Ron Paul’s Amendment To Audit The Federal Reserve Approved
-
lol boogey men... look, the numbers speak for themselves. go look up the gold prices and silver prices. silver is double what it was six months ago. get a fuckin clue... protect yourself and buy some silver, if you can't afford gold(notice that most people in the 1800s could at least afford gold; it was our currency). don't do it for me, do it for yourself. the dollar has lost 95% of its value since the fed was created. coincidence? or conspiracy theory? whatever you call it, i call it fact.
Do me a favor and go find out how much stuff cost in silver for the 1000 years prior to the fed. Let me give you a hint, it was traded ounce for ounce with gold by Europe and the Mid-East. Silver somehow lost almost all it's value in 2000 years. Even with the last 6 months it is nothing compared to the value it had in the middle ages. No dollar did this, no fed, nothing but people deciding gold was more valuable even though it had been just as rare. Inflation happens. We also see wages way higher than when the Fed was made. Darn, we have to pay $2.50 for a loaf of bread instead of $.10. Good thing we are making $13/hr instead of $.15/hr, huh? Backing something with a standard only works if the standard is a fixed item that does not fluctuate in availability or value itself. Gold fits neither of these criteria. More gold is mined, more is lost to items, and so it has no fixed value. Saying it should always be X amount per ounce won't help, because all that means is that someone else can simply flood the market with it and now everyone is rich. Prices go up and inflation has happened anyway. Silver is even worse.
-
Do me a favor and go find out how much stuff cost in silver for the 1000 years prior to the fed. Let me give you a hint, it was traded ounce for ounce with gold by Europe and the Mid-East. Silver somehow lost almost all it's value in 2000 years. Even with the last 6 months it is nothing compared to the value it had in the middle ages. No dollar did this, no fed, nothing but people deciding gold was more valuable even though it had been just as rare. Inflation happens. We also see wages way higher than when the Fed was made. Darn, we have to pay $2.50 for a loaf of bread instead of $.10. Good thing we are making $13/hr instead of $.15/hr, huh? Backing something with a standard only works if the standard is a fixed item that does not fluctuate in availability or value itself. Gold fits neither of these criteria. More gold is mined, more is lost to items, and so it has no fixed value. Saying it should always be X amount per ounce won't help, because all that means is that someone else can simply flood the market with it and now everyone is rich. Prices go up and inflation has happened anyway. Silver is even worse.
Look you're right, silver has gone down in value comparatively to gold. I can understand that, because people in general have always seen gold as a central storing of wealth over the last FEW THOUSAND YEARS. Compared to PAPER, it's "worth its weight". I'd argue that the reason why silver has lost value over the years is because it had become industrialized and used for projects other than just money, so it was sold at wholesale for those purposes. And no, I'd say the value of gold has remained relatively constant. As G Edward Griffin says, "If you had bought a toga, belt and pair of sandals back then, it'd be about one ounce of gold. If you bought a nice suit, belt and pair of shoes today, it'd be about one ounce of gold." As people find more gold in the ground, of course it inflates the gold supply. But the number of goods in the supply also gets inflated, because people are producing food, clothing, and other things. So that's why gold's value remains reasonably constant. And about people's wages... Don't you think that people's raises in wage/salary should grow with experience, not remain the same due to inflation? That's why it's a tax. That's why it's ridiculous to actually support man-made inflation. But I'm done arguing my point, I think I have tried to respond to every response made to me over the last four or five days, so I think I have a sound argument here. Just remember something: we were taught this stuff in elementary school. It's amazing how most people can forget simple economics that even a ten year old could understand. All of this mainstream media / Keynesian economics stuff must be forgotten, because it's just a bunch of hype and is destroying us. If we do end up passing the healthcare bill, the only way we're going to pay for it is through inflation or more debt. Or more direct and in-your-face taxes. Which will definitely wake people up.
-
Do me a favor and go find out how much stuff cost in silver for the 1000 years prior to the fed. Let me give you a hint, it was traded ounce for ounce with gold by Europe and the Mid-East. Silver somehow lost almost all it's value in 2000 years. Even with the last 6 months it is nothing compared to the value it had in the middle ages. No dollar did this, no fed, nothing but people deciding gold was more valuable even though it had been just as rare. Inflation happens. We also see wages way higher than when the Fed was made. Darn, we have to pay $2.50 for a loaf of bread instead of $.10. Good thing we are making $13/hr instead of $.15/hr, huh? Backing something with a standard only works if the standard is a fixed item that does not fluctuate in availability or value itself. Gold fits neither of these criteria. More gold is mined, more is lost to items, and so it has no fixed value. Saying it should always be X amount per ounce won't help, because all that means is that someone else can simply flood the market with it and now everyone is rich. Prices go up and inflation has happened anyway. Silver is even worse.
One last thought: why in the hell would the founding fathers specify a type of currency we're supposed to use, if they didn't find fault in paper? The Constitution was meant to be a series of prohibitions on the government, not a series of things for Congress and the President to violate. The use of hard money was constituted to prohibit the government from inflating the dollar against the will of the people. It's really quite simple. Allowing one entity to counterfeit/inflate currency is a monopoly, and criminal. It devalues every other dollar in circulation, or loaned, or whatever. You seem to understand this. But you don't seem to understand that it is immoral, wrong, and makes poor people poorer. Look at Zimbabwe. Hyperinflation, because of the public debt. It's left many people starved to death, and digging for gold. Why would they dig for gold if gold isn't currency? It is currency. It always has been, and may well be for the length of human existence. Look at Argentina. Banks looted the country under the guise of making great loans. And this was only 8 years ago. Precious metal may shift in value. You may not even believe at all in silver; that's ok. But Precious metal will not lose value at the whim of a government or banks. It will always hold, because you can't print it. Precious metal is a store of value, paper is something i can write on and throw it out. I mean, you see what I'm saying. How about this: I can throw out paper and burn it, and it's gone. I can melt metal down, bend it, or whatever. And then I can reshape it to a coin. I can't do that with paper. So, what is money? It's supposed to be a store of value. But paper currency is not, because you can burn it, and that value is gone. Also, the government can print more money and your money would have in turn lost value. So I stand by my argument. And I'm now done. lol I hope I've made my point.
-
You should post a link of your recordings so we can see.
-
One last thought: why in the hell would the founding fathers specify a type of currency we're supposed to use, if they didn't find fault in paper? The Constitution was meant to be a series of prohibitions on the government, not a series of things for Congress and the President to violate. The use of hard money was constituted to prohibit the government from inflating the dollar against the will of the people. It's really quite simple. Allowing one entity to counterfeit/inflate currency is a monopoly, and criminal. It devalues every other dollar in circulation, or loaned, or whatever. You seem to understand this. But you don't seem to understand that it is immoral, wrong, and makes poor people poorer. Look at Zimbabwe. Hyperinflation, because of the public debt. It's left many people starved to death, and digging for gold. Why would they dig for gold if gold isn't currency? It is currency. It always has been, and may well be for the length of human existence. Look at Argentina. Banks looted the country under the guise of making great loans. And this was only 8 years ago. Precious metal may shift in value. You may not even believe at all in silver; that's ok. But Precious metal will not lose value at the whim of a government or banks. It will always hold, because you can't print it. Precious metal is a store of value, paper is something i can write on and throw it out. I mean, you see what I'm saying. How about this: I can throw out paper and burn it, and it's gone. I can melt metal down, bend it, or whatever. And then I can reshape it to a coin. I can't do that with paper. So, what is money? It's supposed to be a store of value. But paper currency is not, because you can burn it, and that value is gone. Also, the government can print more money and your money would have in turn lost value. So I stand by my argument. And I'm now done. lol I hope I've made my point.
Ok, say the entire world was using gold-backed currency... Say country X suddenly finds an enormous gold deposit within its borders, turns it all into currency, and puts it into circulation by purchasing things from various parts of the world. Now there's ten times as much currency on the market. This currency gets spread around, as it tends to do, and now on the whole, people have ten times as much money as before. What do you think would happen to prices during this time? Would the value of currency change, or stay the same? (Yes, this is an exaggerated hypothetical situation, but the point stands)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Ok, say the entire world was using gold-backed currency... Say country X suddenly finds an enormous gold deposit within its borders, turns it all into currency, and puts it into circulation by purchasing things from various parts of the world. Now there's ten times as much currency on the market. This currency gets spread around, as it tends to do, and now on the whole, people have ten times as much money as before. What do you think would happen to prices during this time? Would the value of currency change, or stay the same? (Yes, this is an exaggerated hypothetical situation, but the point stands)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
I do understand your thought. And that actually did happen in the gold rush. But the inflation effects felt only lasted, according to economists, for about three years. But after some time, the price/value of gold got back up, and it now rests as it did before, compared to other commodities and traded items such as wheat, oil, and that kind of thing. So things may change for a short period of time with hard money, but with paper things usually only get worse. I'm glad you gave me a situation to prove my point, thanks.
-
I do understand your thought. And that actually did happen in the gold rush. But the inflation effects felt only lasted, according to economists, for about three years. But after some time, the price/value of gold got back up, and it now rests as it did before, compared to other commodities and traded items such as wheat, oil, and that kind of thing. So things may change for a short period of time with hard money, but with paper things usually only get worse. I'm glad you gave me a situation to prove my point, thanks.
I don't see how it would simply go back to where it was before, unless a comparable amount of gold was subsequently removed from the economy. Value is directly proportional to rarity. Decrease rarity, you decrease value. Even if it was only a small increase, that actually proves MY point, which is that even a currency backed by precious metals is NOT immune to inflation. More resilient, yes, but not immune.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
I don't see how it would simply go back to where it was before, unless a comparable amount of gold was subsequently removed from the economy. Value is directly proportional to rarity. Decrease rarity, you decrease value. Even if it was only a small increase, that actually proves MY point, which is that even a currency backed by precious metals is NOT immune to inflation. More resilient, yes, but not immune.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
It would, and it did. I forget who said it in this thread, it may have been you. But silver used to be sold ounce for ounce, and now silver has dropped drastically. 1 ounce of gold is comparable to about 50 ounces of silver. And gold has retained its value for about 6000 years, it has been stated. In Rome, you could buy a toga, belt and sandals for about 1 ounce of gold. Now, you can buy a suit, belt and shoes for about 1 ounce of gold. I'd say that even though it may have mountains and valleys along the way, such as with gold rushes, the market will recover from it, and gold will retain value. Your thought process is basically only thinking of short term effects. The long term effect is actually nothing... the value of gold is reasonably level. And yes I do agree that a decrease in rarity is a decrease in value. That's what inflation/deflation is all about. BTW have you ever heard of anyone ever taking gold out of the economy? Are you going to bury gold to never retrieve it again? I mean some do bury it, but they intend on taking it back out of the ground eventually. "Buried treasure" lol. Wouldn't you be happy to keep it and know where it is? Who in their right mind would keep it out of the economy, and not spend it? The market adjusts. The reason why gold retains value is because people make more things/products/services. It's the idea of supply and demand. All I'm saying is that ONE entity should not make all decisions on money. People, the FREE market, should make these decisions. Whether it's the gathering of gold, or the making of products, the market can do this, not one bank.
