Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteSolutions would be to require that currency actually be backed by real assets rather than soley by the demand for it.
And which real asset would you like to use for that. Are you willing to stop the free trade in that asset?
Gold seemed to work pretty well and there is no reason to stop its trade. As a matter of fact the currency should be redeemable for it's value on demand.
Blues,
Cliff
2muchTruth
QuoteQuoteQuoteSolutions would be to require that currency actually be backed by real assets rather than soley by the demand for it.
And which real asset would you like to use for that. Are you willing to stop the free trade in that asset?
Gold seemed to work pretty well and there is no reason to stop its trade. As a matter of fact the
currency should be redeemable for it's value on demand.
Blues,
Cliff
Doesn’t sound bad in theory, but do you have any idea how much gold it would take to back all the US dollars? It just doesn’t work like that anymore…it would be nice to go back to those days though! =)
Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...
Quote
Gold seemed to work pretty well and there is no reason to stop its trade. As a matter of fact the currency should be redeemable for it's value on demand.
Well the South Africans, Australians and Peruvians would certainly like that, but I don't know how well it would serve the US's interests. Why don't we base it on Papal Indulgences?
Gold seemed to work pretty well and there is no reason to stop its trade. As a matter of fact the
currency should be redeemable for it's value on demand.
Blues,
Cliff
currency should be redeemable for it's value on demand.
Blues,
Cliff
Doesn’t sound bad in theory, but do you have any idea how much gold it would take to back all the US dollars?
You'ld simply peg the vallue of the dollar according to the ratio of dollars in circulation to the amount of gold the government holds. That's how it was done before we left the gold standard for our present fiat currency.
Blues,
Cliff
2muchTruth
QuoteQuote
Gold seemed to work pretty well and there is no reason to stop its trade. As a matter of fact the currency should be redeemable for it's value on demand.
Well the South Africans, Australians and Peruvians would certainly like that, but I don't know how well it would serve the US's interests. Why don't we base it on Papal Indulgences?
Andy, I'm sure you realise we once were on the gold standard. It worked just fine for us until the early seventies when France demanded payment for the notes they held and that amount of gold wasn't in the treasury. We had written more notes than we could back. We were basically bankrupt. We turmed to the Saudis and got them to convince OPEC to only accept US federal reserve notes as payment for oil. This was the birth of the"petro dollar" . Now dollars weren't backed by any real asset and their value was only determined by the demand for the note itself. Works good as long as everyone needs them to buy oil but once the dollar is no longer the reserve currency the value declines sharply.
Blues,
Cliff
2muchTruth
jcd11235 0
QuoteDeficit spending never does and never has “created wealth” But tax and spend is what Democrats do best. Keep that change coming, laughable really…
Deficit spending doesn't come from a "tax and spend" philosophy. Deficit spending is a result of spending without taxing. Looking back to Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, only under Clinton (second term) did the government ever properly tax and spend. In my lifetime, which began during the Nixon administration, Democrat presidents have indeed been better at practicing a tax and spend budgeting than their Republican counterparts, who have preferred to engage in deficit spending.
QuoteIt amazes me that defenders of free market are chastised and asked to present perfection. Yet, government only has to make promises and have good intentions…leaving a wake of failure, broken promises and wasted billions as glaring evidence of their utter failure!
It sure is a good thing such things never happen in private industry!
QuoteAs far as a solution…do away with the Social Security Tax for a year and put that in your pocket. It’s a broken bankrupt system anyway.
Can you please point to another life annuity that has averaged 7% annual return on investment since inception? Even if steps are not taken to correct for the baby boom's effect on population growth, full benefits can still be paid until ~2041. Thereafter, 3/4 benefits can be paid for another ~40 years.
That's not a system I would consider bankrupt or broken. I do believe it would be prudent to adjust for the baby boom sooner, rather than later. The longer we wait, the more painful the solution becomes. Suspending the tax for a year would be ludicrous, fiscal irresponsibility at its finest.
QuoteThis would cost far less than 787 billion and inject far more money into the micro economy.
I would love to see the calculations supporting that assertion.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
QuoteIt is true Barack Obama is a million times more intelligent and likable that the previous moron who held the job. But if Obama really was serious about helping the America people, if he was serious about REAL change, he would shutdown the "Federal Reserve" instead of borrowing trillions of dollars from this very same organization thus ensuring present and future generations of Americans (and people around the world) are in debt up to their eye balls and channel the majority of their income tax dollars into the pockets of the already ubber rich banking cartel.
It was never all that clear precisely what kind of "change" Barack was and is offering. Something is going to "change" but what, how, and when was always left a little vague. In a way Barack has had the luxury of having had a predecessor who was, or was perceived to be, such a disaster that people seemed to think any "change" would be an improvement.
As a result, Barack has been given a blank check to execute any kind of "change" he wants. It remains to be seen how this will unfold, but it looks increasingly like the role or level of control of government in private enterprise will increase. The first steps in this process have not been that controversial, because bankers have been depicted as the villains, so nationalizing their banks is likely to be sympathetic to the general public.
But the pace of "change" (good or evil) seems to be accelerating, and it is hard to see very far ahead, and hard to be sure whether the further "change" down the road is likely to be for good or for evil. Barack will hold a blank check for some time to come and only time will tell how he uses it in the long run.
It does seem clear to me that more "change" will be enacted by this administration than any other administration since FDR--but as long as Barack follows FDR as a role model (and not that other guy who was also inaugurated in early 1933), I think there is some cause for "hope" (another too vague term often used these days). Overall FDR wasn't a bad president IMHO.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
SkyDekker 1,123
QuoteYou'ld simply peg the vallue of the dollar according to the ratio of dollars in circulation to the amount of gold the government holds. That's how it was done before we left the gold standard for our present fiat currency.
No it didn't. Actually it is one of the contributing factors to the Great Depression in the 30's, some even argue that it is pretty much the only reason behind the great depression. To maintain the gold standard while the relative price of gold increases requires you to deflate the price of other goods in dollars.
The French made a lot of money off your gold standard though....
To maintain the gold standard while the relative price of gold increases requires you to deflate the price of other goods in dollars.***
The price of gold only increases if you add more dollars to circulation. Dollars are added to circulation when the government wants to spend money it hasn't aquired.
Blues,
Cliff
2muchTruth
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>True he left office with a surplus, but do you know how he did that?
By being president when the economy was doing well.
By being president when the economy was doing well.
Ah yes, the obligatory "tin foil hat" response to ideas that stray from the norm.
Read about the formation of the Federal Reserve in the early 1900s, and you may find that there is at least *some* truth to what Canuck posted. And if you're open-minded enough, you might find that it is reasonable to question our monetary establishment.
Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites