PDA

View Full Version : Getting tired of hearing...



My Pants Are Cold
26th November 2008, 02:52
the phrase "uncertain economic times". When the **** have we ever had CERTAIN economic times? Good lord buzz words and phrases are annoying.

Trvlr45
26th November 2008, 06:38
As long as we have an un-constitutional Federal Reserve Bank and an un-constitutional IRS we will NEVER have a stable economy.

My Pants Are Cold
26th November 2008, 15:58
As long as we have an un-constitutional Federal Reserve Bank and an un-constitutional IRS we will NEVER have a stable economy.

LOL .

Longhaul
29th November 2008, 14:47
The phrase "better than expected earnings...etc." is also a laugh. Compared to what I have to ask.

Ardent Listener
29th November 2008, 20:02
Getting tired of hearing... $100 dollar per ounce silver soon. Let's break $50.00 again... even in today's dollars, before we talk about $100.00 or $250.00 dollar silver.

cugir321
29th November 2008, 20:57
What scares me is that I've got a bunch of silver and nobody will want it or be able to afford it.

Richard
30th November 2008, 11:45
[Getting tired of hearing] the phrase "uncertain economic times". When the **** have we ever had CERTAIN economic times? Good lord buzz words and phrases are annoying.

Of course never, but under the gold standard things were certainly more stable because all people had to worry about was whatever nature could throw at them. Which is stability, not certainty, but that goes a long way towards building more certainty!

Anyway, I agree... Buzz words are stupid! The buzz phrase that bothers me to no end is...

"Our Consumerist Way of Life is causing the Economic Crisis"

Yeah, okay... why not just ignore everything economics 101 knows about itself and nevermind the fact that COMMUNISM is mispelled?! After all, it's only defying all logic and sanity and logic and sanity never were any fun were they?

DAMN RIGHT THEY NEVER WERE!, and if you utter the sound-bite prepared attack on modern life you not only have much more fun, but you also look like you have more brains and balls in criticizing people for their sin of spending! Under that kind of determined evasion and hyper-encouragement, Keynes was a genius and if all you evil, programmed robot consumers out there would just save your money that comes from the infinite money supply to render that action moot, you'd cut your evil spending to the point where it would limbo underneath a rug nailed to the floor as you went bankrupt ANYWAY!

Yep. All wrapped up in easy-to-understand buzz-words, you miss all those wonderful details that you need not ponder!

buff
12th December 2008, 15:40
As long as we have an un-constitutional Federal Reserve Bank and an un-constitutional IRS we will NEVER have a stable economy.

May I ask what part of the constitution the Reserve Bank is violating?

buff
12th December 2008, 15:43
The phrase "better than expected earnings...etc." is also a laugh. Comared to what I have to ask.

Perhaps it is compared to "less than expected earnings."

buff
12th December 2008, 15:44
Getting tired of hearing... $100 dollar per ounce silver soon. Let's break $50.00 again... even in today's dollars, before we talk about $100.00 or $250.00 dollar silver.

I appears the reality is less than $10 per ounce.

buff
12th December 2008, 15:49
under the gold standard things were certainly more stable because all people had to worry about was whatever nature could throw at them.

We were under the gold standard during the entire depression. How stable was that?

Richard
13th December 2008, 07:52
We were under the gold standard during the entire depression. How stable was that?

Obviously not very stable at all, but we weren't REALLY on a gold standard for most of the depression because FDR illegalized private gold ownership in 1933. And that's really the most important thing... if you can't redeem paper for gold, then there is no gold standard!

Even if people could have redeemed for gold, that FDR devalued the dollar vs gold would have kept many from being able to do so. And in reality, he devalued well-past what the 35 per ounce suggested; gold would have been short and so some would've been defaulted on or the glut of money would have contracted at some point so that buying back gold would have been impossible for many people. So legality aside, this was not a standard because it would have become a gamble and ultimately a swindle. Thus it was made illegal, to prevent that default from ever happening.

But gold was still used to settle international debt after the war. However, it's downfall was that it remained fixed at FDR's 35/oz, and it wasn't measuring money supply. In 1971 more gold was demanded than the US had, which caused Nixon to end the Bretton Woods agreement. The entire time, there was no real standard because the exchange rate didn't reflect money supply and that caused the system to default.

So a gold standard is not merely defined by a dollar to gold price. Nor is it the mere ability to switch dollars for gold. Rates need to be a reflection of the supply of metal to that of paper and they must exchange without restrictions or default. Prior to the world wars, the system worked and provided that stability.



May I ask what part of the constitution the Reserve Bank is violating?

