"Why Gold?" and other issues with fixed currency
-
Right, so if gold was suddenly considered currency and increased a hundredfold in value, the costs of these components would skyrocket. I was trying to give a more obvious example of how this could affect technology in general, and vice versa.
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:
I was trying to give a more obvious example of how this could affect technology in general, and vice versa.
Frankly, if the object you create that uses some quantity of gold, and gold soars in price because it is your currency, if that object then becomes unaffordable, then it won't be made, consequently, technological development falters. The effect on technology would be one of disaster especially if this object is a pre-requirement in the further development of technology. For example - computer aided design and computer aided manufacture would suffer as the objects they design/create/produce would be so expensive that commercial risk of failure high. Why? computers use electronic components that have some degree of gold as a pre-requirement in their manufacture, and if gold is your currency then such will be beyond affordability.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Defining something as 100% constant is dependent on who or what this constant is. If a constant does not change, how can the variability of the value of goods and labour change.
Ah, but the value of gold DOES change, however it is a lot less sporadic than fiat currencies. Gold does get inflated, and it does adjust with the market.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
All peoples whether they are individual wage earners or companies wish to acquire more of that something. And as the change in such requirements, so the something becomes that much more scarce so the 100% constant in many ways is a meaningless value.
Agreed. This is why I contend that we get rid of the Fed, and allow the privatization of money altogether. But this is probably way outside the scope of the thread, and definitely already outside the scope of most thinkers here.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. This is why I contend that we get rid of the Fed, and allow the privatization of money altogether. But this is probably way outside the scope of the thread, and definitely already outside the scope of most thinkers here.
So your solution is to go back to the days when every bank had its own currency?
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Before catalytic converters were invented, wasn't platinum stable?
I don't know, it wasn't recognized as currency so the demand for it was not relatively constant. Since demand for it was not relatively constant the price of the metal will fluctuate wildly.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Even assuming that gold is stable -now-, who's to say that won't change in a few years when the next "big thing" comes along?
It is possible, but lets say if platinum was currency. I don't think the value of the currency would change as demand for catuylic converters changes since demand for the currency is relatively constant.
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:
It is possible, but lets say if platinum was currency. I don't think the value of the currency would change as demand for catuylic converters changes since demand for the currency is relatively constant.
If we started using gold-backed currency today, and a year from now something like the catalytic converter becomes industry standard and requires gold to manufacture, don't you think that would affect the currency?
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:
I was trying to give a more obvious example of how this could affect technology in general, and vice versa.
Frankly, if the object you create that uses some quantity of gold, and gold soars in price because it is your currency, if that object then becomes unaffordable, then it won't be made, consequently, technological development falters. The effect on technology would be one of disaster especially if this object is a pre-requirement in the further development of technology. For example - computer aided design and computer aided manufacture would suffer as the objects they design/create/produce would be so expensive that commercial risk of failure high. Why? computers use electronic components that have some degree of gold as a pre-requirement in their manufacture, and if gold is your currency then such will be beyond affordability.
Precisely my point :)
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:
Agreed. This is why I contend that we get rid of the Fed, and allow the privatization of money altogether. But this is probably way outside the scope of the thread, and definitely already outside the scope of most thinkers here.
So your solution is to go back to the days when every bank had its own currency?
Not quite... though it's close. I'd say the states should theoretically have their own currencies, but that's banned in the Constitution. So what I propose is, because of Article 1 Section 10: "No state shall... coin Money... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts", the Federal government should coin money AND the private sector should as well. The key is to be using gold and silver, whether backing certificates or be using the physical gold and silver itself. The thing is, banks could exchange their own, and other businesses could coin their own as well.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It is possible, but lets say if platinum was currency. I don't think the value of the currency would change as demand for catuylic converters changes since demand for the currency is relatively constant.
If we started using gold-backed currency today, and a year from now something like the catalytic converter becomes industry standard and requires gold to manufacture, don't you think that would affect the currency?
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:
If we started using gold-backed currency today, and a year from now something like the catalytic converter becomes industry standard and requires gold to manufacture, don't you think that would affect the currency?
