"Why Gold?" and other issues with fixed currency
-
Not quite... though it's close. I'd say the states should theoretically have their own currencies, but that's banned in the Constitution. So what I propose is, because of Article 1 Section 10: "No state shall... coin Money... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts", the Federal government should coin money AND the private sector should as well. The key is to be using gold and silver, whether backing certificates or be using the physical gold and silver itself. The thing is, banks could exchange their own, and other businesses could coin their own as well.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I have decided to make a bank. "The First Bank of Ragnarok" It will only use gold certificates. That is the only thing of value, after all. If you want a withdrawal, it is only in gold and takes 48-72 hours. Sorry, but you aren't getting it earlier. I am not able to open the vault more than once every 2 days, at a random time. Sorry, but a good bank robber would be able to steal all your money, since the Fed doesn't have the amount of gold needed to back up all the banks. No once can manage that. Don't worry though, your gold is safe, until you walk out...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Since the demand for gold would be relatively constant due to it being currency
Does this necessarily follow? If gold suddenly becomes a requirement for the next technological step forward... Hell, think bigger than catalytic converters... Think interstellar travel, or flying cars, or holographic displays, or artificial intelligence... Something with the potential to completely change the human race as we know it. If that happened (And it's not that much of a stretch - Gold is one of the best electrical conductors), don't you think it would make gold a poor choice of currency? Either these things would be made in such huge numbers that the currency would greatly deflate, or gold would be so expensive that these would never be produced in the first place, and our technological progress would potentially halt. By the way, I appreciate that you're actually trying to discuss the topic instead of resorting to insults and rhetoric.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Does this necessarily follow? If gold suddenly becomes a requirement for the next technological step forward... Hell, think bigger than catalytic converters... Think interstellar travel, or flying cars, or holographic displays, or artificial intelligence... Something with the potential to completely change the human race as we know it. If that happened (And it's not that much of a stretch - Gold is one of the best electrical conductors), don't you think it would make gold a poor choice of currency? Either these things would be made in such huge numbers that the currency would greatly deflate, or gold would be so expensive that these would never be produced in the first place, and our technological progress would potentially halt.
Not necessarily. Not all that long ago people would trade with commodities. In America's early colonial days, people would use tobacco as currency. It had a dual purpose. It was valuable because people smoked it, so they used it as a currency. I believe Ben Franklin secured a loan from France with tobacco. The reason why tobacco lost it's value as a currency is because so many people started growing it, that it lost its value. Gold on the other hand holds it's value because it is hard to mine, the average person cannot grow it like tobacco, so it makes for a stable currency. It is actually very logical to trade with a valuable commodity because it's value is secured by an actual useful function instead of a perceived value.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
By the way, I appreciate that you're actually trying to discuss the topic instead of resorting to insults and rhetoric.
I can't debate politics very well because I feel so intensely strong about my beliefs.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Let me be more precise. Gold has value. We know that. That's not my point. You're saying that if we used gold, then the rich would get richer. If that's true, then you're suggesting that there would be only corporations and no money. Well, you're wrong, cuz you've already got minimum wage laws, welfare, and other such crap that doesn't make sense and is just political pandering. Look. It's nonsense. Gold is just a medium of exchange, just like paper is right now.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
You're saying that if we used gold, then the rich would get richer
No. CSS has said in the past that the answer to the fact that the gold supply cannot cover the money in the world today, we just make gold worth a whole lot more. Which is what makes the rich a lot richer, overnight.
josda1000 wrote:
Well, you're wrong, cuz you've already got minimum wage laws, welfare, and other such crap that doesn't make sense and is just political pandering.
Well, that's obviously crap. Minimum wages make perfect sense to people who live in the real world. I'm yet to hear any sensible argument against them, or see a real response from you to the points I've raised on the topic. Every argument you raise ignores that humans have an operating cost, it costs XX to live and anything less is not a fair wage.
josda1000 wrote:
Look. It's nonsense. Gold is just a medium of exchange, just like paper is right now.
