Originally posted by Nygdan
Originally posted by TheBorg
But being tied to something completely imaginary is a good thing how?
The religious seem to like it.
Good hit, and I must admit that as a religious man myself, I believe in something that cannot be proven or disproven. You may have a point here;
something I'll bear in mind.
Again, good point. You won't get many of those, heh.
I would have to thinkthat the answer is 'the stability that we do have'. I mean, even if it doesn't seem to make sense that this kind of currency
should be stable, its certainly been stable. THis 'agreed upon fiction' has resulted in the stability that we see today.
I suppose I can see what you mean with that, but my major concern with the credit system has more to do with the whole concept of interest, which is
why the credit system was invented in the first place; to make the use of the interest rate more simple.
It looks like the difference is that the money lie is extremely persuasive, and thats why it works. Sort of like 'modern ritual magic', people
understand that by saying a magic word, nothing actually happens, but they choose to suspsend disbeleif and create their own attachement to the
ritual, and through that it has its desired psychological effect. Here we've agreed that the money has value, and because we all agree, it
Agree here wholeheartedly. My beef isn't with the value of money so much as what it's based on. I think that having it based on a limited supply of
some tangible object is a MUCH better guage of our economic status than having it being based off of some intangible object like credit, which is just
a number somewhere, that those in power can fluctuate on a moment's notice to make our dollar worth more or less.
But my point is, what does it matter if the dollar is based on some tying into to an abstract concept like 'credit', or to an equaly abstract
concept like 'gold is worth something'? If it works, it works, no?
No, it doesn't work when you consider the core reason the credit system was made. As I'm to understand it, it was really designed to make it easier
for those loaning money out to be able to do so, since they couldn't meet the finacial demands of their constituents. They[the financiers] had to
devise a system where they could loan out more money than they actually had, only to demand more than they handed out in return. This way, they turned
over a profit on the merger. From here, you can see where the conspiracy can go. It's a place that I don't much like thinking about, yet I live in
the midst of it. We're a credit-based society, which effectively means that we're indebted for life. Almost reminds me of indentured servitude.
Here's a definition:
"An Indentured servant is an unfree labourer under contract to work (for a specified amount of time) for another person, often without any pay, but
in exchange for accommodation, food, other essentials and/or free passage to a new country. After working for a number of years they were free to farm
or take up trade of their own. ..."
Courtesy of en.wikipedia.org...
Now, tell me how close we are to that? It's not exactly what we are now, since we have many freedoms, and are relatively free to do as we choose, but
we are still limited in many financial ways, which is not unintentional, in my opinion.
And how is that 'worth' anything? Its 'value' is just another word for a measure of 'how much is currently available'. We have to agree that its
actually worth anything.
There's a measurable quantity of it though, and that's all that's really important.
I'm certainly not qualified to start a whole nother thread on the subject. I just don't see why it shoudl really matter if our money now is based on
credit. Money in the past was actual lumps of gold, with the emperor's profile stamped on it. I don't see how either is really 'rational or real'.
THey're all abstractions. And this modern abstraction seems like its working pretty well. Its open to manipulation and problems, but when money was
just a note entitling you to a mass of gold, there was manipulation and ruin also.
True, but to the scale that we see now? I understand that there's a lot more money now, but my point is that proportionately speaking here, we've
got to both admit that any system that leaves open doors for the powerful and wealthy to misuse it is not a good one, right? This is one such system,
no matter who it seems to be "helping". It's not made in everyone's best "interest"; only in the "interest" of those with the money.
Credit has value to people that want it. Gold has no value to people that don't want it. If there was a catastrophe in my town, and I needed to buy
some food and water, I'd have a hard time getting people to accept nuggets of gold in exchange. Because they don't know the purity, the mass, the
exchange rate on the market, etc. And they can't guarentee that they'd be able to sell the gold once the catastrophe is over for 'real money',
which they could use anywhere. But with dollars, I can buy anything.
Yes, if the government collapses, then dollars aren't worth much. But in a catastrophe like that, gold won't be worth anything either, who'd
exchange food and water for peices of dense yellow metal?
You're using an extreme case to illustrate a potential weakness to my argument. That's neither relevant nor important to the point. The point is
that gold will always have value, and I'd bet that you'd be hard pressed to find someone, anyone for that matter, even in the case of a major
catastrophe, that wouldn't
take gold as payment. In the event of a major catastrophe, American currency will amount to squat, while gold as a
precious metal, will still be used as currency. Why? Because everyone knows that it's valuable, while the paper that we carry around right now is
worth less than it's labeled to be.
Bear in mind also that gold has been traded for millenia all over this planet, so everyone
knows that it carries significant value.
But people can wreck the value of gold by purchasing it off the market, just like dollars. Some peopel have even attempted to do that. Or just look at
spain during its colonial era, they figured that they were better off having more gold in the home country, mercantalism. It resulted in there being
too much gold, its value plummeting, and their country going into near permanent collapse. Its only today even, with 'fake money', that they've
been able to pull themselves together.
So don't just use gold? Use other precious metals as well, such as silver, platinum, etc etc... It'd be the same as right now, but at least it's
value won't be dictated by someone, or some small group of people. It would have a "flat worth". In other words, it would be entirely based upon
how much was in circulation.
Its still a commodity. Its a metal that has potential value.
[edit on 15-11-2006 by Nygdan]
And that's why I think we need to be focusing on it as a primary basis for our economy, and not on some weak system of fake currency.
Again, Nygdan, you've accomplished what few have since I came here. You've managed to make me think REALLY hard. I got a small headache now. Thanks
for readin. If this keeps up, I smell a WATS in your future.
And thanks again for the brain exercise.
Anyone else wanna pitch in, feel free.
Edited for spelling error.
[edit on 18-11-2006 by TheBorg]