Since the demand for gold would be relatively constant due to it being currency, then the value of the currency would also be relatively constant. There would be deflationary pressure on gold, since it would be taken out of circulation until the catalytic converter is recycled. The deflationary pressure would increase mining profitability. That incentive would drive people to mine more gold.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If we started using gold-backed currency today, and a year from now something like the catalytic converter becomes industry standard and requires gold to manufacture, don't you think that would affect the currency?
Since the demand for gold would be relatively constant due to it being currency, then the value of the currency would also be relatively constant. There would be deflationary pressure on gold, since it would be taken out of circulation until the catalytic converter is recycled. The deflationary pressure would increase mining profitability. That incentive would drive people to mine more gold.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Since the demand for gold would be relatively constant due to it being currency
Does this necessarily follow? If gold suddenly becomes a requirement for the next technological step forward... Hell, think bigger than catalytic converters... Think interstellar travel, or flying cars, or holographic displays, or artificial intelligence... Something with the potential to completely change the human race as we know it. If that happened (And it's not that much of a stretch - Gold is one of the best electrical conductors), don't you think it would make gold a poor choice of currency? Either these things would be made in such huge numbers that the currency would greatly deflate, or gold would be so expensive that these would never be produced in the first place, and our technological progress would potentially halt. By the way, I appreciate that you're actually trying to discuss the topic instead of resorting to insults and rhetoric.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The price of gold isn't effected by industry nearly as much as the price of platinum.
Or silver, for that matter.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Silver is used all over the place. I used it in solder. Gold is used to coat electronics all over the place and in that case is often used as a cover over nickle to keep it from oxidizing. It is burned off in the process of soldering those parts. Platinum is a much better currency. Higher value, not as reactive so as to be destroyed by smart people seeking to make their gold more valuable and only used in one industry. Diamonds would be even better currency, but since only one company owns them all, might be an issue. You folks want gold to be used because it has been used traditionally. Well, traditionally they fixed diseases using leeches and insanity with drilling holes in people's heads and taking out part of their brains. Not every tradition is a good one.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Silver is used all over the place. I used it in solder. Gold is used to coat electronics all over the place and in that case is often used as a cover over nickle to keep it from oxidizing. It is burned off in the process of soldering those parts. Platinum is a much better currency. Higher value, not as reactive so as to be destroyed by smart people seeking to make their gold more valuable and only used in one industry. Diamonds would be even better currency, but since only one company owns them all, might be an issue. You folks want gold to be used because it has been used traditionally. Well, traditionally they fixed diseases using leeches and insanity with drilling holes in people's heads and taking out part of their brains. Not every tradition is a good one.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
If you'd taken the time to read my other posts, I'm all for any elemental metal. I just see that gold and silver is allowed under the Constitution. But technically speaking, I'm all for any elemental metal. And quite honestly, I would definitely love to use platinum, because as you said, it has much higher value. Right on the money. Pun intended.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Where possible, or feasible, the face value of this "something" should be exchangeable for gold or silver
But why? Why gold or silver? Why those particular metals? "Because that's how it was a hundred years ago" isn't a good argument, because the world has changed a great deal in the last century. Why does it have to be based on something physical? As long as everyone agrees on its value, it doesn't need metal behind it. If the US changed its policy from "The money supply will be adjusted to regulate the economy" to "The money supply is now 100% constant", wouldn't that have the same effect?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Other reasons for gold and silver are that it is impossible to duplicate or counterfeit these elements. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
Not quite... though it's close. I'd say the states should theoretically have their own currencies, but that's banned in the Constitution. So what I propose is, because of Article 1 Section 10: "No state shall... coin Money... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts", the Federal government should coin money AND the private sector should as well. The key is to be using gold and silver, whether backing certificates or be using the physical gold and silver itself. The thing is, banks could exchange their own, and other businesses could coin their own as well.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I have decided to make a bank. "The First Bank of Ragnarok" It will only use gold certificates. That is the only thing of value, after all. If you want a withdrawal, it is only in gold and takes 48-72 hours. Sorry, but you aren't getting it earlier. I am not able to open the vault more than once every 2 days, at a random time. Sorry, but a good bank robber would be able to steal all your money, since the Fed doesn't have the amount of gold needed to back up all the banks. No once can manage that. Don't worry though, your gold is safe, until you walk out...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Since the demand for gold would be relatively constant due to it being currency
