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.

 

Paul's Last Attempt To Save The Dollar (video)

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   


The video is a full hour, but the 5 minute opening statement is worth a listen.

Something does need to be done, but at a global level..
Is this possible? Absoultely. Us humans can do anything we put our minds too..
BUT as of right now, US has to first.




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
When the dollar falls flat out and the economy is completely dead people will be like what happened what could we have don't to change this? Maybe just maybe you should have just listened to crazy old uncle Paul.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Great find. Watching now. I'm glad to see this subject of parallel currencies if being discussed in such depth. The Federal Reserve must be truly pissed with how far Ron Paul has taken this.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN

 


I like the opening statement. Never thought of the idea of having competing money systems like the world is having since the dawn of days, on a smaller scale also. Why no competing systems in a country that calls itself capitalistic? That way when one coin collapses, the healthier one can take over.

Good thought provoking question.

I call your God-dime!



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by D.Wolf
 



Why no competing systems in a country that calls itself capitalistic?
Because the Federal Reserve has been given a monopoly on legal tender money creation. They are the only entity given the necessary permission to produce legal tender for use inside the United States economy (US Dollars). It's the whole central banking scam, they snatch up the rights to print the Governments money and then they force our Governments to pay a usury fee on that money. Every single Federal Reserve note represents a debt to the Fed, and that debt is constantly generating interest. Now if you realize that all money comes from the Federal Reserve, since they are the only entity allowed to create money, you realize that if the United States was to pay back all of that debt, there wouldn't be a single dollar left in circulation, and in fact the extra interest would leave the US still in debt. The Federal Reserve also has full unaccountable power to provide near zero-interest loans to private companies and partner banks, and even foreign entities. Which they have done, to the tune of over $16 trillion dollars, as revealed in a limited audit which took place several months ago. Central banks are nothing but soul sucking monsters who hold our nations hostage and rob us blind.
edit on 5/8/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
There is one thing that I need to understand.
Keep in mind that I admire Ron Pauls integrity.
But what if its too late.
What happen if the fed is audited and we find out everything is wrong or simply empty?
What happens next?
There's a good chance we actually see a collapse following a full audit, don't you think?
Will I need to buy a horse?

He might have all the good intentions in the world but he might be a part of the equation, he might be a catalyst in this mess. We are not talking about a bunch of happy camper, ask the Kennedys. Gaming theory oblige, They are always a few turns ahead, we must consider.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by eagleeye2
 



What happen if the fed is audited and we find out everything is wrong or simply empty?
What happens next?
There's a good chance we actually see a collapse following a full audit, don't you think?

And let me ask you a question. Is it better to reveal the truth or to enable the truth to be hidden away and left to fester in order to hide deep economic problems and live based on a lie?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Watch out for Ron Paul. He heavily supports a gold ONLY standard. Gold can make a good investment, but should not be the basis of our currency. The US didn't have just a gold standard. It had a silver AND gold standard. A gold standard has its own problems that silver/gold standard can solve. I think Paul confuses the two sometimes, but they are not the same.

One is that gold can be hoarded by the rich where only they have the gold. The rich would just love a gold standard. Trust me. Hoarding all the silver though would be more difficult. But that system isn't perfect either.

The problem is we can't print more gold or silver as needed. I know people think printing money is a bad thing, but 99% of the time it's a good thing.

Imagine you're in a depression where there's no money. But you have goods ready to be used. What do you do? You can't print more gold. The rich have it all hoarded in their vaults. Do you just let the goods rot away? That would be stupid.

See, it's not the money that has value. It's the goods. if people are willing to work and people are willing to buy then what's the problem? Just print the money and keep the economy going. Now wait a minute, that can't work right? You can't just print money like that can you? Well actually you can.

All the wealth is actually in the resources like labor, lumber, oil, and so forth, not the money. As long as you have labor and resources to trade then you're not broke! You just need a way to exchange your resources for other resources.

For example if I sell lumber. I don't want to starve because nobody has any money. That's stupid. People still have resources I could use like food, oil, or labor and those same people could use my lumber. So why has the work stopped? I have lumber to trade? The workers have their labor to trade? We're all rich with resources? So, why are we just standing around?

All fiat money is, is a medium of exchange to barter. Bartering is actually very complicated. For example, when you go to trade your lumber for food only to find out that the grocery store doesn't need any lumber this week. What do you do, starve?

However, the grocery store will take your money to pay workers who then buy oil from companies that may need to buy some lumber from you. They just bring the money back to you. This allows resources to be traded in situations where they couldn't before. That's all money was supposed to do. It's not supposed to have any value on its own.

See, the amount of goods isn't set. New workers are born adding more labor, new technology is developed to make more goods faster. Having a fiat currency that can grow with the labor is a good thing. You don't want a bunch of people standing around because you ran out of trading slips. If you have more product to trade, you make more trading slips. That's how it works.

The problem with inflation is caused when the federal reserve or the government print more trading slips than the goods in the market can actually back up. Like when the government prints money to fight wars that we really don't have the resources to fight. Or when there's a housing bubble and people create more money through fractional reserve banking than the economy can really support causing prices to skyrocket.

But you would have that problem no matter what system you used. If it was gold based then the gov would just spent all their gold until they were broke and then start borrowing gold. We'd still be in debt up to our eyeballs. No money system in existence allows you to fight endless wars forever. Eventually you run out of resources no matter what.

The actual problem is the idea that the government should have to go into debt borrowing trading slips from the federal reserve and then pay interest on them through taxes. They have the Constitutional authority to simply print their own trading slips themselves debt free. Watching this video is a must to understand the topic.



But even that won't help us if they keep wasting all our resources on wars.
edit on 5-8-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by eagleeye2
 



What happen if the fed is audited and we find out everything is wrong or simply empty?
What happens next?
There's a good chance we actually see a collapse following a full audit, don't you think?

And let me ask you a question. Is it better to reveal the truth or to enable the truth to be hidden away and left to fester in order to hide deep economic problems and live based on a lie?


I agree with you 100%. No its not better.
I just wanna know the implications of this movement about auditing the fed.
I'm concerned to be honest, In a society full of guns where "the value for life" is at an all time low.
Not really sure how it could turn out, hence maybe the statu quo? I dont know really,



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 



Imagine you're in a depression where there's no money. But you have goods ready to be used. What do you do? You can't print more gold. The rich have it all hoarded in their vaults. Do you just let the goods rot away? That would be stupid.
You are obviously ignoring the deeper problem here. How have the rich managed to hoard away so much wealth that it causes the economy to stutter? You are suggesting the quick fix solution just simply print more money and problem solved. Wrong, the problem will keep occurring until you deal with the root cause, which is the system which allows unfathomable quantities if wealth to be siphoned off into the hands of a few. And the video you posted at the end is not defending money printing, it is defending the concept of fiat money whilst explaining that excessive money printing is actually what hurts fiat money. Printing more and more money when ever it it deemed to be appropriate is not the answer.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by eagleeye2
 



I'm concerned to be honest, In a society full of guns where "the value for life" is at an all time low.
Not really sure how it could turn out, hence maybe the statu quo? I dont know really

I think the problem is just like any other problem. Before you can ever solve the problem you must first admit there is actually a problem. Then once the problem is truly acknowledged there will be stages of grief, such as sadness and anger (civil unrest). But then it's possible to work on solving the problem, to produce solutions and revised monetary policies and build the foundations of a stronger and less corrupt economic system. Living on lies is never the right answer.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by tinfoilman
 



Imagine you're in a depression where there's no money. But you have goods ready to be used. What do you do? You can't print more gold. The rich have it all hoarded in their vaults. Do you just let the goods rot away? That would be stupid.
You are obviously ignoring the deeper problem here. How have the rich managed to hoard away so much wealth that it causes the economy to stutter? You are suggesting the quick fix solution just simply print more money and problem solved. Wrong, the problem will keep occurring until you deal with the root cause, which is the system which allows unfathomable quantities if wealth to be siphoned off into the hands of a few. And the video you posted at the end is not defending money printing, it is defending the concept of fiat money whilst explaining that excessive money printing is actually what hurts fiat money. Printing more and more money when ever it it deemed to be appropriate is not the answer.


I think you missed my point. Printing money is not the problem as long as the goods are there to back it up. Excessive money printing IS the problem. But we have to leave the matrix and realize the money is not what we want. We want the goods. More goods = more wealth. The money doesn't matter. What matters is if we can grow the economy.

For example. How do we feed poor people? By switching to a gold standard? No! they're broke! They don't have any gold! They'll still be hungry! The way to feed more people is to make more food! See it's the food, clothes, phones, cars, and houses that are the real wealth. Not the money.

