"Why Gold?" and other issues with fixed currency
-
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.
-
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)SHHHHHHHHHH You have any idea how much the gold I was going to "mine" with just cell phones is worth if they made gold expensive enough per ounce to cover our tens of trillions of dollar economy is?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
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.josda1000 wrote:
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.
Well, if the bank is robbed today it doesn't make the money in your pocket worthless, nor does it make the money in your account go away due to the banks practice of partial reserve banking and, if necessary, the FDIC. Under your system of full reserve banking, that money that was stolen was YOURS, not the banks, there is no replacement currency.
-
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!
Gonzoox wrote:
if I print out more currency then the gold will be worth what? more or less
It would decouple the medals from the paper and cause instabilities.
Gonzoox wrote:
that way you will have a way to assign any value to gold
You cannot assign a value to gold or silver, their value is set naturally by supply and demand.
Gonzoox wrote:
I don't see why we need to go back 500 years
It aint about going back in history, its about using what works the best.
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[^]
-
SHHHHHHHHHH You have any idea how much the gold I was going to "mine" with just cell phones is worth if they made gold expensive enough per ounce to cover our tens of trillions of dollar economy is?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
A trillion dollars aint what it used to be.
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[^]
-
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: 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.
CG thinks a central authority will dictate the price of gold. Notice his wording.
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[^]
-
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[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
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.
Except it's not just moving earth. The most commonly-used process for gold extraction is called Cyanidation[^]... As in Cyanide. Yes, poison. It's banned in a few US states and in several countries, but it's still the #1 method.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
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.
This is a false dichotomy. You're saying that our only two choices are "fiat" or "gold", when there are other options. As I've said in several other parts of this thread, it would be entirely possible to just lock our money supply in place by removing the government's ability to add and remove currency. Whether that's feasible is of course debatable, but there aren't just two options.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Not really. All a country needs is to produce something people will buy, or compete in the labor market.
But see, a country could get insanely wealthy basing its entire economy on nothing but gold mining. For example, the largest gold deposit in the world is in Papua[^], in Indonesia. It's making about 58 million grams of gold (Grams, not ounces) per year, and this is a country with a population of about 2 million people.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Well look at our current system. It is collapsing.
Again, false dichotomy. You can use that argument to advocate fixed currency, but fixed-rate does not necessitate metal-backed.
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:
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.
CG thinks a central authority will dictate the price of gold. Notice his wording.
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:
CG thinks a central authority will dictate the price of gold. Notice his wording.
You're a retard. As previously noted. We means this is what society would set out to do.
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.
-
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
ragnaroknrol wrote:
27 amendments is > a few.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html[^] Those are the proposals made in just the past few Congress sessions. 27 is negligible compared to the number actually proposed every year.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
If only 27 amendments have been passed with so many proposals failing, I'd say the populous doesn't agree with your statement. I do agree with the fact that blacks counting as 60% human was terrible. I do agree that women should have been voting. But that is the natural progression of society... people change. I do still think that DC shouldn't technically be voting, because they aren't states, and really DC doesn't make up part of the Union, when talking in federal terms.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It's got failings, Josh. Major ones. The things above are just amendments AFTER the first 10...
Yeah. I know, that's why it's been amended. But the overall picture of the Constitution is actually really smart and well intended. "Just because it was well intended doesn't make it right." I know. So amend it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
WRONG. Article 1 Section
-
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!
Not supporting the idea of gold-backed currency, but to explain their viewpoint: The amount of currency that represents one ounce of gold would be fixed. The government would not be permitted to print more currency unless it obtains more gold to back it. The "value" would basically be like the consumer price index... As in, how much it costs to buy a loaf of bread. Hence, in your example, if the car was worth 2 pounds of gold, that would translate to a fixed dollar amount. If the amount of gold/currency in circulation was reduced (Trade deficit, hoarding, etc), our currency would become more valuable in that the car would now only cost 1.9 pounds of gold. Again, I'm not supporting the idea of gold-backed currency (I disagree with it). Just explaining how it would theoretically work.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
CG thinks a central authority will dictate the price of gold. Notice his wording.
You're a retard. As previously noted. We means this is what society would set out to do.
