Quote from Cache Landing:
-The current quantity of gold is very small and hard to use on a global scale. Personally I think this is only a minor problem.
-The quantity of gold is not controllable. IMO, the quantity of money in circulation should change according to population growth and productivity increase/decrease. Gold doesn't allow for that. It encourages hoarding by the rich as the value of their gold increases naturally with productivity increase and population growth. The poor don't have the luxury of hoarding, so by simply having babies they are becoming more poor.
-On the flip side, if gold is mined faster than productivity increases, it could cause rapid inflation.
-I believe that deflation is worse than inflation. Gold is more vulnerable to deflation as mines dry up and no longer produce ore at the same rate. And no, I don't think that rapid inflation is any better. Don't confuse me with someone who hates the gold-standard. I just don't carry some grand illusions that it is the answer to our monetary problems.
-Gold is used for purposes other than currency backing. It is very conceivable that these uses would need to be abandoned as the price of gold might be drastically inflated.
Rhetoric given by the establishment when USA was going off the gold standard. Hypothetical reasons with little evidence behind them, just theories. Yeah I know, thats the nonsense they taught me in college and even then, most of the class swallowed it with difficulty.
The reality was that USA was in default and was not able to meet the redemption of dollars for gold.
How about you look at history of gold as money vs fiat. One has thousands of years behind it, the other, well I think I made my point. When kings debased metal currency, that was a problem. When major power players hoarded gold & controlled supply, that was a problem. The inherent concept is one that was tested by time and mankind.
Basic concept of money: Durable, malleable, divisible and obviously, scarce and valuable. Gold & Silver meet that, hence why they were the most common forms of money.
When I was talking about theories I wasn't taking a side. Personally I support Laissez-Faire systems, but in our current form of government I don't think it is possible for it to work properly. Both main systems work better on paper than they do under a g-ment that tries to implement both at the same time.
Laissez-Faire is not a theory. Before you try to act like an expert, why don't you go learn exactly where Laissez-Faire came from and its results. Unlike socialism, which was drafted as a theory, laissez-faire came from real life and then formulated as methodology.
With regard to your "FED is the cause of borrowing" response; I think I already argued my case on that one. To take that position one must suggest that borrowing didn't exist before the FED was created. The Fed simply makes it easy. Wars are the same. The existed before the Fed, so the best one can say is that the Fed's allowance of easy debt contributes somewhat to the cause of SOME wars.
You obviously totally missed my point. I know, simple math is a hard concept, so is understand that in the current system Money=Debt. It's hard to those who do not even understand the concept of money, where it came from, how it came about and the various systems that have existed. Let me make it simple, from Day 1, under a private central bank, there is no money in the nation unless there is debt. Period. Just look on any dollar bill and check what it says.
With regard to globalism, you are arguing a different point. I argue that globalism is a good thing. You rebut with the idea that it is bad because the contracts are bad. Globalism is good, corrupt trade agreements are bad. You do a disservice to you argument by pulling in unrelated points.
Yeah, you're right, destruction of sovereignty, self substinence, the local community & human rights are GREAT. Destruction of the middle class & quality of product/service in what was once the top nation in the world is AWESOME. Cause we gotta make sure 10% of the Chinese & Indians get to become middle class, while most of them toil away in sweatshops.
Meanwhile the main benefactors are multinational corporations. Yet somehow, the wealth gets spread around to everyone, because that's how corporations do it, they spread the wealth before performing their legal duty of growing profits for shareholders.
There has yet to be a reasonable study that supports globalism. The key results are growing disparity between rich & poor, loss of sovereignty, destruction of environment & sweatshops.
I will use basic math again. Globalism is essentially this. Instead of paying someone 10 dollars here, you pay someone 2 dollars elsewhere. You still charge the same price for the product and keep the spread. You bring down the standard of someone living here by 50% and raise the standard of living of some third world slave by 10% (which u will soon erase anyway by increasing cost of living). Lot of losers and very few winners.
Wars have to do either with the wealthy/powerful trying to maintain/increase their wealth/power, thus widening the gap. Or they are based on the the poor/impotent trying to narrow/eliminate the gap between them and the wealthy/powerful. I didn't think that statement would be that hard to understand, but I guess if your entire post was meant to disagree with everything I said, your response was adequate.
What? You don't know what you are talking about. Almost every war has to do with mercantilism & imperialism. Civil wars are only about power.
Globalization and free trade allow for the free-market to work. If something can be better produced at a different location then we are better off that it is. Are there cases when a certain group of people might be disadvantaged by globalization? Sure. But that doesn't lend to the idea that everyone else must be hurt by globalism. Free-trade allows for advancement which eventually makes a higher standard of living attainable even for the poorest of people.
You have no idea about free trade or globalism. NAFTA, WTO, IMF, World Bank (which are the leading institutions of Globalism, something you obviously did not know) and their subsequent agreements are as far from free trade as communism is.
Seriously, no wonder some people won't even respond to you. You're borderline clueless.
