I put an old car for sale on craigslist in 09 during the height of recession and I got an offer very strongly implying sex in exchange for car. Imagine what that woman would have looked like. The funniest offer was from a woman who wanted to trade her disabled kitten for my car. But the car did sell really fast.
Who cares what Americans want? and how dare they ask for basic social safety nets that have proven to be both affordable and effective in so many other advanced countries? and I sound like a religious zealot?
Some type of service has a cost and should hence be examined carefully being rolled out is a totally different argument than saying it cannot be done because the markets say so.
As I said before social safety nets have proven to work in many many countries - and many countries have prospered while providing programs like universal healthcare. Before moving to the US, I lived in Canada where everyone got free access to healthcare. It wasn't perfect, but no one was refused access - no one was left out to die for not having the money to afford insurance.
The sad part is that US is far from providing universal healthcare, yet healthcare costs per capita are higher here than anywhere else in the world.
And just like there are problems with privatizing defense, there are also problems with privatizing programs like healthcare.. I think most human beings agree that leaving patients who don't have insurance to die is pretty much unacceptable. How do you think free markets would deal with that?
Nope - it was exactly the correct comparison. You said people live in societies because of freedom and nothing else should matter and I said that's just not true. People live in a society for many other reasons beside freedom. (I actually believe security would take precedence over freedom for most people).
Of course the government can't provide every single care for its citizens, but some cares are critical for the society to work in the long-run. The poor cannot be left out to die, and no matter how many people go out and drive trucks to put food on the table there will always be those without money. Unemployment has never been 0% in any country, because there is a thing called structural unemployment, which means not everyone can or will have jobs.
Again you didn't get what I was saying.
I said that spending by and on behalf of consumers accounts for ~70% of America's GDP. It is only rational to expect that if consumers' disposable income shrinks so will their spending and consequently the overall economy. It's just simple logic and has nothing to do with what the government does or doesn't do.
What a load of nonsense. How can you claim that economics is an area of study of yours and come out and say HISTORY HAS SHOWN countries with fiat money end up in shit??
Nixon took US dollar off the gold standard in 1971 and US went on to experience the MOST PHENOMENAL economic growth the world has seen over the subsequent 40 years!!! Most advanced economies agree that rigidity of having currency pegged to gold or anything else will paralyze many nations in times of recession as they would have very little monetary flexibility.Had we been on the gold standard, the US economy would have had a major recession in 80s and would have certainly entered a depression in 2008.
Of course, having a free floating currency creates volatility but volatility can be hedged by businesses - it is a small cost to incur compared to the devastation that pegged money could bring about.
I suggest you read about the devastation the rigidity of the gold standard brought to countries like UK, France, and Germany during the depression of 1930s, before claiming HISTORY HAS SHOWN fiat currency fails!
If anyone isn't understanding the other party's point of view it's you my friend. Where in my argument did I claim that subsidizing healthcare does not have a cost?? please show me. I am generally against subsidies because they harm growth - but when it comes to critical services such as defense, healthcare, social security, etc. they are absolutely necessary. I lump these services together because I strongly believe they equally affect the safety and security of any country.
Some type of service has a cost and should hence be examined carefully being rolled out is a totally different argument than saying it cannot be done because the markets say so.
As I said before social safety nets have proven to work in many many countries - and many countries have prospered while providing programs like universal healthcare. Before moving to the US, I lived in Canada where everyone got free access to healthcare. It wasn't perfect, but no one was refused access - no one was left out to die for not having the money to afford insurance.
The sad part is that US is far from providing universal healthcare, yet healthcare costs per capita are higher here than anywhere else in the world.
And just like there are problems with privatizing defense, there are also problems with privatizing programs like healthcare.. I think most human beings agree that leaving patients who don't have insurance to die is pretty much unacceptable. How do you think free markets would deal with that?
Nope - it was exactly the correct comparison. You said people live in societies because of freedom and nothing else should matter and I said that's just not true. People live in a society for many other reasons beside freedom. (I actually believe security would take precedence over freedom for most people).
Of course the government can't provide every single care for its citizens, but some cares are critical for the society to work in the long-run. The poor cannot be left out to die, and no matter how many people go out and drive trucks to put food on the table there will always be those without money. Unemployment has never been 0% in any country, because there is a thing called structural unemployment, which means not everyone can or will have jobs.
Again you didn't get what I was saying.
I said that spending by and on behalf of consumers accounts for ~70% of America's GDP. It is only rational to expect that if consumers' disposable income shrinks so will their spending and consequently the overall economy. It's just simple logic and has nothing to do with what the government does or doesn't do.
What a load of nonsense. How can you claim that economics is an area of study of yours and come out and say HISTORY HAS SHOWN countries with fiat money end up in shit??
Nixon took US dollar off the gold standard in 1971 and US went on to experience the MOST PHENOMENAL economic growth the world has seen over the subsequent 40 years!!! Most advanced economies agree that rigidity of having currency pegged to gold or anything else will paralyze many nations in times of recession as they would have very little monetary flexibility.Had we been on the gold standard, the US economy would have had a major recession in 80s and would have certainly entered a depression in 2008.
Of course, having a free floating currency creates volatility but volatility can be hedged by businesses - it is a small cost to incur compared to the devastation that pegged money could bring about.
I suggest you read about the devastation the rigidity of the gold standard brought to countries like UK, France, and Germany during the depression of 1930s, before claiming HISTORY HAS SHOWN fiat currency fails!
If anyone isn't understanding the other party's point of view it's you my friend. Where in my argument did I claim that subsidizing healthcare does not have a cost?? please show me. I am generally against subsidies because they harm growth - but when it comes to critical services such as defense, healthcare, social security, etc. they are absolutely necessary. I lump these services together because I strongly believe they equally affect the safety and security of any country.
Because the fact that they can't afford it, that socialised systems of health care just exacerbate the problem, are beyond the knowledge of the average voter. That people on the left keep pushing it as a right to have has just messed up the issue. When I mean I don't care what they want, I mean it is not in issue. I am not debating whether they want it or not. I am debating the merits of wanting.
No country provides health care without loss and increasing costs. They aren't successful programs, merely tolerated in the interim. Countries that have been used as examples like Australia and Sweden are already addressing this problematic system. Sweden in particular has been privitising more and more facets of its system continuously.
Medical care, like all goods and services, have to deal with the realities of economics, and reality in general. Once you take out the mechanism of competition you see higher costs and less innovation. That's illustrated in basically every industry, including the medical one.
The problems of privitising defense and health care have nothing to do with each other.
The free market argument is that the competition would force the costs to fall far lower to the point that more and more people can afford to buy health insurance in the first place. But even then one must acknowledge that not everyone is going to be able to afford it - even if that becomes a tiny minority. In that event, eleemosynary institutions are more likely to be beneficial to such people. And it has been shown, in a wealthy country eleemosynary institutions become more prevalent. Although it doesn't fit in with leftist dogma, wealthy people are generally charitable.
You can either build a system in the mistaken belief that you can take care of all and share the costs - which will drive those costs up so high an even smaller subset of people can look after each other - or you can let competition rule where prices get so low that buying health insurance becomes such a low cost that most people will be able to get it.
That doesn't make sense; security and freedom can be synonymous. I don't really get this line of reasoning. A majority of people may want an Islamic Republic in a certain country; why should that mean that the 49%, the rest of the country, have to abide by it?
You missed a critical part of what you replied to: governments can only run certain things well.
Health care is not one of them.
It is directly attributable to what government does or doesn't do. This is not even a question and am surprised you even think that way.
Government taxes, subsidises, writes regulations, and can create environments where people who do have capital will want to invest it to make more money. It is governments meddling that makes it undesirable for 'the rich' to create jobs so others can ultimately consume.
This is the crux of the problem. If government taxes to create all these bureaucracies which tend to stagnate in quality and cost more over time; it is taking capital/money out of the private sector. In your mind, visualise a pie graph where one part is the private sector, the other is the public sector. The more capital the private sector has the more desirable it is for people to compete to get it. If everything is taxed and provided for, then this part shrinks and there is even less incentive to compete in the market.
But that's too simplistic, because the reality is that the whole pie is getting smaller because America is in debt. Money is leaving the country to pay its creditors. This is where you have such a divide in this country and, even though you think the people on the Right are stupid, your side of the isle are allowing administrations to spend more and more, and to not even pass a balanced budget. Well, actually, the Right are doing it too (even if their rhetoric is different).
You guys have to cut back on your government, its just that simple. You don't need half the government agencies in existence. Heck, you guys lived without a Department of Education before 1980 - imagine trying to convince people to cut it out now. But you've become a country of people who think they're entitled - health care is just the new debate.
Of course removing people from a gold standard would show phenomenal economic growth. That you post this shows you don't understand why. Fiat currencies are like steroids. The problem with fiat currencies is that there is no mechanism for control and inflation becomes a problem. That is why every fiat currency eventually obliterates itself; government has shown poor self-constraint. The Gold standard is like a natural body builder. That's why the gold standard - or any commodity backed system - works; because they tie the creation of money to real wealth the country actually has and backs. In the past, dollars were actual certificates for gold... now, they're only worth something because you think they're worth something.
