"Why Gold?" and other issues with fixed currency
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
If everyone felt the same about gold as I do ("It's bright and shiny - so what?") gold would have no value other than as a commodity.
Sure, I am with you. But, so long as it has an agreed value, it would be crazy to say it does not.
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.
-
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)and I still don't see how gold will be better... there's no way gold and/or silver will be able to keep with our growing economies... but thanks for the explanation
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
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.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
If you live in DC you don't even count as 1% human and that's okay?
I never said you don't count as human. But the District of Columbia was set up to be the capital, and not a state. 10 miles square. All you have to do is move to Virginia. Even if you want to be on the border.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
I'm glad you agree.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
Those aren't amendments to the Constitution. That's legislation. I mean, if what Congress did was make amendments to the constitution, we definitely would be living in tryanny.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Abortion laws, one way or the other, marriage definitions, letting Scwartzenegger be President, none of these need to be there.
Again, legislation.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
All you have to do is move to Virginia. Even if you want to be on the border.
So if someone wants to vote for the President, they shouldn't live in the capital city. (ie, the President shouldn't get a vote in Presidential elections?!) DC operates in very strange ways, I don't agree that it should not count and people should be forced to live somewhere else to have rights eqal to someone a mile away.
josda1000 wrote:
Those aren't amendments to the Constitution. That's legislation. I mean, if what Congress did was make amendments to the constitution, we definitely would be living in tryanny.
Look at the link you provided again, all of the things I said were proposed amendments that didn't make it. Not legislation, attempts to amend the constitution that start in Congress and have to get enough support to go to the next step. We agree the constitution should be amended more often and more intelligently. I believe it is because it was intended to be a living document, updated as needed to keep it capable of surviving in the contemporary world.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
And you dont have any mercury handy?
Shhhh, let me have my dreams.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
All you have to do is move to Virginia. Even if you want to be on the border.
So if someone wants to vote for the President, they shouldn't live in the capital city. (ie, the President shouldn't get a vote in Presidential elections?!) DC operates in very strange ways, I don't agree that it should not count and people should be forced to live somewhere else to have rights eqal to someone a mile away.
josda1000 wrote:
Those aren't amendments to the Constitution. That's legislation. I mean, if what Congress did was make amendments to the constitution, we definitely would be living in tryanny.
Look at the link you provided again, all of the things I said were proposed amendments that didn't make it. Not legislation, attempts to amend the constitution that start in Congress and have to get enough support to go to the next step. We agree the constitution should be amended more often and more intelligently. I believe it is because it was intended to be a living document, updated as needed to keep it capable of surviving in the contemporary world.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
So if someone wants to vote for the President, they shouldn't live in the capital city. (ie, the President shouldn't get a vote in Presidential elections?!)
Isn't that a conflict of interest anyway?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
DC operates in very strange ways
Which is entirely the point, actually. And it was purposefully designed that way by the founders. DC operates the way any other country would, EXCEPT the rest of this federation. The Congress has complete control of its population: Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have Power... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States... The Congress decided to delegate most legislative power to their DC government, but that doesn't mean that Congress doesn't have exclusive authority. In the case of the States, the States have total control. What I mean by this is that the Constitution was basically a declaration of delegation of authority. So, if the states created the federal government, it can take that government away, just like the federal government creating that mini DC government. It can take that away as well. But this is it... the ultimate check and balance. You have checks and balances in each of the 51 governments (federal + 50 states) with the branches, but you have the federal government pushing more laws that are arguably unconstitutional, and the states are nullifying them as we speak. Central planning doesn't work because, in some state's and individual's eyes, they're unconstitutional and authoritative. This, by the way, is another reason why CSS and I could see civil war erupting again.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I don't agree that it should not count and people should be forced to live somewhere else to have rights eqal to someone a mile away.
Ah, I see your point, however, I still disagree. The point is to see how tyrannical unchecked power can be if you don't have a say. The point is to live in the federation (one of the states), and not stay in the district and remain a subject. I get your point, I really do. But it would be the biggest mistake.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
So if someone wants to vote for the President, they shouldn't live in the capital city. (ie, the President shouldn't get a vote in Presidential elections?!)
Isn't that a conflict of interest anyway?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
DC operates in very strange ways
Which is entirely the point, actually. And it was purposefully designed that way by the founders. DC operates the way any other country would, EXCEPT the rest of this federation. The Congress has complete control of its population: Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have Power... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States... The Congress decided to delegate most legislative power to their DC government, but that doesn't mean that Congress doesn't have exclusive authority. In the case of the States, the States have total control. What I mean by this is that the Constitution was basically a declaration of delegation of authority. So, if the states created the federal government, it can take that government away, just like the federal government creating that mini DC government. It can take that away as well. But this is it... the ultimate check and balance. You have checks and balances in each of the 51 governments (federal + 50 states) with the branches, but you have the federal government pushing more laws that are arguably unconstitutional, and the states are nullifying them as we speak. Central planning doesn't work because, in some state's and individual's eyes, they're unconstitutional and authoritative. This, by the way, is another reason why CSS and I could see civil war erupting again.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I don't agree that it should not count and people should be forced to live somewhere else to have rights eqal to someone a mile away.
Ah, I see your point, however, I still disagree. The point is to see how tyrannical unchecked power can be if you don't have a say. The point is to live in the federation (one of the states), and not stay in the district and remain a subject. I get your point, I really do. But it would be the biggest mistake.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybejosda1000 wrote:
Isn't that a conflict of interest anyway?