No, it's not. It's a real physical resource, and there's all sorts of negative flow on effects to what you propose.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I have decided to make a bank. "The First Bank of Ragnarok" It will only use gold certificates. That is the only thing of value, after all. If you want a withdrawal, it is only in gold and takes 48-72 hours. Sorry, but you aren't getting it earlier. I am not able to open the vault more than once every 2 days, at a random time. Sorry, but a good bank robber would be able to steal all your money, since the Fed doesn't have the amount of gold needed to back up all the banks. No once can manage that. Don't worry though, your gold is safe, until you walk out...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr121307h.htm[^] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=111-h20100120-54&person=400311[^]
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I am not able to open the vault more than once every 2 days, at a random time.
Because businesses always act that stupid. I don't know of one business that would ever do, or has ever done, such a moronic thing. This is just scare tactics.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Sorry, but a good bank robber would be able to steal all your money, since the Fed doesn't have the amount of gold needed to back up all the banks.
To the rest of my argument, fractional reserve banking is actually fraud. But I'm not getting into that.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Don't worry though, your gold is safe, until you walk out.
You could say the same with banking right now. This is not a valid argument.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I said if a coin taken out of circulation, its value is transferred to all the other coins in circulation. You asked me "How does that work, they do a poll to ask everyone how much they lost ?" as if some central authority sets the value of the coinage. That is not how it works. The value if the currency is set naturally by the amount of it in circulation. You are a moron.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
I can't believe the crap that you believe.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Why, in this age of complete connectivity, does it need to be based on metal? All of the arguments I've heard are that these have the perception of value. But then, so do diamonds. So does platinum. Hell, coal has value, plutonium has a lot of value, clean water has value... You understand what I'm getting at here.
Gold and silver is in limited supply and requires a bit of work to mine, which keeps inflation in check. Diamonds are too abundant and can't be used in decimal denominations. As population increases and the economy grows, gold and silver increase in value. The increase in value makes it even more profitable to mine, so tedious mining procedures and new mining technologies that might have been too expensive to be profitable become profitable.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
"There are X dollars in circulation. This will no longer be increased, and we're modifying the laws to ensure that." (Speaking of dollar amounts, not physical currency). That would be just as effective, unless you think the government is going to cheat.
The problem with this is that the government will always debase the currency. History proves it. The only way to keep government currency manipulation in check is to use something real like gold and silver.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Let's assume, for the moment, that we're using gold/silver-backed currency. Now, regardless of what's behind it, we're not going to be carrying around hunks of gold and silver. The population is just never going to accept that they have to carry coins around for everything, now that we're all accustomed to easy-to-carry paper currency. Not to mention, we use a lot of electronic currency to make it even more portable.
There is no reason why checks, and debit/credit cards can't be used with a gold and silver currency. Also, people typically have some change in their pockets, since gold and silver is so valuable, a couple ounces of silver coin would be around 50 bucks in today's dollar. A cellphone weighs more than that. Gold is even more valuable.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So what happens when that currency is lost?
When the coin is lost, it is out of circulation. When currency is out of circulation, the value of that lost coin is transferred to all of the other coins in circulation.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
As population increases and the economy grows, gold and silver increase in value.
How is that? if you have a limited amount of gold and silver how can the economy grow? if it's fixed on how much gold you have to support it what happens to the countries that produce none or little of the metals?, if there's no credit how will you be able to get things that are out of how much you get every month, for example a house? every year thousands or millions of persons are added to the work force, with the limited amount of the metals, how can you keep up and pay them? what about housing? cars? food? what happens when we dig out all the gold/silver available? what will be used to replace them? Gold and Silver were good 500 years ago, heck, 100 years ago, now it's not feasible to keep using them as support for an economy, the economies are based on how much you can produce (to make it simple), the money production needs to be regulated, force the banks to have enough money to support the credits they give out for example. but anyway, please answer my questions as I don't see how gold could support an economy as big as the US or Japan
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
If you'd taken the time to read my other posts, I'm all for any elemental metal. I just see that gold and silver is allowed under the Constitution. But technically speaking, I'm all for any elemental metal. And quite honestly, I would definitely love to use platinum, because as you said, it has much higher value. Right on the money. Pun intended.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I don't want to base our money on anything except the perception that it is stable. It's essentially taking out the middle man. The constitution is 200yrs old. It has major failings in the fact that it is simply too dated to deal with the present. It was supposed to be a living document, but the politicians stopped that. We need to lose that dumb wording. It was accepted practice at the time, it is no longer feasible. Heck, we aren't even supposed to have an air force.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
You're saying that if we used gold, then the rich would get richer
No. CSS has said in the past that the answer to the fact that the gold supply cannot cover the money in the world today, we just make gold worth a whole lot more. Which is what makes the rich a lot richer, overnight.
