"Why Gold?" and other issues with fixed currency
-
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
-
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:
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.
Stupid? Under your proposed system that is the sensible way to act. If notes are backed by gold and issued by the bank, then the theft of the gold makes the notes worthless, unless of course you plan to try to redeem them with the robbers. Banks would have to take such extreme measures to protect their gold, otherwise they (and all their customers) could be completely wiped out with a single theft.
-
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[^]
And that value will based on what? how are you going to measure how much gold is worth if gold is your way to measure the values of things? the only way I see it is based on your production of goods, isn't that the same as what we have right now?
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
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
rags, I'm with you on the Constitution being outdated, but just correcting a few mistakes...
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It only stops the federal government from doing 8 things... (Article 9, limits on Congress)
Actually it has both an inclusion and exclusion list. It lists a few things the Federal Government is NOT allowed to do, but before that it lists exactly which powers the Federal Government DOES have (Regulate trade, create a military, etc), followed by something along the lines of "Anything that's needed to carry out these powers" and "Everything else is reserved to the states or the people" So basically, it can do anything it needs to carry out the listed powers, EXCEPT the things you listed. Agreed on the rest.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
And that value will based on what? how are you going to measure how much gold is worth if gold is your way to measure the values of things? the only way I see it is based on your production of goods, isn't that the same as what we have right now?
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
Gonzoox wrote:
And that value will based on what? how are you going to measure how much gold is worth if gold is your way to measure the values of things? the only way I see it is based on your production of goods, isn't that the same as what we have right now?
That, and the quantity of the currency in circulation. The point of gold and silver is stability, it cannot be created like fiat currencies, it has to be mined, and that is reasonably difficult which keeps inflation in check. As the economy grows however, the medals increase in value, making difficult mining operations profitable where they were previously unprofitable. This makes gold and silver very stable.
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:
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
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
When do I say that individuals are irrelevant? I've contended that people are the markets, and they decide through buying/selling which businesses are viable and which aren't. Businesses would be better if they were smaller, because they must submit to the whims of the market much more than a corporation would, PLUS they have to listen to what their employees need much more as well, in order to keep their talent. Or as you contend, if they don't have "talent", then they pay them the least they can in order to stay afloat. In a free society, if there weren't so many strangle holds (like min wage, inc tax) then there would be more businesses created by the people that get SOL with employment by currently functioning businesses. This is the conservative argument, this is why the United States thrived, this is why there was no min wage, inc tax, and gold was in use. For 100 years. With no protest.
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
I just did. Check it out.
Christian Graus wrote:
The document you linked to, I have not had time to read fully, but the bit I read was a ridiculous piece of spin, using numbers that were nonsensical. You never answered that point, so I assume you agree that on that point
I do.
Christian Graus wrote:
the article was a joke, although I assume the rest must be awesome, for you to want me to read it still.
No it was not a joke. Yes it was awesome. Along with the wiki article. But that's cool. Write it off.
Christian Graus wrote:
You know that I started a company, sold it, and am now better off than most people because of my business ventures, right ? I mean, I don't like to brag, but it seems pertinent to raise it in the context of your statements.
And that's my thing, I'm really surprised that you sold your own product and reall
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I was trying to give a more obvious example of how this could affect technology in general, and vice versa.
Frankly, if the object you create that uses some quantity of gold, and gold soars in price because it is your currency, if that object then becomes unaffordable, then it won't be made, consequently, technological development falters. The effect on technology would be one of disaster especially if this object is a pre-requirement in the further development of technology. For example - computer aided design and computer aided manufacture would suffer as the objects they design/create/produce would be so expensive that commercial risk of failure high. Why? computers use electronic components that have some degree of gold as a pre-requirement in their manufacture, and if gold is your currency then such will be beyond affordability.
Gold prices are skyrocketing, electronics are not. Industry has little impact on the price of gold.
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[^]
-
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.Ft Nox is empty. I don't know why people keep saying otherwise, The Fed left the gold standard when it stopped being viable. Belief in the value of your money is no difference than believing in the value of gold, except gold can be faked well enough to fool the average consumer.
josda1000 wrote:
Sources?
E. Royston Pike’s Hard Times Go read up on what being a factory worker when there is no minimum wage was like.
josda1000 wrote:
Again, with the mantra. Tell me, why were there no protests in the US over this?
