It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Peter Schiff Explains Quantitative Easing And Why You Are Screwed

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   


In our corrupt insane totally manipulated markets, bad is good, good is bad, and sanity is insanity.

The Fed is blowing up the dollar by stuffing the market full of totally fake money. I hope you got gold because you are about to get screwed to the maximum level possible.

Peter also details why he now has to deny service to the "little guy" investors out there because the criminal government has driven his operating cost through the roof.

All the regulations on investment operations have driven Peter's operating costs so high, he can no longer afford to service smaller clients with a limited amount to invest. They have to be big time investors in order for Peter to recoup the loses incurred by the regulatory overhead.

Regulations NEVER - EVER - help the little guy.

Regulations are always created by the mega-corporations to destroy small time players and rape people. They serve the singular purpose of cartelizing markets and driving out competition. Regulations protect no one.




posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
It's funny because i was watching this video while reading this thread, haha. Yah good points made in the video and this post regulation is mostly designed by larger corporations to destroy the smaller coporations with higher operating costs.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I like Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente and a few others...Wish we had a Congress full of men like these, we wouldn't be in this death spiral we're in now.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GammaRayBurst
 


I was hoping Peter Schiff would win the Republican nomination for Senate in CT but with McMahon's spending power and no one paying attention to the debates I knew it was a lost cause.

I wonder if Mrs. McMahon knows that Mr. Schiff was the better candidate? Probably not.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobbox1980
 


McMahon, what a joke of a candidate.

Sometimes when I see people like Peter lose to douche-bags like Linda, it makes me lose all hope for society.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You still have hope?
I'm just joking.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I've just got one question regarding the use of fiat currency and the apparent horror that it is: To all that wish to return to the gold standard, can anyone suggest a way to do it that does not massively inflate the price of gold to an absurd and astronomical level?

Currently, there is not enough gold in the world (or that has ever been mined in all of human history) to cover the United States Dollar alone, forget about every other currency and economy in the world that is just the US only.

The people calling for the return to the gold standard are by and large holders of great amounts of gold. They would see their personal fortunes multiply exponentially overnight, making them easily the richest people on earth.

This is not an issue of monetary policy in my mind but one of personal greed, if any commodity standard is to be instated to back the fiat currencies it has to be done in a way that does not create a group of people with the purchasing power of entire nations.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
I've just got one question regarding the use of fiat currency and the apparent horror that it is: To all that wish to return to the gold standard, can anyone suggest a way to do it that does not massively inflate the price of gold to an absurd and astronomical level?

Currently, there is not enough gold in the world (or that has ever been mined in all of human history) to cover the United States Dollar alone, forget about every other currency and economy in the world that is just the US only.

The people calling for the return to the gold standard are by and large holders of great amounts of gold. They would see their personal fortunes multiply exponentially overnight, making them easily the richest people on earth.

This is not an issue of monetary policy in my mind but one of personal greed, if any commodity standard is to be instated to back the fiat currencies it has to be done in a way that does not create a group of people with the purchasing power of entire nations.


The price of a dollar would be locked to a set weight of gold.

A simple revaluing would take place or calculated to the correct amount of gold/dollar to maintain current prices.

A dollar might be worth 1/2000th an oz of gold or something like that and then be locked to that ratio forever.

Before we went off the gold standard back at the end of the 1960's, I believe 1/38th an oz of gold to a dollar was the fixed rate.

Peter gave an interview today on Lew Rockwell.




edit on 29-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Either you absolutely do not understand economics at all or you are trying to bring about the end of civilization with your answer. The simple problem is that there is not enough gold in the world to back your currency.

If you revalue your currency, you have suddenly made everyone in the US unable to function. For example, let's say that the US can back 1% of the current dollars with gold, this means that everyone becomes poorer by a factor of 100. This means if you make $100,000 a year, you suddenly make what would be $1,000 a year. On top of this, unlike a hyper-inflation scenario, you cannot make up this difference because the economy itself has had to comparatively shrink. Your GDP is now 1/100 of what it was. This would place the US's GDP at under that of Somalia's.