josda1000 wrote:
Well, you're wrong, cuz you've already got minimum wage laws, welfare, and other such crap that doesn't make sense and is just political pandering.
Well, that's obviously crap. Minimum wages make perfect sense to people who live in the real world. I'm yet to hear any sensible argument against them, or see a real response from you to the points I've raised on the topic. Every argument you raise ignores that humans have an operating cost, it costs XX to live and anything less is not a fair wage.
josda1000 wrote:
Look. It's nonsense. Gold is just a medium of exchange, just like paper is right now.
No, it's not. It's a real physical resource, and there's all sorts of negative flow on effects to what you propose.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Look. It's nonsense. Gold is just a medium of exchange, just like paper is right now. No, it's not. It's a real physical resource, and there's all sorts of negative flow on effects to what you propose.
I just completely disagree.
Christian Graus wrote:
Minimum wages make perfect sense to people who live in the real world.
And I don't? None of the financial conservatives make sense, even though they probably make up half of the population? I'd say you're not living in the real world, buddy.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm yet to hear any sensible argument against them, or see a real response from you to the points I've raised on the topic.
All of the points I've raised are normal debates... it's even on WIKIPEDIA! Again, with the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage[^] Again, with the quote. "If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. ... The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. Others, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force." How about another good quote?! "According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers.[13]" You sure that you're living in the real world still?
Christian Graus wrote:
No. CSS has said in the past that the answer to the fact that the gold supply cannot cover the money in the world today, we just make gold worth a whole lot more. Which is what makes the rich a lot richer, overnight.
I could see that. But I think the effects would be offset within a couple of months. But that's speculation.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Does this necessarily follow? If gold suddenly becomes a requirement for the next technological step forward... Hell, think bigger than catalytic converters... Think interstellar travel, or flying cars, or holographic displays, or artificial intelligence... Something with the potential to completely change the human race as we know it. If that happened (And it's not that much of a stretch - Gold is one of the best electrical conductors), don't you think it would make gold a poor choice of currency? Either these things would be made in such huge numbers that the currency would greatly deflate, or gold would be so expensive that these would never be produced in the first place, and our technological progress would potentially halt.
Not necessarily. Not all that long ago people would trade with commodities. In America's early colonial days, people would use tobacco as currency. It had a dual purpose. It was valuable because people smoked it, so they used it as a currency. I believe Ben Franklin secured a loan from France with tobacco. The reason why tobacco lost it's value as a currency is because so many people started growing it, that it lost its value. Gold on the other hand holds it's value because it is hard to mine, the average person cannot grow it like tobacco, so it makes for a stable currency. It is actually very logical to trade with a valuable commodity because it's value is secured by an actual useful function instead of a perceived value.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
By the way, I appreciate that you're actually trying to discuss the topic instead of resorting to insults and rhetoric.
I can't debate politics very well because I feel so intensely strong about my beliefs.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Gold on the other hand holds it's value because it is hard to mine, the average person cannot grow it like tobacco, so it makes for a stable currency.