Fiat currencies are also insidious. They rob the wealth of the average person through inflation. If you save $100,000; the government can take money from you through inflation - they don't even need to tax you directly. Through the creation of more money, your $100,000 is then worth less and buys less as prices rise to reflect the change. In a commodity-backed system they can only print more money if they've saved enough (gold, for instance).
Cato Institute
Here's a nice breakdown of fiat currencies since Roman times and their abysmal track-record and failure.
Your ideas on the depression are also wrong and if you haven't read on this site we've talked about this numerous times. The reasons for the depression stem from the actions of The Fed. Friedman won his Nobel prize precisely on this topic. You don't appreciate what a monumental fuck-up Keynesianism has been and continues to be. That people still cite the depression as evidence, is evidence of this.
You seem to be skipping a step here. Who says certain services are critical? You've created an arbitrary standard and regardless of the ramifications want to create a socialised system to bring it to fruition. If we went on such reasoning then food, a far more critical and necessary thing than medical care, should also be guaranteed and socialised for all. The government should have stock in McDonalds, KFC, and every food wholesaler too.
No country provides health care without loss and increasing costs. They aren't successful programs, merely tolerated in the interim. Countries that have been used as examples like Australia and Sweden are already addressing this problematic system. Sweden in particular has been privitising more and more facets of its system continuously.
Medical care, like all goods and services, have to deal with the realities of economics, and reality in general. Once you take out the mechanism of competition you see higher costs and less innovation. That's illustrated in basically every industry, including the medical one.
The problems of privitising defense and health care have nothing to do with each other.
The free market argument is that the competition would force the costs to fall far lower to the point that more and more people can afford to buy health insurance in the first place. But even then one must acknowledge that not everyone is going to be able to afford it - even if that becomes a tiny minority. In that event, eleemosynary institutions are more likely to be beneficial to such people. And it has been shown, in a wealthy country eleemosynary institutions become more prevalent. Although it doesn't fit in with leftist dogma, wealthy people are generally charitable.
You can either build a system in the mistaken belief that you can take care of all and share the costs - which will drive those costs up so high an even smaller subset of people can look after each other - or you can let competition rule where prices get so low that buying health insurance becomes such a low cost that most people will be able to get it.
That doesn't make sense; security and freedom can be synonymous. I don't really get this line of reasoning. A majority of people may want an Islamic Republic in a certain country; why should that mean that the 49%, the rest of the country, have to abide by it?
You missed a critical part of what you replied to: governments can only run certain things well.
Health care is not one of them.
It is directly attributable to what government does or doesn't do. This is not even a question and am surprised you even think that way.
Government taxes, subsidises, writes regulations, and can create environments where people who do have capital will want to invest it to make more money. It is governments meddling that makes it undesirable for 'the rich' to create jobs so others can ultimately consume.
This is the crux of the problem. If government taxes to create all these bureaucracies which tend to stagnate in quality and cost more over time; it is taking capital/money out of the private sector. In your mind, visualise a pie graph where one part is the private sector, the other is the public sector. The more capital the private sector has the more desirable it is for people to compete to get it. If everything is taxed and provided for, then this part shrinks and there is even less incentive to compete in the market.
But that's too simplistic, because the reality is that the whole pie is getting smaller because America is in debt. Money is leaving the country to pay its creditors. This is where you have such a divide in this country and, even though you think the people on the Right are stupid, your side of the isle are allowing administrations to spend more and more, and to not even pass a balanced budget. Well, actually, the Right are doing it too (even if their rhetoric is different).
You guys have to cut back on your government, its just that simple. You don't need half the government agencies in existence. Heck, you guys lived without a Department of Education before 1980 - imagine trying to convince people to cut it out now. But you've become a country of people who think they're entitled - health care is just the new debate.
Of course removing people from a gold standard would show phenomenal economic growth. That you post this shows you don't understand why. Fiat currencies are like steroids. The problem with fiat currencies is that there is no mechanism for control and inflation becomes a problem. That is why every fiat currency eventually obliterates itself; government has shown poor self-constraint. The Gold standard is like a natural body builder. That's why the gold standard - or any commodity backed system - works; because they tie the creation of money to real wealth the country actually has and backs. In the past, dollars were actual certificates for gold... now, they're only worth something because you think they're worth something.
Fiat currencies are also insidious. They rob the wealth of the average person through inflation. If you save $100,000; the government can take money from you through inflation - they don't even need to tax you directly. Through the creation of more money, your $100,000 is then worth less and buys less as prices rise to reflect the change. In a commodity-backed system they can only print more money if they've saved enough (gold, for instance).
Cato Institute
Here's a nice breakdown of fiat currencies since Roman times and their abysmal track-record and failure.
Your ideas on the depression are also wrong and if you haven't read on this site we've talked about this numerous times. The reasons for the depression stem from the actions of The Fed. Friedman won his Nobel prize precisely on this topic. You don't appreciate what a monumental fuck-up Keynesianism has been and continues to be. That people still cite the depression as evidence, is evidence of this.
You seem to be skipping a step here. Who says certain services are critical? You've created an arbitrary standard and regardless of the ramifications want to create a socialised system to bring it to fruition. If we went on such reasoning then food, a far more critical and necessary thing than medical care, should also be guaranteed and socialised for all. The government should have stock in McDonalds, KFC, and every food wholesaler too.
Last edited:
whats wrong with America is whats wrong with the world which is the direct result of the british zionist influence, infiltration and take-over.
Event that took place in USA in 1913, affected the world ever since, (of course before 1913 they had taken over America but not "officially"
Most ppl dont know that America's real/true freedom only lasted 40 years)!
of course it is partially our own fault too, we love the crap they offer us and are willing to pay very high prices to buy their corruptions (we will pay the price but we will not count the cost) but this evil enemy of humanity is smart, they "condition" masses and use cheap psychology to get the job done!
I can give you dozens of examples,... for instance the very fact that some of you will laugh and make fun of what I just said, proves that some of you are under influence in a high degree. I am not saying no one should criticize me but if you can bring facts and figures then we can discuss this, but believe you me, it is hard to prove what I say bcs it is the truth, the falseness or denial is cheap, but the truth is expensive and almost priceless!
prayer:
may God Almighty send His damnation to all the evil* in the world.
* I once watched this old movie called The Songs of Bernadette about the life of Saint Bernadette** of Lourdes (France), and this doctor who examined her (cuz the evil forces were trying to say that she was crazy or mentally ill) said that when she was having her vision she said "pray for the sinners" so they asked her "who is the sinner" and she without any hesitation replied "the ones who Love the evil"!
Then the doc said; "she didnt say sinners are the ones who commit evil acts but the ones who love the evil"...
Nice movie I bought the DVD cuz they dont play good stuff on that damn television And she was really a saint look at her corpse after all these decades, she was Not mummified , she was not being visited by mother Mary (A) the church made that up the fact is they dont have a clue who she was seeing. It was a lady.
(and if you think I am into conspiracies, you bet I am, I know of 2 TV shows who were so decent that they had nothing bad in them (like insuperman movie, this married woman was giving superman french kisses and shi* like that to make it look OK to the kids), they (the evil holeywood bosses)told them (movie makers) that they have to insert a bunch of trash (like something about queers or extra marital affairs or adultery etc etc,... the usual shi* they feed ppl, Have you ever seen a movie which id not have a Glorified Drinking scenes?).
One of the show's producer or director (sorry I forgot which) quit and did not give in so they cancelled that show.
Now I call that a conspiracy not ppl who tell the truth.
Event that took place in USA in 1913, affected the world ever since, (of course before 1913 they had taken over America but not "officially"
Most ppl dont know that America's real/true freedom only lasted 40 years)!
of course it is partially our own fault too, we love the crap they offer us and are willing to pay very high prices to buy their corruptions (we will pay the price but we will not count the cost) but this evil enemy of humanity is smart, they "condition" masses and use cheap psychology to get the job done!
I can give you dozens of examples,... for instance the very fact that some of you will laugh and make fun of what I just said, proves that some of you are under influence in a high degree. I am not saying no one should criticize me but if you can bring facts and figures then we can discuss this, but believe you me, it is hard to prove what I say bcs it is the truth, the falseness or denial is cheap, but the truth is expensive and almost priceless!
prayer:
may God Almighty send His damnation to all the evil* in the world.
* I once watched this old movie called The Songs of Bernadette about the life of Saint Bernadette** of Lourdes (France), and this doctor who examined her (cuz the evil forces were trying to say that she was crazy or mentally ill) said that when she was having her vision she said "pray for the sinners" so they asked her "who is the sinner" and she without any hesitation replied "the ones who Love the evil"!
Then the doc said; "she didnt say sinners are the ones who commit evil acts but the ones who love the evil"...
Nice movie I bought the DVD cuz they dont play good stuff on that damn television And she was really a saint look at her corpse after all these decades, she was Not mummified , she was not being visited by mother Mary (A) the church made that up the fact is they dont have a clue who she was seeing. It was a lady.
(and if you think I am into conspiracies, you bet I am, I know of 2 TV shows who were so decent that they had nothing bad in them (like insuperman movie, this married woman was giving superman french kisses and shi* like that to make it look OK to the kids), they (the evil holeywood bosses)told them (movie makers) that they have to insert a bunch of trash (like something about queers or extra marital affairs or adultery etc etc,... the usual shi* they feed ppl, Have you ever seen a movie which id not have a Glorified Drinking scenes?).
One of the show's producer or director (sorry I forgot which) quit and did not give in so they cancelled that show.
Now I call that a conspiracy not ppl who tell the truth.
Last edited:
I tell you another truth! This doctor cured a person who was suffering from MS (Multiple Sclerosis or Muscular Dystrophy) he was so excited n happy so he and this other doctor called Jerry Lewis and told him that they have discovered a natural remedy for MS. Jerry was sooo happy to hear that.....As many of you already know Jerry Lewis has been running a TV telethon every year for past 30 something years, collecting donation money for Jerry's Kids or the children who suffer from MS.
Jerry Lewis (and I tell you he is Jewish himself but there is diff. between a Jewish person and a racist damn zionist) because they Fired Jerry Lewis and threatened to sue him if he went on live TV and gave away the good news. so this is why he is not on TV on Thanks Giving day for the last 2 years!
...You have to be naive if you think they did that because they had no proof or EPA approval etc, etc...that is nonsense.All the proof were there , they fired Jerry Lewis because they make millions and billions of Dollar$ selling the medication junk which eventually kills the ppl and have more side effect than cure... they brain wash the docs from med school by having them memorize a whole lot of stupid/useless greek names and put such pressure on medical students so they wont even have time to think and only repeat what they learn (Oh I know, I have known a lot of great and intelligent doctors myself who usually find the root of any illness the 1st time they meet you but they have no idea whats going on with the pharmaceutical Co.s), they usually dont know 1 of the ingredients in vaccines contains mercury..the docs dont know that flu vaccines kill ppl especially the elder ppl and the ppl with weak heart / the doctors also dont know that Ibuprofen (crap like Advil) kills ppl and causes damage to the heart. I lost 3 friends to flu vaccine last year and before that I lost my best friend to Ibuprofen , he was only 42 and died inside ER at the hospital! He was laughing and talking to the medics inside the ambulance
Jerry Lewis (and I tell you he is Jewish himself but there is diff. between a Jewish person and a racist damn zionist) because they Fired Jerry Lewis and threatened to sue him if he went on live TV and gave away the good news. so this is why he is not on TV on Thanks Giving day for the last 2 years!
...You have to be naive if you think they did that because they had no proof or EPA approval etc, etc...that is nonsense.All the proof were there , they fired Jerry Lewis because they make millions and billions of Dollar$ selling the medication junk which eventually kills the ppl and have more side effect than cure... they brain wash the docs from med school by having them memorize a whole lot of stupid/useless greek names and put such pressure on medical students so they wont even have time to think and only repeat what they learn (Oh I know, I have known a lot of great and intelligent doctors myself who usually find the root of any illness the 1st time they meet you but they have no idea whats going on with the pharmaceutical Co.s), they usually dont know 1 of the ingredients in vaccines contains mercury..the docs dont know that flu vaccines kill ppl especially the elder ppl and the ppl with weak heart / the doctors also dont know that Ibuprofen (crap like Advil) kills ppl and causes damage to the heart. I lost 3 friends to flu vaccine last year and before that I lost my best friend to Ibuprofen , he was only 42 and died inside ER at the hospital! He was laughing and talking to the medics inside the ambulance
OK sorry for multiple posts but you might think what do corruptions, evil things or TV shows/movies etc, etc, have to do with economical problems?
A Lot!
When the currency has no value then they can give and take values to/from it, make it rise and fall at the push of a button... so that speak...
I have said this many times already but any monetary system needs backing. Mostly and historically we have always used gold or silver (precious metals or jewels) as the backing (poshtVaaneh), without anything valuable the money becomes a Hot Check and this crappy money we have now is exactly that! A hot check.
when the rothschild sent his sons to major cities in US and Europe they came up with the idea of travelers checks because back then in 1700s ppl who wanted to travel from let's say France to England had to carry their gold/silver and that was a problem bcs it weighted a lot, it would get lost or stolen and you had to have a place to hide your gold from everyone and in the storms sometimes you had to abandon ships and get into life boats so you left everything behind (especially heavy things), so the rothschild bank came up with the idea of taking ppls gold and giving them a paper receipt which they could go to one of their branches and cash them in.
