Thread: The federal Reserve is the key.

What you are saying, in other words, was that gold was abandonded and new money was created, in order to fund the expansion of our economy.

No, gold was abandoned and new money was created, in order to fund the expansion of our government and their Imperialistic undertakings.

I would quibble that an economy can not expand as well if new money is not being created, to fund that expansion.

That would depend on how much money was in circulation already.

Since you acknowledge "General price increases across the spectrum is a monetary phenomenon." How can you advocate the use of precious metals as an integral part of that same monetary phenomenon, if it is legal tender as money liable to a monetary phenomenon?

Continuing general price increases across the spectrum is a monetary phenomenon reserved for fiat currencies.

I try to be a good capitalist pig whenever possible.

You are every bit as disconnected from the real World as the rest of your minion.

What would happen to a finite supply of precious metals if it was suddenly used for commodity money? You may have missed the point about the analogy to California's gold rush.

You raise a good question, what became of all the Gold that used to back America's currency? It should all still be in storage, right? But, unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what has become of Americas gold.

Originally Posted by Pogo

You sound like Krugman. When a bubble bursts, the answer is to create a new bubble.

The wars on drugs and terror could be perceived as republican forms of job creation policy. It is simply my contention that we could decrease the volatility of the business cycle through better compliance with at-will employment doctrine and laws.


However, public sector means of production could function as public sector business ventures that can lower our tax burden and other public and private sector costs.

Originally Posted by Pogo

Well, I'll certainly allow that a gold standard doesn't solve the problem of the debasement of man, but it does put a damper on the amount of damage that can be wrought.

So will better fiscal policy. Besides, we already have a fractional commodity money in our coins.

Originally Posted by Retro Fit

No, gold was abandoned and new money was created, in order to fund the expansion of our government and their Imperialistic undertakings.


That would depend on how much money was in circulation already.


Continuing general price increases across the spectrum is a monetary phenomenon reserved for fiat currencies.

Why would money not function according to the function of money (i.e. as a monetary phenomenon), regardless of whether it is fiat or commodity?

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I don't think (international) banking is any more of a scam now than it was when the Templars invented it; they are simply, private sector business ventures that are required to make a profit.

How does what you claim occur in a representative democracy with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge? It would require true Canaanites, Gammorans, and Sodomites to accomplish.

In any case, what you are implying is that our elected representatives to government should be required to pass a (religious) morals test for public office, since apparently, they cannot be trusted with their public emoluments at the secular level. And are routinely elected by their constituents to the same office to accomplish the same thing.

How does my claim occur? Because people like you are too lazy to educate yourselves.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I would like to believe your argument consists of special pleading and can be considered mostly anecdotal in our argument, because of current practices in our objective economic reality. How can your argument be anything more than anecdotal, if even commodity money was abandoned because we could not afford it (a form of loss of value for a commidity via consumer preference.) You have yet to distinguish why commodity money has suffered the fate of many fiat currencies, even with its intrinsic value, in and of itself.

I am not sure I understand what your problem is with a normal economic event under certain conditions? Inflation can be normal in an expanding economy. As an instrument of expansion, a central bank can facilitate this process through the mechanism and service of central banking.

The issue I have with your argument is that it discredits your point of view about fiat money being useless except to those that created it. Anything created by the US is made for the consumption by the populace of the US. If the US (as a form of political economy) creates fiat money, why would everyone in that political economy not benefit as well, according to your own point of view?

How many States, that use commodity money are more developed than those who have central banks and resort to fiat money? I feel this is a relevant rebuttal since it is your contention that fiat money is detrimental to more developed economies. If that were the case, most more economically developed political-economies would be using commodity money instead of fiat money, under the assumption that those that make the laws are working for the best interest of their respective constituents.

Why is reducing inflation, in and of itself, considered a bad thing? It could mean that an economy is expanding and not contracting. Besides, you have not provided a solution to the problem of debasement of commodity money that simulates the effects of fiat money.

Argh. Gold did not fail as a currency, it was "replaced" because the bankers wanted to enslave the people. What part of this don't you get?

Have you read "Gold and Economic Freedom" by Alan Greenspan?

Alan Greenspan - Gold and Economic Freedom

a single quote.......

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation...Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights." - Alan Greenspan - The Objectivist, July 1966

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

How does my claim occur? Because people like you are too lazy to educate yourselves.

I have been educating myself. Why do you think I have the perspective I do?