If gold was made currency tomorrow, I would be able to "mine" a few pounds of it using just the equipment I have in less than a week. In fact until people realized how I did it, I would be increasing my net worth exponentially. I am not lying, I know exactly what I would do. Considering the amount of gold currently in circulation and how much it would have to be worth an ounce to back all the money needed out there, I would be living in a palace. It is a HORRIBLE commodity to have as the basis of money nowadays.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
I don't want to base our money on anything except the perception that it is stable. It's essentially taking out the middle man. The constitution is 200yrs old. It has major failings in the fact that it is simply too dated to deal with the present. It was supposed to be a living document, but the politicians stopped that. We need to lose that dumb wording. It was accepted practice at the time, it is no longer feasible. Heck, we aren't even supposed to have an air force.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The constitution is 200yrs old. It has major failings in the fact that it is simply too dated to deal with the present.
Prove it. Why has it only been amended a few times in two hundred years, if it's got "major failings"? This is such a big thing to say when you don't back it up.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It was supposed to be a living document, but the politicians stopped that.
No, it was supposed to hinder the government from growing. And it did just that, for the most part. Now it steps outside of the Constitution when it feels like it... which is proof that big government proponents do assume it's a "living document". Yes, you can amend the Constitution, and that's what makes it a "living document". But I don't see anyone doing that.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
We need to lose that dumb wording. It was accepted practice at the time, it is no longer feasible. Heck, we aren't even supposed to have an air force.
That's rich.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Look. It's nonsense. Gold is just a medium of exchange, just like paper is right now. No, it's not. It's a real physical resource, and there's all sorts of negative flow on effects to what you propose.
I just completely disagree.
Christian Graus wrote:
Minimum wages make perfect sense to people who live in the real world.
And I don't? None of the financial conservatives make sense, even though they probably make up half of the population? I'd say you're not living in the real world, buddy.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm yet to hear any sensible argument against them, or see a real response from you to the points I've raised on the topic.
All of the points I've raised are normal debates... it's even on WIKIPEDIA! Again, with the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage[^] Again, with the quote. "If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. ... The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. Others, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force." How about another good quote?! "According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers.[13]" You sure that you're living in the real world still?
Christian Graus wrote:
No. CSS has said in the past that the answer to the fact that the gold supply cannot cover the money in the world today, we just make gold worth a whole lot more. Which is what makes the rich a lot richer, overnight.
I could see that. But I think the effects would be offset within a couple of months. But that's speculation.
josda1000 wrote:
I just completely disagree.
I am not sure how to argue something that is just common sense.
josda1000 wrote:
I'd say you're not living in the real world, buddy.
Well, my dad is bigger than yours. None of this proves anything. You're still posting, but not responding to my comments re: minimum wage, so until you're willing to discuss it with me, no amount of name calling on either side is likely to help.
josda1000 wrote:
All of the points I've raised are normal debates... it's even on WIKIPEDIA!
I have no doubt that you're not the only one saying them. That doesn't prove a thing.
josda1000 wrote:
The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed
ONLY in a world where both the new and old minimum wage are enough money to live. Only if we pretend that any money anyone earns, is spent on candy floss and blow jobs. In a world where people need money to live, there IS a minimum amount people need to be paid in order to survive.
josda1000 wrote:
"According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers.[13]"
Economic models are another way of saying guesses. What does that prove ? How is an economic model, reality, but the fact that people need to eat to survive, is not ? I know that if you make hiring someone cheaper, more people will be hired. And they will stay hired at that cheaper rate. The question is, should we allow corporations to ask someone to spend 1/3 of their life contributing to their wealth, and yet rely on the taxpayer for enough money to afford basic necessities ?
josda1000 wrote:
I could see that. But I think the effects would be offset within a couple of months. But that's speculation.
If the price of gold stayed fixed, how does it get offset ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Look. It's nonsense. Gold is just a medium of exchange, just like paper is right now. No, it's not. It's a real physical resource, and there's all sorts of negative flow on effects to what you propose.
I just completely disagree.
Christian Graus wrote:
Minimum wages make perfect sense to people who live in the real world.
And I don't? None of the financial conservatives make sense, even though they probably make up half of the population? I'd say you're not living in the real world, buddy.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm yet to hear any sensible argument against them, or see a real response from you to the points I've raised on the topic.
