 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Oh, yes, things where so much better back in colonial times, when
>> every state, or even county, and sometimes cities, printed their own
>> money, and you never knew if the next place you landed in would accept
>> it..
>
> Um, no. Every bank printed its own money, and gold worked everywhere.
> Why do you think there were gold rushes?
>
> Now we have only one bank printing money, and the only reason it's
> accepted everywhere is because we have lots of gund. See Iceland for a
> counterexample. Why again is this good?
>
Because, you don't have to worry about people "refusing" money at their
banks, because they don't trust you have the gold, don't like your hair
cut, or think your too <insert race/religion here>. With one single
currency you don't get that BS. And... Just to be clear, if all this
regulation, and taxation, and money based on pure money stuff is so bad,
why is it **only** the US, and countries filled with corrupt dictators,
which are currently screwed in health care, cost of living,
unemployment, etc.? See, its the inconsistency between "these things are
bad", but, "The use does them less than anyone else, but has had
**three** economic depressions, counting this one.", that just...
doesn't jibe.
>> But there just isn't enough fracking gold in the world to support,
>> never mind back, the number of transactions that actually take place
>> in the modern world.
>
> Bull. You don't need the actual gold. You just need your money to be
> worth something universal and impossible to counterfeit. What does it
> matter if an ounce of gold is worth $100,000?
>
How the hell is not having anything you "can" exchange for it, just
imaginary stuff, which you could "in theory" trade for it, then what the
heck is the difference from the current form again?
>> Moving away from that as a standard, to currency itself being the
>> standard, **helped** growth.
>
> Perhaps. Until people stop believing in money. Then you get the Great
> Depression.
>
And, if people stop believing in gold, same thing. Money is *not* gold,
it has been, and always was, a bit of paper that said, "in theory, this
will buy X". It doesn't matter if that is gold or rock, as long as
someone things there is some value to rocks. If they either a) decide
they don't need your rocks, b) decide you don't have the gold to back
your "claims" of how much their money is worth, or c) something else is
worth more to them. Removing such a stupid standard means the value is
based on what it really was in the first place, trust that you can spend
it, and get something back, including, if you have enough, gold bars.
>> when we should have been paying attention to the fact that the rest of
>> the world figured out 20 years ago that small, efficient and
>> streamlined, was the future.
>
> Except the Japanese like to buy big gas-guzzling Ford pickup trucks too.
> :-) Plus, CAFE helped there a whole bunch.
>
Oh, yeah.. All what 1,000 of them that drive cars? lol Seriously, 1)
declining population, 2) non-city lands going fallow, and 3) no where
near enough places "to" drive for the high price of gas to matter at
all. Its not like, say, a few million idiots that think they need to
cram 500,000 cars on 1,000 roads every day, in 4-5 cities, in various
corners of a damn continent. lol
>> 2) anti-intellectualism.
>
> Yep.
>
>> The modern US thinks we are #1, while simultaneously thinking that
>> being smart, knowledgeable, logical, or just prone to use a lot of big
>> words, makes you a pariah and untrustworthy.
>
> In many ways, yes. Altho I'm not sure what this has to do with monetary
> policy. :-)
>
A lot really. Dumb and gullible people are happy to buy into anything
that "promises" them something for nothing, and the entire "lending"
economy has been based "purely" on that thinking. Some... some are so
stupid they join so called "prosperity ministries", which preach buy,
buy, buy, and buy more, since a) Jesus will reward the faithful
(apparently the people holding the collection box) with riches, and b)
even if he doesn't, the whole world will end, and you won't need to
worry about losing the $300,000 home you bought on 4 morgages, with 3
credit cards, and all the crap they fill the inside with.
You and me.. we would look at a stereo system and a TV, and decide to
take the TV, on sale, which was "good enough". They... would buy both,
the best ones their credit could get, and then go to church on Sunday to
be told, "Praise the Lord, you will be rewarded for buying it!" I don't
want to even think how many of the morons involved with this crash where
both either CEO or consumers **and** members of that crazy shit.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Because, you don't have to worry about people "refusing" money at their
> banks, because they don't trust you have the gold, don't like your hair
> cut, or think your too <insert race/religion here>.
Of course you do. See, for example, Iceland.
> With one single currency you don't get that BS.
That's why it's called the gold standard.
> And... Just to be clear, if all this
> regulation, and taxation, and money based on pure money stuff is so bad,
> why is it **only** the US, and countries filled with corrupt dictators,
> which are currently screwed in health care, cost of living,
> unemployment, etc.?
See Iceland for example.
> How the hell is not having anything you "can" exchange for it, just
> imaginary stuff, which you could "in theory" trade for it, then what the
> heck is the difference from the current form again?
I'm saying you don't actually have to lug the gold around. You just have
to have the money backed by gold you could actually get to if youwant.
> And, if people stop believing in gold, same thing.