Article 1, section 8 says that the government is to coin the money of the realm.

Fed notes aren't government issue, because they're not a branch of the government, so people say. I contend otherwise, though. The Fed Act was signed into existence by the government. Therefore, it's their pet monster. However, given how it works I'd say there's plenty of other Constitutional violations to bust them on. That is why the founders revolted in the first place, because the king and the BoE were making the colonists shoulder the burden of the debt.

SilverThor
13th December 2008, 13:17
I appears the reality is less than $10 per ounce.

$50 an ounce?? $50 an ounce?? Let's see it hit $15 an ounce first! :p

buff
13th December 2008, 22:23
[QUOTE=Richard;26103]Obviously not very stable at all, but we weren't REALLY on a gold standard for most of the depression because FDR illegalized private gold ownership in 1933. [QUOTE]

We were on the gold standard the entire depression. It is a fact.

buff
13th December 2008, 22:31
Article 1, section 8 says that the government is to coin the money of the realm.

You are all screwed up about the Federal Reserve being unconstitutional. The federal notes are printed by the treasury department. The treasury department is a part of the federal government. The treasury department controls the issue of the notes.

Richard
14th December 2008, 01:02
We were on the gold standard the entire depression. It is a fact.

If it doesn't redeem for gold, by law or by default, it can not in fact be a gold standard no matter how much one wants it to be.

If I tell you my neighbors house is for sale for any price, and you try to buy the house but can't because it's not really for sale... is the house still for sale because I keep insisting that it is?


You are all screwed up about the Federal Reserve being unconstitutional. The federal notes are printed by the treasury department. The treasury department is a part of the federal government. The treasury department controls the issue of the notes.

No, they're Federal RESERVE notes, not just federal notes. Besides, I never did say the Fed was unconstitutional PER SE...

"Fed notes aren't government issue, because they're not a branch of the government, SO PEOPLE SAY. I CONTEND OTHERWISE, though."

I'm fairly aware of how it all works. The Fed doesn't PRINT the money, but they do act as a medium in CREATING it. Ultimately the money becomes a Federal Reserve note endorsed by the Treasury (or vice versa... not sure which and quite frankly I don't care because it's not a sound currency).

buff
14th December 2008, 19:33
If it doesn't redeem for gold, by law or by default, it can not in fact be a gold standard no matter how much one wants it to be.

Ok, create your own reality. I guess you can make up your own definition of "the gold standard."

No, they're Federal RESERVE notes, not just federal notes. Besides, I never did say the Fed was unconstitutional PER SE...

I do not understand this PER SE logic or saying one thing and meaning another

"Fed notes aren't government issue, because they're not a branch of the government, SO PEOPLE SAY. I CONTEND OTHERWISE, though."

OH GOD, could you just give it a rest and admit that you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground.

I'm fairly aware of how it all works. The Fed doesn't PRINT the money, but they do act as a medium in CREATING it. Ultimately the money becomes a Federal Reserve note endorsed by the Treasury (or vice versa... not sure which and quite frankly I don't care because it's not a sound currency).

You are not fairly aware of how it all works. In fact, you have no friggin idea.

Richard
14th December 2008, 23:23
You are not fairly aware of how it all works. In fact, you have no friggin idea.

:rolleyes: This coming from a person who can't even correctly post, putting your comments in the quote section as you did.

Anyway, the common argument of the Fed's unconstitutionality is that they're a private corporation that issues money and therefore, government is violating the constitution, because it's not government issuing the money as per the constitution.

I disagree with that common argument and made this abundantly clear, but didn't have much chance to clarify that I agreed with you that the Treasury creates the money, because your dim-wittedness and growing irritance forbid it.

So I'm done with you because not only can you not read, you also aren't interested in a genuine discussion. I chose to take the time to answer your inane, simplistic questions and remained civil throughout. All you've done is become increasingly the ass.

So for the record, to the general reader I will post my understanding of this off-topic issue...

The original intent of the Fed was to help banks in troubled times by providing liquidable assests. That assest was a currency that could expand or contract as was thought needed and the only way to get that is through affecting bond values, which is to say interest rates, ultimately. That is where the Fed comes in... they basically buy them, as a reserve, and hold or sell them as needed in order to stabilize the financial sector. That in turn affects the interest signaling and in THEORY stablizes the problem(s).

Financing goes like this...

Low interest at the bank is a signal that they have enough money, while a high interest rate is a signal for people to make deposits. Central banking opperates on the same principle, except it's between banks. When the central bank needs more deposits for it's reserves, it raises interest and lowers them when it does not so that banks deposit or withdraw accordingly.