All of the points I've raised are normal debates... it's even on WIKIPEDIA! Again, with the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage[^] Again, with the quote. "If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. ... The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. Others, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force." How about another good quote?! "According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers.[13]" You sure that you're living in the real world still?
Christian Graus wrote:
No. CSS has said in the past that the answer to the fact that the gold supply cannot cover the money in the world today, we just make gold worth a whole lot more. Which is what makes the rich a lot richer, overnight.
I could see that. But I think the effects would be offset within a couple of months. But that's speculation.
josda1000 wrote:
Christian Graus wrote: josda1000 wrote: Look. It's nonsense. Gold is just a medium of exchange, just like paper is right now. No, it's not. It's a real physical resource, and there's all sorts of negative flow on effects to what you propose. I just completely disagree.
And you'd be wrong. A medium of exchange has NO OTHER VALUE besides what it is used for.. ie being money. Money is made specifically to be money, it is specially made and is not just like monopoly money, there is a lot of work that goes into making a Dollar, Euro, Mark, Pound, Franc, etc... different and difficult to counterfeit. Gold is not a medium of exchange. It never was. It was a commodity. It is also so widely in circulation and needed for so much that people don't realize that it would be a very bad thing to back currency with.
josda1000 wrote:
According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers
Yep. Because they'd have twice as many workers making half as much or some ratio of that. Do any of those books also indicate that turnover will be higher since those workers tend to drop dead earlier from malnutrition and other issues? That increases employment numbers too! It's easy to think that not paying someone enough to live, but paying more people that wage is somehow better for the economy, when you don't have to worry about it.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr121307h.htm[^] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=111-h20100120-54&person=400311[^]
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I am not able to open the vault more than once every 2 days, at a random time.
Because businesses always act that stupid. I don't know of one business that would ever do, or has ever done, such a moronic thing. This is just scare tactics.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Sorry, but a good bank robber would be able to steal all your money, since the Fed doesn't have the amount of gold needed to back up all the banks.
To the rest of my argument, fractional reserve banking is actually fraud. But I'm not getting into that.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Don't worry though, your gold is safe, until you walk out.
You could say the same with banking right now. This is not a valid argument.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
You could say the same with banking right now. This is not a valid argument.
Weird, cause I got this thing called a credit card. It lets me get my money out of a bank whenever I need. And thanks to fractional reserve banking, they can do that. Take the Fed out, make gold needed to be in banks and these things vanish. No one is going to be handing out money like they do now. This was the point I wanted to make. The current system works. Just cause you don't like it, think that going to something else is somehow magically going to fix everything and not leave a bunch of problems in doesn't mean you are right.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
I just completely disagree.
I am not sure how to argue something that is just common sense.
josda1000 wrote:
I'd say you're not living in the real world, buddy.
Well, my dad is bigger than yours. None of this proves anything. You're still posting, but not responding to my comments re: minimum wage, so until you're willing to discuss it with me, no amount of name calling on either side is likely to help.
josda1000 wrote:
All of the points I've raised are normal debates... it's even on WIKIPEDIA!
I have no doubt that you're not the only one saying them. That doesn't prove a thing.
josda1000 wrote:
The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed
ONLY in a world where both the new and old minimum wage are enough money to live. Only if we pretend that any money anyone earns, is spent on candy floss and blow jobs. In a world where people need money to live, there IS a minimum amount people need to be paid in order to survive.
josda1000 wrote:
"According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers.[13]"
Economic models are another way of saying guesses. What does that prove ? How is an economic model, reality, but the fact that people need to eat to survive, is not ? I know that if you make hiring someone cheaper, more people will be hired. And they will stay hired at that cheaper rate. The question is, should we allow corporations to ask someone to spend 1/3 of their life contributing to their wealth, and yet rely on the taxpayer for enough money to afford basic necessities ?
josda1000 wrote:
I could see that. But I think the effects would be offset within a couple of months. But that's speculation.
If the price of gold stayed fixed, how does it get offset ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I am not sure how to argue something that is just common sense.
As has been pointed out to me before, what may be common sense may not be the truth, or logical, or whatever.
Christian Graus wrote:
minimum wage, so until you're willing to discuss it with me, no amount of name calling on either side is likely to help.
wow dude. I've discussed this with you AT LENGTH. For TWO DAYS.
Christian Graus wrote:
I have no doubt that you're not the only one saying them. That doesn't prove a thing.
Right. And I don't live in reality, and I live in a fantasy, and all of your usual mantra. Apparently the "discussion" is over, even though I've argued the points and cited references, while all you can do is retort. There is no backing to what you say, you haven't posted facts/articles/opinions other than your own. You've been debunked, and you don't wish to admit it.
Christian Graus wrote:
In a world where people need money to live, there IS a minimum amount people need to be paid in order to survive.
You're absolutely right. But there's only so much you can do with government force before it just becomes antithetical to what needs to be done. Therefore one must let the private sector produce.
Christian Graus wrote:
Economic models are another way of saying guesses. What does that prove ? How is an economic model, reality, but the fact that people need to eat to survive, is not ?
Both are arguable. But my question is: how can I post facts and you "debunk" all of it, without posting any facts of your own? I contend that you don't live in the real world.
Christian Graus wrote:
If the price of gold stayed fixed, how does it get offset ?
Trading. Business. The thing that you don't understand.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
As population increases and the economy grows, gold and silver increase in value.
How is that? if you have a limited amount of gold and silver how can the economy grow? if it's fixed on how much gold you have to support it what happens to the countries that produce none or little of the metals?, if there's no credit how will you be able to get things that are out of how much you get every month, for example a house? every year thousands or millions of persons are added to the work force, with the limited amount of the metals, how can you keep up and pay them? what about housing? cars? food? what happens when we dig out all the gold/silver available? what will be used to replace them? Gold and Silver were good 500 years ago, heck, 100 years ago, now it's not feasible to keep using them as support for an economy, the economies are based on how much you can produce (to make it simple), the money production needs to be regulated, force the banks to have enough money to support the credits they give out for example. but anyway, please answer my questions as I don't see how gold could support an economy as big as the US or Japan
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
Gonzoox wrote:
How is that? if you have a limited amount of gold and silver how can the economy grow?
The value of gold and silver increases, pushing down prices and wages. That also makes mining for gold and silver more profitable, mining operations that were previously too expensive to be profitable become profitable. What you are not getting is that the value of gold and silver (or any currency for that matter) increases as the economy grows. It is just the way it is, the laws of nature. Supply and demand, as the economy grows, the demand for the currency increases, making it more valuable. The more valuable the currency, the lower prices and wages are.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
Christian Graus wrote: josda1000 wrote: Look. It's nonsense. Gold is just a medium of exchange, just like paper is right now. No, it's not. It's a real physical resource, and there's all sorts of negative flow on effects to what you propose. I just completely disagree.
And you'd be wrong. A medium of exchange has NO OTHER VALUE besides what it is used for.. ie being money. Money is made specifically to be money, it is specially made and is not just like monopoly money, there is a lot of work that goes into making a Dollar, Euro, Mark, Pound, Franc, etc... different and difficult to counterfeit. Gold is not a medium of exchange. It never was. It was a commodity. It is also so widely in circulation and needed for so much that people don't realize that it would be a very bad thing to back currency with.
josda1000 wrote:
According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers
Yep. Because they'd have twice as many workers making half as much or some ratio of that. Do any of those books also indicate that turnover will be higher since those workers tend to drop dead earlier from malnutrition and other issues? That increases employment numbers too! It's easy to think that not paying someone enough to live, but paying more people that wage is somehow better for the economy, when you don't have to worry about it.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Gold is not a medium of exchange. It never was.
No. Never. I mean, pre-1913 never happened. Nope.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It was a commodity. It is also so widely in circulation and needed for so much that people don't realize that it would be a very bad thing to back currency with.
Again, why does the Fed (and other central banks) have gold?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Do any of those books also indicate that turnover will be higher since those workers tend to drop dead earlier from malnutrition and other issues? That increases employment numbers too!
