Question for allYou! about our monetary system...
DanB
I'm curious. What do you think of our modern monetary system? Do you
think there is anything wrong with it? If so, what?
DanB
>
> I'm curious. What do you think of our modern monetary system? Do you
> think there is anything wrong with it? If so, what?
>
Well?
DanB
> you having some kind of a problem with it?
I thought you put me in some kind of bin. It sounds like you are just
looking for an argument.
But start here:
<http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
And read the constitution for what the founding fathers intended money
to be.
DanB
> everyone else ignored it....
Well if this guy is not an idiot. He responds to my post and complains.
He obviously has no clue how money works and doesn't seem to care. Maybe
he is so well insulated from what is happening that he doesn't know
anyone that has lost thier job or home. And he talks about, 'the weak to
survive with some dignity'.
Well, if anyone belongs in a bozo bin, it is this guy....
P. Maffia
what the Founding Fathers intended money to be. The only clause that can and
often is misunderstood on the subject applies only to the states and can be
found in Article I, Section 10 which in its title states what States, not
the Federal Government, are prohibited from doing.
In short it states that the individual states cannot issue "money" except in
the form of Gold and Silver. It has been an awfully long time, if ever, that
any individual state issued money.
"DanB" <a...@some.net> wrote in message
news:%o%Nm.46850$W77...@newsfe11.iad...
DanB
> I suggest you reread the Constitution VERY carefully. It says nothing
> about what the Founding Fathers intended money to be.
Article I, Section 8
"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix
the standard of weights and measures;"
> The only clause
> that can and often is misunderstood on the subject applies only to the
> states and can be found in Article I, Section 10 which in its title
> states what States, not the Federal Government, are prohibited from doing.
Misunderstood? Where do you get this stuff?
> In short it states that the individual states cannot issue "money"
> except in the form of Gold and Silver.
Yep, and the states were the union, but I don't expect you to understand
that...
Read about the fiat binge of the colonies and why this came to be.
DanB
> DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm curious. What do you think of our modern monetary system? Do you
>> think there is anything wrong with it? If so, what?
>
> anything. It has no definable value.
Fiat money is not common these days. Most money is 'debt money'. There
is a difference.
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/accessible/l1.htm>
> The constitution defines money as gold and silver. Twenty, ten, and
> five dollar gold pieces, silver dollars, and the silver content in
> halves, quarters, and dimes meant the money in your pocket was really
> good as gold. A nickel contained five cents worth of nickel metal and
> the penny had one cent worth of copper. Today our coins are base
> metal with a non-precious metal coating for color. People like shiny
> things.
The value of gold and silver is not in the 'shininess'. It is in the
scarcity. The point of making it money is that man can not control the
supply, nature does.
> Nixon took us off the gold standard. After that the dollar was said
> to be backed by the faith and credit of America. Whatever that is.
This goes much further back in our history. Hamilton started the First
Bank of the United States before the ink was dry on the constitution.
> Parallel to that, government constantly added new unfunded
> entitlements and failed to even try to identify revenue for existing
> ones. They were going into debt as fast as the citizens.
This is really not about public debt. Total debt is the elephant in the
room. Public debt is just part of the mechanics.
> Housing values had been hyped by many methods to give the illusion of
> ever increasing value and that provided ever increasing credit.
That is more to the point.
> Someone noticed we owned nothing of value, made nothing of value, and
> already had more credit than we could ever pay back with a lifetime of
> wages. Housing was the first to go.
>
> Then people couldn't make the payments because the pay check didn't
> reach and they were out of new credit sources. Lenders took a close
> look and cut off credit. The machine stops.
>
> I know there are other views. Gentlemen, fire at will.
Well, a 'view' is an opinion. There is a clearly observable mechanism at
work here. Most money is a ledger entry in the banking system. That
means that most money carries the burden of debt.
Think about it. The banking system creates our money from nothing and
charges interest on that money. It is just that simple.
Without opinion from the horses mouth:
<http://lakeweb.com/money/MMM.pdf>
Jefferson's opinions:
<http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1325.htm>
HH&C
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:15:57 -0700, DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:01:04 -0700, DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>
> >>> DanB wrote:
> >>>> I'm curious. What do you think of our modern monetary system? Do you
> >>>> think there is anything wrong with it? If so, what?
>
> >>> Well?
>
> >> I bought groceries and gas today. Paid cash. It worked fine. Are
> >> you having some kind of a problem with it?
Can you go to the US Treasury and redeem it for gold?
> >I thought you put me in some kind of bin. It sounds like you are just
> >looking for an argument.
>
> >But start here:
> ><http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>
> >And read the constitution for what the founding fathers intended money
> >to be.
>
> I'm not the one who put the flame bait out there and jiggled it when
> everyone else ignored it. If I put you in the bozo bin, it was for 30
> days and the time expired. However, I can fix it if it presents you
> with a problem.
>
> In fact, I'll just do it anyway. Thirty days for posting cross posted
> flame bait
So you've got TMT and Clift in your "bozo bin?"
HH&C
> DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
> >I'm curious. What do you think of our modern monetary system? Do you
> >think there is anything wrong with it? If so, what?
>
> anything. It has no definable value.
>
> five dollar gold pieces, silver dollars, and the silver content in
> halves, quarters, and dimes meant the money in your pocket was really
> good as gold. A nickel contained five cents worth of nickel metal and
> the penny had one cent worth of copper. Today our coins are base
> metal with a non-precious metal coating for color. People like shiny
> things.
>
> But the paper money was backed by the stated amount of gold in Fort
> Knox. The dollar bill was a "silver certificate" and you could take
> it into any bank and get a dollars worth of coins that contained a
> dollars worth of silver.
>
> Nixon took us off the gold standard. After that the dollar was said
> to be backed by the faith and credit of America. Whatever that is.
> off shore and closing the factories where workers actually made
> something.
>
> Then we became a service society but that was quickly taken off shore
> too.
>
> We are left with an economy that is 70% consumption. We have to keep
> consuming to keep the economy afloat. But we have no job base to earn
> money to consume.
>
> In the last hoorah, we became credit based. We could drain our
> savings accounts, tap the equity of our houses, tap the equity of our
> pension plans, and get a new credit card to get cash advances to make
> payments on older cards. It worked as long as foreign lenders thought
> we could repay it someway, someday.
>
> Parallel to that, government constantly added new unfunded
> entitlements and failed to even try to identify revenue for existing
> ones. They were going into debt as fast as the citizens.
>
> ever increasing value and that provided ever increasing credit.
>
> already had more credit than we could ever pay back with a lifetime of
> wages. Housing was the first to go.
>
> Then people couldn't make the payments because the pay check didn't
> reach and they were out of new credit sources. Lenders took a close
> look and cut off credit. The machine stops.
>
> I know there are other views. Gentlemen, fire at will.
Bob Brock/Douschebag apparently doesn't see it that way.
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> Yep, and the states were the union, but I don't expect you to
> understand that...
Just can't help the acrimony, can you. Of what are you so afraid?
AllYou!
news:4e4a77c6-8db6-41ab...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com,
HH&C <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> mused:
> On Nov 21, 7:30 pm, Deucalion <some...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:15:57 -0700, DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>>> Deucalion wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:01:04 -0700, DanB <a...@some.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> DanB wrote:
>>>>>> I'm curious. What do you think of our modern monetary
>>>>>> system? Do you think there is anything wrong with it? If
>>>>>> so, what?
>>
>>>>> Well?
>>
>>>> I bought groceries and gas today. Paid cash. It worked fine.
>>>> Are you having some kind of a problem with it?
>
> Can you go to the US Treasury and redeem it for gold?
Why would you want to do that?
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> Winston_Smith wrote:
>> DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm curious. What do you think of our modern monetary system?
>>> Do you think there is anything wrong with it? If so, what?
>>
>> If you mean our fiat money, the problem is that it isn't backed
>> by anything. It has no definable value.
>
> Fiat money is not common these days. Most money is 'debt money'.
> There is a difference.
> <http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/accessible/l1.htm>
>
>> The constitution defines money as gold and silver. Twenty,
>> ten, and five dollar gold pieces, silver dollars, and the
>> silver content in halves, quarters, and dimes meant the money
>> in your pocket was really good as gold. A nickel contained
>> five cents worth of nickel metal and the penny had one cent
>> worth of copper. Today our coins are base metal with a
>> non-precious metal coating for color. People like shiny things.
>
> The value of gold and silver is not in the 'shininess'. It is in
> the scarcity. The point of making it money is that man can not
> control the supply, nature does.
That's irrelevant. Man controls its value. If there were no
intellect, gold would just be gold.
DanB
>> The value of gold and silver is not in the 'shininess'. It is in
>> the scarcity. The point of making it money is that man can not
>> control the supply, nature does.
>
> That's irrelevant.
No, it is not.
> Man controls its value. If there were no
> intellect, gold would just be gold.
That was just plain dumb. But, if you had some gold you would like to
send me, it would be fitting!
DanB
> In news:aNbOm.31006$ZF3...@newsfe13.iad,
> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>
>> Yep, and the states were the union, but I don't expect you to
>> understand that...
>
> Just can't help the acrimony, can you.
Is that a question? That I'm speaking to Paul, I think I'm being very nice.
> Of what are you so afraid?
Don't you think that ploy is getting old?
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> In news:36cOm.38642$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad,
>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>
>>> The value of gold and silver is not in the 'shininess'. It is
>>> in the scarcity. The point of making it money is that man can
>>> not control the supply, nature does.
>>
>> That's irrelevant.
>
> No, it is not.
Sure it is.
>> Man controls its value. If there were no
>> intellect, gold would just be gold.
>
> That was just plain dumb.
I'm sure it looks that way from your perspective.
> But, if you had some gold you would
> like to send me, it would be fitting!
Ahhhhhhhhh, I knew I could count on you for a substantive
response.........
NOT!
ROFLOL!
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> In news:aNbOm.31006$ZF3...@newsfe13.iad,
>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>
>>> Yep, and the states were the union, but I don't expect you to
>>> understand that...
>>
>> Just can't help the acrimony, can you.
>
> Is that a question?
You're still horribly confused, aren't you.
> That I'm speaking to Paul, I think I'm being
> very nice.
I'm sure you think "I don't expect you to understand that" is being
nice.