Then these thugs who ran these banks came up with the idea of printing paper money and set value (like $20 dollars should be enough for 1 Oz, of gold and it was back then).
When these evil zionist who work together like a mount of termites or ants who will eat a palace in a hurry and turn it into dust, they went to work and created this bank in the USA and according to the laws passed by the US Congress they should have had $18 Million Dollars worth of gold in their safe before they could function as a bank, but they didnt...
They bribed or blackmailed the govt. agent/bank inspector into reporting that they indeed have the 18 million bucks in solid gold in their safe while they only had about $8 Million!
They started to lend money they didnt have and collected interest on it?!
Then they (with the help of their media (news papers which they bought off Americans) went to work and created the great depression, they crashed the market and did a lot of other evil things so they could sell the idea of Central Banking to the American Congress and the ignorant/info-deprived public.
They were unfortunately (for us) successful and set up a central and private bank which is known as federal reserve now.
They started to sell money to the US Govt. sometimes they sold 1 dolar for 1.40 and that .40 cent had to come from some place so they invented the Income Tax and even though it is Not the law and is against the US Constitution, yet ppl work 2 jobs sometims just to pay those illegal taxes to these creatures and scumbags who sit there and think how they can destroy and kill us...
destroying and murdering they did...at least 1.5 Billion ppl have been killed since the 1920s and many more that have been killed indirectly as the result of these evil creatures taking over.
If you dont believe this , then tell me how is it that John F Kennedy issued an executive order EO-11110 in 1963 (or end of 62) which orders the US Gov to print its own money and so he was killed in late 1963 and after 1964 the coins lost their silver content! American Quarter dollar (.25 cents) was solid silver up until 1964 and the Dime (.10 cent) was also solid silver, nickles (.5 cent) were made from nickle and pennies were made from copper.
now none of them have any valuable metal in them they stopped minting them since 1964 bcs they took Kennedy out of the way as they did with McKinley, Garfield and few other good [politicians who wanted to serve their country/ppl.
A Lot!
When the currency has no value then they can give and take values to/from it, make it rise and fall at the push of a button... so that speak...
I have said this many times already but any monetary system needs backing. Mostly and historically we have always used gold or silver (precious metals or jewels) as the backing (poshtVaaneh), without anything valuable the money becomes a Hot Check and this crappy money we have now is exactly that! A hot check.
when the rothschild sent his sons to major cities in US and Europe they came up with the idea of travelers checks because back then in 1700s ppl who wanted to travel from let's say France to England had to carry their gold/silver and that was a problem bcs it weighted a lot, it would get lost or stolen and you had to have a place to hide your gold from everyone and in the storms sometimes you had to abandon ships and get into life boats so you left everything behind (especially heavy things), so the rothschild bank came up with the idea of taking ppls gold and giving them a paper receipt which they could go to one of their branches and cash them in.
Then these thugs who ran these banks came up with the idea of printing paper money and set value (like $20 dollars should be enough for 1 Oz, of gold and it was back then).
When these evil zionist who work together like a mount of termites or ants who will eat a palace in a hurry and turn it into dust, they went to work and created this bank in the USA and according to the laws passed by the US Congress they should have had $18 Million Dollars worth of gold in their safe before they could function as a bank, but they didnt...
They bribed or blackmailed the govt. agent/bank inspector into reporting that they indeed have the 18 million bucks in solid gold in their safe while they only had about $8 Million!
They started to lend money they didnt have and collected interest on it?!
Then they (with the help of their media (news papers which they bought off Americans) went to work and created the great depression, they crashed the market and did a lot of other evil things so they could sell the idea of Central Banking to the American Congress and the ignorant/info-deprived public.
They were unfortunately (for us) successful and set up a central and private bank which is known as federal reserve now.
They started to sell money to the US Govt. sometimes they sold 1 dolar for 1.40 and that .40 cent had to come from some place so they invented the Income Tax and even though it is Not the law and is against the US Constitution, yet ppl work 2 jobs sometims just to pay those illegal taxes to these creatures and scumbags who sit there and think how they can destroy and kill us...
destroying and murdering they did...at least 1.5 Billion ppl have been killed since the 1920s and many more that have been killed indirectly as the result of these evil creatures taking over.
If you dont believe this , then tell me how is it that John F Kennedy issued an executive order EO-11110 in 1963 (or end of 62) which orders the US Gov to print its own money and so he was killed in late 1963 and after 1964 the coins lost their silver content! American Quarter dollar (.25 cents) was solid silver up until 1964 and the Dime (.10 cent) was also solid silver, nickles (.5 cent) were made from nickle and pennies were made from copper.
now none of them have any valuable metal in them they stopped minting them since 1964 bcs they took Kennedy out of the way as they did with McKinley, Garfield and few other good [politicians who wanted to serve their country/ppl.