Sources?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It's easy to think that not paying someone enough to live, but paying more people that wage is somehow better for the economy, when you don't have to worry about it.
Again, with the mantra. Tell me, why were there no protests in the US over this?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
You could say the same with banking right now. This is not a valid argument.
Weird, cause I got this thing called a credit card. It lets me get my money out of a bank whenever I need. And thanks to fractional reserve banking, they can do that. Take the Fed out, make gold needed to be in banks and these things vanish. No one is going to be handing out money like they do now. This was the point I wanted to make. The current system works. Just cause you don't like it, think that going to something else is somehow magically going to fix everything and not leave a bunch of problems in doesn't mean you are right.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Weird, cause I got this thing called a credit card. It lets me get my money out of a bank whenever I need. And thanks to fractional reserve banking, they can do that. Take the Fed out, make gold needed to be in banks and these things vanish.
Tell me, why were we using gold for 100 years if there were such horrible things going on? Why the hell would the population not rise up if they couldn't use their currency?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Just cause you don't like it, think that going to something else is somehow magically going to fix everything and not leave a bunch of problems in doesn't mean you are right.
Agreed. But I'll back it because none of the arguments against me seem to add up. Just like what you think, you back yours up because you think the arguments against you seem to add up to you. I debate this, especially on my show, because I see an inherent problem, and I believe that we're hanging by a thread for this very reason. (Well, multiple reasons, all having to do with central banking and fiat currency.)
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
I am not sure how to argue something that is just common sense.
As has been pointed out to me before, what may be common sense may not be the truth, or logical, or whatever.
Christian Graus wrote:
minimum wage, so until you're willing to discuss it with me, no amount of name calling on either side is likely to help.
wow dude. I've discussed this with you AT LENGTH. For TWO DAYS.
Christian Graus wrote:
I have no doubt that you're not the only one saying them. That doesn't prove a thing.
Right. And I don't live in reality, and I live in a fantasy, and all of your usual mantra. Apparently the "discussion" is over, even though I've argued the points and cited references, while all you can do is retort. There is no backing to what you say, you haven't posted facts/articles/opinions other than your own. You've been debunked, and you don't wish to admit it.
Christian Graus wrote:
In a world where people need money to live, there IS a minimum amount people need to be paid in order to survive.
You're absolutely right. But there's only so much you can do with government force before it just becomes antithetical to what needs to be done. Therefore one must let the private sector produce.
Christian Graus wrote:
Economic models are another way of saying guesses. What does that prove ? How is an economic model, reality, but the fact that people need to eat to survive, is not ?
Both are arguable. But my question is: how can I post facts and you "debunk" all of it, without posting any facts of your own? I contend that you don't live in the real world.
Christian Graus wrote:
If the price of gold stayed fixed, how does it get offset ?
Trading. Business. The thing that you don't understand.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
As has been pointed out to me before, what may be common sense may not be the truth, or logical, or whatever.
Perhaps not. But that doesn't mean that making sense is proof it is stupid to say that gold needs to be mined, is useful for stuff, and is in limited supply.
josda1000 wrote:
wow dude. I've discussed this with you AT LENGTH. For TWO DAYS.
You've not really responded to the points I've raised, you just keep saying that if companies can hire people for less, they can afford to hire more people. I know that, I've responded to it.
josda1000 wrote:
And I don't live in reality, and I live in a fantasy, and all of your usual mantra.
Of course you live in reality. I just can't work out how reality factors in to what you're saying, mostly b/c you're repeating the same things and failing to explain to me why the overheads and costs of a business matter, but the overheads and costs of living for an individual are irrelevant.
josda1000 wrote:
There is no backing to what you say, you haven't posted facts/articles/opinions other than your own. You've been debunked, and you don't wish to admit it.
I don't have time to look for resources, nor do I feel I need them. If you don't think humans need a certain amount of food and shelter to survive, then we're not talking about reality. Until you answer that point, we're stuck in a loop.
josda1000 wrote:
But there's only so much you can do with government force before it just becomes antithetical to what needs to be done. Therefore one must let the private sector produce.
Sure, I agree. All government needs to do, is set safety standards and minimum wage standards so that no company can cut it's costs to the point that it kills their workers. At least, I can't think of anything else, off hand. But you keep talking as if a minimum wage is a joke, or is unfair, when it's plainly not.
josda1000 wrote:
how can I post facts and you "debunk" all of it, without posting any facts of your own?
I don't need any other facts at this point. The core issue in my mind is that you think it's ridiculous for government to state that no employer is allowed to hire someone for less than it costs
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Gold is not a medium of exchange. It never was.
No. Never. I mean, pre-1913 never happened. Nope.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It was a commodity. It is also so widely in circulation and needed for so much that people don't realize that it would be a very bad thing to back currency with.
Again, why does the Fed (and other central banks) have gold?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Do any of those books also indicate that turnover will be higher since those workers tend to drop dead earlier from malnutrition and other issues? That increases employment numbers too!
Sources?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It's easy to think that not paying someone enough to live, but paying more people that wage is somehow better for the economy, when you don't have to worry about it.
Again, with the mantra. Tell me, why were there no protests in the US over this?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Again, why does the Fed (and other central banks) have gold?
Money is not some magic thing that invents value, it needs to be backed up. It was invented as a place holder for value, for reasons I've covered elsewhere ( I asked CSS, if people pay in gold, how you know the coin you're accepting is complete, he never answered )
josda1000 wrote:
Sources
The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. Again.
josda1000 wrote:
Tell me, why were there no protests in the US over this?
For one, because the people being exploited came from countries where they expected any protest to result in death. For another, because they were too busy trying to survive, where missing a day of work for any reason, meant losing your job.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The constitution is 200yrs old. It has major failings in the fact that it is simply too dated to deal with the present.
Prove it. Why has it only been amended a few times in two hundred years, if it's got "major failings"? This is such a big thing to say when you don't back it up.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It was supposed to be a living document, but the politicians stopped that.
No, it was supposed to hinder the government from growing. And it did just that, for the most part. Now it steps outside of the Constitution when it feels like it... which is proof that big government proponents do assume it's a "living document". Yes, you can amend the Constitution, and that's what makes it a "living document". But I don't see anyone doing that.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
We need to lose that dumb wording. It was accepted practice at the time, it is no longer feasible. Heck, we aren't even supposed to have an air force.
That's rich.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Prove it. Why has it only been amended a few times in two hundred years, if it's got "major failings"? This is such a big thing to say when you don't back it up.
27 amendments is > a few. 10 were done right away, 2 more were seen as major issues. 4 amendments are still pending and 2 expired because Congress refuses to move. Now let's look at this. That original document you believe does not have major failings didn't allow women to vote, and Blacks counted as 60% human. If you lived in Washington DC you didn't count for electing a president and didn't explain what would happen in an emergency where the President and Vice President were lost. And good luck knowing if you were old enough to vote. It's got failings, Josh. Major ones. The things above are just amendments AFTER the first 10...
josda1000 wrote:
No, it was supposed to hinder the government from growing.
It only stops the federal government from doing 8 things... (Article 9, limits on Congress) 1: It won't stop slaves from being imported for 20 years. (now defunct) 2: No suspending Habeus Corpus. (Ie "you need warrents!") 3: No convicting without a trial or trying people for doing something before it was against the law. 4+5: Taxes apportioned by state populations, no taxing goods of states. 6: No choosing one state over another for trade, taxes, port use. 7: Reciepts for all spending and publish those numbers, no keeping things secret. 8: No nobility. Congress can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't step outside this. I see 4 being stepped on a little and 7. But none of these stop much.
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, you can amend the Constitution, and that's what makes it a "living document". But I don't see anyone doing that.
Were you alive in 1992? That's the last time they did it. We're about due for a few more fixes.
josda1000 wrote:
That's rich.
Says the guy who argued that the Coast Guard shouldn't exist. They at least are part of the Navy in some sense. There is no constitutional precedent for building an Air Force to "defend our skies from foreign or domestic aggression." So it is okay to ignore one part but not another?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and