This will destroy your nation instantly. You are an Anarchist, perhaps that is your intention. Well played Goldfinger, but perhaps I give you too much credit there.

As I recall in your perfect world Anarcho-Capitalist Utopia, your wife and children ended up feudal serfs in my lordship at the end of that thought-experiment.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Wait a sec man. I thought you were an Anarchist?

These dollars that would be 'set' to a portion of gold would have to be 'set' by some central authority, ie a State. In true Statelesness, no such entity would exist to 'set' anything, and private currencies would compete against eachother for widest voluntary use. (of course a private entity could offer gold backed currency at some fraction...) The effect would be a mode of exchange that favoured consumer preference, and I know my #1 preference would be next to zero inflation!

This seems oddly like an Atheist arguing for the most efficient and effective God.

Dont get me wrong, currency pegged to something tangible is far and away better than a fiat currency, but arent you proposing curing someones rectal cancer while leaving their brain tumour unchecked?

Baby steps I guess!



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The simple problem is that there is not enough gold in the world to back your currency.


Under a non-fiat system using currency and certificates backed by precious metals most of the world won't be using gold for their transactions.

They will be using silver in various smaller denominations and certificates.


* "Not enough gold" ... Implying people would only use gold lol....



Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Either you absolutely do not understand economics at all or you are trying to bring about the end of civilization with your answer.

Bold=mine



Implying Mnemeth1's post has the destructive capacity of a Weapon of Mass Destruction attack.....



I'm glad you aren't resorting to hyperbole.




edit on 29-9-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


Isnt the amount of USD in circulation vastly overinflated as it stands? Could not the value of said USDs contract by the same kind of ratios you site when overprinting and inflation actually kick in? How many trillions have been printed since 2008? Since 1913? Has not the USD lost roughly 95% of its value over the last hundred years? (even more catastrophic than your hypothetical numbers?) How much has the money supply expanded since it was decoupled from gold in the 70s? How far will 1 USD go now in relation to just 30 years ago?

Your argument for the stability of the fiat system actually proves itself wrong as the USD has already undergone catastophic devaluation. Sure, it was generational and thus almost unnoticed, but 50 years ago a single income could *own* a home outright, provide for multiple dependants and have extra cash left over to boot. Now 2 combined incomes struggle to make ends meet and almost always require credit and thus debt in order to survive. A long slide is set to fall off the cliff if the mathematics of debt to production is to be considered.

In short, worldwide, centrally controlled fiat currency is about to be revealed as the worthless paper that it truly is. A gold/silver backed currency may have prolonged the value of paper but government will always indebt itself no matter the medium, until the young and unborn can no longer bear the burden of the unwise spending of magical paper by the current generation and its sanctioned and evil ruling class. Now that may not be short, but your argument for apocolypse is unfolding right now and is allowed to accelerate by nitrogen cooled printing presses that have no backing in any material wealth and thus no limiting factor that could hold back an endless stream of worthless paper that might just destroy everything you and i have worked for.

Returning to a gold/silver backed currency at some ratio might slow the bleeding, but the only true solution is to allow us, the consumers, to decide what mode of exchange we prefer, be it barter (horribly inefficient), fiat (prone to overprinting), fractional, gold or whatever. Anything but the Communistic system of central economic planning that has got us in this disaster we face today.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 





Either you absolutely do not understand economics at all or you are trying to bring about the end of civilization with your answer. The simple problem is that there is not enough gold in the world to back your currency.


It is clearly you who does not understand economics. Let's take a look at some of your claims and address them realistically:




Currently, there is not enough gold in the world (or that has ever been mined in all of human history) to cover the United States Dollar alone, forget about every other currency and economy in the world that is just the US only.


