QuoteRemember Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the guy who at the height of the spill apologized to BP on behalf of America for the "tragedy" of the $20 billion clean up fund put together by the White House? Meet your next chairman of the Energy Committee. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/11/just_like_old_times_2.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Talking-Points-Memo+%28Talking+Points+Memo%3A+by+Joshua+Micah+Marshall%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)
:argh!: :horrormirth:
Ron Paul may oversee Fed (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=491829cc-9ecb-4e9d-bf69-4404f742c79f)
QuoteRep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, could end up overseeing it as part of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives.
Paul is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology on the House Financial Services Committee, which has oversight for the Fed, the U.S. Mint and U.S. interaction with the World Bank, Politico reported.
The Republican leadership will make the final call on whether Paul gets to oversee the Fed, which, in addition to setting monetary policy, now has a more important role in overseeing big financial institutions including traditional banks like Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C) and Wells Fargo (WFC), and other systemically important institutions like Goldman Sachs (GS), American International Group (AIG) and General Electric (GE)'s financial unit.
Paul got some traction recently with legislation proposing to audit the notoriously secretive Fed. He also wants to re-establish the gold standard.
:lulz:
:lulz:
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 05:33:23 AM
Ron Paul may oversee Fed (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=491829cc-9ecb-4e9d-bf69-4404f742c79f)
QuoteRep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, could end up overseeing it as part of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives.
Paul is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology on the House Financial Services Committee, which has oversight for the Fed, the U.S. Mint and U.S. interaction with the World Bank, Politico reported.
The Republican leadership will make the final call on whether Paul gets to oversee the Fed, which, in addition to setting monetary policy, now has a more important role in overseeing big financial institutions including traditional banks like Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C) and Wells Fargo (WFC), and other systemically important institutions like Goldman Sachs (GS), American International Group (AIG) and General Electric (GE)'s financial unit.
Paul got some traction recently with legislation proposing to audit the notoriously secretive Fed. He also wants to re-establish the gold standard.
:lulz:
thats.. actually not a bad idea. I'd rather see someone who's got a passion for monetary policy overseeing the Fed than someone who comes to it because it's an open position and it will pad their public service resume for when they get voted out and become a lobbyist for the banking system.
also:
"I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money." -- Ron Paul
I know it wasn't your quote, and I'm not giving YOU shit for it Cat, but it sure is fun to try and simplify where someone stands and get it completely wrong, isn't it?
:facepalm:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 11, 2010, 10:48:39 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 05:33:23 AM
Ron Paul may oversee Fed (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=491829cc-9ecb-4e9d-bf69-4404f742c79f)
QuoteRep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, could end up overseeing it as part of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives.
Paul is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology on the House Financial Services Committee, which has oversight for the Fed, the U.S. Mint and U.S. interaction with the World Bank, Politico reported.
The Republican leadership will make the final call on whether Paul gets to oversee the Fed, which, in addition to setting monetary policy, now has a more important role in overseeing big financial institutions including traditional banks like Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C) and Wells Fargo (WFC), and other systemically important institutions like Goldman Sachs (GS), American International Group (AIG) and General Electric (GE)'s financial unit.
Paul got some traction recently with legislation proposing to audit the notoriously secretive Fed. He also wants to re-establish the gold standard.
:lulz:
thats.. actually not a bad idea. I'd rather see someone who's got a passion for monetary policy overseeing the Fed than someone who comes to it because it's an open position and it will pad their public service resume for when they get voted out and become a lobbyist for the banking system.
also:
"I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money." -- Ron Paul
I know it wasn't your quote, and I'm not giving YOU shit for it Cat, but it sure is fun to try and simplify where someone stands and get it completely wrong, isn't it?
Yeah, you are kinda giving me shit for it. The last clause sounds like an asshole comment to me. I'm going to let it go because I don't like scrapping over things like that.
Why bimetallism sucks: (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/65494/bimetallism)
QuoteArguments advanced against bimetallism are: (1) it is practically impossible for a single nation to use such a standard without having international cooperation; (2) such a system is wasteful in that the mining, handling, and coinage of two metals is more costly; (3) because price stability is dependent on more than the type of monetary base, bimetallism does not provide greater stability of prices; and (4) most importantly, bimetallism in effect freezes the ratio of the prices of the two metals without regard to changes in their demand and supply conditions. Such changes can disrupt attempts to maintain the double standard.
The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.
Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 11:30:48 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 11, 2010, 10:48:39 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 05:33:23 AM
Ron Paul may oversee Fed (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=491829cc-9ecb-4e9d-bf69-4404f742c79f)
QuoteRep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, could end up overseeing it as part of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives.
Paul is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology on the House Financial Services Committee, which has oversight for the Fed, the U.S. Mint and U.S. interaction with the World Bank, Politico reported.
The Republican leadership will make the final call on whether Paul gets to oversee the Fed, which, in addition to setting monetary policy, now has a more important role in overseeing big financial institutions including traditional banks like Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C) and Wells Fargo (WFC), and other systemically important institutions like Goldman Sachs (GS), American International Group (AIG) and General Electric (GE)'s financial unit.
Paul got some traction recently with legislation proposing to audit the notoriously secretive Fed. He also wants to re-establish the gold standard.
:lulz:
thats.. actually not a bad idea. I'd rather see someone who's got a passion for monetary policy overseeing the Fed than someone who comes to it because it's an open position and it will pad their public service resume for when they get voted out and become a lobbyist for the banking system.
also:
"I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money." -- Ron Paul
I know it wasn't your quote, and I'm not giving YOU shit for it Cat, but it sure is fun to try and simplify where someone stands and get it completely wrong, isn't it?
Yeah, you are kinda giving me shit for it. The last clause sounds like an asshole comment to me. I'm going to let it go because I don't like scrapping over things like that.
Why bimetallism sucks: (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/65494/bimetallism)
QuoteArguments advanced against bimetallism are: (1) it is practically impossible for a single nation to use such a standard without having international cooperation; (2) such a system is wasteful in that the mining, handling, and coinage of two metals is more costly; (3) because price stability is dependent on more than the type of monetary base, bimetallism does not provide greater stability of prices; and (4) most importantly, bimetallism in effect freezes the ratio of the prices of the two metals without regard to changes in their demand and supply conditions. Such changes can disrupt attempts to maintain the double standard.
The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.
Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.
I really did mean it to be directed toward the person who wrote the article and not you. Rereading it I see where that's not apparent.
When Bretton Woods broke down and Nixon detached the value of the dollar from gold completely, the M3 began to go through the roof and there's no ceiling anymore. Partially why (IMO) the Fed doesn't publish that number anymore.
You can't return to a gold standard like we originally had, for the reasons you stated. Tying a currency value to a basket of developed world currencies could help stabilize it's value and discourage spending-by-borrowing.
ECH, if this horse has been beat here, I didn't find it's corpse and apolagize for mucking up the board.
no worries, it's been a while since we had a 30+ page screechfest, which this will inevitably devolve into. :lulz:
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 01:01:08 AM
no worries, it's been a while since we had a 30+ page screechfest, which this will inevitably devolve into. :lulz:
are we talking about the same board?
:D
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 11, 2010, 10:48:39 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 05:33:23 AM
Ron Paul may oversee Fed (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=491829cc-9ecb-4e9d-bf69-4404f742c79f)
QuoteRep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, could end up overseeing it as part of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives.
Paul is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology on the House Financial Services Committee, which has oversight for the Fed, the U.S. Mint and U.S. interaction with the World Bank, Politico reported.
The Republican leadership will make the final call on whether Paul gets to oversee the Fed, which, in addition to setting monetary policy, now has a more important role in overseeing big financial institutions including traditional banks like Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C) and Wells Fargo (WFC), and other systemically important institutions like Goldman Sachs (GS), American International Group (AIG) and General Electric (GE)'s financial unit.
Paul got some traction recently with legislation proposing to audit the notoriously secretive Fed. He also wants to re-establish the gold standard.
:lulz:
thats.. actually not a bad idea. I'd rather see someone who's got a passion for monetary policy overseeing the Fed than someone who comes to it because it's an open position and it will pad their public service resume for when they get voted out and become a lobbyist for the banking system.
also:
"I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money." -- Ron Paul
I know it wasn't your quote, and I'm not giving YOU shit for it Cat, but it sure is fun to try and simplify where someone stands and get it completely wrong, isn't it?
:facepalm:
You fucking libertarians are all the same.
:lol:
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 11:30:48 PM
Yeah, you are kinda giving me shit for it. The last clause sounds like an asshole comment to me. I'm going to let it go because I don't like scrapping over things like that.
WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO PD? :crankey:
did somebody mention gold?
:)
my screeching muscles are all itchy... :lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 01:38:05 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 11, 2010, 10:48:39 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 05:33:23 AM
Ron Paul may oversee Fed (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=491829cc-9ecb-4e9d-bf69-4404f742c79f)
QuoteRep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, could end up overseeing it as part of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives.
Paul is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology on the House Financial Services Committee, which has oversight for the Fed, the U.S. Mint and U.S. interaction with the World Bank, Politico reported.
The Republican leadership will make the final call on whether Paul gets to oversee the Fed, which, in addition to setting monetary policy, now has a more important role in overseeing big financial institutions including traditional banks like Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C) and Wells Fargo (WFC), and other systemically important institutions like Goldman Sachs (GS), American International Group (AIG) and General Electric (GE)'s financial unit.
Paul got some traction recently with legislation proposing to audit the notoriously secretive Fed. He also wants to re-establish the gold standard.
:lulz:
thats.. actually not a bad idea. I'd rather see someone who's got a passion for monetary policy overseeing the Fed than someone who comes to it because it's an open position and it will pad their public service resume for when they get voted out and become a lobbyist for the banking system.
also:
"I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money." -- Ron Paul
I know it wasn't your quote, and I'm not giving YOU shit for it Cat, but it sure is fun to try and simplify where someone stands and get it completely wrong, isn't it?
:facepalm:
You fucking libertarians are all the same.
:lol:
juicy bait.. (remember what ECH said now.. deep breath.. it's just the internet)
you fucking (insert people who identify with particular schools of political thought to the exclusion of others completely and totally)s are all the same.
you have me completely figured out because you spent some time on Reason.com
I like you Howl, you make me question my beliefs and I appreciate that in an angry looking avatar, but I like you more when you contribute to the discussion and don't just throw shit all over the walls and call it art.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 01:48:43 AM
but I like you more when you contribute to the discussion and don't just throw shit all over the walls and call it art.
Oh, if only you knew how many incarnations every possible debate has had on PD. It's like an eternal return (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return) we get to live through over and over. And it's so very :x.
There is not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency. It's too late, get over it.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 01:48:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 01:38:05 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 11, 2010, 10:48:39 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 05:33:23 AM
Ron Paul may oversee Fed (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=491829cc-9ecb-4e9d-bf69-4404f742c79f)
QuoteRep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, could end up overseeing it as part of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives.
Paul is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology on the House Financial Services Committee, which has oversight for the Fed, the U.S. Mint and U.S. interaction with the World Bank, Politico reported.
The Republican leadership will make the final call on whether Paul gets to oversee the Fed, which, in addition to setting monetary policy, now has a more important role in overseeing big financial institutions including traditional banks like Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C) and Wells Fargo (WFC), and other systemically important institutions like Goldman Sachs (GS), American International Group (AIG) and General Electric (GE)'s financial unit.
Paul got some traction recently with legislation proposing to audit the notoriously secretive Fed. He also wants to re-establish the gold standard.
:lulz:
thats.. actually not a bad idea. I'd rather see someone who's got a passion for monetary policy overseeing the Fed than someone who comes to it because it's an open position and it will pad their public service resume for when they get voted out and become a lobbyist for the banking system.
also:
"I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money." -- Ron Paul
I know it wasn't your quote, and I'm not giving YOU shit for it Cat, but it sure is fun to try and simplify where someone stands and get it completely wrong, isn't it?
:facepalm:
You fucking libertarians are all the same.
:lol:
juicy bait.. (remember what ECH said now.. deep breath.. it's just the internet)
you fucking (insert people who identify with particular schools of political thought to the exclusion of others completely and totally)s are all the same.
you have me completely figured out because you spent some time on Reason.com
I like you Howl, you make me question my beliefs and I appreciate that in an angry looking avatar, but I like you more when you contribute to the discussion and don't just throw shit all over the walls and call it art.
What's reason.com? Trollworthy?
And I don't
fling shit, sir, I
propel it. I have on occasion destroyed entire truck stop bathrooms while the janitors scream for exorcists and HAZWOPER teams in whatever language it is that they speak. My ass is like unto the German "Big Bertha" cannon of WWII fame, and I am in my own personal illegal in all but four states for this reason.
Flinging shit is for primates. I am a Holy Man
TM, and I expel my wastes with the power of THE GODS THEMSELVES! Ia! Ia! Ftang!
And don't bring Howl into this. He's a secular son of a bitch who will be the FIRST up against the wall when the teabaggers are inaugurated in January. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 11:30:48 PM
The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.
Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.
- you can fiddle with the
price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars. that doesn't effect the
value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.
-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth. flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible? that seems absurdly short sighted, no?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2010, 02:00:24 AM
There is not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency. It's too late, get over it.
which, if you had read the thread, you'd already know that the idea of doing that was dispensed with as an option.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:01:28 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 01:48:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 01:38:05 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 11, 2010, 10:48:39 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 05:33:23 AM
Ron Paul may oversee Fed (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=491829cc-9ecb-4e9d-bf69-4404f742c79f)
QuoteRep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, could end up overseeing it as part of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives.
Paul is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology on the House Financial Services Committee, which has oversight for the Fed, the U.S. Mint and U.S. interaction with the World Bank, Politico reported.
The Republican leadership will make the final call on whether Paul gets to oversee the Fed, which, in addition to setting monetary policy, now has a more important role in overseeing big financial institutions including traditional banks like Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C) and Wells Fargo (WFC), and other systemically important institutions like Goldman Sachs (GS), American International Group (AIG) and General Electric (GE)'s financial unit.
Paul got some traction recently with legislation proposing to audit the notoriously secretive Fed. He also wants to re-establish the gold standard.
:lulz:
thats.. actually not a bad idea. I'd rather see someone who's got a passion for monetary policy overseeing the Fed than someone who comes to it because it's an open position and it will pad their public service resume for when they get voted out and become a lobbyist for the banking system.
also:
"I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money." -- Ron Paul
I know it wasn't your quote, and I'm not giving YOU shit for it Cat, but it sure is fun to try and simplify where someone stands and get it completely wrong, isn't it?
:facepalm:
You fucking libertarians are all the same.
:lol:
juicy bait.. (remember what ECH said now.. deep breath.. it's just the internet)
you fucking (insert people who identify with particular schools of political thought to the exclusion of others completely and totally)s are all the same.
you have me completely figured out because you spent some time on Reason.com
I like you Howl, you make me question my beliefs and I appreciate that in an angry looking avatar, but I like you more when you contribute to the discussion and don't just throw shit all over the walls and call it art.
What's reason.com? Trollworthy?
And I don't fling shit, sir, I propel it. I have on occasion destroyed entire truck stop bathrooms while the janitors scream for exorcists and HAZWOPER teams in whatever language it is that they speak. My ass is like unto the German "Big Bertha" cannon of WWII fame, and I am in my own personal illegal in all but four states for this reason. Flinging shit is for primates. I am a Holy ManTM, and I expel my wastes with the power of THE GODS THEMSELVES! Ia! Ia! Ftang!
And don't bring Howl into this. He's a secular son of a bitch who will be the FIRST up against the wall when the teabaggers are inaugurated in January. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.
god damn I laughed from the first sentence.
:mittens:
mittens.. mittens everywhere...
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:03:01 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2010, 02:00:24 AM
There is not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency. It's too late, get over it.
which, if you had read the thread, you'd already know that the idea of doing that was dispensed with as an option.
Pretty sure that's exactly what he's talking about.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:04:38 AM
god damn I laughed from the first sentence.
:mittens:
mittens.. mittens everywhere...
You'll be laughing out the other side of your neck while you're burning in hell, Sinner.
Time to get right. Join The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus, or go to ETERNAL PERDITION with the Belgians.
and Reason.com is trollable.. so very trollable..
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth. flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible? that seems absurdly short sighted, no?
continuous growth with no checks sounds like a dominant life form with no natural predators continuing to expand forever.
that always ends well in other species, why not primates?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2010, 02:10:54 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:03:01 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2010, 02:00:24 AM
There is not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency. It's too late, get over it.
which, if you had read the thread, you'd already know that the idea of doing that was dispensed with as an option.
Pretty sure that's exactly what he's talking about.
Then you're more sure about what Ron Paul is saying than Ron Paul is. Which has to count for something.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:12:11 AM
and Reason.com is trollable.. so very trollable..
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth. flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible? that seems absurdly short sighted, no?
continuous growth with no checks sounds like a dominant life form with no natural predators continuing to expand forever.
that always ends well in other species, why not primates?
Actually, that was possible, before America pussed out after going to the moon a few times.
There weren't any Indians, you see, so we went back to Earth to pound on smudgy people some more.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2010, 02:10:54 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:03:01 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2010, 02:00:24 AM
There is not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency. It's too late, get over it.
which, if you had read the thread, you'd already know that the idea of doing that was dispensed with as an option.
Pretty sure that's exactly what he's talking about.
Im pretty sure that's exacty NOT what he's talking about.
we could just be disagreeing on what it means, but as I understand it, it's more truly demand based currency, and people are allowed to enter into private contracts where they can charge and be payed in something like silver and gold, something you can't do right now.
the inflation created by the Fed would, of course, become very glaring very quickly were this option allowed, which is the point really.
it's truly a giant drop of chaos that would force people to pay attention to the current illusion called "money" and really, this board above most I would think, would endorse it simply for the entropy if spawns.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2010, 02:00:24 AM
There is not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency. It's too late, get over it.
no... there's not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency at the current price in dollars. that argument doesnt make any sense.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:20:19 AM
we could just be disagreeing on what it means, but as I understand it, it's more truly demand based currency, and people are allowed to enter into private contracts where they can charge and be payed in something like silver and gold, something you can't do right now.
I can do that right this minute. And it's legal as hell.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:21:11 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2010, 02:00:24 AM
There is not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency. It's too late, get over it.
no... there's not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency at the current price in dollars. that argument doesnt make any sense.
Yeah, I want an economy where a car costs $100 and there's no piece of currency small enough to buy a newspaper. :lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:22:25 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:21:11 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2010, 02:00:24 AM
There is not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency. It's too late, get over it.
no... there's not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency at the current price in dollars. that argument doesnt make any sense.
Yeah, I want an economy where a car costs $100 and there's no piece of currency small enough to buy a newspaper. :lol:
the number doesn't matter beyond convenience.
it's arbitrary.
you can set it and divide it however you want.
but you know that already...
so i'm confused by what your point is.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:25:46 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:22:25 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:21:11 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2010, 02:00:24 AM
There is not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency. It's too late, get over it.
no... there's not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency at the current price in dollars. that argument doesnt make any sense.
Yeah, I want an economy where a car costs $100 and there's no piece of currency small enough to buy a newspaper. :lol:
the number doesn't matter beyond convenience.
it's arbitrary.
you can set it and divide it however you want.
but you know that already...
so i'm confused by what your point is.
Well, I'm kind of thinking that there hasn't been much difference in our economy since we changed to imaginary money. Boom & bust has been going on as long as the country has existed.
So why bother fucking with it?
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 11:30:48 PM
The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.
Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.
- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars. that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.
-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth. flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible? that seems absurdly short sighted, no?
maybe if we stop making people. As long as everyone is still popping out little bastards like they're going out of style, I don't see why growth wouldn't be able to continue indefinitely.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:13:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:12:11 AM
and Reason.com is trollable.. so very trollable..
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth. flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible? that seems absurdly short sighted, no?
continuous growth with no checks sounds like a dominant life form with no natural predators continuing to expand forever.
that always ends well in other species, why not primates?
Actually, that was possible, before America pussed out after going to the moon a few times.
There weren't any Indians, you see, so we went back to Earth to pound on smudgy people some more.
Roger, you're telling me you're a Leary "colonize other planets" guy?
not that I don't think it's possible. I just haven't seen any other planets in this SS that would support the eerily locust like nature of homo sapiens sapiens..
no oil. no water. no oxygen.
mostly the first one though.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars. that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.
Yeah, it's good for making electronics with, and monkeys will pay ridiculous amounts of their labor to obtain it, for no apparent gain.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:21:28 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:20:19 AM
we could just be disagreeing on what it means, but as I understand it, it's more truly demand based currency, and people are allowed to enter into private contracts where they can charge and be payed in something like silver and gold, something you can't do right now.
I can do that right this minute. And it's legal as hell.
privately, yes. As a business that has to put on a public face, contracts have to be valued in dollars.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:28:24 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:13:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:12:11 AM
and Reason.com is trollable.. so very trollable..
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth. flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible? that seems absurdly short sighted, no?
continuous growth with no checks sounds like a dominant life form with no natural predators continuing to expand forever.
that always ends well in other species, why not primates?
Actually, that was possible, before America pussed out after going to the moon a few times.
There weren't any Indians, you see, so we went back to Earth to pound on smudgy people some more.
Roger, you're telling me you're a Leary "colonize other planets" guy?
not that I don't think it's possible. I just haven't seen any other planets in this SS that would support the eerily locust like nature of homo sapiens sapiens..
no oil. no water. no oxygen.
mostly the first one though.
No, I'm a "stay here and drown in our own shit" kinda guy.
And there's plenty of all of those things, especially water and hydrocarbons. Water is plentiful as hell. You just have to give up the idea of living on a planet.
But it's better we stay here, and die like God wants us to.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:31:40 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:21:28 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:20:19 AM
we could just be disagreeing on what it means, but as I understand it, it's more truly demand based currency, and people are allowed to enter into private contracts where they can charge and be payed in something like silver and gold, something you can't do right now.
I can do that right this minute. And it's legal as hell.
privately, yes. As a business that has to put on a public face, contracts have to be valued in dollars.
Oh? If my company (I work for a multinational oil company) decides to buy gold, or shares in a gold mine, the currency used can be anything from dollars to rands to ounces of gold. The contract used is legally binding in the United States. We use Euros more than dollars, for example, in purely American transactions. It isn't legal tender, but it isn't required to be legal tender to be binding, if the contract is entered so.
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 02:27:56 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 11:30:48 PM
The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.
Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.
- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars. that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.
-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth. flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible? that seems absurdly short sighted, no?
maybe if we stop making people. As long as everyone is still popping out little bastards like they're going out of style, I don't see why growth wouldn't be able to continue indefinitely.
No reason at all.
QuotePopulation
An estimated 11 percent of the planet's land surface-4.6 million square miles, an area larger than the United States and Mexico combined-has suffered moderate to severe land degradation since 1945, diminishing its capacity to grow crops and other vegetation. Every year farmers are forced to abandon up to 27,000 square miles of farmland, enough to equal West Virginia, because they cannot make a living on it. About one fourth of the world's population depends on fuelwood that is cut faster than it can grow back.
Water is increasingly scarce in certain regions of the world, as populations that are doubling within two or three decades must share finite supplies of renewable water resources. Based on the generally accepted standard that a country needs a bare minimum of 654 cubic yards per inhabitant per year to develop economically, 11 nations faced such scarcity in 1990. By the year 2025, the UN projects, that number will nearly double.
(from Compton's Deluxe 3D World Atlas CD Rom.)
Humans are a self-correcting problem.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:20:19 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2010, 02:10:54 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:03:01 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2010, 02:00:24 AM
There is not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency. It's too late, get over it.
which, if you had read the thread, you'd already know that the idea of doing that was dispensed with as an option.
Pretty sure that's exactly what he's talking about.
Im pretty sure that's exacty NOT what he's talking about.
we could just be disagreeing on what it means, but as I understand it, it's more truly demand based currency, and people are allowed to enter into private contracts where they can charge and be payed in something like silver and gold, something you can't do right now.
the inflation created by the Fed would, of course, become very glaring very quickly were this option allowed, which is the point really.
it's truly a giant drop of chaos that would force people to pay attention to the current illusion called "money" and really, this board above most I would think, would endorse it simply for the entropy if spawns.
In order for a currency to be legal tender, you have to be able to exchange it for an equivalent value of other forms of legal tender.
This requires:
1) Government fiat price of Gold. Gold must have a fixed relationship with the Dollar.
2) Enough gold that people who want gold can have it, if demand outstrips supply then gold becomes more valuable than cash, and you risk losing control of the above,
You also need large enough reserves of Gold in order to guarantee that your currency stays fixed to the global Gold price. Otherwise all kinds of nasty things can be done via foreign currency exchange.
When you have these things, you have a gold backed currency.
Everyone IS, of course, aware that we've begun another Libertarian/Goldbug thread, and within the next 2 pages, we'll be screeching about intellectual property/how musicians should play just for the sheer joy of it, right?
:lulz:
Okay, as long as we all know, carry on.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:39:27 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 02:27:56 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 11:30:48 PM
The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.
Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.
- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars. that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.
-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth. flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible? that seems absurdly short sighted, no?
maybe if we stop making people. As long as everyone is still popping out little bastards like they're going out of style, I don't see why growth wouldn't be able to continue indefinitely.
No reason at all.
QuotePopulation
An estimated 11 percent of the planet's land surface-4.6 million square miles, an area larger than the United States and Mexico combined-has suffered moderate to severe land degradation since 1945, diminishing its capacity to grow crops and other vegetation. Every year farmers are forced to abandon up to 27,000 square miles of farmland, enough to equal West Virginia, because they cannot make a living on it. About one fourth of the world's population depends on fuelwood that is cut faster than it can grow back.
Water is increasingly scarce in certain regions of the world, as populations that are doubling within two or three decades must share finite supplies of renewable water resources. Based on the generally accepted standard that a country needs a bare minimum of 654 cubic yards per inhabitant per year to develop economically, 11 nations faced such scarcity in 1990. By the year 2025, the UN projects, that number will nearly double.
(from Compton's Deluxe 3D World Atlas CD Rom.)
Humans are a self-correcting problem.
as there are +/- 180 countries, that's a pretty small percentage.
Also, I don't give a shit what inevitably happens after I die as long as what's happening now can be sustained for the course of my lifetime.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:51:31 AM
Everyone IS, of course, aware that we've begun another Libertarian/Goldbug thread, and within the next 2 pages, we'll be screeching about intellectual property/how musicians should play just for the sheer joy of it, right?
:lulz:
Okay, as long as we all know, carry on.
I'm only posting ITT because I want to be right about it reaching 30 pages. :lulz:
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 02:54:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:39:27 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 02:27:56 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 11:30:48 PM
The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.
Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.
- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars. that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.
-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth. flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible? that seems absurdly short sighted, no?
maybe if we stop making people. As long as everyone is still popping out little bastards like they're going out of style, I don't see why growth wouldn't be able to continue indefinitely.
No reason at all.
QuotePopulation
An estimated 11 percent of the planet's land surface-4.6 million square miles, an area larger than the United States and Mexico combined-has suffered moderate to severe land degradation since 1945, diminishing its capacity to grow crops and other vegetation. Every year farmers are forced to abandon up to 27,000 square miles of farmland, enough to equal West Virginia, because they cannot make a living on it. About one fourth of the world's population depends on fuelwood that is cut faster than it can grow back.
Water is increasingly scarce in certain regions of the world, as populations that are doubling within two or three decades must share finite supplies of renewable water resources. Based on the generally accepted standard that a country needs a bare minimum of 654 cubic yards per inhabitant per year to develop economically, 11 nations faced such scarcity in 1990. By the year 2025, the UN projects, that number will nearly double.
(from Compton's Deluxe 3D World Atlas CD Rom.)
Humans are a self-correcting problem.
as there are +/- 180 countries, that's a pretty small percentage.
Also, I don't give a shit what inevitably happens after I die as long as what's happening now can be sustained for the course of my lifetime.
It can't, according to most estimates. You may not live long enough to go blazing after Lord Humongous with an AK47 and a Honda full of silver, but your quality of life will definitely degrade. Desertification is matched in hilarity only by the increase of population exceeding the increase of the means to transport food. Hell, Beijing will be under sand in 17 years, and if you think a billion and a half people are going to sit and starve quietly, I have some Ocean front property in Casa Grande to sell you.
Not trying to be a downer, here. Facts are facts.
I know, but what's horrible for 98% of humanity is a windfall to me. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:35:38 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:31:40 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:21:28 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 02:20:19 AM
we could just be disagreeing on what it means, but as I understand it, it's more truly demand based currency, and people are allowed to enter into private contracts where they can charge and be payed in something like silver and gold, something you can't do right now.
I can do that right this minute. And it's legal as hell.
privately, yes. As a business that has to put on a public face, contracts have to be valued in dollars.
Oh? If my company (I work for a multinational oil company) decides to buy gold, or shares in a gold mine, the currency used can be anything from dollars to rands to ounces of gold. The contract used is legally binding in the United States. We use Euros more than dollars, for example, in purely American transactions. It isn't legal tender, but it isn't required to be legal tender to be binding, if the contract is entered so.
ok, they decide to buy gold, or shares in a gold mine.. what are they buying it with? euros would make sense when exchanging it back to the states, the same way it's very benificial to me to send money to mexico every month because the exchange rate is always faster than the country can raise prices to balance it against their import costs for the same goods.
it fucks you the other way around i.e. dollar to euro, pesos to dollar.
we might be able to end this entire thread by agreeing that money is really only worth the value of the collective delusion of the people who exchange it.
Anything has value based on just how much someone is willing to "pay" for it. The collectors market comes to mind. The housing market as well.
I'm going to press post now and reread this and make sure It sound just as confusing to me now.
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 02:54:50 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:51:31 AM
Everyone IS, of course, aware that we've begun another Libertarian/Goldbug thread, and within the next 2 pages, we'll be screeching about intellectual property/how musicians should play just for the sheer joy of it, right?
:lulz:
Okay, as long as we all know, carry on.
I'm only posting ITT because I want to be right about it reaching 30 pages. :lulz:
It will. It's one of the PD laws of physics.
I believe the equation goes F = ((L
i+G
b)*D
a)
2, where F = the quantity of fail (measured in posts), L
i = the number of libertarians, G
b = the number of goldbugs, and D
a = the number of other dumbasses willing to participate (myself, for example).
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 03:01:50 AM
I know, but what's horrible for 98% of humanity is a windfall to me. :lulz:
It's not ALL going to be slave girls and sawed off shotguns, ECH. There won't be any lobster pate where we're headed, boyo.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 03:04:43 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 03:01:50 AM
I know, but what's horrible for 98% of humanity is a windfall to me. :lulz:
It's not ALL going to be slave girls and sawed off shotguns, ECH. There won't be any lobster pate where we're headed, boyo.
On the plus side, it'll settle the currency problem. We can just switch to the people standard!
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 02:54:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:39:27 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 02:27:56 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 11:30:48 PM
The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.
Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.
- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars. that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.
-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth. flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible? that seems absurdly short sighted, no?
maybe if we stop making people. As long as everyone is still popping out little bastards like they're going out of style, I don't see why growth wouldn't be able to continue indefinitely.
No reason at all.
QuotePopulation
An estimated 11 percent of the planet's land surface-4.6 million square miles, an area larger than the United States and Mexico combined-has suffered moderate to severe land degradation since 1945, diminishing its capacity to grow crops and other vegetation. Every year farmers are forced to abandon up to 27,000 square miles of farmland, enough to equal West Virginia, because they cannot make a living on it. About one fourth of the world's population depends on fuelwood that is cut faster than it can grow back.
Water is increasingly scarce in certain regions of the world, as populations that are doubling within two or three decades must share finite supplies of renewable water resources. Based on the generally accepted standard that a country needs a bare minimum of 654 cubic yards per inhabitant per year to develop economically, 11 nations faced such scarcity in 1990. By the year 2025, the UN projects, that number will nearly double.
(from Compton's Deluxe 3D World Atlas CD Rom.)
Humans are a self-correcting problem.
as there are +/- 180 countries, that's a pretty small percentage.
Also, I don't give a shit what inevitably happens after I die as long as what's happening now can be sustained for the course of my lifetime.
social security comes to mind.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on November 12, 2010, 03:08:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 03:04:43 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 03:01:50 AM
I know, but what's horrible for 98% of humanity is a windfall to me. :lulz:
It's not ALL going to be slave girls and sawed off shotguns, ECH. There won't be any lobster pate where we're headed, boyo.
On the plus side, it'll settle the currency problem. We can just switch to the people standard!
Why the hell not? It worked for 8000 years.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 03:04:43 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 03:01:50 AM
I know, but what's horrible for 98% of humanity is a windfall to me. :lulz:
It's not ALL going to be slave girls and sawed off shotguns, ECH. There won't be any lobster pate where we're headed, boyo.
There will for my employers. And I'll be making it. :lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 03:10:32 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 02:54:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:39:27 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 02:27:56 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 11:30:48 PM
The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.
Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.
- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars. that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.
-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth. flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible? that seems absurdly short sighted, no?
maybe if we stop making people. As long as everyone is still popping out little bastards like they're going out of style, I don't see why growth wouldn't be able to continue indefinitely.
No reason at all.
QuotePopulation
An estimated 11 percent of the planet's land surface-4.6 million square miles, an area larger than the United States and Mexico combined-has suffered moderate to severe land degradation since 1945, diminishing its capacity to grow crops and other vegetation. Every year farmers are forced to abandon up to 27,000 square miles of farmland, enough to equal West Virginia, because they cannot make a living on it. About one fourth of the world's population depends on fuelwood that is cut faster than it can grow back.
