invite response« First « Previous Comments 55 - 94 of 274 Next » Last » Search these comments
PeopleUnited
2010 Mar 31, 4:05pm
Oh, friend, I don’t deny that people used silver as a medium of exchange 250 years ago. What I take issue with is this absurd assertion that there is some fundamental natural constant for the value of said medium of exchange.
To a lesser extent I take issue with the idea that metallic currency is actually going to solve any real problems in the world.
But, please, the next time you’re buying groceries, try to slap down some silver and let me know how that works out for you.
Precious metals are still a store of value and medium of exchange in many parts of the world. In fact the Chinese government is encouraging that its citizens save their money in the form of silver and/or gold. In our country we may not use silver or gold in our daily life, but many Americans do use it as an investment (not necessarily to make money, but to preserve purchasing power in an inflationary environment). Gold is an important part of other cultures and savings/trade for example in the Middle East and India.
A dollar as a piece of silver of a particular weight and purity is not merely a medium of exchange. It meets all four of Aristotle's requirements for good money:
* Durable: Money must stand the test of time and the elements. It must not fade, corrode, or change through time;
* Portable: Good money needs to hold a high amount of 'worth' relative to its weight and size;
* Divisible: Money should be relatively easy to separate and re-combine without affecting its fundamental characteristics. An extension of this idea is that the item should be "fungible", defined as "being freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind."
* Intrinsically Valuable: This value of money should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself, starting with rarity.
Will having sound money such as Aristotle described solve all of our problems? Of course not, but it would be a good start.
tatupu70
2010 Mar 31, 9:26pm
Precious metals are still a store of value and medium of exchange in many parts of the world. In fact the Chinese government is encouraging that its citizens save their money in the form of silver and/or gold.
You can do that here, you know. Just buy some gold with your hated dollars.
elliemae
2010 Mar 31, 10:55pm
Hasn’t anyone other than me read how the lack of sound money leads to tyranny? A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
C'mon! I've read a book! It has pages & everything!
Kevin, try this - Google: How sound money prevents tyranny. You’ll get over 900,000 articles to read in about .43 seconds. Read and learn my friend, then you’ll understand the value of sound money and how that will solve many problems in the world.
Respectfully,Abe
There weren't any tyrants when we used metal for money?
Precious metals are still a store of value and medium of exchange in many parts of the world. In fact the Chinese government is encouraging that its citizens save their money in the form of silver and/or gold. In our country we may not use silver or gold in our daily life, but many Americans do use it as an investment (not necessarily to make money, but to preserve purchasing power in an inflationary environment). Gold is an important part of other cultures and savings/trade for example in the Middle East and India.
Uh, not to point out the obvious, but silver and gold do have actual market value. You can buy them, just like the people in india and china that you think are doing this (and I won't even argue about what those people are actually doing, but arguing that we should be more like china or india is amusing to me).
Nobody is arguing that the metals themselves are worthless, just that using them for money isn't going to solve any actual problem. Using "sound money" would not have prevented a single problem that we have in the US today.
Just go back to before the Nixon shock.
Inflation? Check!
Government debt? Check!
Unsustainable spending programs? Check!
Tyrants running the world? Check!
High taxes? Check!
All of these things occurred when we used metal as money (albeit indirectly).
PeopleUnited
2010 Apr 1, 5:09am
Just go back to before the Nixon shock.
Inflation? Check!
Government debt? Check!
Unsustainable spending programs? Check!
Tyrants running the world? Check!
High taxes? Check!
fiat "dollar", not truly backed by anything? CHECK!
FEDERAL RESERVE? CHECK!
EXPLODING NATIONAL DEBT (thanks to FED)? CHECK!
as i said earlier....
Will having sound money such as Aristotle described solve all of our problems? Of course not, but it would be a good start.
tatupu70
2010 Apr 1, 9:27am
So what is the liberal solution? I can’t wait !!
I don't know--what is the problem?
simchaland
2010 Apr 1, 9:48am
Shiny metals and pretty rocks only hold value because human beings imbue them with "value" and find them "desirable."
Pieces of paper and tokens only hold value because human beings imbue them with "value" and find them "desirable."
No specie holds value unless a human mind assigns value to it. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value" when it comes to money. Species hold value only if people decide that they hold value, end of story.
PeopleUnited
2010 Apr 1, 10:21am
I don’t know–what is the problem?