This is a gross misrepresentation of a currency backed by wealth, and a gross and disgusting advocacy of fiat currency. Fiat currency has never worked in all of human history and it is fiat currency that is the source of much of the economic woes we face today. The only thing that keeps the U.S. dollar stable is that it is not purely fiat, and is instead tied into the price of oil, albeit oil not in reserves as much as that oil being sold on the market place, and those selling it are under contract to only sell it for U.S. dollars. No one can sell oil for Euro's or any other form of currency, and this is all that has kept the U.S. dollar from completely imploding. If the tie between oil and the U.S. dollar ever changes the dollar will most assuredly implode.

The problem with the U.S. dollar being tied to oil is that as that the value of the dollar is depreciating in spite of it being tied to oil. It is tied to oil, not backed by oil, and the dollar is depreciating because it is, for all intents and purposes, fiat currency and has nowhere to go but depreciation. This, in turn, artificially drives up the price of oil which affects everyone.

Under a fiat system of money the only thing that can give the currency value is its relative scarcity. Under a fiat money system there is no restraint on how much money can be printed and without that restraint relative scarcity is a pipe dream.

The unlimited printing of money is directly tied to the unlimited amount of credit creation, and while credit creation can cause an appearance of economic growth, it is merely an appearance, much like a magicians hat trick, it is misdirection that creates the appearance, and is not at all reflective of the truth. Markets will expand and contract on their own regardless of what sort of money system is in place, but under a fiat system, and one reliant on rapid credit creation, when a contraction occurs the pain felt by all is far more painful than it is under a currency backed by a commodity.

The losses incurred by a contraction under fiat currency and rapid credit creation are far greater than any expansion experienced by the credit that created this expansion, making the expansion pointless. One step up and five steps back is not progress. If fiat currency is created to deal with massive public debt, again this is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and it is, at best, a delay of defaulting on that debt, and all too often becomes an excuse to continue adding to that debt rather than do what is necessary to control the debt. Debt is, in every sense of the word, a form of slavery. The best choice is to avoid debt, but once in debt increasing that debt in order to deal with the debt is just plain stupid.

As to your ludicrous assertion that there is not enough gold to back the dollar, the O.P. all ready effectively explained how that works and you just ignored that and continued with your ludicrous argument as if continually repeating it, this will somehow make it a valid argument. However much gold Congress has in reserve to back the currency necessarily dictates how much money can be printed, assuming Congress were actually doing the printing as mandated them by Constitution instead of delegating it to a private organization such as The Federal Reserve. Of course, the Constitution fixed the price of gold to silver and in effect that is the very first regulation on the market created by the United States, so all ready there is a problem with backing that currency by gold, but that point is moot since the dollar is not currently backed by gold.




The people calling for the return to the gold standard are by and large holders of great amounts of gold. They would see their personal fortunes multiply exponentially overnight, making them easily the richest people on earth.


This is yet another ludicrous argument and anyone who owned great amounts of gold a decade ago have seen their personal fortunes rise astronomically in this last decade. In the past 10 years the price of gold has risen from $282 an ounce to $1300, making your claim a moot point. There are three basic factors that affect the price of gold, and they are; market conditions, demand, and market fundamentals. Any time the dollar decreases in value, under a fiat currency, the price of gold will go up. Conversely as the strength of the dollar increases the price of gold will go down. Failing economies are good for those who own vast amounts of gold and they have no incentive to see the economy do better. Fiat money and an unlimited printing of money is not good for failing economies and only contributes to a weaker dollar value thereby increasing the price of gold.




This is not an issue of monetary policy in my mind but one of personal greed, if any commodity standard is to be instated to back the fiat currencies it has to be done in a way that does not create a group of people with the purchasing power of entire nations.