Does this necessarily follow? If gold suddenly becomes a requirement for the next technological step forward... Hell, think bigger than catalytic converters... Think interstellar travel, or flying cars, or holographic displays, or artificial intelligence... Something with the potential to completely change the human race as we know it. If that happened (And it's not that much of a stretch - Gold is one of the best electrical conductors), don't you think it would make gold a poor choice of currency? Either these things would be made in such huge numbers that the currency would greatly deflate, or gold would be so expensive that these would never be produced in the first place, and our technological progress would potentially halt. By the way, I appreciate that you're actually trying to discuss the topic instead of resorting to insults and rhetoric.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Does this necessarily follow? If gold suddenly becomes a requirement for the next technological step forward... Hell, think bigger than catalytic converters... Think interstellar travel, or flying cars, or holographic displays, or artificial intelligence... Something with the potential to completely change the human race as we know it. If that happened (And it's not that much of a stretch - Gold is one of the best electrical conductors), don't you think it would make gold a poor choice of currency? Either these things would be made in such huge numbers that the currency would greatly deflate, or gold would be so expensive that these would never be produced in the first place, and our technological progress would potentially halt.
Not necessarily. Not all that long ago people would trade with commodities. In America's early colonial days, people would use tobacco as currency. It had a dual purpose. It was valuable because people smoked it, so they used it as a currency. I believe Ben Franklin secured a loan from France with tobacco. The reason why tobacco lost it's value as a currency is because so many people started growing it, that it lost its value. Gold on the other hand holds it's value because it is hard to mine, the average person cannot grow it like tobacco, so it makes for a stable currency. It is actually very logical to trade with a valuable commodity because it's value is secured by an actual useful function instead of a perceived value.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
By the way, I appreciate that you're actually trying to discuss the topic instead of resorting to insults and rhetoric.
I can't debate politics very well because I feel so intensely strong about my beliefs.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Let me be more precise. Gold has value. We know that. That's not my point. You're saying that if we used gold, then the rich would get richer. If that's true, then you're suggesting that there would be only corporations and no money. Well, you're wrong, cuz you've already got minimum wage laws, welfare, and other such crap that doesn't make sense and is just political pandering. Look. It's nonsense. Gold is just a medium of exchange, just like paper is right now.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
You're saying that if we used gold, then the rich would get richer
No. CSS has said in the past that the answer to the fact that the gold supply cannot cover the money in the world today, we just make gold worth a whole lot more. Which is what makes the rich a lot richer, overnight.
josda1000 wrote:
Well, you're wrong, cuz you've already got minimum wage laws, welfare, and other such crap that doesn't make sense and is just political pandering.
Well, that's obviously crap. Minimum wages make perfect sense to people who live in the real world. I'm yet to hear any sensible argument against them, or see a real response from you to the points I've raised on the topic. Every argument you raise ignores that humans have an operating cost, it costs XX to live and anything less is not a fair wage.
josda1000 wrote:
Look. It's nonsense. Gold is just a medium of exchange, just like paper is right now.
No, it's not. It's a real physical resource, and there's all sorts of negative flow on effects to what you propose.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I said if a coin taken out of circulation, its value is transferred to all the other coins in circulation. You asked me "How does that work, they do a poll to ask everyone how much they lost ?" as if some central authority sets the value of the coinage. That is not how it works. The value if the currency is set naturally by the amount of it in circulation. You are a moron.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
I can't believe the crap that you believe.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I have decided to make a bank. "The First Bank of Ragnarok" It will only use gold certificates. That is the only thing of value, after all. If you want a withdrawal, it is only in gold and takes 48-72 hours. Sorry, but you aren't getting it earlier. I am not able to open the vault more than once every 2 days, at a random time. Sorry, but a good bank robber would be able to steal all your money, since the Fed doesn't have the amount of gold needed to back up all the banks. No once can manage that. Don't worry though, your gold is safe, until you walk out...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr121307h.htm[^] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=111-h20100120-54&person=400311[^]
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I am not able to open the vault more than once every 2 days, at a random time.
Because businesses always act that stupid. I don't know of one business that would ever do, or has ever done, such a moronic thing. This is just scare tactics.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Sorry, but a good bank robber would be able to steal all your money, since the Fed doesn't have the amount of gold needed to back up all the banks.
To the rest of my argument, fractional reserve banking is actually fraud. But I'm not getting into that.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Don't worry though, your gold is safe, until you walk out.
You could say the same with banking right now. This is not a valid argument.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Why, in this age of complete connectivity, does it need to be based on metal? All of the arguments I've heard are that these have the perception of value. But then, so do diamonds. So does platinum. Hell, coal has value, plutonium has a lot of value, clean water has value... You understand what I'm getting at here.
Gold and silver is in limited supply and requires a bit of work to mine, which keeps inflation in check. Diamonds are too abundant and can't be used in decimal denominations. As population increases and the economy grows, gold and silver increase in value. The increase in value makes it even more profitable to mine, so tedious mining procedures and new mining technologies that might have been too expensive to be profitable become profitable.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
"There are X dollars in circulation. This will no longer be increased, and we're modifying the laws to ensure that." (Speaking of dollar amounts, not physical currency). That would be just as effective, unless you think the government is going to cheat.
The problem with this is that the government will always debase the currency. History proves it. The only way to keep government currency manipulation in check is to use something real like gold and silver.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Let's assume, for the moment, that we're using gold/silver-backed currency. Now, regardless of what's behind it, we're not going to be carrying around hunks of gold and silver. The population is just never going to accept that they have to carry coins around for everything, now that we're all accustomed to easy-to-carry paper currency. Not to mention, we use a lot of electronic currency to make it even more portable.
There is no reason why checks, and debit/credit cards can't be used with a gold and silver currency. Also, people typically have some change in their pockets, since gold and silver is so valuable, a couple ounces of silver coin would be around 50 bucks in today's dollar. A cellphone weighs more than that. Gold is even more valuable.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So what happens when that currency is lost?
When the coin is lost, it is out of circulation. When currency is out of circulation, the value of that lost coin is transferred to all of the other coins in circulation.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
As population increases and the economy grows, gold and silver increase in value.
How is that? if you have a limited amount of gold and silver how can the economy grow? if it's fixed on how much gold you have to support it what happens to the countries that produce none or little of the metals?, if there's no credit how will you be able to get things that are out of how much you get every month, for example a house? every year thousands or millions of persons are added to the work force, with the limited amount of the metals, how can you keep up and pay them? what about housing? cars? food? what happens when we dig out all the gold/silver available? what will be used to replace them? Gold and Silver were good 500 years ago, heck, 100 years ago, now it's not feasible to keep using them as support for an economy, the economies are based on how much you can produce (to make it simple), the money production needs to be regulated, force the banks to have enough money to support the credits they give out for example. but anyway, please answer my questions as I don't see how gold could support an economy as big as the US or Japan
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
If you'd taken the time to read my other posts, I'm all for any elemental metal. I just see that gold and silver is allowed under the Constitution. But technically speaking, I'm all for any elemental metal. And quite honestly, I would definitely love to use platinum, because as you said, it has much higher value. Right on the money. Pun intended.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I don't want to base our money on anything except the perception that it is stable. It's essentially taking out the middle man. The constitution is 200yrs old. It has major failings in the fact that it is simply too dated to deal with the present. It was supposed to be a living document, but the politicians stopped that. We need to lose that dumb wording. It was accepted practice at the time, it is no longer feasible. Heck, we aren't even supposed to have an air force.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
You're saying that if we used gold, then the rich would get richer
No. CSS has said in the past that the answer to the fact that the gold supply cannot cover the money in the world today, we just make gold worth a whole lot more. Which is what makes the rich a lot richer, overnight.
josda1000 wrote:
Well, you're wrong, cuz you've already got minimum wage laws, welfare, and other such crap that doesn't make sense and is just political pandering.
Well, that's obviously crap. Minimum wages make perfect sense to people who live in the real world. I'm yet to hear any sensible argument against them, or see a real response from you to the points I've raised on the topic. Every argument you raise ignores that humans have an operating cost, it costs XX to live and anything less is not a fair wage.
josda1000 wrote:
Look. It's nonsense. Gold is just a medium of exchange, just like paper is right now.
No, it's not. It's a real physical resource, and there's all sorts of negative flow on effects to what you propose.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Look. It's nonsense. Gold is just a medium of exchange, just like paper is right now. No, it's not. It's a real physical resource, and there's all sorts of negative flow on effects to what you propose.
I just completely disagree.
Christian Graus wrote:
Minimum wages make perfect sense to people who live in the real world.
And I don't? None of the financial conservatives make sense, even though they probably make up half of the population? I'd say you're not living in the real world, buddy.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm yet to hear any sensible argument against them, or see a real response from you to the points I've raised on the topic.
All of the points I've raised are normal debates... it's even on WIKIPEDIA! Again, with the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage[^] Again, with the quote. "If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. ... The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. Others, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force." How about another good quote?! "According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers.[13]" You sure that you're living in the real world still?
Christian Graus wrote:
No. CSS has said in the past that the answer to the fact that the gold supply cannot cover the money in the world today, we just make gold worth a whole lot more. Which is what makes the rich a lot richer, overnight.
I could see that. But I think the effects would be offset within a couple of months. But that's speculation.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Does this necessarily follow? If gold suddenly becomes a requirement for the next technological step forward... Hell, think bigger than catalytic converters... Think interstellar travel, or flying cars, or holographic displays, or artificial intelligence... Something with the potential to completely change the human race as we know it. If that happened (And it's not that much of a stretch - Gold is one of the best electrical conductors), don't you think it would make gold a poor choice of currency? Either these things would be made in such huge numbers that the currency would greatly deflate, or gold would be so expensive that these would never be produced in the first place, and our technological progress would potentially halt.
Not necessarily. Not all that long ago people would trade with commodities. In America's early colonial days, people would use tobacco as currency. It had a dual purpose. It was valuable because people smoked it, so they used it as a currency. I believe Ben Franklin secured a loan from France with tobacco. The reason why tobacco lost it's value as a currency is because so many people started growing it, that it lost its value. Gold on the other hand holds it's value because it is hard to mine, the average person cannot grow it like tobacco, so it makes for a stable currency. It is actually very logical to trade with a valuable commodity because it's value is secured by an actual useful function instead of a perceived value.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
By the way, I appreciate that you're actually trying to discuss the topic instead of resorting to insults and rhetoric.
I can't debate politics very well because I feel so intensely strong about my beliefs.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Gold on the other hand holds it's value because it is hard to mine, the average person cannot grow it like tobacco, so it makes for a stable currency.
If gold was made currency tomorrow, I would be able to "mine" a few pounds of it using just the equipment I have in less than a week. In fact until people realized how I did it, I would be increasing my net worth exponentially. I am not lying, I know exactly what I would do. Considering the amount of gold currently in circulation and how much it would have to be worth an ounce to back all the money needed out there, I would be living in a palace. It is a HORRIBLE commodity to have as the basis of money nowadays.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
I don't want to base our money on anything except the perception that it is stable. It's essentially taking out the middle man. The constitution is 200yrs old. It has major failings in the fact that it is simply too dated to deal with the present. It was supposed to be a living document, but the politicians stopped that. We need to lose that dumb wording. It was accepted practice at the time, it is no longer feasible. Heck, we aren't even supposed to have an air force.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The constitution is 200yrs old. It has major failings in the fact that it is simply too dated to deal with the present.
Prove it. Why has it only been amended a few times in two hundred years, if it's got "major failings"? This is such a big thing to say when you don't back it up.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It was supposed to be a living document, but the politicians stopped that.
No, it was supposed to hinder the government from growing. And it did just that, for the most part. Now it steps outside of the Constitution when it feels like it... which is proof that big government proponents do assume it's a "living document". Yes, you can amend the Constitution, and that's what makes it a "living document". But I don't see anyone doing that.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
We need to lose that dumb wording. It was accepted practice at the time, it is no longer feasible. Heck, we aren't even supposed to have an air force.
That's rich.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.