You have to understand, all currencies are a type of fiat money. Gold and silver are no different. Gold is just a rock out of the ground. You can't eat a rock. If you're hungry then the gold has no value. You want the food. And fiat money allows you to get food with a worthless piece of paper! That's even better than spending your gold on it don't you think? wouldn't you rather trade a worthless piece of paper for food than your very valuable gold?

There are times when you want to grow the money supply. Like when the wealth of the country has increased. Our thinking is backwards. More money does not equal more wealth! That's backwards! More wealth equals more money! Think of it like if Starbucks handed out a bunch of gift certificates for free coffee.

If Starbucks is out of coffee then they're out of coffee. Printing excessive gift certificates for Starbucks isn't going to help anyone because when people come in to claim their coffee, they're out. The gift certificate is just a worthless piece of paper at that point. They've printed too many. That's a problem.

However, if Starbucks finds a way to make twice as much coffee as they did last year, either by growing the economy and opening new stores, or by finding a way to grow more coffee, well then why wouldn't you print more gift certificates?

You're telling me if they find a way to make twice as much coffee they still should only sell the same amount they did last year and let the other half go bad? That wouldn't make any sense! Twice as much coffee, you give out twice as many certificates.

But if the certificates were gold then you couldn't do that. People would hoard the certificates. Then next year when it came time to sell twice as much coffee you couldn't. It would sit there and go bad because they couldn't make any more certificates.

This leads to poverty. Even if we found a way to make more food for the poor people, the poor couldn't have it because we couldn't make anymore gold? That doesn't make any sense. We don't need more gold! We can just skip the gold. We only care about the food.
edit on 5-8-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-8-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I am surprised how to-the-point this discussion was, and how well they acknowledge reality. Excellent ideas and realistic solutions presented.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
I also disagree with Paul on going back to the gold standard. Chances are, the same people who have all of our dollars have bought the majority of gold in circulation as well.

First, we need to put a new leash on the rabid dog that is our governments, and then we can allow money to be printed and loaned out by them. We need COMPLETE transparency, as well as an extremely informed and educated majority.

It won't come easy, but imo its the only peaceful way to fix this joke of a system.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 



I think you missed my point. Printing money is not the problem as long as the goods are there to back it up. Excessive money printing IS the problem.
Quite true, and when it comes to the Federal Reserve, they DO print vastly excessive amounts of money and they don't have any oversight or transparency which acts to stop them from printing excessive amounts of money.


The money doesn't matter. What matters is if we can grow the economy.
The economy doesn't need to be constantly growing to be strong. A stable and consistent economy is just as good. The amount of people that can fit within any one economy and the amount of goods that can be produced by those people is finite. Infinite growth of any economy is physically impossible, there will always be a threshold point.


For example. How do we feed poor people? By switching to a gold standard? No! they're broke! They don't have any gold! They'll still be hungry!
A gold standard currency has nothing to do with them needing gold. It's notes which are backed up by gold instead of nothing.


You have to understand, all currencies are a type of fiat money. Gold and silver are no different. Gold is just a rock out of the ground. You can't eat a rock. If you're hungry then the gold has no value.
Actually gold and silver have real intrinsic value because they are real physical materials which are used for many different purposes. A fiat money is very cheap notes which can be printed in mass, virtually in infinite quantities, with insignificant costs. Each new gold backed note would need to be backed by real world assets meaning you can't simply print new money when ever you like.


And fiat money allows you to get food with a worthless piece of paper! That's even better than spending your gold on it don't you think? wouldn't you rather trade a worthless piece of paper for food than your very valuable gold?
So now gold is valuable? Wow this statement is completely ridiculous. After everything you've been saying about fiat money and how it gets value from the goods produced in an economy you now throw all that out the window. Even if fiat money was merely "monopoly money" as some people like to say, your simple minded argument here would not get my approval. I would argue such a system is completely absurd and built on quicksand, if we were merely trading worthless paper for goods and services. Your appeal to greed is simply stupid.

If you learnt anything from that documentary you posted earlier it should be that fiat money is perfectly plausible when the printing it kept under control, and that the value of the fiat currency will adjust to the amount of notes in circulation relative the amount of goods and services produces within that economy. They do have value beyond being mere pieces of paper. They are used as floating tokens of exchange to represent value without needing to have anything of intrinsic value to back them up. But when you undermine that type of system by printing excessive amounts of money you end up destroying the whole thing.