>> Of what are you so afraid?
>
> Don't you think that ploy is getting old?
No.
DanB
> In news:jNcOm.55865$gg6....@newsfe25.iad,
> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>> In news:36cOm.38642$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad,
>>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>>> The value of gold and silver is not in the 'shininess'. It is
>>>> in the scarcity. The point of making it money is that man can
>>>> not control the supply, nature does.
>>> That's irrelevant.
>> No, it is not.
>
> Sure it is.
History says otherwise. So, are you going to keep making this about me
and continue to obfuscate, or, are you going to have an intelligent
conversation?
Now, maybe you will surprise me by which you choose!
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> In news:jNcOm.55865$gg6....@newsfe25.iad,
>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>> AllYou! wrote:
>>>> In news:36cOm.38642$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad,
>>>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>>>> The value of gold and silver is not in the 'shininess'. It is
>>>>> in the scarcity. The point of making it money is that man can
>>>>> not control the supply, nature does.
>>>> That's irrelevant.
>>> No, it is not.
>>
>> Sure it is.
>
> History says otherwise. So, are you going to keep making this
> about me and continue to obfuscate, or, are you going to have an
> intelligent conversation?
I already tried. I made the comment that the gold standard doesn't
afford any great stability against inflation, or other instability,
of the monetary system because the price of gold is established
through the same basis market forces that apply to the current
system.
And to that, you replied
"No, it is not"
and
"That was just plain dumb."
and
"But, if you had some gold you would like to send me, it would be
fitting!"
> Now, maybe you will surprise me by which you choose!
Yes, maybe you'll have a moment of clarity and be vary surprised.
DanB
>
> I already tried. I made the comment that the gold standard doesn't
> afford any great stability against inflation, or other instability,
> of the monetary system because the price of gold is established
> through the same basis market forces that apply to the current
> system.
"The price of gold". Think about it. If gold is money it does not have a
'price'. You are benchmarking gold against something that would not exist.
Also, there is a big difference between a 'gold standard' and 'gold is
money'.
Look at the historical purchasing power of gold and you will find it is
extremely stable. Sure, that value may change through time but nothing
like money does at the whim of central bankers. And if that it can
change is concerning, read some papers on natural money.
As you have not taken a stand on my original question, I'll ask this
one. Do you think we are better off with what we have or if we were to
use a natural money? Consider this before answering...
<http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
> And to that, you replied
> "No, it is not"
> and
> "That was just plain dumb."
> and
> "But, if you had some gold you would like to send me, it would be
> fitting!"
And clearly I was addressing your, 'irrelevant' and 'If there were no
intellect' bit of obfuscation. Man can not control the 'value' of gold
because he can not control the supply. That is what makes it so much
more stable than fiat or debt money where a few control the supply.
<snip off topic>
DanB
> DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm curious. What do you think of our modern monetary system? Do you
>>>> think there is anything wrong with it? If so, what?
>>> If you mean our fiat money, the problem is that it isn't backed by
>>> anything. It has no definable value.
>> Fiat money is not common these days. Most money is 'debt money'. There
>> is a difference.
>> <http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/accessible/l1.htm>
>
> some value, the lenders would be more careful how they lent them out.
> And there would be a whole lot less of them because, as you point out
> below, gold is much scarcer than trees and a whole lot scarcer than
> electrons.
Value is not enforced with fiat because there is no limit to the money
supply as it can be freely 'printed'. Zimbabua is the last example.
Debt money must be borrowed into existence and paid for with interest.
To buy a house or car on credit you must go to a bank and borrow. This
gives debt money much more 'credibility' than fiat money. One of the
biggest threats to our system over the last year has been deflation
because less borrowing means less money supply.
>>> The constitution defines money as gold and silver. Twenty, ten, and
>>> five dollar gold pieces, silver dollars, and the silver content in
>>> halves, quarters, and dimes meant the money in your pocket was really
>>> good as gold. A nickel contained five cents worth of nickel metal and
>>> the penny had one cent worth of copper. Today our coins are base
>>> metal with a non-precious metal coating for color. People like shiny
>>> things.
>> The value of gold and silver is not in the 'shininess'. It is in the
>> scarcity. The point of making it money is that man can not control the
>> supply, nature does.
>
> Exactly. But most people think shiny is the key. I heard a radio
> show flogging gold coins. The host asked the caller if he had any
> gold. He said yes, he was saving some of the new dollars.
So? You have gold dealers, car dealer, house dealers. Dealers look to
turn commodities for a profit. That doesn't mean these commodities can't
be used as money. And they are. If a client wants to pay me in silver it
would be welcome.
>>> Nixon took us off the gold standard. After that the dollar was said
>>> to be backed by the faith and credit of America. Whatever that is.
>> This goes much further back in our history. Hamilton started the First
>> Bank of the United States before the ink was dry on the constitution.
>
> I have no problem with the concept of "bank". The problem is 1.
> fractional banking, and 2. the value of what's in the banks. Today's
> banks have a lot of paper and electrons in their vaults. Hamilton no
> doubt had some gold tucked away in the safe.
There is nothing wrong with the archaic concept of 'bank'. It would only
be a warehouse. Modern 'banks' create non commodity based money from
thin air and charge for it. There is something very wrong with this, IMHO.
>> Well, a 'view' is an opinion.
>
> Basically one is a Keynesian or an Austrian economist. I'm of the
> later persuasion.
Me too. But the modern Austrians have been screaming inflation and
debasement as of late. Yet, there is no evidence to support this. It
brings their credibility into question.
>> There is a clearly observable mechanism at
>> work here. Most money is a ledger entry in the banking system. That
>> means that most money carries the burden of debt.
>>
>> Think about it. The banking system creates our money from nothing and
>> charges interest on that money. It is just that simple.
>>
>> Without opinion from the horses mouth:
>> <http://lakeweb.com/money/MMM.pdf>
>>
>> Jefferson's opinions:
>> <http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1325.htm>
>
> "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the
> issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation,
> the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive
> the people of all their property until their children will wake up
> homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
Yes. We have been fleeced as a nation. It irritates me to no end that
the media never addresses this. It is one of the reasons that so much of
the media is now owned by so few.
Best, Dan.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm curious. What do you think of our modern monetary system? Do you
>>>> think there is anything wrong with it? If so, what?
>>>
>>> If you mean our fiat money, the problem is that it isn't backed by
>>> anything. It has no definable value.
>>
>>Fiat money is not common these days. Most money is 'debt money'. There
>>is a difference.
>><http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/accessible/l1.htm>
>
> True. But if the fiat dollars behind the credit actually did have some
> value, the lenders would be more careful how they lent them out.
Not true. While the full faith and integrity of the United States
Goverment insures both the currency and institution. As long as the U.S.
Treasury is used by corporate interests to protect the con artists Ponzi
Schemes will continue to proliferate.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH&C
> Innews:4e4a77c6-8db6-41ab...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com,
> HH&C <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> mused:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 7:30 pm, Deucalion <some...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:15:57 -0700, DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
> >>> Deucalion wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:01:04 -0700, DanB <a...@some.net>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> DanB wrote:
> >>>>>> I'm curious. What do you think of our modern monetary
> >>>>>> system? Do you think there is anything wrong with it? If
> >>>>>> so, what?
>
> >>>>> Well?
>
> >>>> I bought groceries and gas today. Paid cash. It worked fine.
> >>>> Are you having some kind of a problem with it?
>
> > Can you go to the US Treasury and redeem it for gold?
>
> Why would you want to do that?
Can I?
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>>
>> I already tried. I made the comment that the gold standard
>> doesn't afford any great stability against inflation, or other
>> instability, of the monetary system because the price of gold
>> is established through the same basis market forces that apply
>> to the current system.
>
> "The price of gold". Think about it. If gold is money it does
> not have a 'price'. You are benchmarking gold against something
> that would not exist.
If gold is money, it has to have a consistent value. An ounce would
buy a certain size shopping basket at one time, and a different size
basket at a different time, depending upon how many ounces of gold
are chasing the stuff in the shopping basket.
Nothing changes.
>
> Also, there is a big difference between a 'gold standard' and
> 'gold is money'.
>
> Look at the historical purchasing power of gold and you will
> find it is extremely stable.
It's not extremely stable, it's relatively stable, and even then,
only because it's not THE money.
> Sure, that value may change through
> time but nothing like money does at the whim of central bankers.
> And if that it can change is concerning, read some papers on
> natural money.
>
> As you have not taken a stand on my original question, I'll ask
> this one. Do you think we are better off with what we have or if
> we
> were to use a natural money? Consider this before answering...
What we have now is natural money.
>
> <http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>
>> And to that, you replied
>> "No, it is not"
>> and
>> "That was just plain dumb."
>> and
>> "But, if you had some gold you would like to send me, it would
>> be fitting!"
>
> And clearly I was addressing your, 'irrelevant' and 'If there
> were no intellect' bit of obfuscation. Man can not control the
> 'value' of gold because he can not control the supply.
But he contrrols the demand. Same thing.
DanB
> In news:JYgOm.19675$ET3....@newsfe17.iad,
> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>> I already tried. I made the comment that the gold standard
>>> doesn't afford any great stability against inflation, or other
>>> instability, of the monetary system because the price of gold
>>> is established through the same basis market forces that apply
>>> to the current system.
>> "The price of gold". Think about it. If gold is money it does
>> not have a 'price'. You are benchmarking gold against something
>> that would not exist.
>
And it has been shown to be very constant historically.
>> Also, there is a big difference between a 'gold standard' and
>> 'gold is money'.
>>
>> Look at the historical purchasing power of gold and you will
>> find it is extremely stable.
>
> It's not extremely stable, it's relatively stable, and even then,
> only because it's not THE money.
It has been very stable as money. You need to compare it to purchasing
power. Comparing it to fiat or debt money is meaningless.
>> Sure, that value may change through
>> time but nothing like money does at the whim of central bankers.
>> And if that it can change is concerning, read some papers on
>> natural money.
>>
>> As you have not taken a stand on my original question, I'll ask
>> this one. Do you think we are better off with what we have or if
>> we
>> were to use a natural money? Consider this before answering...
>
> What we have now is natural money.
Natural money is clearly defined. Debt money, created at the whim of
banking, does not fit the definition in any way.
Why would you make such a claim?
>> <http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>>
>>> And to that, you replied
>>> "No, it is not"
>>> and
>>> "That was just plain dumb."
>>> and
>>> "But, if you had some gold you would like to send me, it would
>>> be fitting!"
>> And clearly I was addressing your, 'irrelevant' and 'If there
>> were no intellect' bit of obfuscation. Man can not control the
>> 'value' of gold because he can not control the supply.
>
> But he contrrols the demand. Same thing.
Where do you get this 'truth'?
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> In news:JYgOm.19675$ET3....@newsfe17.iad,
>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>> AllYou! wrote:
>>>> I already tried. I made the comment that the gold standard
>>>> doesn't afford any great stability against inflation, or other
>>>> instability, of the monetary system because the price of gold
>>>> is established through the same basis market forces that apply
>>>> to the current system.
>>> "The price of gold". Think about it. If gold is money it does
>>> not have a 'price'. You are benchmarking gold against something
>>> that would not exist.
>>
>> If gold is money, it has to have a consistent value...
>
> And it has been shown to be very constant historically.
But not when used as THE money.
>>> Also, there is a big difference between a 'gold standard' and
>>> 'gold is money'.
>>>
>>> Look at the historical purchasing power of gold and you will
>>> find it is extremely stable.
>>
>> It's not extremely stable, it's relatively stable, and even
>> then, only because it's not THE money.
>
> It has been very stable as money.
It hasn't been used as money.
> You need to compare it to
> purchasing power. Comparing it to fiat or debt money is
> meaningless.
I'm not. Tell me this.... How does the supply of money keep up
with the growth of the economy?
>>> Sure, that value may change through
>>> time but nothing like money does at the whim of central
>>> bankers. And if that it can change is concerning, read some
>>> papers on natural money.
>>>
>>> As you have not taken a stand on my original question, I'll ask
>>> this one. Do you think we are better off with what we have or
>>> if we
>>> were to use a natural money? Consider this before answering...
>>
>> What we have now is natural money.
>
> Natural money is clearly defined. Debt money, created at the
> whim of banking, does not fit the definition in any way.
>
> Why would you make such a claim?
Because there is no money that, at it's very core, isn't based upon
perceptions. You've acknowledged that gold derives its value based
upon its scaricity. IOW, people decide upon its vaule based upon
how their perceptions of how difficult it is to obtain. There is no
universal truth value to anything.
>>> <http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>>>
>>>> And to that, you replied
>>>> "No, it is not"
>>>> and
>>>> "That was just plain dumb."
>>>> and
>>>> "But, if you had some gold you would like to send me, it would
>>>> be fitting!"
>>> And clearly I was addressing your, 'irrelevant' and 'If there
>>> were no intellect' bit of obfuscation. Man can not control the
>>> 'value' of gold because he can not control the supply.
>>
>> But he contrrols the demand. Same thing.
>
> Where do you get this 'truth'?
What do you get your truths? We're each posting our positions. If
you want to take this down the road of the ridiculous, then go right
ahead. Man creates the demand for everything, therfore, he controls
it the demand. Truth.
DanB
> In news:5ZyOm.18160$gd1....@newsfe05.iad,
> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>> In news:JYgOm.19675$ET3....@newsfe17.iad,
>>> If gold is money, it has to have a consistent value...
>> And it has been shown to be very constant historically.
>
> But not when used as THE money.
Sure it is. Gold and silver have been the most used historically.
Commodity money has been the dominant and stable form of money for most
of history.
>>>> Also, there is a big difference between a 'gold standard' and
>>>> 'gold is money'.
>>>>
>>>> Look at the historical purchasing power of gold and you will
>>>> find it is extremely stable.
>>> It's not extremely stable, it's relatively stable, and even
>>> then, only because it's not THE money.
>> It has been very stable as money.
>
> It hasn't been used as money.
Any historian of money would find that claim strange.
>> You need to compare it to
>> purchasing power. Comparing it to fiat or debt money is
>> meaningless.
>
> I'm not. Tell me this.... How does the supply of money keep up
> with the growth of the economy?
The way it has throughout history. 'Economic growth' is the ability of a
civilization to better utilize resources. The U.S. grew just fine with
gold as money for one hundred years. Money supply has no real relevance
except when it is monkeyed with by man.
<http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf>
It was only by the hand of banking we see 'crisis'.
<http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>>>> Sure, that value may change through
>>>> time but nothing like money does at the whim of central
>>>> bankers. And if that it can change is concerning, read some
>>>> papers on natural money.
>>>>
>>>> As you have not taken a stand on my original question, I'll ask
>>>> this one. Do you think we are better off with what we have or
>>>> if we
>>>> were to use a natural money? Consider this before answering...
>>> What we have now is natural money.
>> Natural money is clearly defined. Debt money, created at the
>> whim of banking, does not fit the definition in any way.
>>
>> Why would you make such a claim?
>
> Because there is no money that, at it's very core, isn't based upon
> perceptions. You've acknowledged that gold derives its value based
> upon its scaricity. IOW, people decide upon its vaule based upon
> how their perceptions of how difficult it is to obtain. There is no
> universal truth value to anything.
There is historical precedence. Your claim doesn't hold against that
observation.
>>>> <http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>>>>
>>>>> And to that, you replied
>>>>> "No, it is not"
>>>>> and
>>>>> "That was just plain dumb."
>>>>> and
>>>>> "But, if you had some gold you would like to send me, it would
>>>>> be fitting!"
>>>> And clearly I was addressing your, 'irrelevant' and 'If there
>>>> were no intellect' bit of obfuscation. Man can not control the
>>>> 'value' of gold because he can not control the supply.
>>> But he contrrols the demand. Same thing.
>> Where do you get this 'truth'?
>
> What do you get your truths?
Study of others that have studied.
> We're each posting our positions.
No, I'm posting what is easily observable. If I weren't you could call
me on it. In the stead, you create distracting 'truths' that have no
observables to back them.
If bankers could control demand they would never have had to deal with
reserve depletions from demand. History is wrought with banking failures
because of 'uncontrollable' demand on gold reserves. So, you claim is
vacant.
That banks could not control the supply of gold is one very good reason
for their dislike of the gold standard. Today the Fed comes along and
pumps up the monetary base for favored banks. After all, they can make
as much of the stuff they want as it comes from thin air.
If
> you want to take this down the road of the ridiculous, then go right
> ahead....
Speaking of which...
You keep making this about commodity money being unstable, which it is
not. Of course the elephant in the room keeps getting slighted.
I'm going to guess you wish to argue with me no matter what. That would
mean you would have to take the position of a banker's apologist. The
banking system is a pariah in our system. They create money that we must
lawfully use and charge us for that. They have usurped our
constitutional money.
And if you missed it, we are now in circus mode. From Lehman Brothers to
TARP through AIG into the inane profits of Morgan and their whore
Goldman Sachs.
When it comes to paying this, guess who's money that is!
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/business/22gret.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all>
knews4...@yahoo.com
> AllYou! wrote:
> > Innews:5ZyOm.18160$gd1....@newsfe05.iad,> >>> Innews:JYgOm.19675$ET3....@newsfe17.iad,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And....
http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/the-biggest-rip-off-of-all-time-5-36544
Banking is a racket.
Congress gave away it's control of America's money in violation of the
Constitution.
Now they can extort us for anything they want under threat of
"collapse."
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> In news:5ZyOm.18160$gd1....@newsfe05.iad,
>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>> AllYou! wrote:
>>>> In news:JYgOm.19675$ET3....@newsfe17.iad,
> ...
>
>>>> If gold is money, it has to have a consistent value...
>
>>> And it has been shown to be very constant historically.
>>
>> But not when used as THE money.
>
> Sure it is. Gold and silver have been the most used historically.
> Commodity money has been the dominant and stable form of money
> for most of history.
We can keep going back and forth if you want. But gold has not been
used in modern history as money, and so how stable it has been when
not used as money isn't applicable, and how stable it was long
before a modern economy isn't applicable either.
>
>>>>> Also, there is a big difference between a 'gold standard' and
>>>>> 'gold is money'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at the historical purchasing power of gold and you will
>>>>> find it is extremely stable.
>
>>>> It's not extremely stable, it's relatively stable, and even
>>>> then, only because it's not THE money.
>
>>> It has been very stable as money.
>>
>> It hasn't been used as money.
>
> Any historian of money would find that claim strange.
Not if they applied context to it.
>
>>> You need to compare it to
>>> purchasing power. Comparing it to fiat or debt money is
>>> meaningless.
>>
>> I'm not. Tell me this.... How does the supply of money keep up
>> with the growth of the economy?
>
> The way it has throughout history. 'Economic growth' is the
> ability of a civilization to better utilize resources. The U.S.
> grew just fine with gold as money for one hundred years. Money
> supply has no real relevance except when it is monkeyed with by
> man.
Nice dodge. But the fact remains that sheer population growth
requires growth in the money supply, not to mention any growth in
the standard of living that would be applied on top of pop growth.
How does gold keep up?
>
> <http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf>
>
> It was only by the hand of banking we see 'crisis'.
> <http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>
>>>>> Sure, that value may change through
>>>>> time but nothing like money does at the whim of central
>>>>> bankers. And if that it can change is concerning, read some
>>>>> papers on natural money.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you have not taken a stand on my original question, I'll
>>>>> ask this one. Do you think we are better off with what we
>>>>> have or if we
>>>>> were to use a natural money? Consider this before
>>>>> answering...
>>>> What we have now is natural money.
>>> Natural money is clearly defined. Debt money, created at the
>>> whim of banking, does not fit the definition in any way.
>>>
>>> Why would you make such a claim?
>>
>> Because there is no money that, at it's very core, isn't based
>> upon perceptions. You've acknowledged that gold derives its
>> value based upon its scaricity. IOW, people decide upon its
>> vaule based upon how their perceptions of how difficult it is
>> to obtain. There is no universal truth value to anything.
>
> There is historical precedence. Your claim doesn't hold against
> that observation.
How so?
>
>>>>> <http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And to that, you replied
>>>>>> "No, it is not"
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> "That was just plain dumb."
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> "But, if you had some gold you would like to send me, it
>>>>>> would be fitting!"