Exactly. There is no problem. Everyone has a job. And no one has any debt. Things are peachy, watch American Idol and be happy.
tatupu70
2010 Apr 1, 10:41am
Exactly. There is no problem. Everyone has a job. And no one has any debt. Things are peachy, watch American Idol and be happy
I'm not a big fan of Idol, but I'm glad you're starting to look at things in a different light. You'll live longer...
PeopleUnited
2010 Apr 1, 10:47am
You’ll live longer…
is that a threat?
Because it sounds like what a gangster might say. For your own good know what I mean?
I don’t know–what is the problem?
Exactly. There is no problem. Everyone has a job. And no one has any debt. Things are peachy, watch American Idol and be happy.
So using metal for money is going to make sure that everyone has a job, and that nobody has any debt? Awesome. I didn't realize that the world was perfect before Nixon...
PeopleUnited
2010 Apr 1, 4:49pm
The world was never perfect, and won't be anytime soon. But we can have a better money standard, one that the people choose and not the banksters.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Thomas Jefferson
The world was never perfect, and won’t be anytime soon. But we can have a better money standard, one that the people choose and not the banksters.
And the people are better equipped to define the monetary system because....? Last time I checked, it was "the people", through their elected leaders, who chose to create the semi-privatized central bank that we have today.
Our biggest financial problems, unemployment and the national debt, are both caused by the desires of the people (specifically, cheap products, big social programs, and revenge). Please explain to me how using metal for money would:
1. Reduce spending on the three big government programs (military, social security, medicare)
2. Create jobs
Shit, I forgot that everything Thomas Jefferson ever said was an irrefutable truth and that he never made a single mistake in his life. Clearly quoting things that he said about banking 250 years ago is a great way to argue your point.
Inflating the money supply devalues the dollar. Thats why there are laws against counterfeiting, because that devalues the dollar.
Aren't all things in commerce defined? Please name one product that someone would buy, or use - but not know the quantity of that which they are buying? All things used in commerce, trade, exchange, barter, etc. must be defined to prevent theft, fraud, chaos.
2 + 2 = 4.
These are really basic concepts - but you appear too smart to understand them.
Abe
P.S. I can tell by your comment's you still have not taken the time to google: how the lack of sound money leads to tyranny (and national debt, and big social programs, and war, and unlimited entitlement programs and a damaged economy, etc).
elliemae
2010 Apr 2, 1:11am
Exactly. There is no problem. Everyone has a job. And no one has any debt. Things are peachy, watch American Idol and be happy
I’m not a big fan of Idol, but I’m glad you’re starting to look at things in a different light. You’ll live longer…
How dare you threaten him? That's a mean thing to say - implying that he can be happy & have a long life. It's people like you that ruin the whole "the sky is falling" vibe. I demand that you apologize!
CBOEtrader
2010 Apr 2, 1:25am
You should be figuring out how to protect and grow your wealth on your own (HINT: try ownership and forget about currency).
That works very well for some fraction of the most wealthy among us. However, the vast majority ofus use the current fruits of our labor to support the needs of family. The working poor, middle, and upper middle class all fall into this category. Employee compensation never keeps up with inflation. The extreme case of Weimar Germany is an example of the catastrophy that hyperinflation can bring to wage earners.
Those that own enough assets to retire, like Nomo, would do fine during inflation and hyperinflation as they feel the benefit of the net wealth transfer from the less fortunate.
I honestly can’t understand why you insist that the government provide you with a wealth-storage program.
The concern is about stealing wage value from the workers, rather than stealing the stored wealth of the investment class. As Nomo likes to point out, the rich people will do fine. No demographic benefits more from market turbulence, the boom/bust cycle, hyperinflations, and depressions than those with enough wealth to capitalize on the resulting "opportunities". This is when the super rich "fleece the sheep" so to speak.
Therefore, as 4x likes to say, follow the money. The super rich and powerful that pull the levers of our government machine have an enormous vested interest in fostering booms and busts. The easiest way to accomplish this task is via loose monetary and fiscal policies.
Inflating the money supply devalues the dollar. Thats why there are laws against counterfeiting, because that devalues the dollar.
Aren’t all things in commerce defined? Please name one product that someone would buy, or use - but not know the quantity of that which they are buying? All things used in commerce, trade, exchange, barter, etc. must be defined to prevent theft, fraud, chaos.
2 + 2 = 4.
These are really basic concepts - but you appear too smart to understand them.
