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.
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.
Why no competing systems in a country that calls itself capitalistic?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by tinfoilman
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The money doesn't matter. What matters is if we can grow the economy.
A gold standard currency has nothing to do with them needing gold. It's notes which are backed up by gold instead of nothing.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Twice as much coffee, you give out twice as many certificates.
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.
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?
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.
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.
There is nothing wrong with simply allowing deflation to slowly happen.
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.
If you're actually arguing against economic growth, well then you might want to rethink your position.
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.
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.
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.
Now see. there's a simple way to stop this hoarding.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
My way allows the rich to save all their wealth in gold AND the economy keeps going forward. How is my way not better?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 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.
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.
If the currency inflates, he makes a profit. If the currency deflates, he goes broke. Trust me, the business wants inflation.