Twice as much coffee, you give out twice as many certificates.
Or... you let the value of each note naturally adjust its self to twice the value instead of trying to tamper with the natural state of the economy. If you have economic growth you can expect a stronger dollar which is worth more. This irrational fear of deflation is stupid. People have a right to save their wealth if they want, hoarding is nothing more than saving. And people save their wealth so that they may spend it at a later time. The true problem arises when vast amounts of wealth are hoarded by the super rich, which as I explained to you in my first reply, is the true root of the problem. The problem is that it's so easy for such a small amount of people to quire absurdly disproportionate amounts of wealth. They do that via a corrupt banking system and corrupt Federal Reserve system, and a completely monopolistic business environment where super corporations destroy all the competition and proceed to pay their employees slave wages whilst the shareholders get vast amounts of the profits.


Even if we found a way to make more food for the poor people, the poor couldn't have it because we couldn't make anymore gold?
You clearly don't understand much about economics if you are spewing nonsense such as this. We only need a certain number of notes in circulation to ensure sufficient granularity of the money supply. Beyond that there's no reason to keep increasing the number of notes in circulation as the economy grows. Instead you simply let the real value (or purchasing power) of each note increase in a natural way. Printing new money is unfair on several levels. The first people to get that money (which is often large banks) get to spend that money at it's full value before is has trickled down into the money supply and before it has been fully realized and recognized by the economy. The people lower down who attain that money at a later stage don't get that full purchasing power because the economy has adjusted and taken into account that new money.

There is nothing wrong with simply allowing deflation to slowly happen. That should be the benefit of economic growth... you work harder and produce more then you reap the benefits of a stronger dollar. But what they do is continuously steal all that extra value through the deceptive act of debt monetization, which is effectively an attempt to whittle down the government debt at the expense of the economy, and as such is a sneaky method of taxing citizens and robbing value from their hard earned savings. People are working harder and longer than ever before, and producing more than they ever have before, yet their wages/income is lower than it has ever been and we wonder why people are getting sick and tired of this system. It's one big rigged game. Everything they do ensures that our quality of living will never ever increase. Prices will only continue to go up whilst we work more to cover those costs.
edit on 5/8/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by theshepherd2
 



I also disagree with Paul on going back to the gold standard. Chances are, the same people who have all of our dollars have bought the majority of gold in circulation as well.
Yes I certainly agree that a pure gold standard is not something which is particularly appealing to the average joe, but actually Ron Paul seems to simply want some type of parallel currency, a currency which is "sound money", meaning the number of notes in circulation is limited to the amount of real intrinsic wealth which can be put behind those notes, making it more predictable and more transparent, and this more robust and trustworthy. Being a parallel currency, the old type of fiat notes will still exist along side it. It's not like he wants to "go back" and start using another type of currency and disallow the use of others, he wants to open up the playing field and allow currency competition so people can choose between using different currencies.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


You're just setting up straw man arguments here and not listening to what I'm saying. I never said the economy has to grow for infinity. Well actually it does under the federal reserve system or it collapses, but we both agree that system is wrong so that's not the point I'm making. That's only because of the federal reserve.

Without the reserve, I just said if it DOES grow it's a good thing. I never said it HAS to grow.

However, if it does grow then it brings people out of poverty. That's one way you get people out of poverty. To grow the economy. Now I understand it won't always grow, but if it does grow I don't think anyone would complain. If you're actually arguing against economic growth, well then you might want to rethink your position. That's probably not right lol.

Also, hoarding gold as the price goes up is not the same thing as saving. Too much money will cause a collapse, but so will too little money. If nobody can get their hands on any gold then even if they have stuff to sell or buy they can't. The rich are hoarding.

However, the poor people that still have labor to trade with each other, just need some certificates to make their barter easy. After all they could just barter straight up with each other, but there's no reason we can't print some certificates for them to help trade their labor more efficiently.

After all, if there's labor to be done, then there is a resource there that also has intrinsic value, just like the gold does. When someone does work for you, that labor has value. And you can back money with that labor just as you can back it with gold.

Now see. there's a simple way to stop this hoarding.

Like I said gold is a good investment. Even in a fiat system, there's nothing stopping your from buying gold or silver. Saying fiat=no gold is also a straw man argument.

You can still buy gold and still save your wealth in the gold. There's nothing stopping you from buying gold. However, if the rich decide to hoard it, it won't matter. The economy still has either a fiat currency backed by goods/labor or a silver/copper/whatever backed currency to do barter with and keep the economy going while the rich hoard their gold. This is a better solution is it not?