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.
The value of gold cannot be dictated or set by anyone, moron. The value is set by supply and demand. It is a natural process. You have been influenced by way too much communist propaganda.
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[^]
-
The value of gold cannot be dictated or set by anyone, moron. The value is set by supply and demand. It is a natural process. You have been influenced by way too much communist propaganda.
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:
The value of gold cannot be dictated or set by anyone, moron
Making gold in to money, and saying that all the gold in the world is, between it, worth all the money in the world today, is most certainly setting it's value. I'm just repeating what you told me was part of your master plan. The question of how you get everyone to pass in their cash and be given back gold is something else you've never explained.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The value is set by supply and demand. It is a natural process.
You're the one who wants to greatly inflate demand overnight, which will, obviously, increase the value.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You have been influenced by way too much communist propaganda.
And you're living in an ignorant fantasy world.
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:
- 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[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
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.
Calling a strawman while using a strawman. I am going to have to invent a term for this. Mining causes chemical pollution. There is no way around this as the chemicals for the equipment, blasting, and moving the rock.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
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.
Why must it be physically difficult? I can do it with some fools gold and idiots believing my coin is good.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Not really. All a country needs is to produce something people will buy, or compete in the labor market.
we can do that now without gold.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Well look at our current system. It is collapsing.
And Macintosh is a dead company, and computers will never be more than toys, and no one will ever need more than 512K RAM, and Japanese cars are junk, and man can't fly, and we'll never get a man on the moon, and the sky is falling. Funny thing about predicitions, so few come true.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
A trillion dollars aint what it used to be.
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[^]
No, it's still 12 zeros. It's exactly what it used to be.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
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.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
I agree. Completely. What the point was, was there a riot on money? Not riots on food or wages. Money. I know you don't see much of a difference, but there is a big difference.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
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.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
Tell Christian. He believes that there's no gold. You believe there is. You two should debate.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
Gold is $1200 an ounce. I suggest you get to it. Oh but wait. If it became money, then the price of gold would rise, creating inflation. I don't understand why you hold back if you would make money.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
27 amendments is > a few.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html[^] Those are the proposals made in just the past few Congress sessions. 27 is negligible compared to the number actually proposed every year.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
If only 27 amendments have been passed with so many proposals failing, I'd say the populous doesn't agree with your statement. I do agree with the fact that blacks counting as 60% human was terrible. I do agree that women should have been voting. But that is the natural progression of society... people change. I do still think that DC shouldn't technically be voting, because they aren't states, and really DC doesn't make up part of the Union, when talking in federal terms.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It's got failings, Josh. Major ones. The things above are just amendments AFTER the first 10...
Yeah. I know, that's why it's been amended. But the overall picture of the Constitution is actually really smart and well intended. "Just because it was well intended doesn't make it right." I know. So amend it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
WRONG. Article 1 Section
josda1000 wrote:
I do still think that DC shouldn't technically be voting, because they aren't states, and really DC doesn't make up part of the Union, when talking in federal terms.
If you live in DC you don't even count as 1% human and that's okay?
josda1000 wrote:
I've never said that. I've been contending that we amend the Constitution. I'm not saying to scrap it. I'm not saying to just ignore it. Amend the damned thing.
Fine by me, but let's amend it smartly and not in some far out place. Those proposed amendments? SOme of them are outright foolish. Line item veto means the President doesn't need to be somewhat civil with congress. Bush effectively did this with his "signing statements" and it was a bad move. Other presidents doing it donesn't make it right either. Abortion laws, one way or the other, marriage definitions, letting Scwartzenegger be President, none of these need to be there.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
Tell Christian. He believes that there's no gold. You believe there is. You two should debate.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
Gold is $1200 an ounce. I suggest you get to it. Oh but wait. If it became money, then the price of gold would rise, creating inflation. I don't understand why you hold back if you would make money.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Gold is $1200 an ounce. I suggest you get to it. Oh but wait. If it became money, then the price of gold would rise, creating inflation. I don't understand why you hold back if you would make money
At $1200/ounce it wouldn't be worth teh time or money to get it. At 5k+ it would. Also, I like my neighbors, the fumes would kill people not prepared for it.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.