>>>>> And clearly I was addressing your, 'irrelevant' and 'If there
>>>>> were no intellect' bit of obfuscation. Man can not control
>>>>> the 'value' of gold because he can not control the supply.
>
>>>> But he contrrols the demand. Same thing.
>
>>> Where do you get this 'truth'?
>>
>> What do you get your truths?
>
> Study of others that have studied.
Me too, plus logical arguments.
>> We're each posting our positions.
>
> No, I'm posting what is easily observable. If I weren't you
> could call me on it. In the stead, you create distracting
> 'truths' that have no observables to back them.
You supply much less backing for your claims than I do mine. But if
your idea of a debate is dueling sources, then I'm not interested.
I'd find it much more useful use some historical data, but then
apply logic and reasoning to it all.
>
> If bankers could control demand they would never have had to
> deal with reserve depletions from demand.
Is that a historical truth, or your attempt at a logical argument?
> History is wrought
> with banking failures because of 'uncontrollable' demand on gold
> reserves. So, you claim is vacant.
History is wrought with deep recessions and depressions which have
since been largley averted due to the governments ability to
increase the money supply as needed. Re: the 1987 crash.
> That banks could not control the supply of gold is one very good
> reason for their dislike of the gold standard. Today the Fed
> comes along and pumps up the monetary base for favored banks.
> After all, they can make as much of the stuff they want as it
> comes from thin air.
Is that another one of your truths, or your opinion and
interpretation?
>
> If
>> you want to take this down the road of the ridiculous, then go
>> right ahead....
>
> Speaking of which...
>
> You keep making this about commodity money being unstable, which
> it is not. Of course the elephant in the room keeps getting
> slighted.
> I'm going to guess you wish to argue with me no matter what.
Your problem, of course, is that you think you know why everyone
does what they do. This comes from assuming that everyone is
motivated to do what you would be motivated to do in those same
circumstances. That's why most of what you've accused me of doing
is what you've already done.
> That would mean you would have to take the position of a
> banker's apologist.
Perfect case in point. In your mind, there's no such thing as
taking a position at face value. In your world, you're so
completely convinced that you're right that anyone who disagrees wth
you must have an alterior motive.
> The banking system is a pariah in our
> system.
Truth or opinion?
> They create money that we must lawfully use and charge
> us for that. They have usurped our constitutional money.
Truth or opinion?
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>We can keep going back and forth if you want. But gold has not been
>used in modern history as money,
Modern history? Odd..Ive got several gold US coins dated 1921.
Sure thats not modern history? Or are you talking about a couple of
years?
Gunner
Sanders Kaufman
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:na1ng553qrr8ej1f2...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:58:32 -0500, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net>
>>We can keep going back and forth if you want. But gold has not been
>>used in modern history as money,
>
> Modern history? Odd..Ive got several gold US coins dated 1921.
They still mint American Eagle gold coins, too.
You can get them all the way up to the current year - 2009.
AllYou!
Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> mused:
The time since 1921 is greater than a couple of years.
DanB
> In news:RADOm.58359$rE5....@newsfe08.iad,
>>
>> Sure it is. Gold and silver have been the most used historically.
>> Commodity money has been the dominant and stable form of money
>> for most of history.
>
> We can keep going back and forth if you want. But gold has not been
> used in modern history as money...
Sure it has.
>, and so how stable it has been when
> not used as money isn't applicable
Sure it is.
>, and how stable it was long
> before a modern economy isn't applicable either.
Yes it is.
>>>> It has been very stable as money.
>>> It hasn't been used as money.
>> Any historian of money would find that claim strange.
>
> Not if they applied context to it.
What ever that means..
>> The way it has throughout history. 'Economic growth' is the
>> ability of a civilization to better utilize resources. The U.S.
>> grew just fine with gold as money for one hundred years. Money
>> supply has no real relevance except when it is monkeyed with by
>> man.
>
> Nice dodge. But the fact remains that sheer population growth
> requires growth in the money supply....
<http://mises.org/story/3340>
And in a nut shell.
If today I make three trinkets a day for two ounces of silver and it
takes two ounces of silver to feed and shelter my family. I am fine. If
in many decades it takes my grand son one ounce of silver to feed and
shelter his family and he gets one ounce of silver for his three
trinkets, everything is fine.
What matters is that we have a viable market for our trinkets to feed
and shelter our family, not the count of ounces of silver.
, not to mention any growth in
> the standard of living that would be applied on top of pop growth.
> How does gold keep up?
The above is just how natural money has always worked.
>
>
>> <http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf>
>> It was only by the hand of banking we see 'crisis'.
>> <http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
This is what happens with debt money. Talk about an unstable money supply...
>>> Because there is no money that, at it's very core, isn't based
>>> upon perceptions. You've acknowledged that gold derives its
>>> value based upon its scaricity. IOW, people decide upon its
>>> vaule based upon how their perceptions of how difficult it is
>>> to obtain. There is no universal truth value to anything.
>> There is historical precedence. Your claim doesn't hold against
>> that observation.
>
> How so?
Commodity money has been a stable and viable money throughout history
where as 'paper' money has always led to crisis. This goes back to Rome
when they debased their currency with alloys.
<http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
This is not a stable system.
>>> What do you get your truths?
>> Study of others that have studied.
>
> Me too, plus logical arguments.
Can't wait for you to start.
>>> We're each posting our positions.
>> No, I'm posting what is easily observable. If I weren't you
>> could call me on it. In the stead, you create distracting
>> 'truths' that have no observables to back them.
>
> You supply much less backing for your claims than I do mine.
Errr. You have yet to offer a cite and make claims that have no
historical precedence.
> But if
> your idea of a debate is dueling sources, then I'm not interested.
????
> I'd find it much more useful use some historical data, but then
> apply logic and reasoning to it all.
Do that then!
>> If bankers could control demand they would never have had to
>> deal with reserve depletions from demand.
>> History is wrought
>> with banking failures because of 'uncontrollable' demand on gold
>> reserves. So, you claim is vacant.
>
> History is wrought with deep recessions and depressions which have
> since been largley averted due to the governments ability to
> increase the money supply as needed. Re: the 1987 crash.
Black Monday was a 'symptom'! The result of liquidity created by the
very system you say 'fixed it'. Here it is again:
<http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>> That banks could not control the supply of gold is one very good
>> reason for their dislike of the gold standard. Today the Fed
>> comes along and pumps up the monetary base for favored banks.
>> After all, they can make as much of the stuff they want as it
>> comes from thin air.
>
> Is that another one of your truths, or your opinion and
> interpretation?
You have never heard of a 'bank run'? See U.S. and European history....
>> If
>>> you want to take this down the road of the ridiculous, then go
>>> right ahead....
>> Speaking of which...
>>
>> You keep making this about commodity money being unstable, which
>> it is not. Of course the elephant in the room keeps getting
>> slighted.
>> I'm going to guess you wish to argue with me no matter what.
>
> Your problem, of course
You see, I don't have a problem!
>, is that you think you know why everyone
> does what they do. This comes from assuming that everyone is
> motivated to do what you would be motivated to do in those same
> circumstances. That's why most of what you've accused me of doing
> is what you've already done.
Is this your version of pot/kettle? So, do you back our current system?
>> That would mean you would have to take the position of a
>> banker's apologist.
>
> Perfect case in point. In your mind, there's no such thing as
> taking a position at face value.
You have taken a stern posisiton against natural money, so, what are you
for?
> In your world, you're so
> completely convinced that you're right that anyone who disagrees wth
> you must have an alterior motive.
Take a position and quit bitching.
>> The banking system is a pariah in our
>> system.
>
> Truth or opinion?
As you snipped it...
And if you missed it, we are now in circus mode. From Lehman Brothers to
TARP through AIG into the inane profits of Morgan and their whore
Goldman Sachs.
When it comes to paying this, guess who's money that is!
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/business/22gret.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all>
>
>> They create money that we must lawfully use and charge
>> us for that. They have usurped our constitutional money.
>
> Truth or opinion?
Simple observable. Once again, from the horses mouth:
<http://lakeweb.com/money/MMM.pdf>
DanB
Who ever led you to believe you are clever needs a good punch in the nose..
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> [Removed inappropriate cross-posting to: sci.energy.hydrogen]
>
> "Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
> news:na1ng553qrr8ej1f2...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>> Modern history? Odd..Ive got several gold US coins dated 1921.
Bankruptcy judge: Take note.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Rudy, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. Maffia
cost far more than their face value and anyone trying to use them as money
would find it a hard sell and would be damn fools. Let's face it, they are,
in reality, minted primarily as collectibles although they are legal
tender..
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:P%OOm.58396$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
DanB
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Not true. While the full faith and integrity of the United States
>> Goverment insures both the currency and institution. As long as the U.S.
>> Treasury is used by corporate interests to protect the con artists Ponzi
>> Schemes will continue to proliferate.
>
> run their games is precisely because the money IS fiat.
Hi Winston,
Your conclusions may be right, but I think for the wrong reason. I'll
intersperse below. But first, I will say it again, our money is 'not'
fiat, it is sometimes called 'credit money', but I prefer 'debt money'.
> If it
> weren't, the government wouldn't have any money to do the bailing with
> - unless they increased taxes in general and fees on the bailed.
> Money can not be both based an a basic unit of value and printed up at
> will, in quantities needed to bail out failed corporations. When you
> cant print, the corporation must be allowed to fail and its investors
> take the hit, not the taxpayers. (When the government and the people
> exist for the commerce you have a text book definition of Fascism.)
>
> Bernake likes to beat up on FDR for not spending more massively. The
> answer is that money was backed by gold. He could not print up more
> without finding a new supply of gold.
The debasement was well underway $35 vs. $20 some few years earlier. And
yes, he did spend by deficit. It was not a new mechanism, consider the
greenback of the civil war. His bigger problem was keeping gold out of
the hands of the people. He, (they), took the constitutional money from
the people with new laws.
> He had to spend within his
> means or devalued the dollar relative to gold, ie. raise the official
> price of gold. That would have defeated the entire international
> purpose of decades of a stable relationship between gold and the
> dollar.
I would point out that there was no 'relationship' between dollar and
gold before the Federal Reserve Act. The dollar was gold and 'the
dollar' was simply a unit of gold measure. See article 1, section 8 of
the constitution.
> Obama has no such restriction and he is printing like crazy.
'He' can only spend by law. If congress does not pass laws to spend,
'He' can't do it. As far as 'like crazy' goes, not so. Although I don't
have the current balance sheet of TARP, the stimulus spending amounts to
some 3% of GDP.
Starting with Japan's lost decade, their public debt has run over 120%
of gdp yet they are still haunted by deflation.
. Lots
> more dollars; same gold (or anything else of value). Framed in terms
> of gold, he has devalued the dollar.
'He' has not, congress has and it started with Paulson. Yet the 30 year
is tame. The bond market knows.
> This can be seen in the steadily
> increase in gold prices. Yes, it's increasing in all currencies but
> that just means they are all equally fiat. No surprise since they are
> almost all tied to the dollar.
There is a good chance gold will find a longer term balance somewhere
between $800-900. The price where the buying power of a loaf of bread
has stood for some 3500 years.
The real crime of what is going on is the decimation of the wealth of
the working class. The rich are still getting richer...
> He can revalue the dollar by herding the stimulus dollars back into
> oblivion. I don't think he will. If he does, it may very well cause
> the final crash. IMHO he has started down a road that has to end in
> failure.
>
> And yes, for our liberal friends, Bush took the first steps down the
> road. And yes, for our NeoCon friends, we have been inching down that
> road for decades. But Bush and Obama are world class runners on that
> road.
Actually, this is more of the same. Here, I wrote this a little while
back...
~~~
Andrew Jackson was one of the few that had the balls to stand up to the
banking system. But that pissed Biddle off and he threw the country into
economic chaos by squeezing the money supply. Biddle went on with his
life while everyone else paid the price. The same thing is going on now.
~~~
> There will be a reckoning and we can all argue over which party was at
> fault while we are all sitting around broke, homeless and hungry.
Yes, much like the great depression. But this time around we can't treat
resources as limitless. The game has gotten very much more interesting.....
Best, Dan.
DanB
>
> Yes, much like the great depression. But this time around we can't treat
> resources as limitless. The game has gotten very much more interesting.....
<http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2009/11/oil-supply-constraints-on-us-recovery.html>
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> In news:RADOm.58359$rE5....@newsfe08.iad,
>>>
>
>>> Sure it is. Gold and silver have been the most used
>>> historically. Commodity money has been the dominant and stable
>>> form of money for most of history.
>>
>> We can keep going back and forth if you want. But gold has not
>> been used in modern history as money...
>
> Sure it has.
Show me.
>
>> , and so how stable it has been when
>> not used as money isn't applicable
>
> Sure it is.
Show me.
Exactly. Then we agree that there's nothing inherently fixed or
stable about the value of a metal as it relates to its purchasing
power. That's my point. So what factors do you think accounted for
the change in what that silver could buy?
>
> , not to mention any growth in
>> the standard of living that would be applied on top of pop
>> growth. How does gold keep up?
>
> The above is just how natural money has always worked.
Right. No fixed value.
>>> <http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf>
>
>>> It was only by the hand of banking we see 'crisis'.
>>> <http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>
> This is what happens with debt money. Talk about an unstable
> money supply...
I suppose we could each google whatever we want from the net in
support of our position, and just keep posting links. People who
find it difficult to form logical arguments do that a lot. I tend
not to. Not only because it's rather boring and pointless, but
because I just don't feel like doing that much research into that
particular subject right now.
>>>> Because there is no money that, at it's very core, isn't based
>>>> upon perceptions. You've acknowledged that gold derives its
>>>> value based upon its scaricity. IOW, people decide upon its
>>>> vaule based upon how their perceptions of how difficult it is
>>>> to obtain. There is no universal truth value to anything.
>
>>> There is historical precedence. Your claim doesn't hold against
>>> that observation.
>>
>> How so?
>
> Commodity money has been a stable and viable money throughout
> history where as 'paper' money has always led to crisis. This goes
> back
> to Rome when they debased their currency with alloys.
Actually, paper money has averted crisis. The crash of 1987 was
worse than the one of 1929, and yet, we didn't not sink into
anything approaching a depression.
>
> <http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>
> This is not a stable system.
>
>>>> What do you get your truths?
>
>>> Study of others that have studied.
>>
>> Me too, plus logical arguments.
>
> Can't wait for you to start.
OK, then. Please note that I'm not interested in any more of your
childishness. For the most part, it's all that you've got.
[snip]
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
Typical....... You just can't help yourself, can you. Why do you
insist on perpetuating acrimony?
DanB
> In news:WXSOm.58459$rE5....@newsfe08.iad,
> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>> In news:RADOm.58359$rE5....@newsfe08.iad,
>>>> Sure it is. Gold and silver have been the most used
>>>> historically. Commodity money has been the dominant and stable
>>>> form of money for most of history.
>>> We can keep going back and forth if you want. But gold has not
>>> been used in modern history as money...
>> Sure it has.
>
> Show me.
When I was younger I carried silver and silver certificates.
>>>>>> It has been very stable as money.
>>>>> It hasn't been used as money.
>>>> Any historian of money would find that claim strange.
>>> Not if they applied context to it.
>> What ever that means..
???
>>>> The way it has throughout history. 'Economic growth' is the
>>>> ability of a civilization to better utilize resources. The U.S.
>>>> grew just fine with gold as money for one hundred years. Money
>>>> supply has no real relevance except when it is monkeyed with by
>>>> man.
>>> Nice dodge. But the fact remains that sheer population growth
>>> requires growth in the money supply....
>> <http://mises.org/story/3340>
>> And in a nut shell.
>>
>> If today I make three trinkets a day for two ounces of silver
>> and it takes two ounces of silver to feed and shelter my family. I
>> am
>> fine. If in many decades it takes my grand son one ounce of silver
>> to
>> feed and shelter his family and he gets one ounce of silver for
>> his three trinkets, everything is fine.
>>
>> What matters is that we have a viable market for our trinkets to
>> feed and shelter our family, not the count of ounces of silver.
>
> Exactly. Then we agree that there's nothing inherently fixed or
> stable about the value of a metal as it relates to its purchasing
> power. That's my point. So what factors do you think accounted for
> the change in what that silver could buy?
Money velocity.
>> , not to mention any growth in
>>> the standard of living that would be applied on top of pop
>>> growth. How does gold keep up?
>> The above is just how natural money has always worked.
>
> Right. No fixed value.
So what? The operative is 'stable'.
>>>> <http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf>
>>>> It was only by the hand of banking we see 'crisis'.
>>>> <http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>> This is what happens with debt money. Talk about an unstable
>> money supply...
>
> I suppose we could each google whatever we want from the net in
> support of our position, and just keep posting links. People who
> find it difficult to form logical arguments do that a lot. I tend
> not to. Not only because it's rather boring and pointless, but
> because I just don't feel like doing that much research into that
> particular subject right now.
Yes, you find ignorance bliss....
BTW, that is my website, I didn't google it. You should look some of it
over...
<http://lakeweb.com/money/>
>>>>> Because there is no money that, at it's very core, isn't based
>>>>> upon perceptions. You've acknowledged that gold derives its
>>>>> value based upon its scaricity. IOW, people decide upon its
>>>>> vaule based upon how their perceptions of how difficult it is
>>>>> to obtain. There is no universal truth value to anything.
>>>> There is historical precedence. Your claim doesn't hold against
>>>> that observation.
>>> How so?
>> Commodity money has been a stable and viable money throughout
>> history where as 'paper' money has always led to crisis. This goes
>> back
>> to Rome when they debased their currency with alloys.
>
> Actually, paper money has averted crisis. The crash of 1987 was
> worse than the one of 1929, and yet, we didn't not sink into
> anything approaching a depression.
You say this as if the market crash was the cause of the depression. One
more time:
<http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>> This is not a stable system.
>>>>> What do you get your truths?
>>>> Study of others that have studied.
>>> Me too, plus logical arguments.
>> Can't wait for you to start.
>
> OK, then. Please note that I'm not interested in any more of your
> childishness. For the most part, it's all that you've got.
Yea, but I'm sure you will have to get the last word. And that kinda
gives meaning to 'childishness'.
Here, I'll put this back one more time for you:
~~~
And if you missed it, we are now in circus mode. From Lehman Brothers to
TARP through AIG into the inane profits of Morgan and their whore
Goldman Sachs.
When it comes to paying this, guess who's money that is!
~~~
DanB
Hay! I thought you were done! I just call'm like I see'm...
AZ Nomad
Why haven't you KF'd the dickhead yet?
AllYou!
Either you wish to debate this, or you do not.
>
>>> , not to mention any growth in
>>>> the standard of living that would be applied on top of pop
>>>> growth. How does gold keep up?
>
>>> The above is just how natural money has always worked.
>>
>> Right. No fixed value.
>
> So what? The operative is 'stable'.
Of what use is a stable currency in an unstable economy? How did
your stable currency prevent so may depressions?
>>>>> <http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf>
>>>>> It was only by the hand of banking we see 'crisis'.
>>>>> <http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif>
>
>>> This is what happens with debt money. Talk about an unstable
>>> money supply...
>>
>> I suppose we could each google whatever we want from the net in
>> support of our position, and just keep posting links. People
>> who find it difficult to form logical arguments do that a lot. I
>> tend not to. Not only because it's rather boring and
>> pointless, but because I just don't feel like doing that much
>> research into that particular subject right now.
>
> Yes, you find ignorance bliss....
[snip]
AllYou!
More of your truths. I suppose. IOW, you know that you position is
weak, at best, and so you've got almost nothing left but acrimony.
Got it.
AllYou!
AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> mused:
Ahhhhhhhhh, I don't typically do that with gnats like this. He's
still got some entertainment value left, for now.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Yet the nation was formed in 1776. Does that suggest you believe
America is a gazillion years old?
Btw...I know quite a number of people who were born before 1921. One
of my neighbors..who I can see out the window, sitting out on his
porch at the moment.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>In news:RYSOm.58460$rE5....@newsfe08.iad,
Its hard not to deal in such a fashon when one encounters an utter
fucktard such as yourself.