Abe
P.S. I can tell by your comment’s you still have not taken the time to google: how the lack of sound money leads to tyranny (and national debt, and big social programs, and war, and unlimited entitlement programs and a damaged economy, etc).
Yeah, you still haven't explained how using metal for money would prevent the two main problems with the current economy -- problems we had when we DID have metal for money and continue to have today.
I'll be waiting.
PeopleUnited
2010 Apr 2, 7:38pm
You assume two fallacies.
RE: Employment-
The natural state of men and women is to work, if nothing else to provide for themselves. In fact a working person can produce much more than they will consume. It takes interference from other men or women to change this natural state. Which is precisely why governments are instituted among consenting men and women, to insure that this natural state of affairs may remain in place. To attempt to restrain men from exerting influence over others. To protect the liberty to do the work that you desire and reap the fruits of that labor as a just reward for said labor. To outlaw slavery.
Let's say money did not exist, not even gold or silver. Do you still think we would have "unemployment?" In this cashless society it would be rather difficult to get into deep debt. Who would loan to a slothful man? In this society only usable commodities would have any value. Even that value would be limited. It would do a man no good to own tons of land (On second thought maybe land would still be worth owning if you somehow get other people to work it for you but chances are they would just kill you and work it for themselves), piles of grain, or barrels of oil because what worth would they be to him? And who would help him acquire more let alone protect what he has? Wouldn't workers instead choose to work to acquire for themselves? The wealthy man would be seen as a hoarder and a detriment to everyone else. Of course this cashless society could not progress past a subsistence level (and maybe that isn't such a bad thing, especially if you have Native American or similar ancestry).
Enter Gold and silver (or other similar forms of money which by nature of their scarcity lend themselves as a medium of stable exchange). Money changes everything. Money IS influence, and only influence can bring another person to do your will rather than their own. Money enables the hoarder to pay people to protect and increase his hoard. The ancients called the love of money the root of all evil and is this not true? Money enables one man to influence/dictate the rules and lives of other men and women.
Gold and silver as money limit the influence of the rich, by nature of their limited supply.
The FED on the other hand gives the PtB complete control over money and therefore COMPLETE and UNLIMITED INFLUENCE over the affairs of the people under its dominion. In the game of Monopoly the end result is always the same. But most people don't realize there are two winners. The person who bankrupts everyone else AND THE BANK! The bank ALWAYS WINS. And one of the reasons the bank can never lose is that it cannot run out of money/influence. The rules of the game say that if the bank runs out of money it can just print more. In the United States the situation is the same. The FED can never run out of money and, just like in the game of monopoly the large corporations (monopolies) are the ones that benefit from the unlimited supply of money. The small companies and individuals will eventually be entirely owned by the bank and the corporations that grow up around it. We soon won't be able to buy or sell without their permission. In fact we are all slaves to these corporations whether we admit it or not. The FED made America a giant version of Monopoly. The funny part is that while they are taking control of more and more assets (notice the rich getting richer and the middle class shrinking?) you think you are winning. The PtB want you to think so. They are happy for you. Oh sure it is still better to be an American than a Haitain for now. And as long as the powers that be can make you believe it is in your best interest to serve them, you will. Why do you think the Chinese submit to their slave masters? Our slavery is just less extreme (right now) than theirs.
In order to limit their influence we must take back control of our money-currency.
RE: spending/debt
The FED makes this extreme load of debt possible. The FED can't regulate or prevent moral hazard, THE FED IS MORAL HAZARD! It allows politicians to offer bribes for votes without raising taxes. It allows corporations to do the same offering guaranteed profits to investors while socializing losses. Nixon had to close the gold window because foreign investors knew that servicing our our debt would be impossible without devaluing the dollar (and Nixon knew our gold was more valuable than our dollar, this is not rocket science for you either is it Kevin? For some reason Nixon wanted to keep our worthless gold and spend our valuable "dollars"?). As lender of last resort the Fed allowed Nixon to continue to run up the debt with little consequence to American corporate interests. The wealthy have first access to newly created money and therefore are able to spend it (buying up even more assets) before the effects of inflation are fully realized. In essence the wealthy get to spend their money and keep their gold. Eventually this Federal Reserve monetary regime will end of course, but in the meantime look for the rich to continue getting richer, using the FED as their source of influence of last resort.
The only way we can end the reckless spending and get out of debt is to end the FED.