Again another ludicrous assertion. First of all greed is a constant regardless of what sort of currency is in place. Greed is not abolished by fiat currency, quite the opposite it facilitates the greed of banking institutions and the government allied with those banks. Secondly, it is the practice of fractional reserve banking that would cause an increase in gold prices if the U.S. were to change its monetary policy to a gold standard. The only supposed good that comes from fractional reserve banking is that it facilitates lending, and of course, it is lending, and more specifically borrowing, that has led to the U.S.'s near $14 trillion dollar debt. Fractional reserve banking is good for banks as lending institutions but is not at all necessary to a thriving economy. In fact, it is uncontrolled lending that in many ways spawned this most recent financial crisis. Of course, there is always the reality of gold availability, and when the mining of gold creates an abundance the prices will drop, and when it is scarce, the prices will rise, but this is a market condition and has nothing to do with monetary policy.




If you revalue your currency, you have suddenly made everyone in the US unable to function. For example, let's say that the US can back 1% of the current dollars with gold, this means that everyone becomes poorer by a factor of 100.


It is not the amount of money that defines wealth it is the amount of wealth that defines money. Money, when it is referred to as a description of paper and cheaply minted coins, is not wealth and the dollar, in its present state, is nothing more than a promissory note with no obligation to honor the promise. There was a time when a dollar could be redeemed for its value in gold or silver, but no longer. Today the dollar functions as if it were wealth, but in reality it is only wealth as long as the value of the dollar is robust. A weakened dollar ensures an erosion of wealth. If monetary policy is to rely upon fiat currency, and if that currency is to have any meaning at all, it is imperative that that availability of that money remains scarce. Otherwise the currency will weaken and no amount of printing more will fix it, and only make the problem worse.




On top of this, unlike a hyper-inflation scenario, you cannot make up this difference because the economy itself has had to comparatively shrink. Your GDP is now 1/100 of what it was. This would place the US's GDP at under that of Somalia's.


Let's be clear here; hyperinflation is caused mainly by the rapid increase in the amount of money that exists and DGP stands for Gross Domestic Product not Gross Domestic Prices. A decrease in the money supply will necessarily drive the prices of products down but will not necessarily affect the out put of those products. The output of products is directly tied to that products demand regardless of what price it sells at. Inflation is not an economic goal to aspire to unless one is greedy and hopes to benefit by the negative effects of inflation. While inflation can have both positive and negative effects, the negative effects of inflation are that it decreases the real value of money, and uncertainty over inflation can discourage investment and savings. The positive effects are not at all balanced by the negative effects, other than a steady rate of inflation tends to mitigate the effects of an economic recession, but as evidenced by the most recent recession, steady inflation does nothing to halt economic recessions.

Inflation and recession are market inevitability's and while it is understandable why recessions are periods most people would like to avoid, this does not change the reality of their inevitability. The greatest economic problem most people face today, at least in the U.S., and many other nations, is that those people have less money to spend than they once had and are spending more for less. The most recent recession created a market contraction in investment, and a rise in unemployment. While most economists today tend to favor a slow steady rate of inflation, this most recent recession did little to drive prices down in many areas of the market causing this problem where too many people are spending more for less while they have less and less to spend.

The high rise in unemployment is a major source of recessions as more people unemployed means more people spending less money. However, often times during high levels of unemployment, some of those unemployed abandon the idea of employment and instead make a stake in their own business which in turn helps ease the high level of unemployment as those who succeed will find a need for employees, but since the Federal Reserve has now spent decades suppressing the interest rate while encouraging a steady rate of inflation, all this has achieved is the current state of consumerism we now exist in. The idea of saving money became a losing situation as whatever interest earned on savings was defeated by the rate of inflation. Thus, fewer people saved money, and even now, even if people wanted to create their own business, far less have the necessary savings to do so, and lending institutions are not so keen on granting loans in order to facilitate new business ventures.

This phenomenon is what is currently hurting the GDP, and backing currency with a commodity such as gold will not hurt the GDP, and will most likely help it. Most likely help it because a sound strong dollar is necessary to bolster GDP in terms of actual product output. I say most likely because a strong currency is not necessarily a good thing if the nation that has this currency is export dependent.

