physicaly exhausting to complete. Also, BECAUSE IT IS IN LIMITED SUPPLY, YOU CAN BE ASSURED THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T JUST SUCKER YOU BUY DOUBLING, TRIPLING, OR MULTIPLYING TWENTY FOLD, THE SUPPLY OF IT! Thus, your wealth is protected, because no one has found a way to fool a reputable buyer in to exchanging hard earned wealth for a fraudulent replica of gold. (although fiat money is FOOLS GOLD!)
and finaly
f. IT IS NON PERISHABLE. which is why people don't trade loaves of bread or cabbages.
Plenty of people have made a comment that goes something like "Gold is not the perfect money, but this is not a perfect world. Sure, the supply is potentialy subject to manipulation. But the markets have a way of adjusting to equilibrium, and prices in the market can adjust with relative ease to such swings in the price of commodity money. However, on the other hand, if there is a BETTER money than gold, MAN HAS NOT FOUND IT YET!"
So.
There is your answer.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
But a, b, and c could be said about any mineral. And with respect to d gold is much heavier than iron, that is why bricks of gold are so damn heavy. And if it is not perfect, why stick yourself to one mineral? Why not make the value of the dollar tied to two things combined (the value of a brick of gold on top of a barrel of oil)?
You mean like fiat money?
I completely understand the points you try to make about gold and the gold standard. I just don't think they are anymore relevant or correct than using monetary policy. Yeah, you get a long term price stability. But what do you have to sacrifice for that?
The economy would be much more susceptible to monetary shocks. If you look at when the US last used a real gold standard, pre-1913, you'll see the coefficient variant is much, much higher than when we really understood the implications of monetary policy, post-1946. Well what does that mean? It means deeper, more severe recessions and gives no one the ability to soften them with a tool like monetary policy. This naturally also means a higher rate of unemployment.
You also have to look at the cost of mining gold. Who's going to pay for that? And what about gold hoarding?
And then there is the issue of an increasing population. Gold is a limited resource and cannot expand with an expanding population (again leading to hoarding). There is an estimated 200,000 tonnes of gold on Earth.
Which brings up another interesting question. If we did switch back to the gold standard, how would we do it? So 200,000 tonnes of gold at say $900/oz sets the entire world's gold value at about $5.8 trillion. The current money supply for the United States alone is currently $10.2 trillion.
Sorry, going back to a gold standard is too much trouble. And, really, it just has different pros and different cons than the current fiat system.
Number 18.
You are missing the boat.
Here is what you fail to account for:
1. The PRIMARY reason a gold standard is desirable is IT RESTRICTS THE ABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT YOU IN DEBT UP TO YOUR EYE BALLS, so that the government can quietly steal your wealth and spend it at will. You CAN NOT DO THIS WITH FIAT MONEY. That gives Government absolute power to STEAL YOUR WEALTH.
2. The "business cycles" that came with a gold standard have NOTHING TO DO WITH GOLD, and EVERYTHING to do with FRACTIONAL RESERVE LENDING ... that combined with dishonest banks, or at least banks that are not operating within a safe reserve margin ... whatever that may be (because if you can't cover everyones money with real wealth, it is NEVER safe ... that is of course ... UNLESS the govenrment is willing to put EVERYONE in to more debt by BAILING OUT THOSE RISKY STUPID BANKS!) ... do you understand this? THE ONLY reason it works now, is because the GOVERNMENT STEALS YOUR WEALTH TO "INSURE" THE BANKS, who have NO reason to keep their risk low, since their premium NEVER goes up, and infact, if they fuck up bad enough, IT GOES DOWN!
3. Fractional Reserve Lending will NEVER be inherently safe, but the RISKS can be minimized IF FREE MARKETS are allowed to evaluate and INSURE the banks based on FULL DiSCLOSURE OF BALANCE SHEETS ... note this can NOT be done with FIAT money because the ENTIRE system is a recursive scam at that point (you need to understand how the "reserve" process works to get that. but a dollar becomes nine, becomes 17, becomes 25, becomes etc etc etc ... 1X9 + [(1x9)-10%]+{[1X9]-10%]-10%} ... etc etc etc ... HOW DO YOU INSURE THAT ?
You need to understand that, and you need to understand that The Federal Reserve REMOVES INSURANCE FROM THE FREE MARKET and guarantees the most protection to THE BIGGEST, RISKIEST BANKS ... ENSURING BUSTS!
