Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by EyeDocGator, Aug 14, 2018.
Love romaine lettuce. It was good tonight.
I understand you're being sarcastic, but, like a broken clock, you're finally right about something.
So what happens to the economy when the value of gold (and thus our gold based currency) goes from $300 in 2000, to $1800 in 2010, to $1200 in 2012? A gold backed currency is an idiotic and disastrous policy
Didn't intend to pry. You have to have known a dedicated teacher to understand what they put into the job.
it was exactly my first thought.
There is no shame in being an economic ignoramus. For thousands of years reliance on gold (and in some cases silver) as the monetary standard provided incredible stability to the economies of many countries. Our boom and bust cycles are directly related to the use of fiat money. If you own 100 ounces of gold, and the commodities you purchase are priced in gold, then why do you care what the exchange rate is with dollars or any other fiat currency? You would still own 100 ounces of gold whether the exchange rate is $300 or $1800, and your purchasing power would not have decreased because of Federal Reserve induced inflation. L-boy I do not expect you to read any of these books. The topic is far too complicated to summarise in a couple of paragraphs., Apparently you took some finance courses and have a job that gives you false confidence in your economic knowledge. Good for you. Click on images to download a book.
For thousands of years there have been boom.and bust cycles. Gold worked well enough if there were no other choices to control money supply. My point in bringing up 2000-2016 was that during that time we had very modest inflation. The value of what gold bought in 2000 was far less than what it bought by 2012. That is deflation. In fact it is rather severe deflation. Severe deflation is usually accompanied by depression. Do we really want our currency based upon an asset that can vary by a factor of 7 in a decade? Talk about wild economic boom bust cycles. One of the primary drivers of the value of gold is India. Do we really want our economy dependent on the whims of the Indian culture and their desire for gold? In a global economy like other countries like China could drive us into a hot economy or depressing just by buying or selling gold. China would effectively become our federal reserve.
You don't get it at all. Gold has held its value remarkably well for thousands of years. It's the dollar and other fiat currencies that lose value. Only bankers and elites gain from this long-term inflation. The rest of us suffer decreased living standards while useful idiots proclaim how our economic system is the best possible. This is the meme that tightened your panties: This doesn't show gold is unstable; it shows the dollar is unstable. An expensive custom-made suit cost around $20 in 1932 (1 Gold Eagle) and now costs around $1200 (1 Gold Eagle). Which currency is unstable?
Over the very long term gold has been relatively "stable" Over the short term it is highly volatile. I'm not sure you get the linkage between deflation and depression, and gold will absolutely lead to depressions. The fact that a fiat currency may lose half of its value every 30-40 years is not in itself a problem.
its statements like these that show why no one takes what you say seriously
It may or may not be a problem for you. It's a pretty big problem for people who work for a living and save part of their income. Between less investment income caused by artificially low interest rates and the massive loss of purchasing power of their money, they are generally screwed and become dependent on government for their survival. This is one reason government adheres to this flawed system.
Halving in 30-40 years is about 2% inflation. Prices go up. Wages go up. Everything goes up very slowly. Tax brackets are adjusted for inflation. Investments / interest rates adjust for inflation. The only way modest inflation hurts is it is either 1. Unexpected 2. It is high enough where it becomes economically inefficient Trump is engaging in classic inflationary policy.
Yeah, Trump is as dumb as you are.
Just because you don't understand economics you don't have to get hostile about it.
The Great Thanksgiving Hoax Richard J. Maybury Each year at this time, schoolchildren all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating. It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning. The official story has the Pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America, and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620–21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them. The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America. The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hard-working or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves. In his History of Plymouth Plantation, the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years because they refused to work in the field. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable." In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men. But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn. What happened? After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization. This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take only what he needed. This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that were most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate. To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of the famines. Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609–10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty. Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth.
I consider you a friend in here. A fellow elder with the perspective and patience. Im an open book so prying is encouraged. Happy Thanksgiving AR.
Well done Coach! It’s close enough!!!
Truth and Free Speech Are Being Taken Away From Us By Paul Craig Roberts December 11, 2018 Free speech and the ability to speak truth are being shut down. It is happening with the complicity of the print and TV media, the liberal/progressive/left, the US Department of Justice (sic), the law schools and bar associations, Congress, and the federal judiciary. The attack on Julian Assange is the arrow aimed at the heart of the ability to publish the truth. If a journalist can be indicted for espionage for publishing leaked documents that a corrupt government has classified in order to conceal its crimes, the First Amendment is dead. Moreover, as the claim is that government was harmed by Wikileaks publishing the truth, Assange’s secret indictment sets the precedent that truth is harmful to government. This precedent will be extended to include the publication of any information or opinion, classified or not, that the government regards as harmful. The media then officially becomes what it mainly already is in effect—a Ministry of Propaganda for the government and those who control it. As a person who has held high security clearances, I can say with confidence that no more than one percent of classified information falls in the realm of national security. Most classification is simply to prevent the people and Congress from knowing what is going on. Classification allows the various components of government to put the spin where they want it. “National security” has always been an excuse accepted by patriots for the government to conceal its wrong doings and hidden agendas. Read the rest here
when you hear the free press is the enemy every gdddm day who is surprised.......?
You don't have the necessary permissions to use the chat.