Enter Gold and silver (or other similar forms of money which by nature of their scarcity lend themselves as a medium of stable exchange). Money changes everything. Money IS influence, and only influence can bring another person to do your will rather than their own. Money enables the hoarder to pay people to protect and increase his hoard. The ancients called the love of money the root of all evil and is this not true? Money enables one man to influence/dictate the rules and lives of other men and women.
No one ever influenced/dictated the rules and lives of other men and women before coinage was invented? That's not the way I read history.
"In order to have winners, free markets must have losers", is that what you said?
A free market is simply cooperative free choice. Willing buyer - willing seller. The supermarket is selling apples for $1.50 per pound. Someone agrees to pay $1.50 for a pound of apples. Thats a willing buyer and a willing seller. Thats cooperative free choice. Thats the essence of freedom.
Please point out the "loser" in this transaction.
How is the worker, who is making at least minimum wage, now has health care benefits, possibly subsidized housing and maybe even food stamps the loser?
Seriously, no jobs in this country are MANDITORY are they? Someone chose to pick apples. They made a FREE CHOICE that the pay they got was worth the time it took. It was a win-win decision, made with free choice by both parties. That in itself is freedom. Freedom is good - its the absence of coercion, the absence of force.
Only the element of FORCE creates a loser in an otherwise mutually agreeable, win-win transaction. A simple example is the difference of love vs. rape. The same act with different outcome. One involves a mutually agreeable, loving, win-win, free choice meeting. The other is a win-lose meeting, without free choice and the element of force. You get it, right?
PeopleUnited
2010 Apr 3, 3:56am
Enter Gold and silver (or other similar forms of money which by nature of their scarcity lend themselves as a medium of stable exchange). Money changes everything. Money IS influence, and only influence can bring another person to do your will rather than their own. Money enables the hoarder to pay people to protect and increase his hoard. The ancients called the love of money the root of all evil and is this not true? Money enables one man to influence/dictate the rules and lives of other men and women.
No one ever influenced/dictated the rules and lives of other men and women before coinage was invented? That’s not the way I read history.
Never said money was the only way to influence people. It is just one of the big three, the other two being threat of violence or force and religion. But money can buy you religion and force so yes, money is the greater danger. This is why it is so terrible to give control of our "money" to people who are shrouded in secrecy, serving their own interests, and are essentially unaccountable to the people. Audit the FED.
PeopleUnited
2010 Apr 3, 4:18am
The intrinsic value will ALWAYS be in goods and services,
Then Nomo, why did Nixon close the gold window? Why did he want to keep our gold? Why does gold have ANY value?
I agree to a point that real value is the goods and services, but more important is the means of production. You must address the fact that by issuing and controlling our currency the central banks and the corporations that grow up around them are able to purchase and hoard the means of production for themselves. They have first access to newly created money and are able to buy up these assets before prices rise. The boom-bust cycle they create also enables them to grow their own wealth, power and influence.
Gold and silver as money limit the PtB influence. Consequently they want to keep their gold and their influence too. They want to keep their money and spend it too! That is why they pushed for the FED, and fiat money. You don't like inflation any more than I do. You just like to argue because my point of view doesn't fit with your ideals. I suppose you would rather we all just go back to work in your orchard? What is your point of view, that the FED is an asset to America and its working people?
Are you a capitalist/corporatist in sheep's clothing?
elliemae
2010 Apr 3, 5:40am
http://www.wri.org/publication/content/7977
Bangladesh (Chittagong) 1 Dozen Eggs
Kenya 8 Cups of Milk
Ghana 2 1/3 Bottles of Palm Oil
Ghana 4 1/3 Bottles of Coke
Philippines 4/5 of a Big Mac
USA 1/3 of a Starbucks Tall Latte
Uganda 1/46 of a Bicycle
Bangladesh 1/3 of a Sari
Ghana 1 1/2 Pairs Rubber Sandals
Bangladesh 7 Bars of Soap
Ghana 87 Tablets of Penicillin
India (Andhra Pradesh) 1/2 Unit of Blood for a Transfusion
USA 1/150 of the Average Daily Cost of Nursing Home Care
Tanzania (Nzanza) 1/3 of a Liter of Pesticide
Ghana 4 1/3 Rolls of Toilet Paper
Ecuador (Quito) 1/500 of a Washing Machine
India (Andhra Pradesh) 2-3 Pieces Bamboo for Building
Uganda (Mbale) 1/1500 of the Cost of Building a New Home
India (Mumbai) 1/3 of a Regular Price Evening Movie Ticket
There, we've established what a dollar can buy. Can we move on now?