Will[^] this[^] do?[^] You may notice a pattern. Every time these folks tried to get together to get bargaining power so they could get better wages, the company buckled down. The Pullman company one showed a pretty fun little pattern. When you don't pay your workers enough to live anywhere else, you can provide them the food and living quarters. Then after working a 120hr week they can get a $.07 check (that's not even bucks now) after deductions. You still want to go to a system where the guys in charge don't have to care about paying enough?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
When do I say that individuals are irrelevant? I've contended that people are the markets, and they decide through buying/selling which businesses are viable and which aren't. Businesses would be better if they were smaller, because they must submit to the whims of the market much more than a corporation would, PLUS they have to listen to what their employees need much more as well, in order to keep their talent. Or as you contend, if they don't have "talent", then they pay them the least they can in order to stay afloat. In a free society, if there weren't so many strangle holds (like min wage, inc tax) then there would be more businesses created by the people that get SOL with employment by currently functioning businesses. This is the conservative argument, this is why the United States thrived, this is why there was no min wage, inc tax, and gold was in use. For 100 years. With no protest.
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
I just did. Check it out.
Christian Graus wrote:
The document you linked to, I have not had time to read fully, but the bit I read was a ridiculous piece of spin, using numbers that were nonsensical. You never answered that point, so I assume you agree that on that point
I do.
Christian Graus wrote:
the article was a joke, although I assume the rest must be awesome, for you to want me to read it still.
No it was not a joke. Yes it was awesome. Along with the wiki article. But that's cool. Write it off.
Christian Graus wrote:
You know that I started a company, sold it, and am now better off than most people because of my business ventures, right ? I mean, I don't like to brag, but it seems pertinent to raise it in the context of your statements.
And that's my thing, I'm really surprised that you sold your own product and reall
josda1000 wrote:
When do I say that individuals are irrelevant?
By discounting the idea that a minimum wage makes any sense at all.
josda1000 wrote:
in order to keep their talent.
Assuming the business makes guitars or writes code, not stacks supermarket shelves.
josda1000 wrote:
then they pay them the least they can in order to stay afloat.
Why would they ? What would constrain them, when your central argument is that they should be allowed to pay them less than they do now ?
josda1000 wrote:
This is the conservative argument, this is why the United States thrived, this is why there was no min wage, inc tax, and gold was in use. For 100 years. With no protest.
Many things you say here have been commented on. The idea that somehow society did not change in any other way, allowing you to blame our problems on the Fed and wage laws. The idea that if anyone was unhappy, they would protest. Do you think racism started in the 60s ? Why were there no protests before then ?
josda1000 wrote:
I just did. Check it out.
OK, if that's your answer, fair enough. It doesn't really address the core issue. If corporations can pay less, they will. That is what happened before, for unskilled workers. If they pay less than people need to live, they just let them die and hire others. That is what happened in your golden age, too. It comes down to this, do you care for the needs of humans, or of businesses ? Do you empathise with the person down on their luck, or just assume they are lazy and kick them to the curb ?
josda1000 wrote:
I do.
Well, then I wish you'd answer my comments. To talk about the average household wage of a minimum wage earner makes sense only if the deviation is not great, if they are themselves pooling money, etc. The average wage, when you include kids being paid minimum wage who live at home still, is irrelevant to the discussion. The average wage of an adult would be a better metric. That would catch women working for extra household money ( in which case my arguments only apply if both partners are on a low wage, and that would be captured ), as well as people who are the sole breadwinner. It's people for whom that job
-
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[^]
See, this is one of the failings of a metal-backed system... The creation of money itself becomes an industry. This is an industry that really doesn't need to exist. The world currently has a certain amount of demand for metals like gold and silver, and the current amount of mining reflects that demand. If those metals are suddenly considered currency (Whether it's gold and silver like before, or something new), then mining of that metal increases dramatically, which: 1) Causes more damage to the environment 2) Diverts a non-trivial amount of our industrial capacity away from things that would normally be more useful. (By free market logic, we should already be mining at about the needed rate). 3) Redistributes global finance based on mining capability (And gold deposits) instead of more useful indicators like industrial production, economic growth, technological advancement, etc. This is why though I see the merits of a fixed-rate currency (I don't favor it, but I'm not completely against the idea), I don't think metal-backed currency is at all feasible.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
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.
Christian Graus wrote:
Money is not some magic thing that invents value, it needs to be backed up.
Wow. What?! According to others, and myself, money has value that is given by the populous. It's a matter of perception. If money doesn't have that value, why do you use it? Why do you need it to be backed up? Nevermind the fact that no fiat currency is literally "backed" by it anyway right now, which is the very point of this thread. I suggest this quote be put in Ian's profile.