Water is increasingly scarce in certain regions of the world, as populations that are doubling within two or three decades must share finite supplies of renewable water resources. Based on the generally accepted standard that a country needs a bare minimum of 654 cubic yards per inhabitant per year to develop economically, 11 nations faced such scarcity in 1990. By the year 2025, the UN projects, that number will nearly double.
(from Compton's Deluxe 3D World Atlas CD Rom.)
Humans are a self-correcting problem.
as there are +/- 180 countries, that's a pretty small percentage.
Also, I don't give a shit what inevitably happens after I die as long as what's happening now can be sustained for the course of my lifetime.
social security comes to mind.
yeah, sometimes I think I should feel bad for the people that have been relying on that.
but then I crack another Stella Artois and go have a cigar. :lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 03:10:32 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 02:54:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 02:39:27 AM
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 02:27:56 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 11:30:48 PM
The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.
Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.
- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars. that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.
-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth. flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible? that seems absurdly short sighted, no?
maybe if we stop making people. As long as everyone is still popping out little bastards like they're going out of style, I don't see why growth wouldn't be able to continue indefinitely.
No reason at all.
QuotePopulation
An estimated 11 percent of the planet's land surface-4.6 million square miles, an area larger than the United States and Mexico combined-has suffered moderate to severe land degradation since 1945, diminishing its capacity to grow crops and other vegetation. Every year farmers are forced to abandon up to 27,000 square miles of farmland, enough to equal West Virginia, because they cannot make a living on it. About one fourth of the world's population depends on fuelwood that is cut faster than it can grow back.
Water is increasingly scarce in certain regions of the world, as populations that are doubling within two or three decades must share finite supplies of renewable water resources. Based on the generally accepted standard that a country needs a bare minimum of 654 cubic yards per inhabitant per year to develop economically, 11 nations faced such scarcity in 1990. By the year 2025, the UN projects, that number will nearly double.
(from Compton's Deluxe 3D World Atlas CD Rom.)
Humans are a self-correcting problem.
as there are +/- 180 countries, that's a pretty small percentage.
Also, I don't give a shit what inevitably happens after I die as long as what's happening now can be sustained for the course of my lifetime.
social security comes to mind.
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/danger_ahead1.gif)
what is that?
:?
(http://rlv.zcache.com/ron_paul_for_president_2012_bumper_sticker-p128170665005217067tmn6_210.jpg)
Quote from: E.O.T. on November 12, 2010, 03:23:35 AM
(http://rlv.zcache.com/ron_paul_for_president_2012_bumper_sticker-p128170665005217067tmn6_210.jpg)
You guys have all the wrong values.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 03:24:09 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on November 12, 2010, 03:23:35 AM
(http://rlv.zcache.com/ron_paul_for_president_2012_bumper_sticker-p128170665005217067tmn6_210.jpg)
You guys have all the wrong values.
thats because you're not valuing our values in relation to gold.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 03:27:07 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 03:24:09 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on November 12, 2010, 03:23:35 AM
(http://rlv.zcache.com/ron_paul_for_president_2012_bumper_sticker-p128170665005217067tmn6_210.jpg)
You guys have all the wrong values.
thats because you're not valuing our values in relation to gold.
Could be. :lulz:
No, it's that you've all found your own monkey totems to promote. Gold. Ron Paul. Libertarianism. Manicheism. Obama. That nice old man that used to live down the street. Captain Kangaroo. America's Got Talent.
They're all lies, no different than the things they "oppose".
In my humble opinion, no real Discordian would have anything to do with that monkey shit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 03:31:01 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 03:27:07 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 03:24:09 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on November 12, 2010, 03:23:35 AM
(http://rlv.zcache.com/ron_paul_for_president_2012_bumper_sticker-p128170665005217067tmn6_210.jpg)
You guys have all the wrong values.
thats because you're not valuing our values in relation to gold.
Could be. :lulz:
No, it's that you've all found your own monkey totems to promote. Gold. Ron Paul. Libertarianism. Manicheism. Obama. That nice old man that used to live down the street. Captain Kangaroo. America's Got Talent.
They're all lies, no different than the things they "oppose".
In my humble opinion, no real Discordian would have anything to do with that monkey shit.
good point.
but then, no Real Discordian
tm would have anything to do with much of any political discussion other than to completely fuck it up and make everyone in it question what they already think they know to be the troof.
that includes discordians who think they're above the entropy of the social/political structure.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 03:48:30 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 03:31:01 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on November 12, 2010, 03:27:07 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 03:24:09 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on November 12, 2010, 03:23:35 AM
(http://rlv.zcache.com/ron_paul_for_president_2012_bumper_sticker-p128170665005217067tmn6_210.jpg)
You guys have all the wrong values.
thats because you're not valuing our values in relation to gold.
Could be. :lulz:
No, it's that you've all found your own monkey totems to promote. Gold. Ron Paul. Libertarianism. Manicheism. Obama. That nice old man that used to live down the street. Captain Kangaroo. America's Got Talent.
They're all lies, no different than the things they "oppose".
In my humble opinion, no real Discordian would have anything to do with that monkey shit.
good point.
but then, no Real Discordiantm would have anything to do with much of any political discussion other than to completely fuck it up and make everyone in it question what they already think they know to be the troof.
that includes discordians who think they're above the entropy of the social/political structure.
And me.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 01:39:17 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 11:30:48 PM
Yeah, you are kinda giving me shit for it. The last clause sounds like an asshole comment to me. I'm going to let it go because I don't like scrapping over things like that.
WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO PD? :crankey:
:lulz: Personal preference. I won't say no to watching people scrap over things like that, but I like a clean fight most of the time. Pickle hasn't irritated me enough in the past to want a real spat.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2010, 02:02:16 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on November 11, 2010, 11:30:48 PM
The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.
Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.
- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars. that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.