Gunner
DanB
> In news:9bXOm.7359$Xb5....@newsfe19.iad,
> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>> In news:WXSOm.58459$rE5....@newsfe08.iad,
>>> Exactly. Then we agree that there's nothing inherently fixed or
>>> stable about the value of a metal as it relates to its
>>> purchasing power. That's my point. So what factors do you
>>> think accounted for the change in what that silver could buy?
>> Money velocity.
>
> Either you wish to debate this, or you do not.
So you don't like my answer simply because you want to argue?
>>>> , not to mention any growth in
>>>>> the standard of living that would be applied on top of pop
>>>>> growth. How does gold keep up?
>>>> The above is just how natural money has always worked.
>>> Right. No fixed value.
>> So what? The operative is 'stable'.
>
> Of what use is a stable currency in an unstable economy? How did
> your stable currency prevent so may depressions?
You are not listening. These swings are a result of fractional lending,
no the base money. See the history...
No matter what the base, as soon as a bank indulges in the practice of
fractional lending, They no longer have the money they pretend to have.
You never answered the question. Have you ever heard of a bank run?
> [snip]
Of course. You won't address our condition because it means seeing the
banking system for what it is.
DanB
> In news:UbXOm.7360$Xb5....@newsfe19.iad,
> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>> AllYou! wrote:
>
>>> Typical....... You just can't help yourself, can you. Why do
>>> you insist on perpetuating acrimony?
>>>
>>>
>> Hay! I thought you were done! I just call'm like I see'm...
>
'Like I see'm'. Sounds like my opinion
> IOW, you know that you position is
> weak, at best, and so you've got almost nothing left but acrimony.
See the difference? You are here telling me 'what I know'. Like it is
some kind of truth.
You will always be a piece of work....
DanB
Which of you is the sock puppet?
AllYou!
Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> mused:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:24:54 -0500, "AllYou!"
> <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>> In news:na1ng553qrr8ej1f2...@4ax.com,
>> Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> mused:
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:58:32 -0500, "AllYou!"
>>> <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We can keep going back and forth if you want. But gold has
>>>> not been used in modern history as money,
>>>
>>>
>>> Modern history? Odd..Ive got several gold US coins dated 1921.
>>>
>>> Sure thats not modern history? Or are you talking about a
>>> couple of years?
>>
>> The time since 1921 is greater than a couple of years.
>>
> Yet the nation was formed in 1776. Does that suggest you
> believe America is a gazillion years old?
It suggest that I was referring to the last 50 years or so. Just
curious, but do you have anything relevant to add?
AllYou!
Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> mused:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:06:19 -0500, "AllYou!"
> <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>> In news:RYSOm.58460$rE5....@newsfe08.iad,
>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>> AllYou! wrote:
>>>> In news:na1ng553qrr8ej1f2...@4ax.com,
>>>> Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> mused:
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:58:32 -0500, "AllYou!"
>>>>> <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We can keep going back and forth if you want. But gold has
>>>>>> not been used in modern history as money,
>>>>>
>>>>> Modern history? Odd..Ive got several gold US coins dated
>>>>> 1921.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure thats not modern history? Or are you talking about a
>>>>> couple of years?
>>>>
>>>> The time since 1921 is greater than a couple of years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who ever led you to believe you are clever needs a good punch
>>> in the nose..
>>
>> Typical....... You just can't help yourself, can you. Why do
>> you insist on perpetuating acrimony?
>>
>
> Its hard not to deal in such a fashon when one encounters an
> utter fucktard such as yourself.
:-)
DanB
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> In news:9bXOm.7359$Xb5....@newsfe19.iad,
>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>> AllYou! wrote:
>>>> In news:WXSOm.58459$rE5....@newsfe08.iad,
>
>>>> Exactly. Then we agree that there's nothing inherently fixed
>>>> or stable about the value of a metal as it relates to its
>>>> purchasing power. That's my point. So what factors do you
>>>> think accounted for the change in what that silver could buy?
>
>>> Money velocity.
>>
>> Either you wish to debate this, or you do not.
>
> So you don't like my answer simply because you want to argue?
Your answer is unsupported.
>>>>> , not to mention any growth in
>>>>>> the standard of living that would be applied on top of pop
>>>>>> growth. How does gold keep up?
>>>>> The above is just how natural money has always worked.
>>>> Right. No fixed value.
>>> So what? The operative is 'stable'.
>>
>> Of what use is a stable currency in an unstable economy? How
>> did your stable currency prevent so may depressions?
>
> You are not listening. These swings are a result of fractional
> lending, no the base money. See the history...
I 'listened' very carefully, and what I 'heard' was that your very
stable currency did nothing to prevent so many depressions.
> No matter what the base, as soon as a bank indulges in the
> practice of fractional lending, They no longer have the money
> they pretend to have.
> You never answered the question. Have you ever heard of a bank
> run?
Sure, and they were most prevlent when the Fed was unable to prevent
them by controlling the supply of money.
>> [snip]
>
> Of course. You won't address our condition because it means
> seeing the banking system for what it is.
No, it means that I have no time for your nonsense.
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> In news:UbXOm.7360$Xb5....@newsfe19.iad,
>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>> AllYou! wrote:
>>
>>>> Typical....... You just can't help yourself, can you. Why do
>>>> you insist on perpetuating acrimony?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hay! I thought you were done! I just call'm like I see'm...
>>
>> More of your truths...
>
> 'Like I see'm'. Sounds like my opinion
Amazingly, you've just proven exactly how confused you remain. You
used the word 'see' as a metaphor for an opinion? When I see
something, I see what's there, not what I imagine is there.
Therefore, to use the word 'see' as a metaphor for your opinion
logically means that you're very prone to fantasies.
But then, I suspected as much for quite a while now.
>> IOW, you know that you position is
>> weak, at best, and so you've got almost nothing left but
>> acrimony.
>
> See the difference?
Yes, I see a huge difference between you and I on very many
different levels. And for that, I am grateful.
AllYou!
>>> Why haven't you KF'd the dickhead yet?
>>
>> Ahhhhhhhhh, I don't typically do that with gnats like this. He's
>> still got some entertainment value left, for now.
>>
>>
>
> Which of you is the sock puppet?
Pot/Kettle
:-)
"Probably the earliest fly swatters were nothing more than some sort
of striking surface attached to the end of a long stick."
AllYou!
>>> Yet the nation was formed in 1776. Does that suggest you
>>> believe America is a gazillion years old?
>>
>> It suggest that I was referring to the last 50 years or so. Just
>> curious, but do you have anything relevant to add?
>
> You mean this recent history?
Yes, I mean that in recent history, there have been no depressions
because the Fed has been able to control the money supply when they
otherwise would've occurred. Re: 1987.
AllYou!
Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> mused:
> DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not true. While the full faith and integrity of the United
>>>> States Goverment insures both the currency and institution.
>>>> As long as the U.S. Treasury is used by corporate interests
>>>> to protect the con artists Ponzi Schemes will continue to
>>>> proliferate.
>>>
>>> I agree with your underlying thought but the reason they feel
>>> free to run their games is precisely because the money IS fiat.
>>
>> Hi Winston,
>> Your conclusions may be right, but I think for the wrong
>> reason. I'll intersperse below. But first, I will say it again,
>> our money is 'not' fiat, it is sometimes called 'credit money',
>> but I prefer 'debt money'.
>
> authority. We are ordered to accept a species of money as if it
> had value.
>
> Anyone that thinks fiat means "fake" is incorrect - at least in
> dictionary definition. Of course it is fake. If it actually had
> value, we wouldn't need to be ordered to recognize it as if it
> did.
>
> We are ordered to take Helicopter Ben's pretty pieces of green
> paper as if they had value. No one needs to be forced to take
> gold, silver, oil, copper, uranium, etc as if it has value.
It has no face value either.
DanB
> DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not true. While the full faith and integrity of the United States
>>>> Goverment insures both the currency and institution. As long as the U.S.
>>>> Treasury is used by corporate interests to protect the con artists Ponzi
>>>> Schemes will continue to proliferate.
>>> I agree with your underlying thought but the reason they feel free to
>>> run their games is precisely because the money IS fiat.
>> Hi Winston,
>> Your conclusions may be right, but I think for the wrong reason. I'll
>> intersperse below. But first, I will say it again, our money is 'not'
>> fiat, it is sometimes called 'credit money', but I prefer 'debt money'.
>
> authority. We are ordered to accept a species of money as if it had
> value.
Yes it is in that sense. But here is where I differ.
> Anyone that thinks fiat means "fake" is incorrect - at least in
> dictionary definition. Of course it is fake. If it actually had
> value, we wouldn't need to be ordered to recognize it as if it did.
>
> We are ordered to take Helicopter Ben's pretty pieces of green paper
> as if they had value. No one needs to be forced to take gold, silver,
> oil, copper, uranium, etc as if it has value.
It has value by law and availability. Unlike pure script that could
stand beside a specie money like the greenback, debt money is required
for our commerce. The banks are the conduit of exchange by checking.
Also, as I have pointed out, M0, paper bills, is a negligible amount of
the money in circulation. Most money in circulation is deposit money,
chits on banking ledgers, all created from debt.
>>> If it
>>> weren't, the government wouldn't have any money to do the bailing with
>>> - unless they increased taxes in general and fees on the bailed.
>>> Money can not be both based an a basic unit of value and printed up at
>>> will, in quantities needed to bail out failed corporations. When you
>>> cant print, the corporation must be allowed to fail and its investors
>>> take the hit, not the taxpayers. (When the government and the people
>>> exist for the commerce you have a text book definition of Fascism.)
>>>
>>> Bernake likes to beat up on FDR for not spending more massively. The
>>> answer is that money was backed by gold. He could not print up more
>>> without finding a new supply of gold.
>> The debasement was well underway $35 vs. $20 some few years earlier. And
>> yes, he did spend by deficit. It was not a new mechanism, consider the
>> greenback of the civil war. His bigger problem was keeping gold out of
>> the hands of the people. He, (they), took the constitutional money from
>> the people with new laws.
>
> I guess my comment applies early on after the collapse. You are
> correct, in the long run he devalued the dollar by changing the ratio
> of gold to dollars.
>
> That only happened after gold was removed from private ownership. FDR
> promptly sold it abroad. That was where he got the bulk of the money
> to finance the new deal. The government got the benefit of the
> increase in price, not the original owner. Curious how that works
> out.