PeopleUnited
2010 Apr 3, 5:55am
The smart money has always been ownership equity.
As a part owner of the means of production, you are set. Congratulations. It is everyone else who suffers under the Fed and its fiat regime (you know the ones who don't have the assets or income and can't afford the ever inflating prices?)
PeopleUnited
2010 Apr 3, 6:35am
The Fed has nothing to do with this.
So it is to whose benefit that we do not have a sound currency but rather one manipulated by the very owners of the majority of true wealth (the means of production)? Senator Nelson Aldrich, his personal secretary Arthur Shelton, former Harvard University professor of economics Dr. A. Piatt Andrew, J.P. Morgan & Co. partner Henry P. Davison, National City Bank president Frank A. Vanderlip and Kuhn, Loeb, and Co. partner Paul M. Warburg got together in secret meetings to craft the draft proposal for the Federal Reserve system in 1910 at Jekyll Island because they were primarily concerned with making sure that all Americans could control the fruits of their labor right? They would never design a system that makes it impossible to pay off debt? They would never design a system that allows them preferred status and bailouts when needed at the expense of the working class would they?
No, clearly the Federal Reserve has nothing to do with it.
PeopleUnited
2010 Apr 3, 6:44am
The loser is the low-wage worker who picked the apples (i.e. you) and the winner is the owner of the orchard (i.e. me).
this is BS the worker who works for an agreed upon wage is not a loser. However if he is paid is debasable fiat "dollars" the FED/PtB can force him to lose.
You assume two fallacies.
RE: Employment-The natural state of men and women is to work, if nothing else to provide for themselves. In fact a working person can produce much more than they will consume. It takes interference from other men or women to change this natural state. Which is precisely why governments are instituted among consenting men and women, to insure that this natural state of affairs may remain in place. To attempt to restrain men from exerting influence over others. To protect the liberty to do the work that you desire and reap the fruits of that labor as a just reward for said labor. To outlaw slavery.
Let’s say money did not exist, not even gold or silver. Do you still think we would have “unemployment?†In this cashless society it would be rather difficult to get into deep debt. Who would loan to a slothful man? In this society only usable commodities would have any value. Even that value would be limited. It would do a man no good to own tons of land (On second thought maybe land would still be worth owning if you somehow get other people to work it for you but chances are they would just kill you and work it for themselves), piles of grain, or barrels of oil because what worth would they be to him? And who would help him acquire more let alone protect what he has? Wouldn’t workers instead choose to work to acquire for themselves? The wealthy man would be seen as a hoarder and a detriment to everyone else. Of course this cashless society could not progress past a subsistence level (and maybe that isn’t such a bad thing, especially if you have Native American or similar ancestry).
Enter Gold and silver (or other similar forms of money which by nature of their scarcity lend themselves as a medium of stable exchange). Money changes everything. Money IS influence, and only influence can bring another person to do your will rather than their own. Money enables the hoarder to pay people to protect and increase his hoard. The ancients called the love of money the root of all evil and is this not true? Money enables one man to influence/dictate the rules and lives of other men and women.
Gold and silver as money limit the influence of the rich, by nature of their limited supply.
The FED on the other hand gives the PtB complete control over money and therefore COMPLETE and UNLIMITED INFLUENCE over the affairs of the people under its dominion. In the game of Monopoly the end result is always the same. But most people don’t realize there are two winners. The person who bankrupts everyone else AND THE BANK! The bank ALWAYS WINS. And one of the reasons the bank can never lose is that it cannot run out of money/influence. The rules of the game say that if the bank runs out of money it can just print more. In the United States the situation is the same. The FED can never run out of money and, just like in the game of monopoly the large corporations (monopolies) are the ones that benefit from the unlimited supply of money. The small companies and individuals will eventually be entirely owned by the bank and the corporations that grow up around it. We soon won’t be able to buy or sell without their permission. In fact we are all slaves to these corporations whether we admit it or not. The FED made America a giant version of Monopoly. The funny part is that while they are taking control of more and more assets (notice the rich getting richer and the middle class shrinking?) you think you are winning. The PtB want you to think so. They are happy for you. Oh sure it is still better to be an American than a Haitain for now. And as long as the powers that be can make you believe it is in your best interest to serve them, you will. Why do you think the Chinese submit to their slave masters? Our slavery is just less extreme (right now) than theirs.
In order to limit their influence we must take back control of our money-currency.
RE: spending/debt
The FED makes this extreme load of debt possible. The FED can’t regulate or prevent moral hazard, THE FED IS MORAL HAZARD! It allows politicians to offer bribes for votes without raising taxes. It allows corporations to do the same offering guaranteed profits to investors while socializing losses. Nixon had to close the gold window because foreign investors knew that servicing our our debt would be impossible without devaluing the dollar (and Nixon knew our gold was more valuable than our dollar, this is not rocket science for you either is it Kevin? For some reason Nixon wanted to keep our worthless gold and spend our valuable “dollars�). As lender of last resort the Fed allowed Nixon to continue to run up the debt with little consequence to American corporate interests. The wealthy have first access to newly created money and therefore are able to spend it (buying up even more assets) before the effects of inflation are fully realized. In essence the wealthy get to spend their money and keep their gold. Eventually this Federal Reserve monetary regime will end of course, but in the meantime look for the rich to continue getting richer, using the FED as their source of influence of last resort.
The only way we can end the reckless spending and get out of debt is to end the FED.
That was an incredibly verbose way to say that you have no idea what you're talking about.
elliemae
2010 Apr 3, 8:05am
That was an incredibly verbose way to say that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
...and Kevin's got a nice way of saying that Adhom's got a severe case of Rectal-Cranial Inversion. IMHO, of course.
PeopleUnited
2010 Apr 3, 8:07am
You assume two fallacies.
RE: Employment-
The natural state of men and women is to work, if nothing else to provide for themselves. In fact a working person can produce much more than they will consume. It takes interference from other men or women to change this natural state. Which is precisely why governments are instituted among consenting men and women, to insure that this natural state of affairs may remain in place. To attempt to restrain men from exerting influence over others. To protect the liberty to do the work that you desire and reap the fruits of that labor as a just reward for said labor. To outlaw slavery.Let’s say money did not exist, not even gold or silver. Do you still think we would have “unemployment?†In this cashless society it would be rather difficult to get into deep debt. Who would loan to a slothful man? In this society only usable commodities would have any value. Even that value would be limited. It would do a man no good to own tons of land (On second thought maybe land would still be worth owning if you somehow get other people to work it for you but chances are they would just kill you and work it for themselves), piles of grain, or barrels of oil because what worth would they be to him? And who would help him acquire more let alone protect what he has? Wouldn’t workers instead choose to work to acquire for themselves? The wealthy man would be seen as a hoarder and a detriment to everyone else. Of course this cashless society could not progress past a subsistence level (and maybe that isn’t such a bad thing, especially if you have Native American or similar ancestry).
Enter Gold and silver (or other similar forms of money which by nature of their scarcity lend themselves as a medium of stable exchange). Money changes everything. Money IS influence, and only influence can bring another person to do your will rather than their own. Money enables the hoarder to pay people to protect and increase his hoard. The ancients called the love of money the root of all evil and is this not true? Money enables one man to influence/dictate the rules and lives of other men and women.
Gold and silver as money limit the influence of the rich, by nature of their limited supply.
The FED on the other hand gives the PtB complete control over money and therefore COMPLETE and UNLIMITED INFLUENCE over the affairs of the people under its dominion. In the game of Monopoly the end result is always the same. But most people don’t realize there are two winners. The person who bankrupts everyone else AND THE BANK! The bank ALWAYS WINS. And one of the reasons the bank can never lose is that it cannot run out of money/influence. The rules of the game say that if the bank runs out of money it can just print more. In the United States the situation is the same. The FED can never run out of money and, just like in the game of monopoly the large corporations (monopolies) are the ones that benefit from the unlimited supply of money. The small companies and individuals will eventually be entirely owned by the bank and the corporations that grow up around it. We soon won’t be able to buy or sell without their permission. In fact we are all slaves to these corporations whether we admit it or not. The FED made America a giant version of Monopoly. The funny part is that while they are taking control of more and more assets (notice the rich getting richer and the middle class shrinking?) you think you are winning. The PtB want you to think so. They are happy for you. Oh sure it is still better to be an American than a Haitain for now. And as long as the powers that be can make you believe it is in your best interest to serve them, you will. Why do you think the Chinese submit to their slave masters? Our slavery is just less extreme (right now) than theirs.
In order to limit their influence we must take back control of our money-currency.