Except that people have been believing in gold for like 5000 years or
so. Certainly since before the roman empire.
> Money is *not* gold,
> it has been, and always was, a bit of paper that said, "in theory, this
> will buy X". It doesn't matter if that is gold or rock, as long as
> someone things there is some value to rocks.
Right. That's fine. And that works. And when they stop believing, you're
f'ed. See Iceland, for example. Or Zimbabwe.
> Removing such a stupid standard means the value is
> based on what it really was in the first place, trust that you can spend
> it, and get something back, including, if you have enough, gold bars.
No. Removing the standard means it's based on trust that someone who
refuses to take your IOU will be shot. There has never been a
successful fiat currency that wasn't based on "you can pay your taxes
with it!"
> A lot really. Dumb and gullible people are happy to buy into anything
> that "promises" them something for nothing,
Including the government, printing money. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Because, you don't have to worry about people "refusing" money at their
> banks, because they don't trust you have the gold, don't like your hair
> cut, or think your too <insert race/religion here>.
Or, alternately, just what do you think a "run on the bank" actually
*is*, even *with* one currency?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> Removing such a stupid standard means the value is based on what it
>> really was in the first place, trust that you can spend it, and get
>> something back, including, if you have enough, gold bars.
>
> No. Removing the standard means it's based on trust that someone who
> refuses to take your IOU will be shot. There has never been a
> successful fiat currency that wasn't based on "you can pay your taxes
> with it!"
>
Again, I am not sure what your point is. Someone could use the "gold
standard", then ship all the gold to some other country, where it
basically ceases to exist, and until someone demanded to "see" the gold,
no one would have a clue anything had changed. Such a standard, as I
have tried to point out, is meaningless on its face, since you are still
trusting someone to "honestly" have what they claim is being used to
back it, no matter if its "You can pay your taxes with this slip of
paper.", or, "Someplace there are gold bars that this is valued to some
percentage of. Honest! Cross my heart!" The very idea that they *is* a
real difference between these in terms of how the money itself gets
used, and what ever trust is placed in it, is, I am sorry, but...
delusional.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> and until someone demanded to "see" the gold,
> no one would have a clue anything had changed.
Right. And with some 300 million people in the country, using gold to
transfer value between banks, shipping too much of the gold elsewhere
leads to you getting caught.
(This, basically, is exactly what FDR did when they set up the federal
reserve.)
> Such a standard, as I
> have tried to point out, is meaningless on its face, since you are still
> trusting someone to "honestly" have what they claim is being used to
> back it,
Yes. Except if it's the government doing it, you don't have to trust
them to honestly have what they claim. They can just say "No, we decided
to give away all your gold. Tough crap."
> The very idea that they *is* a
> real difference between these in terms of how the money itself gets
> used, and what ever trust is placed in it, is, I am sorry, but...
> delusional.
So you're happy taking corporate stocks as payment for your salary
instead of cash? The company you work for will pay you in corporate
stocks, but they won't buy them back from you for actual cash. Instead,
they just say "Trust us, the value is actually there." That works for you?
Cause it's the same thing.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> and until someone demanded to "see" the gold, no one would have a clue
>> anything had changed.
>
> Right. And with some 300 million people in the country, using gold to
> transfer value between banks, shipping too much of the gold elsewhere
> leads to you getting caught.
>
Actually... not likely. Shipping the stuff would be too risky, which is
another reason not even the banks probably *want* to have to do it.
Moving data is a lot less costly, harder to steal, and, well, you get
the point. Even back when there "was" a gold standard, we **still**
opted to keep it all safely locked in a central location, and just trade
slips of paper around, which specified who "owned" it.
> (This, basically, is exactly what FDR did when they set up the federal
> reserve.)
>
Yep. And, again, if you never move it, all you have is the "keepers"
promise that it still exists, and a bit of paper claiming you can come
and get it, if you need to.
>> Such a standard, as I have tried to point out, is meaningless on its
>> face, since you are still trusting someone to "honestly" have what
>> they claim is being used to back it,
>
> Yes. Except if it's the government doing it, you don't have to trust
> them to honestly have what they claim. They can just say "No, we decided
> to give away all your gold. Tough crap."
>
There is a quote, which dealt with dictatorships vs democracies, from
the Heinlein novels, which I think I will paraphrase and mangle a bit to
illustrate the futility of this idea:
Centralized banking = The presumption that who ever holds the "central"
depositor is honest, won't cheat, and no one can steal anything from
them. Oh, sure, that's going to work...
Private vaults = The presumption that 5,000 independent places won't
ever collude to steal, personally steal, cheat, get robbed, or otherwise
"lose" the valuable thing their entire solvency is supposed to be based
on. Come again?
>> The very idea that they *is* a real difference between these in terms
>> of how the money itself gets used, and what ever trust is placed in
>> it, is, I am sorry, but... delusional.