:)
> http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GoldStandard.html
> England adopted a de facto gold standard in 1717 after the master of
> the mint, Sir Isaac Newton, overvalued the guinea in terms of silver,
> and formally adopted the gold standard in 1819. The United States,
> though formally on a bimetallic (gold and silver) standard, switched
> to gold de facto in 1834 and de jure in 1900 when Congress passed the
> Gold Standard Act. In 1834, the United States fixed the price of gold
> at $20.67 per ounce, where it remained until 1933. Other major
> countries joined the gold standard in the 1870s.
>
>>> Obama has no such restriction and he is printing like crazy.
>> 'He' can only spend by law. If congress does not pass laws to spend,
>> 'He' can't do it. As far as 'like crazy' goes, not so. Although I don't
>> have the current balance sheet of TARP, the stimulus spending amounts to
>> some 3% of GDP.
>
> Agreed. Political agreement is a lot easier to come by than new gold
> or anything else of value.
>
>> Starting with Japan's lost decade, their public debt has run over 120%
>> of gdp yet they are still haunted by deflation.
>
> IMHO, we will be lucky to get away with only one lost decade. Housing
> is back where it was ten years ago and dropping. With all the
> unemployment, I suspect new hires will soon be offered less rather
> than more than the present going rate.
Yes, this is what deflation is about. And as long as banking does not
write off old debts, (they did not in Japan), the ability to 'spend' and
grow becomes that much more a challenge.
>> . Lots
>>> more dollars; same gold (or anything else of value). Framed in terms
>>> of gold, he has devalued the dollar.
>> 'He' has not, congress has and it started with Paulson. Yet the 30 year
>> is tame. The bond market knows.
>
> OK. I guess my use of "he" should have been "the merry band of fools
> and thieves in Washington" in general. I'll try to me more specific.
>
>>> This can be seen in the steadily
>>> increase in gold prices. Yes, it's increasing in all currencies but
>>> that just means they are all equally fiat. No surprise since they are
>>> almost all tied to the dollar.
>> There is a good chance gold will find a longer term balance somewhere
>> between $800-900. The price where the buying power of a loaf of bread
>> has stood for some 3500 years.
>
> There is a lot of speculation whether gold is in a bubble. Ask me in
> five years.
I would feel comfortable holding metal for the long term. At the least
its buying power will remain fairly stable.
If the bond market tanks then we could see a lot more flight to safety.
In five years everything could be different. Congress may see fit to
call out those helicopters.
>> The real crime of what is going on is the decimation of the wealth of
>> the working class. The rich are still getting richer...
>>
>>> He can revalue the dollar by herding the stimulus dollars back into
>>> oblivion. I don't think he will. If he does, it may very well cause
>>> the final crash. IMHO he has started down a road that has to end in
>>> failure.
>>>
>>> And yes, for our liberal friends, Bush took the first steps down the
>>> road. And yes, for our NeoCon friends, we have been inching down that
>>> road for decades. But Bush and Obama are world class runners on that
>>> road.
>> Actually, this is more of the same. Here, I wrote this a little while
>> back...
>>
>> ~~~
>> Andrew Jackson was one of the few that had the balls to stand up to the
>> banking system. But that pissed Biddle off and he threw the country into
>> economic chaos by squeezing the money supply. Biddle went on with his
>> life while everyone else paid the price. The same thing is going on now.
>> ~~~
>>
>>> There will be a reckoning and we can all argue over which party was at
>>> fault while we are all sitting around broke, homeless and hungry.
>> Yes, much like the great depression. But this time around we can't treat
>> resources as limitless. The game has gotten very much more interesting.....
>
> Worse yet. Most people then lived rural, had at least a small plot,
> and knew how to garden and preserve. Today most people live urban and
> think food comes from a plastics factory somewhere in the back of the
> store.
Yes, I see a lot of it in my kid's generation, much less mine. I'm just
thankful my kid gets all this stuff. He is a surviver.
Best, Dan.
pyotr filipivich
<gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> reported Elvis on Tue, 24 Nov 2009
12:54:12 -0800 in misc.survivalism:
I keep recalling learning that in English Universities "Modern
Studies" covers those events which occurred in the hundred since 1840.
"Current events" apparently covers the period from just before World
War Two to date.
Of course, in the US, a hundred years is a long time, while in the
UK a hundred miles is a great distance.
The wars in Vietnam ended what ... 34 years ago? Which was only
34 years after Pearl Harbor. Hmmm ... interesting.
tschus
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
DanB
>>> Of what use is a stable currency in an unstable economy? How
>>> did your stable currency prevent so may depressions?
>> You are not listening. These swings are a result of fractional
>> lending, no the base money. See the history...
>
> I 'listened' very carefully, and what I 'heard' was that your very
> stable currency did nothing to prevent so many depressions.
Gee, I guess you should google 'fractional lending' instead of playing dumb.
>> No matter what the base, as soon as a bank indulges in the
>> practice of fractional lending, They no longer have the money
>> they pretend to have.
>> You never answered the question. Have you ever heard of a bank
>> run?
>
> Sure, and they were most prevlent when the Fed was unable to prevent
> them by controlling the supply of money.
You are still not listening. If no promissory money is issued a run is
impossible. It has nothing to do with what is base money.
>>> [snip]
>> Of course. You won't address our condition because it means
>> seeing the banking system for what it is.
>
> No, it means that I have no time for your nonsense.
Our present condition is nonesense? Very odd....
DanB
> In news:l%XOm.357$y%5....@newsfe03.iad,
> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>> In news:UbXOm.7360$Xb5....@newsfe19.iad,
>>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>>> AllYou! wrote:
>>>>> Typical....... You just can't help yourself, can you. Why do
>>>>> you insist on perpetuating acrimony?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hay! I thought you were done! I just call'm like I see'm...
>>> More of your truths...
>> 'Like I see'm'. Sounds like my opinion
>
<snip stupid creation of another 'truth'>
>>> IOW, you know that you position is
>>> weak, at best, and so you've got almost nothing left but
>>> acrimony.
>> See the difference?
>
> Yes, I see a huge difference between you and I on very many
> different levels. And for that, I am grateful.
You are welcome to your opinion. Personally, I don't really care.
DanB
> In news:P%XOm.358$y%5....@newsfe03.iad,
> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>> AllYou! wrote:
>
>>>> Why haven't you KF'd the dickhead yet?
>>> Ahhhhhhhhh, I don't typically do that with gnats like this. He's
>>> still got some entertainment value left, for now.
>>>
>>>
>> Which of you is the sock puppet?
>
> Pot/Kettle
>
> :-)
Really! And who is my sockpuppet?
Maybe you don't know what that means...
DanB
Well, if you think market corrections are a 'cause'....
Keep in mind, it doesn't make it true.
DanB
>
>
> tschus
> pyotr
Aren't you Joe Fischer? Isn't this like the third time you've changed
your moniker?
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> In news:l%XOm.357$y%5....@newsfe03.iad,
>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>> AllYou! wrote:
>>>> In news:UbXOm.7360$Xb5....@newsfe19.iad,
>>>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>>>> AllYou! wrote:
>>>>>> Typical....... You just can't help yourself, can you. Why
>>>>>> do you insist on perpetuating acrimony?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hay! I thought you were done! I just call'm like I see'm...
>>>> More of your truths...
>>> 'Like I see'm'. Sounds like my opinion
>>
>> Amazingly, you've just proven exactly how confused you remain...
>
> <snip stupid creation of another 'truth'>
LOL! What's the matter? do you really think snipping the truth
eliminates it? Here, I'll fix it for you.......
You
used the word 'see' as a metaphor for an opinion? When I see
something, I see what's there, not what I imagine is there.
Therefore, to use the word 'see' as a metaphor for your opinion
logically means that you're very prone to fantasies.
But then, I suspected as much for quite a while now.
>
>>>> IOW, you know that you position is
>>>> weak, at best, and so you've got almost nothing left but
>>>> acrimony.
>
>>> See the difference?
>>
>> Yes, I see a huge difference between you and I on very many
>> different levels. And for that, I am grateful.
>
> You are welcome to your opinion. Personally, I don't really care.
:-)
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> In news:BYXOm.356$y%5....@newsfe03.iad,
>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>
>>>> Of what use is a stable currency in an unstable economy? How
>>>> did your stable currency prevent so may depressions?
>
>>> You are not listening. These swings are a result of fractional
>>> lending, no the base money. See the history...
>>
>> I 'listened' very carefully, and what I 'heard' was that your
>> very stable currency did nothing to prevent so many depressions.
>
> Gee, I guess you should google 'fractional lending' instead of
> playing dumb.
Once again, you've proven that even you know that your position is a
losing one. Otherwise, you would've responded with something
substantive. Or maybe you just don't know how.
>
>>> No matter what the base, as soon as a bank indulges in the
>>> practice of fractional lending, They no longer have the money
>>> they pretend to have.
>>> You never answered the question. Have you ever heard of a bank
>>> run?
>>
>> Sure, and they were most prevlent when the Fed was unable to
>> prevent them by controlling the supply of money.
>
> You are still not listening. If no promissory money is issued a
> run is impossible. It has nothing to do with what is base money.
That assertion is inconsistent with history. Or maybe you just
'see' history as something which ios subject to opinion. <chuckle>
>
>>>> [snip]
>>> Of course. You won't address our condition because it means
>>> seeing the banking system for what it is.
>>
>> No, it means that I have no time for your nonsense.
>
> Our present condition is nonesense? Very odd....
So you agree that our present condition isn't nonsense at all.
Hmmmmmmm.
AllYou!
What is true is that the market crashed more significantly in 1987
than in 1929, and it was followed almost immediately by a boom
economy. That's becaue the Fed was able to control the supply of
money.
AllYou!
Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> mused:
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>
>>> You are not listening. These swings are a result of fractional
>>> lending, no the base money. See the history...
>>
>> I 'listened' very carefully, and what I 'heard' was that your
>> very stable currency did nothing to prevent so many depressions.
>
> have held their purchasing power. Do the math.
Yes, they hold their purchasing power even though the whole of the
economy collapes around it. I agree with you on that.
DanB
> In news:3TZOm.37862$We2....@newsfe09.iad,
> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>> In news:BYXOm.356$y%5....@newsfe03.iad,
>>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>>>> Of what use is a stable currency in an unstable economy? How
>>>>> did your stable currency prevent so may depressions?
>>>> You are not listening. These swings are a result of fractional
>>>> lending, no the base money. See the history...
>>> I 'listened' very carefully, and what I 'heard' was that your
>>> very stable currency did nothing to prevent so many depressions.
>> Gee, I guess you should google 'fractional lending' instead of
>> playing dumb.
>
Gads you are boring...
>>>> No matter what the base, as soon as a bank indulges in the
>>>> practice of fractional lending, They no longer have the money
>>>> they pretend to have.
>>>> You never answered the question. Have you ever heard of a bank
>>>> run?
>>> Sure, and they were most prevlent when the Fed was unable to
>>> prevent them by controlling the supply of money.
>> You are still not listening. If no promissory money is issued a
>> run is impossible. It has nothing to do with what is base money.
>
> That assertion is inconsistent with history.
Your history...
>>>> Of course. You won't address our condition because it means
>>>> seeing the banking system for what it is.
>>> No, it means that I have no time for your nonsense.
>> Our present condition is nonesense? Very odd....
>
> So you agree that our present condition isn't nonsense at all.
> Hmmmmmmm.
You must be dumber than a box of hammers....
Bye bye...
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>>>
>>> The time since 1921 is greater than a couple of years.
>>>
>> Yet the nation was formed in 1776. Does that suggest you
>> believe America is a gazillion years old?
>
>It suggest that I was referring to the last 50 years or so. Just
>curious, but do you have anything relevant to add?
50 yrs ago isnt part of "modern history"?
50 yrs ago..I was 5 yrs old and watching TV while reading the
Encyclopedia Britannica.
So you are what...19?
Gunner
Gunner Asch
Indeed. I fought in the first one, my father, still very much alive,
fought in the second.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
Unless he is moonlighting...he has been Pyotr for at least 10 yrs that
Im aware of.
Gunner
Dan
> In news:RADOm.58359$rE5....@newsfe08.iad,
> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>> The way it has throughout history. 'Economic growth' is the
>> ability of a civilization to better utilize resources. The U.S.
>> grew just fine with gold as money for one hundred years. Money
>> supply has no real relevance except when it is monkeyed with by
>> man.
>
> Nice dodge. But the fact remains that sheer population growth
> requires growth in the money supply, not to mention any growth in
> the standard of living that would be applied on top of pop growth.
> How does gold keep up?
It doesn't. The economy grows by entities creating their own money, as
it always has. Paper money was used from day one of the nation. Credit
(money creation) was used from day one of the nation.
In fact, the fact that money creation was discouraged in the colonial
days was a driving factor toward the revolution... We are a FREE
PEOPLE, and we demand a real money system, and always have!
Dan
Dan
intelligence, could not grasp the concept of money.
Much as we disagreed, he was a good arguer!
Dan
DanB
Ok. It just looked like the way Joe use to post, so I asked.
Dan.
Strabo
>>> In news:5ZyOm.18160$gd1....@newsfe05.iad,>>>>> In news:JYgOm.19675$ET3....@newsfe17.iad,
>> ...
>>
>>>>> If gold is money, it has to have a consistent value...
>>>> And it has been shown to be very constant historically.
>>> But not when used as THE money.
>> Sure it is. Gold and silver have been the most used historically.
>> Commodity money has been the dominant and stable form of money
>> for most of history.
>
> We can keep going back and forth if you want. But gold has not been
> not used as money isn't applicable, and how stable it was long
> before a modern economy isn't applicable either.
>
Gold and silver coin was the everyday currency until 1933 when FDR
confiscated the people's money.
The ban was eventually lifted and gold and silver coin are minted each
year.
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> In news:3TZOm.37862$We2....@newsfe09.iad,
>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>> AllYou! wrote:
>>>> In news:BYXOm.356$y%5....@newsfe03.iad,
>>>> DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
>>>>>> Of what use is a stable currency in an unstable economy? How
>>>>>> did your stable currency prevent so may depressions?
>>>>> You are not listening. These swings are a result of
>>>>> fractional lending, no the base money. See the history...
>>>> I 'listened' very carefully, and what I 'heard' was that your
>>>> very stable currency did nothing to prevent so many
>>>> depressions.
>>> Gee, I guess you should google 'fractional lending' instead of
>>> playing dumb.
>>
>> Once again, you've proven...
Once again, you've proven that even you know that your position is a
losing one. Otherwise, you would've responded with something
substantive. Or maybe you just don't know how.
>
> Gads you are boring...
There, I fixed it for you.
[snip more unresponsive, and very childish nonsense.]
AllYou!
Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> mused:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:15:44 -0500, "AllYou!"
> <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> The time since 1921 is greater than a couple of years.
>>>>
>>> Yet the nation was formed in 1776. Does that suggest you
>>> believe America is a gazillion years old?
>>
>> It suggest that I was referring to the last 50 years or so.
>> Just curious, but do you have anything relevant to add?
>
> 50 yrs ago isnt part of "modern history"?
Of course it is.
AllYou!
AllYou!
Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> We can keep going back and forth if you want. But gold has not
>> been used in modern history as money, and so how stable it has
>> been when not used as money isn't applicable, and how stable it
>> was long before a modern economy isn't applicable either.
>>
>
> Gold and silver coin was the everyday currency until 1933 when
> FDR confiscated the people's money.
FDR changed to a system that could keep up with economic growth, as
well as would allow the Fed to stem the tide of a depresson.
>
> The ban was eventually lifted and gold and silver coin are
> minted each year.
And thank God we don't have to reply upon it.
DanB
I don't know if anyone caught it last night, but, Frontline was like
icing on the cake.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/>
They have done a few shows on the 'banking crisis'. Even if they don't
outright say, 'Here is the elephant in the room', they do a decent job
of showing just how destructive this elephant is....
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:Af0Pm.396$y%5....@newsfe03.iad,
Yes, it would be a shame to have to use 1$ Dollar gold backed paper to
buy a loaf of bread wouldn't it? Instead of 1$ Dollar "Debt Notes"
paying "interest" to PRIVATE Banksters, backed by the government's
ability to extort the blood and sweat from every man woman and child
alive and to be born for eternity?
All set up ILLGALLY of course.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html
Where will it end?
50% tax rates, 60%?
But hey I get "free" (sign up or go to jail) health care right?
knews4...@yahoo.com
History repeats itself.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0690c.asp
Now we we get to pay interest and the "bail outs" too.
What a great system for the Banksters.
They can't lose and the public can't win.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125907631604662501.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories
Strabo
God helps those who help themselves.
If you don't have gold and silver coin you're going to be in
big trouble in the near future.
pyotr filipivich
<a...@some.net> reported Elvis on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:29:00 -0700 in
misc.survivalism:
Nope. I've been pyotr filipivich since 1988. (Actually, earlier,
but before then I was not online.)
pyotr filipivich
<gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> reported Elvis on Tue, 24 Nov 2009
Dad missed the Korean War with a "religious student" deferment.
But he'd been there for WW2, and was back during 'Nam. Even called to
volunteer during Gulf War 1.
Too soon old, too late smart.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> AllYou! wrote:
> > Innews:Af0Pm.396$y%5....@newsfe03.iad,
>
> - Show quoted text -
I got enough of that and other "tradeables" if the banks shut down the
ATMs.
"Money" won't be worth much more than the bullets flying at you from
people trying to take it if the SHTF anyways.
It will only work if enough people have something worth trading for
whether it's money or rice. The ones with nothing will go commando on
their neighbors.
With only enough food in the stores and homes to last about 72 hours
it won't take long for the rioting to start.
Great excuse for Martial Law and confiscation of EVERYTHING.
Don't worry the laws allowing this area already on the books.
Strabo
> On Nov 25, 1:32 pm, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>> Innews:Af0Pm.396$y%5....@newsfe03.iad,
>>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> mused:
>>>> AllYou! wrote:
>>>>> We can keep going back and forth if you want. But gold has not
>>>>> been used in modern history as money, and so how stable it has
>>>>> been when not used as money isn't applicable, and how stable it
>>>>> was long before a modern economy isn't applicable either.
>>>> Gold and silver coin was the everyday currency until 1933 when
>>>> FDR confiscated the people's money.
>>> FDR changed to a system that could keep up with economic growth, as
>>> well as would allow the Fed to stem the tide of a depresson.
>>>> The ban was eventually lifted and gold and silver coin are
>>>> minted each year.
>>> And thank God we don't have to reply upon it.
>> God helps those who help themselves.
>>
>> If you don't have gold and silver coin you're going to be in
>> big trouble in the near future.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I got enough of that and other "tradeables" if the banks shut down the
> ATMs.
>
The initial purpose of gold of silver is to offset inflation and
to reestablish wealth following a severe downturn.
I expect the loss of some 2000 banks by 2012.
>
> "Money" won't be worth much more than the bullets flying at you from
> people trying to take it if the SHTF anyways.
>
There would be a high conflict period which would taper off as
the bodies pile up.
>
> It will only work if enough people have something worth trading for
> whether it's money or rice. The ones with nothing will go commando on
> their neighbors.
>
A wide kill zone is advisable. Grow dense fences of evergreen shrubs.
Perimeter alarms and man-traps can be useful.
For a worse case scenario prepare to be isolated and self-sufficient for
at least one year. By then disease, suicide and banditry will have
eliminated a third of the population. One more year would see the loss
of another third.
>
> With only enough food in the stores and homes to last about 72 hours
> it won't take long for the rioting to start.
>
Local warehouses stock about a week supply of food. Should distribution
cease altogether, TSHTF.
>
> Great excuse for Martial Law and confiscation of EVERYTHING.
>
Martial law probably but the confiscators/enforcers will be in the
same boat.
>
> Don't worry the laws allowing this area already on the books.
>
Yes, I know but enforcement will be spotty. In a worse case scenario
it'll be every man for himself.
DanB
Nobody that has any say is going to stand up for this. That is pretty
clear from here. One of the few that has said anything about it is Ron
Paul. You saw what the media did to him.
My plans are to keep my community as healthy as possible and do what we
can to survive. As long as there are not too many nutters about, we
should do ok. Most folks I know around here would work together and have
no illusions. Just regular folks for the most part.
As long as we can eat, I'm not too worried.
Best, Dan.