RE: spending/debt
The FED makes this extreme load of debt possible. The FED can’t regulate or prevent moral hazard, THE FED IS MORAL HAZARD! It allows politicians to offer bribes for votes without raising taxes. It allows corporations to do the same offering guaranteed profits to investors while socializing losses. Nixon had to close the gold window because foreign investors knew that servicing our our debt would be impossible without devaluing the dollar (and Nixon knew our gold was more valuable than our dollar, this is not rocket science for you either is it Kevin? For some reason Nixon wanted to keep our worthless gold and spend our valuable “dollars�). As lender of last resort the Fed allowed Nixon to continue to run up the debt with little consequence to American corporate interests. The wealthy have first access to newly created money and therefore are able to spend it (buying up even more assets) before the effects of inflation are fully realized. In essence the wealthy get to spend their money and keep their gold. Eventually this Federal Reserve monetary regime will end of course, but in the meantime look for the rich to continue getting richer, using the FED as their source of influence of last resort.
The only way we can end the reckless spending and get out of debt is to end the FED.
That was an incredibly verbose way to say that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
That was an incredibly obvious way of saying you cannot even begin to refute it.
But don't look at me, only you can help you! Because you're good enough, and smart enough and doggonnit people like you.
I can't help but state the obvious: I've noticed liberals love to make personal attacks. Conservatives love to point out the unintended consequences of big government intervention. Liberals believe more govenment intervention and throwing money around is the solution to every problem, many which they create themselves. Conservatives believe in limited Constitutional government. Liberals want to control everyone and everything. Conservatives believe in freedom and liberty.
Yea, it's pretty clear which side I want to be on.
elliemae
2010 Apr 3, 10:53am
throwing money around is the solution to every problem, many which they create themselves. Conservatives believe in limited Constitutional government.
mmmmm! conservative believe fire is good! Liberal believe fire bad!
I realize that you are trying, really trying, to educate the rest of us as to why the black & white belief systems that you've assigned to each of us actually applies. But I can't help but state the obvious: you're dead wrong when you do so.
tatupu70
2010 Apr 3, 11:54am
I can’t help but state the obvious: I’ve noticed liberals love to make personal attacks. Conservatives love to point out the unintended consequences of big government intervention. Liberals believe more govenment intervention and throwing money around is the solution to every problem, many which they create themselves. Conservatives believe in limited Constitutional government. Liberals want to control everyone and everything. Conservatives believe in freedom and liberty
Conservatives like to mischaracterize what liberals believe in. Independent thinkers like to poke fun at the black and white crowd
elliemae
2010 Apr 3, 12:18pm
Conservatives like to mischaracterize what liberals believe in. Independent thinkers like to poke fun at the black and white crowd
I agree with you 100%, unequivocally, with no doubt whatsoever. :)
GOD DAMN IT, everyone knows that there are only "Liberals" and "Conservatives", and everyone cleanly falls into one of these camps and dogmatically believes whatever arbitrary thing Abe has decided that they believe.
Could there be any possibility that a person who cleaned toilets, went on to start a janitorial company and become a millionaire? Or a person who flipped burgers went on to become wealthy as a fast food franchise owner. Or a person who made cookies started a national brand?
What liberals can't stand is that freedom provides equal opportunity - but not equal results. Liberals seem to want equal results, you know utopia - hahaha.
PeopleUnited
2010 Apr 4, 3:08pm
free markets always have winners and losers (i.e. unequal results).
Sorry but unequal results is NOT the same as your winners and losers fallacy. In fact if we examine marxism or its fruits such as communism (a government designed to give "equal results") I think we realize that "equal results" means *EVERYBODY LOSES.
*except maybe for the PtB
In a truly free market everyone makes their choices and pursues happiness in their own way, free of coercion. Some may fail to achieve happiness, but they are not losers as long as they are free to pursue it. However when you force them to work to support freeloaders or debase their currency so their wages are constantly losing value then you have made their pursuit essentially in vain. We no longer have free markets here in the US. The corporatists, with the help of the FED have rigged the system so that you cannot out compete them. With over $12.6 trillion in national debt and $16.5 trillion in private debt, our nation is full of indentured servants with no hope of paying off their debts.
Thanks Federal Reserve!
« First « Previous Comments 55 - 94 of 274 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://mises.org/daily/4149
Are you aware that a Federal Reserve note "dollar bill" is not a constitutional dollar? Perhaps you are, but if so, do you know what a constitutional dollar literally is? Is it gold? Is it silver?