-
It would, and it did. I forget who said it in this thread, it may have been you. But silver used to be sold ounce for ounce, and now silver has dropped drastically. 1 ounce of gold is comparable to about 50 ounces of silver. And gold has retained its value for about 6000 years, it has been stated. In Rome, you could buy a toga, belt and sandals for about 1 ounce of gold. Now, you can buy a suit, belt and shoes for about 1 ounce of gold. I'd say that even though it may have mountains and valleys along the way, such as with gold rushes, the market will recover from it, and gold will retain value. Your thought process is basically only thinking of short term effects. The long term effect is actually nothing... the value of gold is reasonably level. And yes I do agree that a decrease in rarity is a decrease in value. That's what inflation/deflation is all about. BTW have you ever heard of anyone ever taking gold out of the economy? Are you going to bury gold to never retrieve it again? I mean some do bury it, but they intend on taking it back out of the ground eventually. "Buried treasure" lol. Wouldn't you be happy to keep it and know where it is? Who in their right mind would keep it out of the economy, and not spend it? The market adjusts. The reason why gold retains value is because people make more things/products/services. It's the idea of supply and demand. All I'm saying is that ONE entity should not make all decisions on money. People, the FREE market, should make these decisions. Whether it's the gathering of gold, or the making of products, the market can do this, not one bank.
In theory, the Fed is an extension of the government, and hence an extension of the people. It's set up as a private institution instead of a direct government agency to stop the government reps from pushing financial agendas for political gain and screwing up the economy. But that's off-topic... Anyway... Gold DOES trickle out of the economy every day. It's a great electrical conductor, among other things. Imagine the amount of gold that's sitting in scrapyards all over the world, still inside discarded electronics. In ancient times, gold basically only had two uses. Currency and opulent luxury goods (Which could be melted down in times of need). Now, gold is an industrial component. Of course, people are continuously mining gold, so it comes back into the economy... Obviously those rates are not going to balance out... If gold WAS currency, mining would increase drastically (Since right now, increases in mining would lower the rarity, and hence the value), and people would likely use alternatives in manufacturing where possible. Hence, the supply would increase. So there WOULD be inflation and deflation, based on the supply versus industrial use. There would still be booms and busts (As we've established). Only three things would change, assuming we could get the entire world to become gold-backed: 1) There would be no way to regulate the market aside from taxes, and no way to prevent the inevitable depressions. 2) Your wallet would be a lot heavier, since all physical currency would have to be metal. 3) Money would retain its value, more or less, so there would be less motivation for individuals to invest their money (Since you don't need to earn interest just to keep up with inflation).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
In theory, the Fed is an extension of the government, and hence an extension of the people. It's set up as a private institution instead of a direct government agency to stop the government reps from pushing financial agendas for political gain and screwing up the economy. But that's off-topic... Anyway... Gold DOES trickle out of the economy every day. It's a great electrical conductor, among other things. Imagine the amount of gold that's sitting in scrapyards all over the world, still inside discarded electronics. In ancient times, gold basically only had two uses. Currency and opulent luxury goods (Which could be melted down in times of need). Now, gold is an industrial component. Of course, people are continuously mining gold, so it comes back into the economy... Obviously those rates are not going to balance out... If gold WAS currency, mining would increase drastically (Since right now, increases in mining would lower the rarity, and hence the value), and people would likely use alternatives in manufacturing where possible. Hence, the supply would increase. So there WOULD be inflation and deflation, based on the supply versus industrial use. There would still be booms and busts (As we've established). Only three things would change, assuming we could get the entire world to become gold-backed: 1) There would be no way to regulate the market aside from taxes, and no way to prevent the inevitable depressions. 2) Your wallet would be a lot heavier, since all physical currency would have to be metal. 3) Money would retain its value, more or less, so there would be less motivation for individuals to invest their money (Since you don't need to earn interest just to keep up with inflation).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
Yes... theoretically it's supposed to be an extension of government. But it's so private that we know less about it than all other government arms. OK so now were you trying to refute me on this post? 1) The point of a free market is to not have regulations, except to prevent fraud. That's it. The government is not meant to control prices and interest rates (as the Fed and SEC tries to do). The Fed tries to prevent depressions and inflation... but it is the only source of our current inflation, and nobody can prevent depressions/recessions, nevermind the fact that in my opinion it's the actual source of depressions. 2) I wouldn't complain about your wallet being heavier... I mean come on, wouldn't it be cool to have a bunch of gold in your pocket? Plus, with credit/debit card technology, you don't necessarily need to carry coins around constantly if you don't want. It's just the fact that we don't back the currency, or use gold at all. That, to me, is a problem. 3) Oh no, saving money?! The problem with our society is the fact that we don't save. We're in debt. Almost everyone in America is in debt in one way or another. What's wrong with people saving? If your argument is to not save and invest instead, people should make their own choices as to what to invest in. If they want to just straight up save money, they should do so. If they want to mix (save AND invest), let them do so. It's their money. Investing in a business that they don't know should be up to them; if they feel safer by saving, it's up to them.