This would work, except that money supply is now zero-limit paper. With gold and silver gone, there are no limits. All is then rendered moot.

Murray Rothbard blammed fractional reserve banking, but he would only be right to the extent that FR limits were over-printed, not correct that money is printed for FR banking in their limits. He then proceeded to "fix" the problem in his model by stating that a 100% reserve, in gold and silver, was in order. But that would create a permanent flat-lining of the economy. Interest would never be able to move, and so either the banks would wind up with immobile deposits or people without credit because interest rates would be zero to forbid it's creation.

Some blame interest for the over-printing of money, arguing that money supply is not enough to pay back loans plus the interest attatched to them. This is error, of course, because the idea assumes that interest is static and... that interest is something we pay. But as money is deposited or withdrawn, it changes. Interest is just a signal, not something we actually pay.

So where this leaves us is that in the absence of limits, the Treasury is pretty much free to do whatever it wants. It can bankrupt the private OR public sector at will. We're seeing this today as the Treasury purchases the assets from the companies that their crimes have "troubled"... with yet more limitless money.

It could not do this without the Fed to emit a centralized, distorted signal though. The Fed doesn't controll MONEY supply. It controlls FLOW of it between itself and the commerical banks. It is the Treasury that controlls money supply. And when the Treasury prints money for the Fed, it signals lowering interest and banks withdraw from the reserve. In turn, they lower their request for depsosits because they now have plenty of money. People withdraw from their banks.

When a government wants to become big government, they can raise taxes but that is unpopular, for one. For two, or perhaps just an extension, they raise interest because quite naturally as people are taxed more they save progressively less. Thus interest would remain permanently high in the face of tyrannical levels of taxation. That is the point of false signaling. By printing, they destroy the demand for money to keep interest low while at the same time allowing taxation to not rise. This hides the invasiveness of big government, the cost the founders said we would not want to pay.

Quite simply, the Treasury is counterfeiting it's way into totalitarian dominance, to the obliteration of the private sector and the eventual destruction of government itself.

The fact that the Treasury can distort interest signals means the government is buying up what it never had the money to afford. It also means enterprise is increasingly seeing itself as bankrupt. Assets are not trusted, boom and busts come and go with increasing frequency and intensity. It is not stability, and so as they freeze, government must take them over to run them to see to it that people have a chance of survival. But since they're "bankrupt" by false signals, the government holding them will at some point collapse too.

Wheather the Constitution forbids it or not...

Sorry, folks, but it really DOESN'T. It's a big kick in the nuts, but the fact is is that the government is still providing the money and the federal reserve doesn't actually create it. One can argue that the constitution states that they are to issue COIN, but it doesn't strictly say what that means... it only says that government is to provide it at whatever weight and purity standards they deem fitting. In all truth, they aren't violating that rule with a metal-less system, as they have the Constitutional power to devalue as they see fit.... we have a 0% gold and 0% silver money, and whatever the composition of the paper is!

Yet at the same time, that is the very reason that the founders fought to be free of the king of England's bank and the endless debt it was shouldering them with. In this regard, I consider it a violation of the Declaration of Indepence, a violation of liberty itself.

So there is contradiction between the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. That has to change. When governments are left with the power to issue money without enough restrictions, they will do what they have always done throughout history: they will devalue it to empower themselves. Even gold standards are not a safe bet, because they can chose to debase or even forbid them.

What is needed is a change to the Constitution that specifies a money and it's weight and purity. This was never done. Everything on the matter has always been various acts, because the founders never really settled on anything. It's an up-in-the-air issue, literally. Barring that, the private sector should be allowed to handle the issue of money itself, while the government merely enforces those contracts through the courts.

The latter, however, would lead to troubles for the government to provide those courts so ultimately a standard will have to evolve. So a money must become specified in the Constitution at some point, to signify that the government is willing to support law and order over lawlessness.

Until that time, we're at the mercy of chaos.

Bigheadt
15th December 2008, 14:01
Please don't feed the trolls.

Richard
15th December 2008, 22:14
Please don't feed the trolls.

Oh, but he looked so cold and hungry! lol

Yeah, I did some archiving on buff and I see I'm not the only one to have had a run-in with him/it.

Me:" Well, if there was too little or no gold, it couldn't have been a gold standard"

Him: (picking his ass then his nose)

Me: Uh...

Him: You're an idiot! The gold standard was a FACT! (eats booger)

buff
16th December 2008, 12:50
If you guys had any money or brains you would not get your economics from mad magazine.

Bigheadt
16th December 2008, 16:16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)