4.It is FOOLISH to insinuate that the limited availability of gold makes it impractical as a money source for 3 reasons.
a. the lesser reason - SILVER. DUH!
b. IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER HOW MUCH OF IT THERE IS! IT DOES NOT MATTER! ... if the amount of "wealth" in the world goes down in relation to the number of people ... the VALUE of that wealth just goes up ... ie ... since it is more rare, you can purchase more with it ... or conversely YOU NEED LESS OF IT PER PERSON.
c. as said before, THE LIMITED SUPPLY IS THE VERY REASON YOU WANT IT AS A CURRENCY IN THE FIRST PLACE ... and don't forget silver and copper!
What the hell is wrong with leaving the value of wealth to supply and demand, and not some fictional BS notion that the government printing press is a better determiner of how wealth should be "created".
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
This is getting old.
1. I consider it my own responsibility to manage my debt, not the government's. If you are referring to the national debt, I agree that I don't agree with such a high level. But that's more attributable to an irresponsbile president's fiscal policy, not monetary policy.
2. This is my last post in this topic because you obviously take anything said completely out of context and I am tired of having to defend things I never said. I never said that business cycles have to do with gold. I said being on the gold standard lessens the ability to react to these cycles and creates deeper recessions.
3. I understand fractional reserve lending.
4. a.So you're saying that when we run out of gold, we just move to silver. Then when we run out of silver, we move to another metal. If we just keep moving from metal to metal, then who cares what backs our money? Yeah, copper. That's a precious metal.
b. You mean deflation. You should ask Japan about that.
c. Repetitive.
Finally, you don't seem to have an answer on how we would convert.
Again, there are just as many cons to the gold standard as there are to fiat. But you don't want to seem to acknowledge any of them. If the gold standard was really what you claim it to be, then why would we have ever switched? Must be a conspiracy...
Give me a break.
I agree with it this way much more.
It is not I who isn't getting this, it is you, sir.
How you can sit there and say the ABILITY TO PRINT MONEY OUT OF NOTHING doesn't have MORE of an affect on the US Debt than the president's lame ass programs, is BEYOND COMPREHENSION.
1. THE NATIONAL DEBT IS MONITARY POLICY.
If you don't understand that, then you are right, you should just stop posting here.
US TREASURY BONDS ARE ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL GOVENRMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR "DOLLARS" PRINTED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
It's pretty simple.
The government uses the promise that YOUR productive capital can be stolen through both inflation and income tax in order to pay interest on a NEVER ENDING DEBT in order to secure money.
Everytime the government needs money, it issues DEBT to get "MONEY" ... the debt is REAL ... YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT WITH WORK ... YOU ... YOU YOU YOU! But the government doesn't do fucking jack shit, and neither does the banker who is getting filthy fucking rich on it ... he just flips a switch and makes some binaries in a bank account, or ink on a piece of paper ...
BUT THE GOVERNMENT GOES IN TO DEBT.
What the fuck does YOUR "own responsibility to manage YOUR debt" have ANYthing to do with US Fiscal Policy?
WTF?
2. "I said being on the gold standard lessens the ability to react to these cycles and creates deeper recessions." ...
you mean that being required to back the ILLUSION of wealth with the actual legal responsibility to PAY SUCH WEALTH ON DEMAND lessens the ability to react to these cycles?
Well, yeah ... duh!
I'm not gonna argue, if you operate in the real world, YOU HAVE TO ACT LIKE IT.
Your silly notion that the Government can continue to put YOU and ME in to DEEPER AND DEEPER DEBT (printing MORE AND MORE "money") and NEVER PAY THE CONSEQUENCE is what is fucking absurd.
At SOME point, the house of cards MUST fall.
Again, go ask Rome, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, England ... ASK ANY OF THEM.
And your silly argument about "ongoing prosperity being connected to fiat money" ... man that is as dumb as saying in 2000, "Look, we went 200 years without being attacked by airplanes plowing in to builidings ... your a fucking idiot if you think some terrorists could plow planes in to buildings! Look, history proves you wrong. Its never happened!" .... Pffft.
Having a gold standard REQUIRES ANY BANK TO OPERATE AS A HONEST BUSINESS ... meaning, if they issue notes (cash) ... THEY MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO BACK THAT WITH.
When you say gold lessens the ability to correct from a business cycle, what you don't follow is that
ALL YOU ARE DOING IS ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO GO FURTHER IN TO DEBT IN ORDER TO BAIL OUT THE BANKS!
What is so fucking hard to understand about that?
Fractional reserve lending is fractional reserve lending, regardless of whether that fraction is 90%, 50%, 10%, or what it currently is now ... ZERO PERCENT ... there are NO RESERVES ... only MORE PAPER ... and if the banks only AT MAXIMUM have ONE piece of paper in their vaults to cover NINE depositors' dollars ... then all it will take is for TWO of them to walk in the door, and the bank is shit out of luck ... maybe you don't follow the logic, or you say i'm making it too simplistic, but that is how it works ...
At some point, if people get nervous and want their money ... you know what happens? THE GOVENRMENT EITHER HAS TO STRAIGHT BAIL OUT THE BANKS BY LETTING THE FED OUTRIGHT PRINT MORE CASH in the form of some bullshit deal ... like this (where is that $20 billion coming from? THEY JUST PRINT IT) ... or they have to either decrease the reserve ratio, or they have to decrease the Fed Funds Rate, or the Discount Window, OR THEY HAVE TO ISSUE MORE BONDS AND TAKE ON MORE DIRECT DEBT.
ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT, THE GOVERNMENT TAKES ON DEBT TO BAIL OUT THE BANK!
That is a DIRECT result of MONITARY POLICY.
It has fucking ZERO to do with the dumbass who is president at the time or some fucking budget set up in washington.
ALL MONEY IS DEBT.
IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT DEFLATION TRY PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT.
If we pay down the national debt by 50%, you would LITERALY see a HUGE WAVE OF DEFLATION. Infact it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE To pay down that debt, because banks are allowed to issue loans at NINE to 1 on that debt, and therefore for EVERY dollar paid off of the debt, the banks would have to massively increase their reserves (which would NOT be possible, because by definition, you are retracting the money supply, so where are they gonna find more of it to add to their "reserves"?) , or call loans to keep their 9 to 1 ratios in line ... since they lost one of their "1" 's in the 9 to ONE ... so they would have NINE that need to get "called" as well.
DO you follow ANY of this?
Try reading some Eustice Mullins or G. Edward Griffin ... it MAY change your perspective. But honestly, you sound pretty hopelessly entrenched.
:(
[btw. if you want to talk about getting off the fed, we would have to talk about competing currencies. but to be honest, with the dollar as weak as it is, there are some significant problems their as well. Blunt analysis? There ain't no easy way out. ... its gonna be a HARD FALL, either way you take it]
If I opened it now would you not understand?
That is an ignorant analysis.
What on gods green earth does YOUR personal financial stability have to do with THE GOVERNMENT?
You understand that YOUR PERSONAL debt load, thanks to uncle sam is $400K PLUS?
ARe you prepared to submit that today and NEVER see it again?
If we want to extinguish the national debt, EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA would owe $400,000 ... and then ... NO ONE WOULD HAVE ANY MONEY.
Literaly.
Think about that.
Then start to cry.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
How is that ignorant? I placed the blame on irresponsible fiscal policies. Maybe you can enlighten me in non-rhetoric filled English. If possible, in this brief explanation, could you try only capitalizing the leading letters of sentences and the first letter of proper nouns as well? I find that much easier to read.
Thank you.
You don't get it.
THE MONEY WOULD NOT EXIST.
IT WOULD BE EXTINGUISHED.
The Federal Debt is THE BACKING for our money.
Doesn't it strike you as funny that DEBT is backing a currency? Instead of GOLD, it is "DEBT"?
Huh.
Well that "debt" is YOUR HUMAN EFFORT.
So everytime the government wants more money, it offers YOUR EFFORT as backing.
Hey the sheeple are good for it, just give me the loot.
You people are hopelessly uninformed on this.
You need to stop arguing points you don't even understand on some minimal level, and start reading some books.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You have reached a new plateau of condescension here. Congratulations!
What the fuck have i said that is rhetoric?
I'm giving you facts and truth!
The truth is, you can not have irresponsible fiscal policy with out irresponsible monitary policy.
This is like blaming guns for violence. It is the criminal that creates the violence, not the gun!
It is the ability to print money that enables the government to spend more than it has. Can you not see that by definition? Without fiat money, the only way for the government to get new money is to issue legitmate bonds ... bonds that are paid for by existing commodity money ... backed by human effort transformed in to gold backed currency ...
... that is how an honest government would function ... it wants to take on debt, it must extract it from the populace complicitly! ... with fiat money, that wealth is extracted through the hidden and insidious device of inflation!
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
It only becomes hard to comprehend because of the tone that it is written in. If you would debate without the extreme arrogance, people are, many times, more willing to accept your point even if they do not agree with it. People who happen to disagree with you are not beneath you. They just have a different take on issues whether you see them as right or wrong.
Outside of that, the Government would still be able to run a debt if we were placed back on the gold standard. They would be able to borrow just as much without the ability or intention of paying it back.
My simple question was innocent enough. I have personally put myself into deep debt as I bought an apartment. How is that fundamentally different from the state owing money to external sources?
And as others have pointed out, it's not something inherent in the fiat system that you have a tremendous deficit. That's all policy from your current government.
A response without CAPS and 7 !!!!! after every sentecne would be much appreciated.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965