-
Yes... theoretically it's supposed to be an extension of government. But it's so private that we know less about it than all other government arms. OK so now were you trying to refute me on this post? 1) The point of a free market is to not have regulations, except to prevent fraud. That's it. The government is not meant to control prices and interest rates (as the Fed and SEC tries to do). The Fed tries to prevent depressions and inflation... but it is the only source of our current inflation, and nobody can prevent depressions/recessions, nevermind the fact that in my opinion it's the actual source of depressions. 2) I wouldn't complain about your wallet being heavier... I mean come on, wouldn't it be cool to have a bunch of gold in your pocket? Plus, with credit/debit card technology, you don't necessarily need to carry coins around constantly if you don't want. It's just the fact that we don't back the currency, or use gold at all. That, to me, is a problem. 3) Oh no, saving money?! The problem with our society is the fact that we don't save. We're in debt. Almost everyone in America is in debt in one way or another. What's wrong with people saving? If your argument is to not save and invest instead, people should make their own choices as to what to invest in. If they want to just straight up save money, they should do so. If they want to mix (save AND invest), let them do so. It's their money. Investing in a business that they don't know should be up to them; if they feel safer by saving, it's up to them.
josda1000 wrote:
1)The Fed tries to prevent depressions and inflation... but it is the only source of our current inflation, and nobody can prevent depressions/recessions, nevermind the fact that in my opinion it's the actual source of depressions.
The Fed is NOT the only source of inflation. It only causes inflation/deflation when it performs open market operations, like the stimulus package used to avert the current situation. This isn't a daily thing for them.
josda1000 wrote:
- I wouldn't complain about your wallet being heavier... I mean come on, wouldn't it be cool to have a bunch of gold in your pocket? Plus, with credit/debit card technology, ...
It would basically force people to do things electronically. Not saying this is a bad thing... Just different. I'm guessing there would be some downsides, though, to having the metal itself in the currency, but I'm no expert.
josda1000 wrote:
- Oh no, saving money?! The problem with our society is the fact that we don't save. We're in debt. Almost everyone in America is in debt in one way or another. What's wrong with people saving?
This is a numbers game. Let's say 10% of people decide they'd rather just keep their money safe, whether that's literally in a "safe," under their mattress, or something similar. Remember, savings accounts would no longer be 100% protected, since the FDIC would have to be terminated (The government can only guarantee money on that scale because it can print money). That's 10% less money being invested, so that's going to slow economic growth. Or am I missing something here?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
josda1000 wrote:
1)The Fed tries to prevent depressions and inflation... but it is the only source of our current inflation, and nobody can prevent depressions/recessions, nevermind the fact that in my opinion it's the actual source of depressions.
The Fed is NOT the only source of inflation. It only causes inflation/deflation when it performs open market operations, like the stimulus package used to avert the current situation. This isn't a daily thing for them.
josda1000 wrote:
- I wouldn't complain about your wallet being heavier... I mean come on, wouldn't it be cool to have a bunch of gold in your pocket? Plus, with credit/debit card technology, ...
It would basically force people to do things electronically. Not saying this is a bad thing... Just different. I'm guessing there would be some downsides, though, to having the metal itself in the currency, but I'm no expert.
josda1000 wrote:
- Oh no, saving money?! The problem with our society is the fact that we don't save. We're in debt. Almost everyone in America is in debt in one way or another. What's wrong with people saving?
This is a numbers game. Let's say 10% of people decide they'd rather just keep their money safe, whether that's literally in a "safe," under their mattress, or something similar. Remember, savings accounts would no longer be 100% protected, since the FDIC would have to be terminated (The government can only guarantee money on that scale because it can print money). That's 10% less money being invested, so that's going to slow economic growth. Or am I missing something here?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
- See my qualifier: It is the only source of our CURRENT inflation. There's not a heck of a lot going on except for the Federal Reserve and its operations. The market acts as it always does; it goes up and down on its own, but then the Fed just adds to the problem. The interest rates are currently at all time lows, and they are printing money to bail out the banks. My argument stands. 2) There are always downsides to any kind of system, I just believe that metal backed currency is a better way to go than straight paper. Look at the top of a dollar bill: it says Federal Reserve Note. It's an IOU. A bank note. A loan. Whatever you want to call it, it does not have value. Even if paper were to be worth something, the fact that it's a bank note says that it's replacement for a valued item. I'd say any system would be better than what we have around the globe. 3) Slow economic growth? I can live with that, if it's real growth. Look at wall street. Against gold, the dow is crashing. Against the American dollar, it's growing and coming back to normal. Nominal growth may not be real growth. This is a consumer society, not a production society. Think about it. When we were savers before 1960-1970, we were the richest country in the world. Now look at us... we are still pretty rich, but our growth has stopped, and it's heading down. Quickly. Look at the public debt (better term than federal debt): We're in debt by $12T, roughly. Saving is a much better idea than investing and borrowing, IMHO.
-
- See my qualifier: It is the only source of our CURRENT inflation. There's not a heck of a lot going on except for the Federal Reserve and its operations. The market acts as it always does; it goes up and down on its own, but then the Fed just adds to the problem. The interest rates are currently at all time lows, and they are printing money to bail out the banks. My argument stands. 2) There are always downsides to any kind of system, I just believe that metal backed currency is a better way to go than straight paper. Look at the top of a dollar bill: it says Federal Reserve Note. It's an IOU. A bank note. A loan. Whatever you want to call it, it does not have value. Even if paper were to be worth something, the fact that it's a bank note says that it's replacement for a valued item. I'd say any system would be better than what we have around the globe. 3) Slow economic growth? I can live with that, if it's real growth. Look at wall street. Against gold, the dow is crashing. Against the American dollar, it's growing and coming back to normal. Nominal growth may not be real growth. This is a consumer society, not a production society. Think about it. When we were savers before 1960-1970, we were the richest country in the world. Now look at us... we are still pretty rich, but our growth has stopped, and it's heading down. Quickly. Look at the public debt (better term than federal debt): We're in debt by $12T, roughly. Saving is a much better idea than investing and borrowing, IMHO.
josda1000 wrote:
- See my qualifier: It is the only source of our CURRENT inflation
No, because inflation rates have been in the 3% range, apart from swings, since the early 1900's... The open market operations just started early this year (The big bailout). THAT inflation is entirely from the Fed, but the usual 3% is not. And of course the understanding is that once things are back to normal, the Fed will reverse everything and remove the added currency.
josda1000 wrote:
- There are always downsides to any kind of system, I just believe that metal backed currency is a better way to go than straight paper.