Your option is that either the economy goes forward or the rich hoard their gold and save all their wealth? However, my way allows both. My way allows the rich to save all their wealth in gold AND the economy keeps going forward. How is my way not better?

Also people are obsessed with inflation. However a little well regulated inflation is actually a good thing! It can make borrowing cheaper than it would be without it. You can borrow today's money but pay it back with tomorrow's cheaper money! Worried about inflation? Prove it! Take out a million dollar loan and buy whatever you want. If we have hyper inflation tomorrow then you'll be able to pay it back easy won't you?

So don't be super afraid of a LITTLE inflation either.

And also I said that a silver/gold standard would work. It just has its own problems. But It's just a gold ONLY system that don't work because gold is just too rare. Rare is one thing, but you don't want it so rare that almost nobody can get their hands on enough of it to survive.
edit on 5-8-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 



There is nothing wrong with simply allowing deflation to slowly happen.


Actually, there is. You cannot have deflation. EVER! Even the slightest bit of deflation can cause a collapse. You must always either keep it equal or inflate.

Why? Because if inflation makes borrowing money cheap, deflation makes it impossible! Business doesn't run on cash. Business runs on short term and long term loans! Regardless of what type of money you use. Business cannot survive without running a line of credit at least SOME OF THE TIME.

Inflation allows the business to pay their loan back. They borrow $1,000 today, invest it into $1,000 worth of new stuff, and try to make a profit. They pay the $1,000 plus interest back, after they sell their product. But the key to make this work is they must sell it for MORE than they paid for it. This is not possible with deflation.

If a business takes out $1,000 and buys $1,000 worth of product and then deflation hits causing that $1,000 worth of goods to drop in price to $800 before he has a chance to sell it? He's screwed. He just went broke. He will not be able to charge enough for the goods to pay back his loan. He defaults.

If the currency inflates, he makes a profit. If the currency deflates, he goes broke. Trust me, the business wants inflation. You do too if you don't want to be underwater on your mortgage. The housing crisis we just had was caused by deflation in home prices.
edit on 5-8-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Cmon , the dollar is the world reserve currency ........ America is behind ALL of this.

Cripple all european currencies , downgrade everything in europe , tell the IMF to DEMAND more money .... and when everyone in europe is crying out for a ~solution~ .... throw the dollar at europe.

Then .... america has achieved HITLER`S plan.

bye .....




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 



If you're actually arguing against economic growth, well then you might want to rethink your position.
No I was clearly arguing against the concept of infinite economic growth, which is clearly a flawed premise and often a concept perpetuated by people who support continuous inflation. The reason is that printing more money is only necessary to maintain a stable dollar when you have economic growth. If we were to reach a state where the economy reached that threshold point and we have stable economic activity there would be absolutely no reason to keep printing more money... except for your ridiculous reason that when the rich people snatch up most of the notes we can simply print some more and everything will be super cool. Yeah, right, except that will continue to happen over and over again until they have so much of the money in circulation they have us all by the balls. There is a deeper problem here which you are clearly ignoring and trying to patch it up with pathetically superficial band-aid treatments.


Too much money will cause a collapse, but so will too little money. If nobody can get their hands on any gold then even if they have stuff to sell or buy they can't.
And that's why I mentioned a sufficient granularity of the money supply. A sufficient granularity means there will be enough notes in circulation to ensure the money supply can be divided up into relatively small units to ensure there will always be enough units in circulation to go around even during high deflationary periods and above normal saving. Once that level of granularity is achieved you don't need to keep on inflating the money supply to provide all people with sufficient tokens of exchange. In fact the main reason many supporters of inflation are behind inflation is because it's supposed to keep a stable dollar, it has nothing to do with granularity of the money supply. That is what the Federal Reserve was initially designed to do; print money in accordance with economic growth to maintain a stable dollar which wasn't growing or depreciating in value. But as it turns out the US dollar has lost around 98% of it's value since the inception of the Federal Reserve, so we can see just how well that little scam is working out.


Now see. there's a simple way to stop this hoarding.
Yeah there is a good way... you continually make the dollar worth less so no one wants to save it. You enforce a crappy currency just to encourage people to spend quickly. And that is completely immoral and wrong.