Christian Graus wrote:
I asked CSS, if people pay in gold, how you know the coin you're accepting is complete, he never answered
And this is a valid point. This is why there were moneychangers, from what I understand. They checked the weight of each piece of gold, per density and such.
Christian Graus wrote:
The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. Again.
Basically you just keep rattling off your one book. I suggest you expand your horizons. Ian and I at least do a good job of doing that.
Christian Graus wrote:
For one, because the people being exploited came from countries where they expected any protest to result in death.
lol I hear you, but I think that this is a stretch... like you said, "for one". I'll need more proof than that. Please continue.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
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.josda1000 wrote:
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?
Because the only people with any REAL money did have the gold needed to back it up. And even then, it was still paper money. There were plenty of uprisings, by the way. Just because you couldn't do a Google search for "food riots" or "american industrial revolution riots" doesn't mean the searches find nothing. Lots of people rioted in Europe over food being more expensive than what they were paid. (French were big on this) You can back up money with anything, as long as people believe it is worth something, they will use it.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
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.
Stupid? Under your proposed system that is the sensible way to act. If notes are backed by gold and issued by the bank, then the theft of the gold makes the notes worthless, unless of course you plan to try to redeem them with the robbers. Banks would have to take such extreme measures to protect their gold, otherwise they (and all their customers) could be completely wiped out with a single theft.
So if there's a theft NOW with the fiat money, this is ok? Meaning, the fact that banks are open all the time is ok for the fact that there is fiat money instead of hard money? We'd still get wiped out right now. I don't understand. If there's a run on a bank right now, they'd get completely wiped out that way as well.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
rags, I'm with you on the Constitution being outdated, but just correcting a few mistakes...
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It only stops the federal government from doing 8 things... (Article 9, limits on Congress)
Actually it has both an inclusion and exclusion list. It lists a few things the Federal Government is NOT allowed to do, but before that it lists exactly which powers the Federal Government DOES have (Regulate trade, create a military, etc), followed by something along the lines of "Anything that's needed to carry out these powers" and "Everything else is reserved to the states or the people" So basically, it can do anything it needs to carry out the listed powers, EXCEPT the things you listed. Agreed on the rest.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Bah, lost half my post to a bad cut and paste job. :( The list of things it needs to do is what it is doing. Though it seems a little liberal on some items.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Money is not some magic thing that invents value, it needs to be backed up.
Wow. What?! According to others, and myself, money has value that is given by the populous. It's a matter of perception. If money doesn't have that value, why do you use it? Why do you need it to be backed up? Nevermind the fact that no fiat currency is literally "backed" by it anyway right now, which is the very point of this thread. I suggest this quote be put in Ian's profile.
Christian Graus wrote:
I asked CSS, if people pay in gold, how you know the coin you're accepting is complete, he never answered
And this is a valid point. This is why there were moneychangers, from what I understand. They checked the weight of each piece of gold, per density and such.
Christian Graus wrote:
The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. Again.
Basically you just keep rattling off your one book. I suggest you expand your horizons. Ian and I at least do a good job of doing that.
Christian Graus wrote:
For one, because the people being exploited came from countries where they expected any protest to result in death.
lol I hear you, but I think that this is a stretch... like you said, "for one". I'll need more proof than that. Please continue.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
If money doesn't have that value, why do you use it? Why do you need it to be backed up?
When money was introduced, it was as a placeholder for something that had known value. That may be less the case today, as we're used to the idea. But that's historically why banks hold gold.
josda1000 wrote:
And this is a valid point. This is why there were moneychangers, from what I understand. They checked the weight of each piece of gold, per density and such.
Unless they are present for every transaction, they really are a form of inflation. I accept $10, take it to the money changer and he lets me know it's work $8.97.
josda1000 wrote:
Basically you just keep rattling off your one book. I suggest you expand your horizons. Ian and I at least do a good job of doing that.
I keep making the one point, and I am on the other side of the world from my library, so I'm not in a place to be looking stuff up. It's the only book I remember the title and author of, and will continue to be the proof that your percieved workers paradise before the gold standard was dropped, is an illusion.
josda1000 wrote:
lol I hear you, but I think that this is a stretch... like you said, "for one". I'll need more proof than that. Please continue.
I am referring to the content of The Jungle. At least read the wikipedia entry on the book.
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.
-
Gold prices are skyrocketing, electronics are not. Industry has little impact on the price of gold.