There is no requirement that people not vote for themselves in elections. Someone should not be barred from exercising their rights for that anyway.
josda1000 wrote:
Ah, I see your point, however, I still disagree. The point is to see how tyrannical unchecked power can be if you don't have a say. The point is to live in the federation (one of the states), and not stay in the district and remain a subject. I get your point, I really do. But it would be the biggest mistake.
I just want them able to vote for the President. They don't need a senator or rep thanks to how they are handled (as you showed) and local elections already happen. Them being able to vote for the President was an amendment and a good one. It fixed the one glaring point where they were being screwed because they were being treated without representation. And that's what I am mostly about here. Otherwise one could have made a valid point about if you didn't like the taxes you should have lived in the Empire proper and not the colonies. They dumped tea in a bay over that thinking.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Isn't that a conflict of interest anyway?
There is no requirement that people not vote for themselves in elections. Someone should not be barred from exercising their rights for that anyway.
josda1000 wrote:
Ah, I see your point, however, I still disagree. The point is to see how tyrannical unchecked power can be if you don't have a say. The point is to live in the federation (one of the states), and not stay in the district and remain a subject. I get your point, I really do. But it would be the biggest mistake.
I just want them able to vote for the President. They don't need a senator or rep thanks to how they are handled (as you showed) and local elections already happen. Them being able to vote for the President was an amendment and a good one. It fixed the one glaring point where they were being screwed because they were being treated without representation. And that's what I am mostly about here. Otherwise one could have made a valid point about if you didn't like the taxes you should have lived in the Empire proper and not the colonies. They dumped tea in a bay over that thinking.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
one could have made a valid point about if you didn't like the taxes you should have lived in the Empire proper and not the colonies. They dumped tea in a bay over that thinking.
I understand that argument, but the situation is very, very different here. We're talking about a federal territory that has unlimited jurisidiction in 10 square miles (and other territories) vs the states. The colonies (all of them) were huge compared to England. England had unlimited jurisdiction over the colonies. Here, it's vice-versa: The Congress has unlimited jurisdiction over the federal territories and the captial district, while the land of the states is huge compared to that. Plus, it wasn't exactly easy to move away from the colonies over an ocean. Now, if you really had to, you have airplanes, cars, everything, and it's kind of easy to move from the District to any other part of the country (except Alaska and Hawaii).
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
one could have made a valid point about if you didn't like the taxes you should have lived in the Empire proper and not the colonies. They dumped tea in a bay over that thinking.
I understand that argument, but the situation is very, very different here. We're talking about a federal territory that has unlimited jurisidiction in 10 square miles (and other territories) vs the states. The colonies (all of them) were huge compared to England. England had unlimited jurisdiction over the colonies. Here, it's vice-versa: The Congress has unlimited jurisdiction over the federal territories and the captial district, while the land of the states is huge compared to that. Plus, it wasn't exactly easy to move away from the colonies over an ocean. Now, if you really had to, you have airplanes, cars, everything, and it's kind of easy to move from the District to any other part of the country (except Alaska and Hawaii).
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.You are rationalizing past the basic argument. Our country is founded on a belief that people should not be given laws without a say in the government. We fought with England over this. Self-governance is a major point. We have a city that represented itself in all things except 1 area. It could not elect the chief executive of the country. Every person in that city had no say whatsoever in that decision. I don't care how easy it would have been to move (ignoring the fact that you effectively want a dead city if people want to have a say) we should not tell people where they can live if they want a voice. So they fixed it and gave the city a voice. If you can't see how telling someone it is okay not to have a voice in an election or where to live if they want one, you really need to rethink your stated party.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
You are rationalizing past the basic argument. Our country is founded on a belief that people should not be given laws without a say in the government. We fought with England over this. Self-governance is a major point. We have a city that represented itself in all things except 1 area. It could not elect the chief executive of the country. Every person in that city had no say whatsoever in that decision. I don't care how easy it would have been to move (ignoring the fact that you effectively want a dead city if people want to have a say) we should not tell people where they can live if they want a voice. So they fixed it and gave the city a voice. If you can't see how telling someone it is okay not to have a voice in an election or where to live if they want one, you really need to rethink your stated party.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You are rationalizing past the basic argument.
I know, I went on a rampage lol But, I don't think it's without merit.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Our country is founded on a belief that people should not be given laws without a say in the government. We fought with England over this. Self-governance is a major point.
You're damned right! But this is why they left the Congress to govern over 10 square miles fully. Basically, the people there are Subjects, as opposed to our common term of People. They could have left the Capital as Philadelphia, why not?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
We have a city that represented itself in all things except 1 area. It could not elect the chief executive of the country. Every person in that city had no say whatsoever in that decision.
And they didn't have representatives or Senators either for some time, and they still do not vote. It's good for them to have a say, I definitely agree, but they don't have voting rights, and that's actually IMO a good thing. DC is supposed to remind the states of how they should not operate. They should always have a say in everything they do (states, people). It serves as a reminder of the tyranny of the past, and honestly I don't see why people DO live in the capital area. It looks like crap, too much government, and not enough people. This is my argument.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
you effectively want a dead city if people want to have a say
I want that city to not exist, is what I'm saying (meaning, the capital can stay put but people should GTFO).
ragnaroknrol wrote:
we should not tell people where they can live if they want a voice
You're right, that is the point of freedom isn't it? To be free from tyranny? But, with freedom comes responsibility. People moved from China to escape tyranny. People should drive five miles to escape tyranny. We can't tell them where to live... but they have to figure it out for themselves. I know that sounds oppressive... but think of the way the colonies were oppressed for 200 years without revolution until it just got so bad that they finally broke out of their shell.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
If you can't see how telling someone i