GDP is often alternately referred to as GDI, (Gross Domestic Income), and this fact reveals one of the greatest problems with how GDP's, and especially GDI's are measured. Equating the output of product to the standard of living is a dubious accounting method that has increasingly, and rightfully so, come under much criticism. Determining the GDP by income or expenditure is an indirect measurement, and indirect measurements should only be used when a direct measurement is not possible. A direct measurement of the GDP is wholly possible and that direct measurement is the product, (output) approach. When a nation relies upon indirect measurement, especially when direct measurement is possible, the chances of an illegitimate manipulation of unbounded operators becomes too great. Why take that chance when direct measurement is possible?

The United States has a population of more than 300 million and is growing fast and is by no means a nation that is export dependent. While U.S. exports have decreased in recent times, and this decrease does effect the economy, it would be far worse if the U.S. was actually export dependent for its economy. Even so, the U.S. still remains one of the leading exporters, particularly in agriculture, even though exports have dropped in that market. Since the U.S. is not export dependent there is no good reason to keep the strength of the dollar suppressed. For the U.S. a strong dollar means a strong economy. That is the reality, and the sad reality is that the U.S. dollar is not strong at the moment and is decreasing in value dramatically.

Backing the dollar with a commodity is a sound and viable strategy towards strengthening that dollar. If this means defaulting on loans, then perhaps this what should be done, particularly if defaulting on those loans is a direct response to creditors calling in those loans just to reap the benefit of a changed monetary policy to the gold standard. Of the near $14 trillion dollar debt that the U.S. currently holds, $9 trillion of that is to creditors. The remaining $4.5 trillion is largely owed to trust funds such as Social Security and Medicare. If the U.S. changed its currency to a gold standard, and creditors called in their loans demanding that gold, then a default would no doubt be the inevitable outcome. Such an outcome can lead to such a catastrophic event it could very well destroy the entire worlds economy. Is it truly in the best interest of creditors to call in those loans just to have the gold the U.S. used to back its currency? Is this the only possible outcome of such a change in monetary policy or would reasonable minds prevail?

Surely a gold standard would greatly reduce the amount of money that could be printed, and given that the interest rates on the national debt are huge, a necessary reduction in interest rates is the most reasonable answer, not calling in the loans just to facilitate high interest rates for creditors. If creditors are less interested in seeing their loans paid off because they profit more from increased interest rates what does this tell you about the ethics of those creditors? The creditors of the U.S. should be interested in seeing the debt owed to them paid off. At the moment such an option is not possible, but strengthen the dollar and building a stronger national economy by adopting a gold standard is not only possible, it is probable. That probability leads to a greater probability of paying off the debt instead of perpetually paying the interest on that debt.

With the current debt load the U.S. holds, and the out of control deficit spending Congress engages in, money printing is just not the answer. It doesn't take an economist to understand that this current fiat monetary system is only fueling deficit spending and increasing the debt, and this fundamental understanding is scaring the crap out of investors, in turn fueling the economic downturn. A reasonable and sound strategy must be made to deal with this problem. If the ability to print as much money as Congress wants is actually fueling the deficit spending, then an obvious answer to that is to take away that ability to print money based upon whimsy. Reigning in deficit spending is a sound economic strategy and one that should only make creditors happy, not foolishly greedy. In fact, Congress, or in reality The Federal Reserves ability to print as much money as they as they choose, only increases the risk of horrendous inflation and mal-investment. This is not a characteristic that sane and ethical creditors find attractive.

Decreasing the debt, not increasing it, is the only sound strategy, and ultimately eliminating the national debt is the optimal strategy for a sound economy. Since the world economy is inextricably tied to the U.S. national debt, it is in the best interest of the world that the U.S. pay off that debt as quickly as reasonably possible. The only possible way changing monetary policy to a gold standard could lead to a default on the U.S. debt is by creditors calling in those debts and demanding the gold used to strengthen the dollar. Such an act would be a threat to the entire world, and as such, an act of war. An offensive attack on the worlds economy solely to satisfy the greed of a limited few. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a sound strategy and only insane creditors would make such a move. If the U.S. is indeed indebted to insane creditors what does that say about U.S. governance, and ultimately the U.S. populace?