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[^]
That's because currently, most electronics use very small amounts of it... First useful link I came across: One challenge with the use of gold in very small quantities in very small devices is loss of the metal from society. Nearly one billion cell phones are produced each year and most of them contain about fifty cents worth of gold. Their average lifetime is under two years and very few are currently recycled. Although the amount of gold is small in each device, their enormous numbers translate into a lot of unrecycled gold. http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml[^] (Emphasis mine)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Gonzoox wrote:
And that value will based on what? how are you going to measure how much gold is worth if gold is your way to measure the values of things? the only way I see it is based on your production of goods, isn't that the same as what we have right now?
That, and the quantity of the currency in circulation. The point of gold and silver is stability, it cannot be created like fiat currencies, it has to be mined, and that is reasonably difficult which keeps inflation in check. As the economy grows however, the medals increase in value, making difficult mining operations profitable where they were previously unprofitable. This makes gold and silver very stable.
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 understand the point of the stability of gold and silver, but based on your answer, if I print out more currency then the gold will be worth what? more or less? isn't that a way to let the governments speculate?. isn't the currency supposed to be supported by how much gold you have? so how are we going to measure the value of gold? I came up with something else, I was talking about production of goods, but how about doing it the old way, I car will be worth, lets say 2 pounds of gold and 7 pounds of silver, if you don't have a way to measure the value of gold, because your currency is based on how much gold you have, you have to do it the old ways, 1 pound of corn was worth 2 ounces of silver for example, that way you will have a way to assign any value to gold, because you will start using a conversion system, 66.5 ounces of silver = 1 ounce of gold (at least these days that's how much silver is worth compared to gold) I don't see why we need to go back 500 years, while we have an economy that works, but needs to get regulated to avoid some of the things that happened. And still, what will happen to all the goods that require gold and silver to be produced?? how are we going to replace those?
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
See, this is one of the failings of a metal-backed system... The creation of money itself becomes an industry. This is an industry that really doesn't need to exist. The world currently has a certain amount of demand for metals like gold and silver, and the current amount of mining reflects that demand. If those metals are suddenly considered currency (Whether it's gold and silver like before, or something new), then mining of that metal increases dramatically, which: 1) Causes more damage to the environment 2) Diverts a non-trivial amount of our industrial capacity away from things that would normally be more useful. (By free market logic, we should already be mining at about the needed rate). 3) Redistributes global finance based on mining capability (And gold deposits) instead of more useful indicators like industrial production, economic growth, technological advancement, etc. This is why though I see the merits of a fixed-rate currency (I don't favor it, but I'm not completely against the idea), I don't think metal-backed currency is at all feasible.
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:
- Causes more damage to the environment
This is a straw man argument. Moving earth is not going to destroy the earth. Neither is carbon dioxide. The real environmental problems are genetically modified crops, chemicals, and biological threats.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Diverts a non-trivial amount of our industrial capacity away from things that would normally be more useful. (By free market logic, we should already be mining at about the needed rate).
Free market logic dictates that we need a sound currency, and fiat is not sound by any measure. It must be physically difficult to manipulate the money supply.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Redistributes global finance based on mining capability (And gold deposits) instead of more useful indicators like industrial production, economic growth, technological advancement, etc.
Not really. All a country needs is to produce something people will buy, or compete in the labor market.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't think metal-backed currency is at all feasible.
Well look at our current system. It is collapsing.
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[^]
-
So if there's a theft NOW with the fiat money, this is ok? Meaning, the fact that banks are open all the time is ok for the fact that there is fiat money instead of hard money? We'd still get wiped out right now. I don't understand. If there's a run on a bank right now, they'd get completely wiped out that way as well.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.The FDIC insures our money. They use fractional banking to do it. The belief is that if one bank folds, it is bad, so if the bank is about to fail, people won't yank their money out, causing it to do so for sure. In the case of a robbery, the people are chased down, but the bank is safe in the meantime. Make everything gold, and you lose the fractional accounting or you make gold so valuable that smart people own island paridises overnight. Having gold in a bank to cover the problem requires expensive security. If someone gets the gold, the bank is done. Or do you think fractional banking is okay?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
The FDIC insures our money. They use fractional banking to do it. The belief is that if one bank folds, it is bad, so if the bank is about to fail, people won't yank their money out, causing it to do so for sure. In the case of a robbery, the people are chased down, but the bank is safe in the meantime. Make everything gold, and you lose the fractional accounting or you make gold so valuable that smart people own island paridises overnight. Having gold in a bank to cover the problem requires expensive security. If someone gets the gold, the bank is done. Or do you think fractional banking is okay?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.