Fair enough.
josda1000 wrote:
Look at the top of a dollar bill: it says Federal Reserve Note. It's an IOU. A bank note. A loan. Whatever you want to call it, it does not have value.
Oh, please, don't start talking like CSS. You understand this stuff better than he does. "Value" is subjective. A thing is worth what people think it's worth. If people think a $100 bill is worth $100 instead of the fraction of a cent it cost to print it, then it is. It's worth that much because you can go to a merchant somewhere and trade that piece of paper for something worth $100. The government could decide that kumquats were suddenly equivalent to $10,000 bills, and if enough people believed them, it would be true. Perception is reality.
josda1000 wrote:
- Slow economic growth? I can live with that, if it's real growth. Look at wall street. Against gold, the dow is crashing. Against the American dollar, it's growing and coming back to normal. Nominal growth may not be real growth. This is a consumer society, not a production society. Think about it.
You can't use the Dow to measure national economic growth. Of course it's rising relative to the dollar, because the Fed intentionally devalued the dollar in order to defuse the credit crunch. Besides that, the market is just a giant psychology experiment. The Dow is where it is because people think that's where it should be. One idiot with a ton of money to burn could raise or lower that price just by buying or selling. On top of that, it's a textbook example of the Prisoner's Dillema[
-
josda1000 wrote:
- See my qualifier: It is the only source of our CURRENT inflation
No, because inflation rates have been in the 3% range, apart from swings, since the early 1900's... The open market operations just started early this year (The big bailout). THAT inflation is entirely from the Fed, but the usual 3% is not. And of course the understanding is that once things are back to normal, the Fed will reverse everything and remove the added currency.
josda1000 wrote:
- There are always downsides to any kind of system, I just believe that metal backed currency is a better way to go than straight paper.
Fair enough.
josda1000 wrote:
Look at the top of a dollar bill: it says Federal Reserve Note. It's an IOU. A bank note. A loan. Whatever you want to call it, it does not have value.
Oh, please, don't start talking like CSS. You understand this stuff better than he does. "Value" is subjective. A thing is worth what people think it's worth. If people think a $100 bill is worth $100 instead of the fraction of a cent it cost to print it, then it is. It's worth that much because you can go to a merchant somewhere and trade that piece of paper for something worth $100. The government could decide that kumquats were suddenly equivalent to $10,000 bills, and if enough people believed them, it would be true. Perception is reality.
josda1000 wrote:
- Slow economic growth? I can live with that, if it's real growth. Look at wall street. Against gold, the dow is crashing. Against the American dollar, it's growing and coming back to normal. Nominal growth may not be real growth. This is a consumer society, not a production society. Think about it.
You can't use the Dow to measure national economic growth. Of course it's rising relative to the dollar, because the Fed intentionally devalued the dollar in order to defuse the credit crunch. Besides that, the market is just a giant psychology experiment. The Dow is where it is because people think that's where it should be. One idiot with a ton of money to burn could raise or lower that price just by buying or selling. On top of that, it's a textbook example of the Prisoner's Dillema[
Ian Shlasko wrote:
inflation rates have been in the 3% range, apart from swings, since the early 1900's...
I hope you realize the timing of your quote. Early 1900's: the Federal Reserve was instated in 1913. I'm sorry, call me a conspiracy theorist as I've said to Christian a couple of times, but that is a fact. And I hope you do recognize that.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The open market operations just started early this year (The big bailout).
This is straight up not true. Railroads. Amtrak. Chrysler. Look into this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The open market operations just started early this year (The big bailout). THAT inflation is entirely from the Fed, but the usual 3% is not.
You'd also refuted your own argument here. you'd said that inflation rates have been in the 3% range since the 1900s. That's true; that's when the Federal Reserve was instated in 1913. The dollar has lost 96% of its original value since then. POINT FOR ME! lol jk
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And of course the understanding is that once things are back to normal, the Fed will reverse everything and remove the added currency.
OK, honestly I can't see this happening at all. Looking at the history of Zimbabwe and Argentina, this just doesn't happen. No fiat currency has every survived, it has been said. So right now, call me nervous, but I'm really doubtful of this perception that the Fed will pull back its excessive cash.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Oh, please, don't start talking like CSS.
Ouch man. lol jk Ok so I was just trying to prove that point. If you think that this part is a conspiracy theory, it's just a conspiracy fact. I don't think that the symbols on it are really a theory, I just know that Federal Reserve Notes are precisely bank notes, and said as such right in front of your eyes. That's why it's a scam, because people believe that paper money is worth something when it really isn't. Let's put it this way, why do you believe that paper money is worth something? Why do you think enough people bought into this fiat currency crap? Come to think of it, why did I all of my life until a year ago...
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Of course it's rising relative to the dollar, because the Fed intentional
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
inflation rates have been in the 3% range, apart from swings, since the early 1900's...
I hope you realize the timing of your quote. Early 1900's: the Federal Reserve was instated in 1913. I'm sorry, call me a conspiracy theorist as I've said to Christian a couple of times, but that is a fact. And I hope you do recognize that.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The open market operations just started early this year (The big bailout).
This is straight up not true. Railroads. Amtrak. Chrysler. Look into this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The open market operations just started early this year (The big bailout). THAT inflation is entirely from the Fed, but the usual 3% is not.