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Argh. Gold did not fail as a currency, it was "replaced" because the bankers wanted to enslave the people. What part of this don't you get?

Have you read "Gold and Economic Freedom" by Alan Greenspan?

Alan Greenspan - Gold and Economic Freedom

a single quote.......

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation...Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights." - Alan Greenspan - The Objectivist, July 1966

The part I don't get, is the part where bankers and not our own elected representatives to government are enacting laws to "enslave the people".

What prevents a capitalist with sufficient capital from investing that capital in such a manner that the rate of return on that invest meets or exceeds the rate of inflation?

I do agree that it takes a more well informed electorate to accomplish.

Why would money not function according to the function of money (i.e. as a monetary phenomenon), regardless of whether it is fiat or commodity?

Both function. And, besides the fact that it is money by decree, it would function relatively normally if it was regulated properly. Unfortunately, human nature takes over and regulation is tossed. On a limited basis, I really have no problem with a well regulated domestic fiat currency. But, there are reason's that this should not be attempted. The best reason is that it has never not been exploited.

I have been educating myself. Why do you think I have the perspective I do?

Because you love America and have faith in our government, which makes it difficult if not impossible to believe the things we are telling you. I think you read between the lines whilst doing research and only see what your love of your country allows you to see. It's called "selective reasoning".

So will better fiscal policy. Besides, we already have a fractional commodity money in our coins.

I've already mentioned that our coins have been debased to the point that they do not have much intrinsic value anymore. And, though I've mentioned this to you a couple of times, you still stubbornly claim that our coins are hard currency. You simply refuse to accept anything anyone tells you...even the easily verifiable info....you refuse to lend any credibility to facts.

Originally Posted by Retro Fit

The Federal reserve bank is the first priority on the long list of atrocities that must be retired to history.
As long as the fed is allowed to counterfeit the currency of the United States we will continue to have a poor economy. Many of us have adapted to their monetary system. We don't want to lose what we have worked so hard for.
But, what we have is a house of cards. We have toiled year after year and hopefully have transferred as many paper reserve notes( into something tangible) as possible. Never forget that federal reserve notes have no worth other then that bestowed upon it by the Fed. Do not keep the bulk of your wealth in U.S. or any other currency. When the dollar fails any cash you still have will be de-valued or completely worthless.
There is not enough Gold , Silver, copper and platinum to go back to a 100% precious metal standard. But we can go to a commodity based standard currency. And, we should......as soon as possible...Kill the Federal reserve, save the Union.

Our money IS backed. It can be used to purchase our land, corporations, mines, and homes.

If nobody wanted these things, our money would be worthless, and nobody would want it.

But as long as we have things people want, and we accept our dollars for them, our money has value.

You may not be able to exchange USD's for gold, but ANYONE can exchange USD's for US property and assets.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

The part I don't get, is the part where bankers and not our own elected representatives to government are enacting laws to "enslave the people".

What prevents a capitalist with sufficient capital from investing that capital in such a manner that the rate of return on that invest meets or exceeds the rate of inflation?

I do agree that it takes a more well informed electorate to accomplish.

What prevents a capitalist from making a better rate of return than inflation? Sometimes, nothing, sometimes lots of things. Income taxes are one hurdle.

From 1936-1963, the top income tax rate was 79%, or higher. That is robbery, plain and simple. The fact that the American people allowed this shows how little the people understand about the principles this country was founded upon. Besides income taxes, we have capital gains taxes, property taxes, business taxes, sales taxes, estate taxes, as well social security and hidden taxes. We have unconstitutional laws on quotas, unfair competition from so-called free trade agreements, unfair competition from businesses that get help from government subsidies and legislation. But, for most people, the problem is we are taxed so heavily, that it is difficult to save enough money to be able to invest in anything substantial. According to the Grace Commission, not one penny of US personal income taxes go to services. EVERY PENNY COLLECTED GOES TO SERVICING THE DEBT AND TO GOVERNMENT PENSIONS.

So, if the Grace Commission report is correct and it obviously is, then if the US had no national debt and if our government had done a better job setting up pension funds for government workers, we would not need a personal income tax, as not one penny of it is spent on services anyways, so we could easily get rid of it altogether and be in the same shape we are currently in.

In addition to all of the hurdles mentioned, we have the bankers, in concert with government, manipulating the stock market, commodities markets, interest rates, credit, basically ever aspect of our economy.

Maybe someday you will be able to grasp such simple concepts.