>
> So you're happy taking corporate stocks as payment for your salary
> instead of cash? The company you work for will pay you in corporate
> stocks, but they won't buy them back from you for actual cash. Instead,
> they just say "Trust us, the value is actually there." That works for you?
>
> Cause it's the same thing.
>
Umm. Cash can't "lose" value, but it also can't **gain** any either.
Yes, if things go bad, and you had $500 to start with, you might only
have $100, but if things go well, you might start with $500 and end up
with $5,000. If you opt for cash, you **only** get $500, and you might
as well just eat the money, because its going to be worth shit by the
time you actually need to use it to buy food. And, just to be clear,
even if I had $500 and it was still "worth" $500 when I retired, it
might be worth nothing the next day, for **precisely** the same reason
the stock would be, because the "backing" for it, no matter what that
"is", fell in a hole.
Or, to put it another way, it doesn't matter whether the "money" I have
says Franklin, or Starbuck's, if people don't want to take it, or value
it as what it says on the damn paper, both are ***just as worthless***.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Actually... not likely. Shipping the stuff would be too risky,
Um, have you looked at the logo for Wells Fargo lately?
> which is
> another reason not even the banks probably *want* to have to do it.
Of course not. And I don't want to have to pay my taxes, either.
> Moving data is a lot less costly, harder to steal,
Easier to steal.
> Even back when there "was" a gold standard, we **still**
> opted to keep it all safely locked in a central location, and just trade
> slips of paper around, which specified who "owned" it.
No, that's the point. It wasn't in a central location. It was in banks,
which were all indepdenent.
>> (This, basically, is exactly what FDR did when they set up the federal
>> reserve.)
>>
> Yep. And, again, if you never move it, all you have is the "keepers"
> promise that it still exists, and a bit of paper claiming you can come
> and get it, if you need to.
Except that each individual bank was independent. So if you wanted to
change banks, they *had* to give you the gold.
> Private vaults = The presumption that 5,000 independent places won't
> ever collude to steal, personally steal, cheat, get robbed, or otherwise
> "lose" the valuable thing their entire solvency is supposed to be based
> on. Come again?
Except that puts them out of business, so they have an incentive to
avoid it, just like companies nowadays have an incentive in general to
avoid having all their assets stolen at the cost of the stockholders.
>> Cause it's the same thing.
>>
> Umm. Cash can't "lose" value,
See Iceland. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it's happening,
right now, what you keep saying can't happen.
Plus, have you heard of "inflation"? See Zimbabwe.
> Or, to put it another way, it doesn't matter whether the "money" I have
> says Franklin, or Starbuck's, if people don't want to take it, or value
> it as what it says on the damn paper, both are ***just as worthless***.
Yep. That's just my point. Except people have been taking gold and
silver since like before the roman empire. You can dig up roman coins
and they're still worth a lot of money even if you melt them down into a
puddle.
Name me one fiat currency that has lasted over 1000 years and retained
its value, and I'll believe you when you say it works. The only reason
people value Franklins is because people will come with guns and beat
you up if you don't.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Because, you don't have to worry about people "refusing" money at their
> banks,
Have you tried to cash in a German Dutchmark lately?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>>> Cause it's the same thing.
>>>
>> Umm. Cash can't "lose" value,
>
> See Iceland. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it's happening,
> right now, what you keep saying can't happen.
>
> Plus, have you heard of "inflation"? See Zimbabwe.
>
Not the definition of "lose" I meant. What I meant was that it doesn't
rise or fall based on stock value. The key point being, while it gets
more worthless over time, in terms of general inflation, it will never
get **more** valuable **ever** (Well, unless people stop printing it at
all, and someone thinks its worth collecting, but you got a long damn
wait before that value goes "up" in that case. Some confederate money,
while "collectable" in theory, is worth less than what replaced it, even
now.).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Because, you don't have to worry about people "refusing" money at
>> their banks,
>
> Have you tried to cash in a German Dutchmark lately?
>
Why do you persist in ignoring the general sense I mean things, and
exaggerating your own point by, well, pointing out something so
pointless. Yeah, it would be worthless to try, but... guess what! No one
that has any of those is going to be able to *get* the gold, silver, or
what ever they where valued to anyway, so its meaningless to suggest
that "backing" currency with something the banks will simply refuse to
give back to you, if they stop printing/accepting the bills, means its
somehow "more" trustworthy than something backed by just a promise of
value. In the end, if the country collapsed, and they stop accepting
your money, its not going to matter if you have 500 pounds of gold, or
500 pounds of pocket lint in the bank, or just a bit of paper saying,
"You have $500 in the account", in the end, you still got jack when the
bank stops accepting the bit of paper its on. Why don't you get this?
It doesn't matter what is "behind" the money, because if they stop
accepting the money, no matter what is behind it, ****you****, at that
point, don't have anything anyway.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