-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth. flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible? that seems absurdly short sighted, no?
Explain that? Because supply and demand will determine the value of anything, including gold in a gold standard society.
Never argued to the contrary.
I doubt the US is ever going to go onto a gold economy, so Ron Paul's obsession in that area is roughly on a par with O'Donnell's wish to ban masturbation - an interesting quirk that gives an insight into the kind of policies they will likely follow, but probably not a valid policy position in and of itself.
Ron Paul has also, interestingly, done some good work with Alan Grayson and other Democrats worried by the Fed's role in the financial crash, helping to sponsor legislation and so on. None of this legislation is obviously crazy and seems to regard the Fed with the distrust and contempt it actually deserves. On that basis alone it would seem he would actually be a good choice to oversee such things, though the chances of him getting outmanouvered by corporate stooges and lobbyists elected to Congress are basically 100%.
Now, the guy on the Energy subcomittee on the other hand...
I'm also in favor of Ron Paul on the economic board, meanwhile that guy in the energy committee means more giant oil spills.
I also had to post in this thread on account of being an Anarchist and it apparently being another big anarchist explosion. Although it looks like it is the right wing sort, I don't really give a crap about gold.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 03:24:09 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on November 12, 2010, 03:23:35 AM
(http://rlv.zcache.com/ron_paul_for_president_2012_bumper_sticker-p128170665005217067tmn6_210.jpg)
You guys have all the wrong values.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCPyylh2Ip4
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2010, 08:02:36 AM
I'm also in favor of Ron Paul on the economic board, meanwhile that guy in the energy committee means more giant oil spills.
I also had to post in this thread on account of being an Anarchist and it apparently being another big anarchist explosion. Although it looks like it is the right wing sort, I don't really give a crap about gold.
1. We're talking about RAND Paul, not Ron Paul. Get your frothing insane libertards straight.
2. Literally NOBODY gives a shit about your political views, even more so than the other wanna-be black bloc tards.
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 01:31:13 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2010, 08:02:36 AM
I'm also in favor of Ron Paul on the economic board, meanwhile that guy in the energy committee means more giant oil spills.
I also had to post in this thread on account of being an Anarchist and it apparently being another big anarchist explosion. Although it looks like it is the right wing sort, I don't really give a crap about gold.
1. We're talking about RAND Paul, not Ron Paul. Get your frothing insane libertards straight.
2. Literally NOBODY gives a shit about your political views, even more so than the other wanna-be black bloc tards.
1. We're actually talking about Ron. Check the OP.
2. IAWTHAB.
I stand corrected.
I can't keep my frothing insane libertards straight. :lulz:
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 01:49:36 PM
I stand corrected.
I can't keep my frothing insane libertards straight. :lulz:
It's getting so bad, you can't tell the players without a scorecard. :lol:
I would make Ron Paul Emperor if it would mean shutting his internet fanboys up
It didn't work for Obama...
Just to assist with the 30 Page goal...
It seems to me that gold or imaginary numbers... we have bigger problems than whats backing our monies.
Mostly, it seems to me that we're currently engaged in a spiral of debt based on how we actually get money.
Let's look at Quantative Easing, for example.
Bank A has a crapload of Government bonds, they're worth 50 Billion dollars.
No one wants to pay $50 Billion dollars for those bonds (or percentages at that ratio).
Bank A has worthless paper and not much money to loan.
So the Government says "Ok, well we'll pay you more than the market wants to pay you for those bonds."
The Bank now has 50 Billion dollars to loan out.
The catch is, the government paid for those bonds... with money they just printed up to buy those bonds with AND they had to actually pay a bit more than the 50 Billion, meaning that the government actually loses some money in the process. By printing money we go further in debt, and we devalue the dollar (since there is now 50 billion more of them floating around).
According to the current plan... the government will be pulling this game for the next 8 months, at 75 Billion dollars worth of bonds per month.
Best yet, these bonds are held by the Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Reserve EARNS interest on the bonds.
So, not only are we (in the end) buying bonds for more than their market price, with dollars that cost us money to print... but we're also paying interest to the Bank that's used the printed money to buy the bonds.
:lulz:
IN B4 GODWIN'S LAW.
Last time that was tried, it was the Weimar Republic.
Worked out fine. :lulz:
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 01:31:13 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2010, 08:02:36 AM
I'm also in favor of Ron Paul on the economic board, meanwhile that guy in the energy committee means more giant oil spills.
I also had to post in this thread on account of being an Anarchist and it apparently being another big anarchist explosion. Although it looks like it is the right wing sort, I don't really give a crap about gold.
1. We're talking about RAND Paul, not Ron Paul. Get your frothing insane libertards straight.
2. Literally NOBODY gives a shit about your political views, even more so than the other wanna-be black bloc tards.
Yeah, I'd prefer Ron in charge of the Fed over Rand. I also can't see them putting a freshman legislator in a position that important.
2. If this were true people wouldn't be so fond of giving me shot over them.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2010, 07:39:57 PM
Yeah, I'd prefer Ron in charge of the Fed over Rand.
And I'd prefer Pat Robertson in charge of the Department of Education. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 07:57:30 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2010, 07:39:57 PM
Yeah, I'd prefer Ron in charge of the Fed over Rand.
And I'd prefer Pat Robertson in charge of the Department of Education. :lulz:
I'd prefer Pat Paulson....
(http://www.fashionstate.com/monkees/4902paulsen.jpg)
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 12, 2010, 08:06:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 07:57:30 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2010, 07:39:57 PM
Yeah, I'd prefer Ron in charge of the Fed over Rand.
And I'd prefer Pat Robertson in charge of the Department of Education. :lulz:
I'd prefer Pat Paulson....
(http://www.fashionstate.com/monkees/4902paulsen.jpg)
Wrong kind of comedy.