You'd also refuted your own argument here. you'd said that inflation rates have been in the 3% range since the 1900s. That's true; that's when the Federal Reserve was instated in 1913. The dollar has lost 96% of its original value since then. POINT FOR ME! lol jk
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And of course the understanding is that once things are back to normal, the Fed will reverse everything and remove the added currency.
OK, honestly I can't see this happening at all. Looking at the history of Zimbabwe and Argentina, this just doesn't happen. No fiat currency has every survived, it has been said. So right now, call me nervous, but I'm really doubtful of this perception that the Fed will pull back its excessive cash.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Oh, please, don't start talking like CSS.
Ouch man. lol jk Ok so I was just trying to prove that point. If you think that this part is a conspiracy theory, it's just a conspiracy fact. I don't think that the symbols on it are really a theory, I just know that Federal Reserve Notes are precisely bank notes, and said as such right in front of your eyes. That's why it's a scam, because people believe that paper money is worth something when it really isn't. Let's put it this way, why do you believe that paper money is worth something? Why do you think enough people bought into this fiat currency crap? Come to think of it, why did I all of my life until a year ago...
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Of course it's rising relative to the dollar, because the Fed intentional
josda1000 wrote:
I hope you realize the timing of your quote. Early 1900's: the Federal Reserve was instated in 1913. I'm sorry, call me a conspiracy theorist as I've said to Christian a couple of times, but that is a fact. And I hope you do recognize that.
Yeah, it's when we dropped the gold standard. I'm not disputing that a fiat currency leads to some amount of inflation. I'm saying the Fed itself doesn't cause it.
josda1000 wrote:
This is straight up not true. Railroads. Amtrak. Chrysler. Look into this.
Ok, I misspoke. This wasn't the first time OMO were used... But it's not something they do every day, or even every year. It's what they do when adjusting interest rates isn't enough to stop a depression.
josda1000 wrote:
You'd also refuted your own argument here. you'd said that inflation rates have been in the 3% range since the 1900s. That's true; that's when the Federal Reserve was instated in 1913. The dollar has lost 96% of its original value since then. POINT FOR ME! lol jk
See above... But honestly, the whole "Dollar has lost 96% of its value" line has to stop. The value of today's dollar in relation to 1913's dollar is irrelevant. What matters is what things cost in relation to what people EARN. If over a hundred years, the dollar drops by 95% and salaries are 20 times what they were, then nothing has changed for you.
josda1000 wrote:
OK, honestly I can't see this happening at all. Looking at the history of Zimbabwe and Argentina, this just doesn't happen. No fiat currency has every survived
None of them? What about the Euro? GBP? Pretty much every currency out there is fiat... Almost no one uses the gold standard anymore. You're pointing out the failures but ignoring the ones that are still around.
josda1000 wrote:
Let's put it this way, why do you believe that paper money is worth something? Why do you think enough people bought into this fiat currency crap? Come to think of it, why did I all of my life until a year ago...
You still do. Do you think that McDonalds around the corner will give you food if you give them a few Federal Reserve Notes? Yes? Then you believe in it. You may not believe it's the ideal system, but you have faith in it, and you believe in the value of y
-
josda1000 wrote:
I hope you realize the timing of your quote. Early 1900's: the Federal Reserve was instated in 1913. I'm sorry, call me a conspiracy theorist as I've said to Christian a couple of times, but that is a fact. And I hope you do recognize that.
Yeah, it's when we dropped the gold standard. I'm not disputing that a fiat currency leads to some amount of inflation. I'm saying the Fed itself doesn't cause it.
josda1000 wrote:
This is straight up not true. Railroads. Amtrak. Chrysler. Look into this.
Ok, I misspoke. This wasn't the first time OMO were used... But it's not something they do every day, or even every year. It's what they do when adjusting interest rates isn't enough to stop a depression.
josda1000 wrote:
You'd also refuted your own argument here. you'd said that inflation rates have been in the 3% range since the 1900s. That's true; that's when the Federal Reserve was instated in 1913. The dollar has lost 96% of its original value since then. POINT FOR ME! lol jk
See above... But honestly, the whole "Dollar has lost 96% of its value" line has to stop. The value of today's dollar in relation to 1913's dollar is irrelevant. What matters is what things cost in relation to what people EARN. If over a hundred years, the dollar drops by 95% and salaries are 20 times what they were, then nothing has changed for you.
josda1000 wrote:
OK, honestly I can't see this happening at all. Looking at the history of Zimbabwe and Argentina, this just doesn't happen. No fiat currency has every survived
None of them? What about the Euro? GBP? Pretty much every currency out there is fiat... Almost no one uses the gold standard anymore. You're pointing out the failures but ignoring the ones that are still around.
josda1000 wrote:
Let's put it this way, why do you believe that paper money is worth something? Why do you think enough people bought into this fiat currency crap? Come to think of it, why did I all of my life until a year ago...
You still do. Do you think that McDonalds around the corner will give you food if you give them a few Federal Reserve Notes? Yes? Then you believe in it. You may not believe it's the ideal system, but you have faith in it, and you believe in the value of y
I'm sorry but I really do like this debate as well, even though it's killing my brain... But that's why I hold a beer in my hands. Let's continue.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yeah, it's when we dropped the gold standard. I'm not disputing that a fiat currency leads to some amount of inflation. I'm saying the Fed itself doesn't cause it.
This is not true, as well. We finally got off the gold standard in 1971, so somehow or another we were backed by some precious metal. We had silver certificates, US Notes, etc.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's what they do when adjusting interest rates isn't enough to stop a depression.
I hope that you could do some research, and find that THE FED DOESN'T STOP DEPRESSIONS. If you take a look at that list you sent to me, but look at the dates after it, you'll see that there have been many more recessions in that time than before the Fed was enacted. Their actions make things worse, though the effects are felt about a year or two after their actions. As I've said, you will definitely see this economy come to a halt in the near future.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the whole "Dollar has lost 96% of its value" line has to stop. The value of today's dollar in relation to 1913's dollar is irrelevant.
This is a comment that I cannot believe I'd read. Like I say, how much does one ounce of gold buy compared to 2000 years ago? Yeah. 2000 years. And I did more research: it's only been 40 years since the dollar lost that 96%. Gold has more or less kept its value over 2000 years while the dollar continues to inflate by 3% each year as you said. And to contine the point, you'd said that we have been inflating by 3% each year. If I get a raise of 3% each year by my employer, am I getting a raise? Or is that rhetoric? I'm not getting a raise at all, am I? It's an illusion. Back when we didn't have this central bank, people were getting real raises. The employer would notice that the man has gained experience in the field, and should get rewarded because that employee is more valuable than he was last year. But getting a 3% raise every year with this crap currency is nonsense. He'd already gotten taxed by the inflation enough to not get a true raise, he's just making ends meet. So: no, this 96% lost value line will contine. Because it makes all of the difference. Sure the ratio to what people earns is the same; but it s
-
I'm sorry but I really do like this debate as well, even though it's killing my brain... But that's why I hold a beer in my hands. Let's continue.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yeah, it's when we dropped the gold standard. I'm not disputing that a fiat currency leads to some amount of inflation. I'm saying the Fed itself doesn't cause it.
This is not true, as well. We finally got off the gold standard in 1971, so somehow or another we were backed by some precious metal. We had silver certificates, US Notes, etc.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's what they do when adjusting interest rates isn't enough to stop a depression.
I hope that you could do some research, and find that THE FED DOESN'T STOP DEPRESSIONS. If you take a look at that list you sent to me, but look at the dates after it, you'll see that there have been many more recessions in that time than before the Fed was enacted. Their actions make things worse, though the effects are felt about a year or two after their actions. As I've said, you will definitely see this economy come to a halt in the near future.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the whole "Dollar has lost 96% of its value" line has to stop. The value of today's dollar in relation to 1913's dollar is irrelevant.
This is a comment that I cannot believe I'd read. Like I say, how much does one ounce of gold buy compared to 2000 years ago? Yeah. 2000 years. And I did more research: it's only been 40 years since the dollar lost that 96%. Gold has more or less kept its value over 2000 years while the dollar continues to inflate by 3% each year as you said. And to contine the point, you'd said that we have been inflating by 3% each year. If I get a raise of 3% each year by my employer, am I getting a raise? Or is that rhetoric? I'm not getting a raise at all, am I? It's an illusion. Back when we didn't have this central bank, people were getting real raises. The employer would notice that the man has gained experience in the field, and should get rewarded because that employee is more valuable than he was last year. But getting a 3% raise every year with this crap currency is nonsense. He'd already gotten taxed by the inflation enough to not get a true raise, he's just making ends meet. So: no, this 96% lost value line will contine. Because it makes all of the difference. Sure the ratio to what people earns is the same; but it s
josda1000 wrote:
This is not true, as well. We finally got off the gold standard in 1971, so somehow or another we were backed by some precious metal. We had silver certificates, US Notes, etc.
Partially true. Federal Reserve Notes were introduced in 1913, and from that point our currency was only partially gold-backed... I found one source[^] that says convertibility to gold-backed was suspended in the 20s, so I think that means any measurements after that point would be essentially measuring a fiat currency.
josda1000 wrote:
I hope that you could do some research, and find that THE FED DOESN'T STOP DEPRESSIONS.
It doesn't stop them entirely, but it reduces their effects. At least, that's the goal. Granted, they completely screwed up with the Great Depression, but hey, that's beta testing for ya, right? :) The idea is to reduce the amplitude of the sine wave, not remove the downturns entirely.
josda1000 wrote:
This is a comment that I cannot believe I'd read. Like I say, how much does one ounce of gold buy compared to 2000 years ago?... And to contine the point, you'd said that we have been inflating by 3% each year. If I get a raise of 3% each year by my employer, am I getting a raise? Or is that rhetoric? I'm not getting a raise at all, am I?
No, a 3% raise is keeping up with inflation. More than that is a raise. And again, what's this fascination with keeping money under your mattress for 40 years? You make money, and you put it in a savings account (Or invest it)... It gains interest. Not quite as much as inflation if it's in a savings account (Risk = Reward), but $100 in 1913 would not still be $100 today. If your employer wants to give you a REAL raise, they'll up your salary more than the inflationary increase... Simple. If they don't like you, well, zero raise sounds a little nicer than a 3% pay cut, even if it's the same thing. Honestly, what's the difference if the increases in salary and cost-of-living are comparable? If we were all still making salaries comparable to the early 1900s, you'd have an argument. But that's just not the case.
josda1000 wrote:
The euro is wa
-
josda1000 wrote:
This is not true, as well. We finally got off the gold standard in 1971, so somehow or another we were backed by some precious metal. We had silver certificates, US Notes, etc.
Partially true. Federal Reserve Notes were introduced in 1913, and from that point our currency was only partially gold-backed... I found one source[^] that says convertibility to gold-backed was suspended in the 20s, so I think that means any measurements after that point would be essentially measuring a fiat currency.
josda1000 wrote:
I hope that you could do some research, and find that THE FED DOESN'T STOP DEPRESSIONS.
It doesn't stop them entirely, but it reduces their effects. At least, that's the goal. Granted, they completely screwed up with the Great Depression, but hey, that's beta testing for ya, right? :) The idea is to reduce the amplitude of the sine wave, not remove the downturns entirely.
josda1000 wrote:
This is a comment that I cannot believe I'd read. Like I say, how much does one ounce of gold buy compared to 2000 years ago?... And to contine the point, you'd said that we have been inflating by 3% each year. If I get a raise of 3% each year by my employer, am I getting a raise? Or is that rhetoric? I'm not getting a raise at all, am I?
No, a 3% raise is keeping up with inflation. More than that is a raise. And again, what's this fascination with keeping money under your mattress for 40 years? You make money, and you put it in a savings account (Or invest it)... It gains interest. Not quite as much as inflation if it's in a savings account (Risk = Reward), but $100 in 1913 would not still be $100 today. If your employer wants to give you a REAL raise, they'll up your salary more than the inflationary increase... Simple. If they don't like you, well, zero raise sounds a little nicer than a 3% pay cut, even if it's the same thing. Honestly, what's the difference if the increases in salary and cost-of-living are comparable? If we were all still making salaries comparable to the early 1900s, you'd have an argument. But that's just not the case.
josda1000 wrote:
The euro is wa
ok i'm pretty much done debating officially. but i will leave you with something found in the new york times today. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html?_r=1[^] So the Fed's interest rates have been near zero for about a year, from what I remember. And the public debt is around 12 trillion, as previously described. The Fed will believe that the economy is back to normal because of its own propaganda: The Dow is over 10K again, and we're in a "jobless recovery", whatever the hell that is. So they will reset the interest rates to normal. This will mean that the public will start owing the "Federal Reserve" money, with interest this time. Which means we will never be able to pay it back, unless we inflate the currency. This is precisely what I'm talking about. Read that article, it should help you own your own road to recovery. Come to the light lol jk I'm just saying that all of this talk that "the Fed eases the monetary situation to reduce the sine wave" is bullhonkey. They ease it, for a year. But really they just push the debt off until later, or ease the pain for a short time and then BOOM it's in your face again. So here we go, round 2. I hope you get my drift.
-
ok i'm pretty much done debating officially. but i will leave you with something found in the new york times today. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html?_r=1[^] So the Fed's interest rates have been near zero for about a year, from what I remember. And the public debt is around 12 trillion, as previously described. The Fed will believe that the economy is back to normal because of its own propaganda: The Dow is over 10K again, and we're in a "jobless recovery", whatever the hell that is. So they will reset the interest rates to normal. This will mean that the public will start owing the "Federal Reserve" money, with interest this time. Which means we will never be able to pay it back, unless we inflate the currency. This is precisely what I'm talking about. Read that article, it should help you own your own road to recovery. Come to the light lol jk I'm just saying that all of this talk that "the Fed eases the monetary situation to reduce the sine wave" is bullhonkey. They ease it, for a year. But really they just push the debt off until later, or ease the pain for a short time and then BOOM it's in your face again. So here we go, round 2. I hope you get my drift.
Yeah, we're mostly screwed. The question, though, is what would have happened if the Fed hadn't acted. All of the major banks and investment firms are so invested with each other that if a couple big ones went down, the entire industry would collapse. And before you say something CSS-style, like "We'd be better off without the banks," just remember the kind of panic that a bank run can lead to... That, plus all of the pension funds and retirement accounts dropping to near-zero. Not good. So maybe the bailout wasn't a perfect solution... But it was better than not doing anything.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Yeah, we're mostly screwed. The question, though, is what would have happened if the Fed hadn't acted. All of the major banks and investment firms are so invested with each other that if a couple big ones went down, the entire industry would collapse. And before you say something CSS-style, like "We'd be better off without the banks," just remember the kind of panic that a bank run can lead to... That, plus all of the pension funds and retirement accounts dropping to near-zero. Not good. So maybe the bailout wasn't a perfect solution... But it was better than not doing anything.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
All of the major banks and investment firms are so invested with each other that if a couple big ones went down, the entire industry would collapse.
I hate to say it, but I really think this economy is going to collapse anyway. Plus, we saw many banks fail already, including major banks. So A) I think that the argument as to bailing banks out is bogus, B) the public debt is in dire straits because of it and C) we just pushed the problem on until later. "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." - Thomas Jefferson
Ian Shlasko wrote:
remember the kind of panic that a bank run can lead to.
Um... bank runs are good. I know that sounds ridiculous, but hear me out. If the people were to try to reclaim THEIR money, then it would end the cycle of debt. People haven't really recognized until now how bad debt really can be. Yes, a depression and bank runs can be very confusing and chaotic. But think about what it's a symptom of: it's the lack of trust in banks to manage money properly. And that's PRECISELY what happened last year. The banks were bailed out because of mismanagement. Again I don't think they should have been bailed out, but that's another part of the problem. A bank being created and controlled by other banks. (Again, not a conspiracy theory; it's conspiracy fact.)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That, plus all of the pension funds and retirement accounts dropping to near-zero.
This could have been prevented if they kept money under their pillows, as you've so blatantly stated. Why have Italians done it for eons? I'm glad I've kept some of my heritage lol Look, accounts are supposed to be safe from harm. If banks are entitled to use fractional reserve banking, then there is a major risk involved on the part of the customer. I really have lost all trust in banks after last year's crash, and apparently for good reason. It's a Ponzi scheme, just very sophisticated. If you care about the public and their well being, you wouldn't go around telling them to get into debt. You would tell them to save and conserve. There's nothing conservative about debt.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So maybe the bailout wasn't a perfect solution... But it was better than not doing anything.
I couldn't agree less. The bailout was definitely the wrong "solution"