The threat that creditors would call in their loans if the U.S. changed its monetary policy to a gold standard is just that; a threat, and not even a threat being made by the creditors of the U.S., but instead a threat being made by people such as you, which leads to a simple question; What do you have to gain by the U.S. maintaining a fiat currency, and if the answer is nothing, then what do you care if the monetary policy is changed, especially if that policy results in a stronger U.S. economy? While you make this statement regarding the O.P.:




This will destroy your nation instantly. You are an Anarchist, perhaps that is your intention. Well played Goldfinger, but perhaps I give you too much credit there.


The truth is that if the U.S. continues to do business as usual, that being printing as much money as it wants based solely upon whimsy, the U.S. will most assuredly destroy itself, and you are not at all offering any other strategy than doing business as usual, so while your obvious fear anarchy fuels your attack on the O.P., your own strategy of non confront on deficit spending and increasing national debt is the much greater threat to the U.S. than the O.P.'s ideological belief in anarchy.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
OP, I am going to try and find a video I posted earlier. It was a conference of bankers in Russia going over the inevitable problem with the US's imminent inflationary move.

I posted it in one of my threads and I cannot seem to find it right now. I will be back later to post it.

It is a great breakdown of the problem of central banks and the creation of fiat currency. It explains why fiat currencies only have a shelf life of about 50 years. Which is what we are at now. Right on the cusp of it's failure.

Basically, when using fiat currency and fractional reserve banking, without a corresponding growth model, there is no way to keep up with it. It is the exponential growth in debt which cannot be contained by the growth. Impossible.
I hope I can find the vid.

But, the resulting problem can be showed in other data. Such as this-



This is from my thread on an article at zero hedge-Guest Post: Understanding The National Debt (Sesame Street Edition)


And JPZ, helluva breakdown.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The most absurd statements in this thread have so far been the massive reaches in logic taken to refute any re-attachment to a gold standard JPZ, not my factual and irrefutable statement that there is only a fraction of the gold that would be needed to back the US Dollar. In responding to you, I will not make any logical leaps which will allow me to refrain from crushing amounts of text and answer your points concisely.

That said, I do agree with you that the lowering of debt by the United States is in fact needed to assure the continued prosperity of your nation. You are however, completely incorrect in your asserting that every fiat currency has failed. Instead every fiat currency with a market-oriented and sane central planning agency has survived. None have failed when done properly, none.

Finally, to the heart of your attack, (and where I think the true issue with you stands,) I only fear Anarcho-Capitalism in so far as I fear any other system that I believe to be wholly unsound and hurtful to the people of a nation. I would have the same level of vitriol for say Stalinism, Maoism, Fascism or any other form of dictatorship as well, despite them being the complete opposite of what is being suggested. These are in my humble opinion, very bad ideas, dangerous to any that come under their control and hurtful to humanity in general in anything but an academic discussion.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


I'm not the one who doesn't understand economics here.

It takes very little "money" to have a functioning economy. If the money supply is constrained, prices will adjust downward to meet the supply of money.

The dollar could be locked to a fraction of a gold ounce with a ratio that does not adjust current price levels at all.

The notion that there isn't enough gold in the world is ridiculous.

Further, the two systems do not have to instantaneously replace each other. The simplest way to implement the gold standard again is to simply allow private mints to issue currency once again.

Because private mint currency would be backed by gold, while dollars would not be, people would naturally begin using the private currencies instead of dollars. This has been the case throughout history and was the case with the Liberty Dollar before the feds shut them down.





edit on 29-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Getting back on a bullion standard does not require any catastrophic tinkering. All you have to do is repeal legal tender laws. Then worthless paper money will fade away in time.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 





The most absurd statements in this thread have so far been the massive reaches in logic taken to refute any re-attachment to a gold standard JPZ, not my factual and irrefutable statement that there is only a fraction of the gold that would be needed to back the US Dollar. In responding to you, I will not make any logical leaps which will allow me to refrain from crushing amounts of text and answer your points concisely.


Right. You will make the claim that I have made leaps of logic, but then refuse to point to these supposed leaps of logic, instead claiming your own statement is "factual and irrefutable", without supplying any evidence to support its factual basis, and certainly not supplying any largument that would support your claim that it is "irrefutable". Simply declaring something a fact and irrefutable does not make it a fact, nor irrefutable. The only claim you can make to support your contention that I have made leaps of logic is that I made a large textual reply, and your own "factual and irrefutable" claims are so because your reply is "concise", which obviously to you means brief, instead of its actual definition, which would be expressing much in as few words as possible.




You are however, completely incorrect in your asserting that every fiat currency has failed. Instead every fiat currency with a market-oriented and sane central planning agency has survived. None have failed when done properly, none.


This is a perfect example of your failure at making a concise argument. While you used few words, you have also said very little and have only made an unsupported claim. What fiat currencies are you referring to? Where are the examples of fiat currencies surviving any real length of time? Fiat currency can survive as short term policy, but will not survive in long term strategy. History time and time again has shown this, whether it be Rome with their Denarius, China with their "flying money", France with their Livres, Assignats, and Francs, or Wiemar Germany and their woeful Marc, fiat currency has failed.

More recently history shows the same thing with examples in 1932 where Argentina saw its economy, at the time being the 8th largest in the world, collapse because of fiat currency. In 1992 shock waves spread through Europe after Finland, Italy, and Norway all had their fiat money collapse. In 1994 Mexico suffered their "Tequila Hangover", and again it was fiat currency that was the problem. In 1997 the Baht in Thailand plummeted because of over printing and this collapse affected Hong Kong, South Korea, the Philippines and Malaysia. In 1998 Russia suffered a devastating recession brought on by the devaluation of the Ruble which was yet again fiat currency. In this most recent century Turkey has seen hyperinflation similar to that of Wiemar Germany because their Lira is fiat currency. Zimbabwe was once the wealthiest nation in Africa but now is merely a broken shadow of that under Mugabe's price controls and their hyperinflation brought on by fiat currency.

These are all very real historical examples of failed monetary policies tied to fiat currency, and as such are facts and irrefutable. Where are your examples that would support your claims you capriciously call "facts and irrefutable"?




Finally, to the heart of your attack, (and where I think the true issue with you stands,) I only fear Anarcho-Capitalism in so far as I fear any other system that I believe to be wholly unsound and hurtful to the people of a nation.


Sigh. Blah, blah, blah. All you can do is make bold claims and hope they sound noble and erudite, but you do not support your claims with any evidence, you just make the claims, somehow believing this is all that need be done in order to earn a persons trust in your words. They are empty words, nothing more.



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

I would have the same level of vitriol for say Stalinism, Maoism, Fascism or any other form of dictatorship as well,


Then why pray tell do you advocate a powerful centralized state, in which all examples of powerful centralized states in history has shown to turn towards dictatorship?



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Okay, I just have to say Jimmy, the sorriest excuse for proof I have ever heard.

Fiat currencies have never failed when done properly.

What a bunch of malarkey. Since there has been NUMEROUS failed fiat currencies, your argument then is that they were not run properly.

Talk about a fallacy.

What do you think WILL happen when oil begins to be traded in anything but US Dollars?

Think about this, who has threatened to sell their oil supplies in other than US Dollars?

That may actually answer the questions on WHY are military is where they are. QUITE the simple answer to EVERYTHING!

The US does not want control of the oil, they just wanted it traded ONLY in US Dollars. Period.


edit on 29-9-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: add it to sentence



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join