Even in a fiat system, there's nothing stopping your from buying gold or silver. Saying fiat=no gold is also a straw man argument.
The argument has nothing to do with the legality of buying gold, it's about allowing an alternative sound money LEGAL TENDER to exist along side Federal Reserve fiat money. I never said "fiat=no gold" what ever the hell that is supposed to mean. I said fiat money is technically defined as money which is not backed by anything of intrinsic value, such as gold or silver.


The economy still has either a fiat currency backed by goods/labor or a silver/copper/whatever backed currency to do barter with and keep the economy going while the rich hoard their gold. This is a better solution is it not?
I am not arguing against the concept of fiat money, as you will have noted from my previous posts I agree with the argument presented in the doco you linked to. I am arguing against the concept of continuous inflation instead of allowing a currency to naturally fluctuate according to economic activity instead of trying to tamper with it via the procedure of printing more money. It isn't necessary once a sufficient quantity of units are in circulation and once a sufficient granularity has been achieved.


My way allows the rich to save all their wealth in gold AND the economy keeps going forward. How is my way not better?
I am not claiming either to be better, I am saying we should allow both types of systems to act parallel to each other as competing currencies just like Ron Paul says. I can see the benefits of sound money and I can see the benefits of fiat money. Fiat money is good for the people and bad for the super rich, but only when the quantity of money in circulation is properly controlled. When the central banks have full reign to print ridiculous amounts of money when ever they like and hand out that money to special interest with whom they have close connections it becomes our worste nightmare. Perhaps maybe if they just printed enough money to keep the value of the dollar stable I wouldn't have such a problem, but they DON'T and it ruins our lives and standard of living! And that is exactly why people such as Ron Paul advocate Sound Money; by nature it is "sound" and unmanipulable because it demands each new note created has intrinsic backing, the corruptible human factor is taken out of the equation.


However a little well regulated inflation is actually a good thing! It can make borrowing cheaper than it would be without it. You can borrow today's money but pay it back with tomorrow's cheaper money! Worried about inflation? Prove it! Take out a million dollar loan and buy whatever you want. If we have hyper inflation tomorrow then you'll be able to pay it back easy won't you?
So if I borrowed some money from you and then I payed you back with something which was only worth a fraction of what I took from you, would you call that fair? Your ridiculous argument also has several disadvantages. Imagine those people who work very hard their whole lives to save up money for their retirement, but over the years their saving continue to become worth less and less, meanwhile everything keeps costing more and more. That is not fair, it's out right thievery and it's why people continue to lose faith in the dollar.


It just has its own problems. But It's just a gold ONLY system that don't work because gold is just too rare. Rare is one thing, but you don't want it so rare that almost nobody can get their hands on enough of it to survive.
Have you read anything I said? THEY DON'T NEED TO GET THEIR GOD DAMN HANDS ON GOLD. But you are right about one thing, there probably isn't enough Government owned gold to create a good gold standard currency, which is why the currency Ron Paul is talking about is likely to be backed by other precious metals too. The only thing that matters is that it's SOUND MONEY, not money which can be inflated at the whim of central bankers and at the same time rob us all via inflation.


Why? Because if inflation makes borrowing money cheap, deflation makes it impossible! Business doesn't run on cash. Business runs on short term and long term loans!
Actually the absurd interest rates already make borrowing money from banks impossible. Perhaps if they knew they were going to get higher value money back from the borrower they wouldn't need to enforce such huge rates because the deflation would add to their return on the loan.


If a business takes out $1,000 and buys $1,000 worth of product and then deflation hits causing that $1,000 worth of goods to drop in price to $800 before he has a chance to sell it? He's screwed.
First of all that situation is completely absurd because you'd need a huge amount of deflation in a small time for that to happen, which would mean hyper-deflation. Both hyper-inflation and hyper-deflation are bad, because such fast economic shifts always cause problems. Oh but wait, hyper-inflation would mean you can easily pay back your loans.



If the currency inflates, he makes a profit. If the currency deflates, he goes broke. Trust me, the business wants inflation.
That is completely faulty logic. The real value of a product will always be the same, it doesn't matter if the numeral value of the price is higher or lower, that is merely a depiction of the purchasing power of the currency being used to purchase those goods. The business isn't making less or more than it usually would. Neither inflation or deflation has any impact on the success or profits of the business, except for in terms of loans. But as I stated there is no reason to assume loans would be harder to pay back, it's fairly certain interest rates would be adjusted based on the rate of deflation... and it wouldn't be any rate which is significant anyway, we're talking a few dollars here. The only threat is hyper-deflation, and that is no worse than hyper-inflation.
edit on 5/8/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join