Last edited:
Sorry bud but I really don't have the time or the energy to continue the discussion here but I would just say on your last point that even Milton Friedman agreed that given today's realities going back to the gold standard was not possible. Most economists today agree. Ben Bernanke the head of the reserve is a big follower of Friedman's school of thought (at least in many ways) and of course you'll never hear him ask to go back to that standard.
Fiat money is not pegged to anything and as a result is all about confidence - if you believe in the markets you'll believe the markets have ways of valuing how much a currency is worth. If American dollar was deemed to be unsustainable the markets would definitely reflect it, but that hasn't happened yet. US inflation and inflation expectations are very low. The interest on the 10-yr bond is less than 2%.
I suggest everyone who thinks that the American dollar or any other currency isn't viable to put all their life savings in betting against interest rates.
Also your buddy Milton Friedman was also the one who suggested the negative income tax concept -which is a form of social welfare.
Alright bud - god bless. I'm out.
Fiat money is not pegged to anything and as a result is all about confidence - if you believe in the markets you'll believe the markets have ways of valuing how much a currency is worth. If American dollar was deemed to be unsustainable the markets would definitely reflect it, but that hasn't happened yet. US inflation and inflation expectations are very low. The interest on the 10-yr bond is less than 2%.
I suggest everyone who thinks that the American dollar or any other currency isn't viable to put all their life savings in betting against interest rates.
Also your buddy Milton Friedman was also the one who suggested the negative income tax concept -which is a form of social welfare.
Alright bud - god bless. I'm out.
Friedman was a monetarist, he didn't advocate a pure gold standard. His solution generally was to use a formula. Regardless, by the end of his life even he advocated abolishing the Fed altogether. But that doesn't matter, because one can still get past the limitations of gold on tying the currency to another commodity. The point is not to give someone else the arbitrary power to create and diminish wealth.
Your point may have been right if you had said 'most Keynesians agree'. Even Greenspan was a major proponent for gold before he became a Fed shill.
Fiat money is not just market driven. The currency can be manipulated. We've already had a discussion on how bonds can be manipulated in another thread.
Friedman is about as small government as you can get, unless you're Austrian, so painting him out as some social welfare proponent is like saying Donald Trump is a philanthropist because he's given money at one time. His idea was that a negative income tax is more preferable than what exists now... in general he'd rather no taxes.
Take care
Your point may have been right if you had said 'most Keynesians agree'. Even Greenspan was a major proponent for gold before he became a Fed shill.
Fiat money is not just market driven. The currency can be manipulated. We've already had a discussion on how bonds can be manipulated in another thread.
Friedman is about as small government as you can get, unless you're Austrian, so painting him out as some social welfare proponent is like saying Donald Trump is a philanthropist because he's given money at one time. His idea was that a negative income tax is more preferable than what exists now... in general he'd rather no taxes.
Take care
Last edited:
Friedman was a monetarist, he didn't advocate a pure gold standard. His solution generally was to use a formula. Regardless, by the end of his life even he advocated abolishing the Fed altogether. But that doesn't matter, because one can still get past the limitations of gold on tying the currency to another commodity. The point is not to give someone else the arbitrary power to create and diminish wealth.
Your point may have been right if you had said 'most Keynesians agree'. Even Greenspan was a major proponent for gold before he became a Fed shill.
Fiat money is not just market driven. The currency can be manipulated. We've already had a discussion on how bonds can be manipulated in another thread.
Friedman is about as small government as you can get, unless you're Austrian, so painting him out as some social welfare proponent is like saying Donald Trump is a philanthropist because he's given money at one time. His idea was that a negative income tax is more preferable than what exists now... in general he'd rather no taxes.
Take care
Your point may have been right if you had said 'most Keynesians agree'. Even Greenspan was a major proponent for gold before he became a Fed shill.
Fiat money is not just market driven. The currency can be manipulated. We've already had a discussion on how bonds can be manipulated in another thread.
Friedman is about as small government as you can get, unless you're Austrian, so painting him out as some social welfare proponent is like saying Donald Trump is a philanthropist because he's given money at one time. His idea was that a negative income tax is more preferable than what exists now... in general he'd rather no taxes.
Take care
Just as I'm about to walk away from a discussion you have to say something egregiously ignorant to pull me back in
Yes - Fiat money can be manipulated but manipulation too becomes futile if underlying confidence in a currency erodes. There are numerous examples of this - look up what happened to the British pound on September 1992 for example.
Here is how manipulation works - if the US wants the US dollar to remain strong against say euro, it would sell Euros and purchase USD in FX markets to artificially support its value (which it doesn't do - USD is for the most part free floating) . If speculators feel that USD is worthless and there is no underlying support for it (as you claim), they would of course sell all their USD and buy all the Euro they can afford. If there is a large enough consensus around this, the USD would sooner or later collapse as the US government would run out of euro reserves to support the US dollar. This is also what happened to the Iranian rial - the government was unable to support the rial as they're running out of foreign currency reserves.
The fact that this hasn't happened to the USD yet is because vast majority of investors still believe in the underlying foundations of the US dollar my friend.
The fact of the matter is, all the Ron Paul nuts who think that the US dollar is or will become worthless can make a shitload of wealth if they truly believe in what they're claiming. They can simply bet against it. If you need to know how - let me know. I'll show you a few ways.
Just as I'm about to walk away from a discussion you have to say something egregiously ignorant to pull me back in
Yes - Fiat money can be manipulated but manipulation too becomes futile if underlying confidence in a currency erodes. There are numerous examples of this - look up what happened to the British pound on September 1992 for example.
Yes - Fiat money can be manipulated but manipulation too becomes futile if underlying confidence in a currency erodes. There are numerous examples of this - look up what happened to the British pound on September 1992 for example.
Or that they're still forced to use it. It won't matter; it'll devalue enough, eventually, that it'll be untenable.
They already have; a lot of Paulites are gold and silver fans. They've made plenty of money on it...including Paul himself.
Last edited:
You got me curious so I searched for it. Where?
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2011/12/21/the-ron-paul-portfolio/
I see stocks in mining but that's hardly betting against the dollar. Does he do any foreign exchange investment that's not listed there?
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2011/12/21/the-ron-paul-portfolio/
I see stocks in mining but that's hardly betting against the dollar. Does he do any foreign exchange investment that's not listed there?
I am not intimate with his portfolio; I know he says he bought a lot of gold (that article corroborates that fact) and if you look at gold prices in the last 10 or so years its gone from $279.11 in 2000 to $1571.52 in 2011. Buying gold & silver is probably the most traditional and secure hedge against the dollar. He's basically backed up his rhetoric by having 64% of his entire portfolio in those precious metals, and made a shitload of money in the process.
From your article:
There was also an illuminating post in the comments section:
According to Schiff, even those above numbers are off as if you go by the years he actually invested in the above (which are longer than the 10 year period), many of them have gone up by more than 1,000%. The biggest was over 2,000% and his worst was still up 200%. According to Schiff, Paul has beaten the best money managers on Wall St and even hedge funds. This, at a time of recession, where the NASDAQ was down by over 50%. Un-fucking-believable. I had no idea he was this successful, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
From your article:
There was also an illuminating post in the comments section:
According to Schiff, even those above numbers are off as if you go by the years he actually invested in the above (which are longer than the 10 year period), many of them have gone up by more than 1,000%. The biggest was over 2,000% and his worst was still up 200%. According to Schiff, Paul has beaten the best money managers on Wall St and even hedge funds. This, at a time of recession, where the NASDAQ was down by over 50%. Un-fucking-believable. I had no idea he was this successful, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Last edited:
Whenever you don't know in what to invest, whenever you are scared of the future and what not, you go for Treasury bonds and metals. It's not a new phenomenon. It has been common place.
That's gold vs usd, a gain of 20% since 2011, same as USD vs EUR more or less. For that same period, 10Y US T-notes made 15% and we're leaving out compounding and what not. And Gold is on a bubble right now because every harry dick and tom started to buy Gold.
That's gold vs usd, a gain of 20% since 2011, same as USD vs EUR more or less. For that same period, 10Y US T-notes made 15% and we're leaving out compounding and what not. And Gold is on a bubble right now because every harry dick and tom started to buy Gold.
You only do so if you have confidence in the government and the currency. If you don't, like Paul, you don't go near them. You buy gold when you fear devaluation of the currency and inflation in general. Pretty standard. Since Paul started buying those precious metals in the late 90s they've gone up 600%. Even if you do not agree with that strategy, you can't possibly conclude that Paul isn't putting his money where his mouth is. Gold/Silver tend to have incredibly consistent value, which is not the same for money. Since 1914 (the creation of the Fed) the dollar has lost 97% of its original value. That's why the Tom, Dick and Harrys are buying gold. Whereas the Fed is buying bonds, and, ironically, people are claiming there is a bond bubble.
Last edited:
