Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

IsaacGage860

A Message To All Libertarians, Anarchists And Even Some Conservatives.

Recommended Posts

To all who support returning to a gold standard for our currency (Libertarians mostly) or who want the market to determine the currency everyone uses, I would put forward this argument for your consideration. Fiat currency is used as money because people still have faith in it. It does in fact have intrinsic value because it is legal tender. If you look a standard dollar bill it will say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Because it is required to be accepted by every business by law it will never lose its value. True there are fluctuations in the trust that people have in their currencies and sometimes there are crises but that does not mean the world is coming to an end. You have let people like Rand Paul, Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and other conspiracy theorists trick you into wasting large amounts of money on gold as "protection" from "confiscation" of wealth.


 


I find it interesting that this economic collapse has yet to materialize. Whenever these fear mongers and snake oil salesmen are proven wrong they merely revise their timelines outwards to scare people into doing even more irrational things like dropping everything and going to buy property and be socially isolated. Nothing against people who choose to not live in a city, but these fears of economic collapse are unfounded and you are intentionally misleading young and impressionable minds. Why is it exactly the economy has not completely collapsed though these people are absolutely convinced it will? Well I would say it hasn't happened because millions of people have a vested interest in not living in a complete Mad Max style war zone where tribal chieftains and warriors are the ruling class.


 


People like to have certainty and structure otherwise why would civilization exist as it does toady? Yes there are obvious problems with society, in particular government as is obvious with a Trump presidency so far, but that does not mean we completely abandon the social norms and customs and systems we have developed over the millennia.


Rather than seek to destroy the fabric that holds societies together, why not instead become active and persuade people with well reasoned and articulated arguments. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Statist" or "Commie" or "Fascist" hasn't lead to very desirable results has it?


 


Unless you use gold for every transaction, this is irresponsible Libertarian scare mongering and propaganda. Gold is an archaic and regressive standard to try and return to. Just because it was valued by humans in the past does not mean it will be valued today. Values are subjective and are always changing apart from the most fundamental. There is no fixed state of mankind, no ideal that we can look at and replicate at any point in time nor should we try to. My advice would be to stop attempting to scare people about debt based fiat currency so that they will use your services.


This is a dishonest and unethical business model and you will defraud misinformed individuals. For example, the mortgage that people sign to their house is a debt that you voluntarily agree to as a condition for owning a home. Each month you pay interest on a maturing principal until you eventually have it payed off.


 


Libertarians need to calm the hell down with this economic collapse BS. If anything we may experience a depression or recession because, ironically, businessmen on Wall Street and in the financial sector are not always looking out for the interests of their clients. This is also why we have governments, to ensure that Capitalism is kept in check with regulations and a court system to punish offenders. I get the feeling that all of the people calling for public schools to be dismantled have never once taken a basic Civics class from the "indoctrination" camps. It's no wonder America is last in education around the world, people hate public schools, are tragically ill informed, and favor private Christian schools where they are never taught our country's founding. I wonder if there is any connection between a misanthropic attitude towards public schools and ignorance on the history of our country?


 


In conclusion, I would urge any Libertarians out there to seriously critically analyze the ramifications and reasoning behind the positions that you take. I can already see the response to this essay so I imagine most of you will not listen, but for those who do read authors like Thomas Paine, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin etc. and think about what all of these men have in common. Thank you for reading.


  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument-to-emotionally-charged-language ratio in this post is staggering.

 

Do you have any examples of these libertarians you mention being dishonest, unethical, fear-mongers? any evidence of them being proven wrong over and over?

 

As for public schools, do you have any arguments for why public schools are great for society or just more accusations and emotional language?

 

Before you blame capitalism for depressions are you familiar with Austrian economics and business cycle theory? Or are you just complaining that we are ignorant of the important literature of the history of our country (which you have not named or explained what that has to do with the need for a state) while not making any effort to understand Libertarian arguments yourself? 

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I find it interesting that this economic collapse has yet to materialize"

Every fiat currency in history has eventually collapsed. You dont even need to go that far to see the latest collapses, Venezuela, Argentina, Zimbabwe. I am pretty sure the people who were using these currencies wished they knew about this inevitable tragedy. Are you assuming it can happen to other countries but somehow not USA? well, where is the argument? I think its well known this system is not sustainable. The US national debt has doubled in the last 8 years. Also, Donald Trump has mentioned defaulting on the debt. The collapse is not a matter of if, Its a matter of when. I am glad we have people like Ron Paul and the prolific Alex Jones speaking about this. 

You wanna know what is unethical? Telling people to "calm the hell down with this economic collapse BS" when there are people who are hunting dogs and cats right now because of a collapse!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic collapse materialized in Venezuela. It materialized in Germany after WW I, hyperinflation and poverty were main reasons for the rise of fascism. Just to name two examples.

Europe had a goldstandard til 1913, then central banks were founded to finance the dawning war. Without central banks and the possibility to keep  citizens liable for unlimited debt WW I would have lasted only 2 weeks. So the slaughter could continue for 4 years. Even the winners like Great Britain had to pay back til the year 2003 (!).

 

A central bank and fiat money is the ultimative government tool for power. The central bank is actually an idea of Karl Marx, one of his points in the communistic manifest, to withdraw power from the capitalists (i.e. everyone who is productive) and transferring it to the state.

So all this crazy financial business where billions and billions circle around the globe, the financial crises from 1929 and litterally all major financial crises since then can be traced back to central bank action. Ironically, the lefts accuse capitalism for all this. But in fact its the output of an idea of Karl Marx and the very opposite of capitalism.

Recommended: https://www.amazon.de/The-Creature-from-Jekyll-Island/dp/B00NTQBJ5C/ref=sr_1_2/255-0756903-4013444?ie=UTF8&qid=1486634238&sr=8-2&keywords=creature+jekyll+island

 

 

regards

Andi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To all who support returning to a gold standard for our currency (Libertarians mostly) or who want the market to determine the currency everyone uses, I would put forward this argument for your consideration. Fiat currency is used as money because people still have faith in it. 

 

Technically a statement and not an argument, but even more importantly, it's untrue.

 

Fiat currency is used as money because we have to pay our taxes with it. The actual value of the money is protection from the violence of the state. This is what "legal tender" means. Use it--or else.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is also why we have governments, to ensure that Capitalism is kept in check with regulations and a court system to punish offenders.

 

 

Capitalism basically means free market. Goods are exchanged voluntarily, you do not even need money for this.

What you need is a value that can be traded. Money represents value, real money has an intrinsic value such as gold, or is at least exchangeable into gold.

 

Now what any government does is corrupting this system and perverting it. Central banks can print money, its litterally made of thin air, adds to national debt, and the tax payer repays it.

This is how wars are financed.

This is the reason why governments continously invent  "problems"  which can only be "solved" with more money. Thats the fuel that drives this lunatic financial world.

This is why govermnents have a steady incentive to grow.

And this is why all states with central banks end up in socialism.

And all this is not capitalism, its the very opposite.

 

Have a look at the books from Friedrich August v. Hayek, eg. The Road to Serfdom, or the work from Ludwig v. Mises.

 

regards

Andi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically a statement and not an argument, but even more importantly, it's untrue.

 

Fiat currency is used as money because we have to pay our taxes with it. The actual value of the money is protection from the violence of the state. This is what "legal tender" means. Use it--or else.

Do you understand the implications of going back to a gold standard? Eventually the gold will come to be represented with claim checks because like its always said, government will just print the money. In the interest of the nation, people will not want to use a whole bunch of differing currencies. People like being able to plan and you can't do that if in one state you have one currency and then for a job you move to a different state and have to use a different currency. We have 300 million plus people in the country. Can you honestly imagine going back to a gold standard? And bitcoins too. What of them? Well if they are no sanctioned by the government who is going to trust their worth? Maybe a few communities here and there but most people are going to retain faith in the dollar until we experience a true hyperinflation. That has yet to happen so yeah its insults because these beliefs persist? What gives the money fiat currency its value? The fact that despite fear mongering, people still trust it.

Capitalism basically means free market. Goods are exchanged voluntarily, you do not even need money for this.

What you need is a value that can be traded. Money represents value, real money has an intrinsic value such as gold, or is at least exchangeable into gold.

 

Now what any government does is corrupting this system and perverting it. Central banks can print money, its litterally made of thin air, adds to national debt, and the tax payer repays it.

This is how wars are financed.

This is the reason why governments continously invent  "problems"  which can only be "solved" with more money. Thats the fuel that drives this lunatic financial world.

This is why govermnents have a steady incentive to grow.

And this is why all states with central banks end up in socialism.

And all this is not capitalism, its the very opposite.

 

Have a look at the books from Friedrich August v. Hayek, eg. The Road to Serfdom, or the work from Ludwig v. Mises.

 

regards

Andi

Hayek actually wrote that Welfare and social spending was not all that bad. Its on page 125 of  The reason you have governments creating problems out of nothing is because of the fundamental nature of Capitalism; to capitalize. And what is the definition of capitalize? I urge you to look it up and think about how that can be interpreted by people without your moral values.  Does it mean the same thing to everyone? No clearly it does not. And because it does not and the consequences are far too high, we maintain governments. Now can the governments become corrupted by people who want to use it for their own interests? I did not once say this could not happen. But to then say that we would be better of without government control is to assume everyone would get along. Its as ridiculous as the argument put forth by the those who want open borders. "Oh yeah just relax all the laws and allow absolutely anyone into the country, that will end beautifully." This is the same in principle. You take away every single rule and the bad people in the world take advantage. 

The argument-to-emotionally-charged-language ratio in this post is staggering.

 

Do you have any examples of these libertarians you mention being dishonest, unethical, fear-mongers? any evidence of them being proven wrong over and over?

 

As for public schools, do you have any arguments for why public schools are great for society or just more accusations and emotional language?

 

Before you blame capitalism for depressions are you familiar with Austrian economics and business cycle theory? Or are you just complaining that we are ignorant of the important literature of the history of our country (which you have not named or explained what that has to do with the need for a state) while not making any effort to understand Libertarian arguments yourself? 

Peter Schiff, Mike Maloney, and Alex Jones. All have used fears of economic collapse to mislead the public.They do this through being clever marketers and by convincing people that they have something to be afraid of. Even though they have been proven wrong multiple times with macroeconomics and arguments to the contrary, this distrust in government persists. Now I can empathize with where this comes from. People feel disenfranchised and disconnected from the governments that rule over them and so they think everything should be overthrown. The problem being that values can change and that the political process is not something to be feared. Politicians can have spines we just have to demand it. This is a trend that is commonplace in Libertarian thought however. "The government is always the problem, debts are horrible, deficits are horrible, etc etc." Well if you scare enough people into believing these things how does their behavior change? Well now they listen to whatever you say and go out to buy gold and ammunition and stock up on things they do not really value or need and call everybody a "big government commie" or "Statist." Just like the people who over exaggerate about climate change, these individuals over exaggerate about the economy completely breaking down. The counter argument to complete Anarchy is writing by Thomas Hobbes where he explains the Social Contract. People are willing to cede some of their individual freedom to a monarch because the alternative would be to have society collapse. So when people use the term "Statist", not you in particular, what does that even mean? That I support having a strong moral government? Yes in fact, I do support that.   

"I find it interesting that this economic collapse has yet to materialize"

 

Every fiat currency in history has eventually collapsed. You dont even need to go that far to see the latest collapses, Venezuela, Argentina, Zimbabwe. I am pretty sure the people who were using these currencies wished they knew about this inevitable tragedy. Are you assuming it can happen to other countries but somehow not USA? well, where is the argument? I think its well known this system is not sustainable. The US national debt has doubled in the last 8 years. Also, Donald Trump has mentioned defaulting on the debt. The collapse is not a matter of if, Its a matter of when. I am glad we have people like Ron Paul and the prolific Alex Jones speaking about this. 

 

You wanna know what is unethical? Telling people to "calm the hell down with this economic collapse BS" when there are people who are hunting dogs and cats right now because of a collapse!

And yet, with time a new national currency is introduced because it is in the best interest of everyone in society to not have these ridiculous disruptions and revolutions happening all the time. If I recall correctly Zimbabwe is still a sovereign, functioning nation. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make by saying it has experienced hyperinflation in the past? So what? And despite what every so called "economist" has said about the US and hyperinflation here, has it actually happened yet? No it hasn't. Despite all of the fears over the federal reserve printing money, we still have an economy. An economy and government that favors financial interests, but that can be ameliorated with moral arguments even if the federal reserve is what people make it out to be. There is no actual evidence that it is. And besides, governments have to spend more money than they take in. They are not the same as households. If you balance the budgets there is no money in circulation. Economics Junkie has a great blog detailing why governments have to spend more than they take in for anyone even interested in not continuing this Libertarian diatribe.    

Not a single argument, but lots and lots of insults.

Argument 1: Why do people trust fiat currencies even though they have no "intrinsic" value according to Libertarians?:

 

Answer: Fiat currency is used as money because people still have faith in it. You might not but millions of transactions are carried out with it every single day. It does in fact have intrinsic value because it is legal tender. If you look a standard dollar bill it will say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Because it is required to be accepted by every business by law it will likely not lose its value wholesale. If for some reason Libertarians succeed in scaring the population into abandoning the dollar then a new national currency will just pop up to replace it. True there are fluctuations in the trust that people have in their currencies and sometimes there are crises but that does not mean the world is coming to an end. 

 

Argument 2 which is a reiteration of number one:

 

Answer: People like to have certainty and structure otherwise why would civilization exist as it does today in its highly structured, hierarchical manner? (Consider why the US hasn't collapsed despite fears over the Federal Reserve being propagated for years, if that is even something one is willing to consider) Yes there are obvious problems with society, in particular government as is obvious with a Trump presidency so far installing Cronies into his cabinet. But that does not mean we completely abandon the social norms, customs, and systems we have developed over the millennia. What will Libertarians replace the current system with? Freedom? That is too vague an answer to convince anybody as should be obvious by now. 

Rather than seek to destroy the fabric that holds societies together, why not instead become active and persuade people with well reasoned and articulated arguments. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Statist" or "Commie" or "Fascist" hasn't lead to very desirable results in terms of swinging anyone towards Libertarianism has it? Not accusing you or Stefan directly of doing this but for every other Libertarian who is still here who does. This is also a lesson in critical thinking. If the thoughts I am expressing do not line up with thoughts that you currently hold, then it does not apply to you or anyone you are affiliated with who has changed their minds on this subject either. From empirical evidence I have gathered from people on this forum, many many people still hold these views. You have to ask yourself, was I referring specifically to you specifically or to Libertarians in general? 

 

Argument 3: Why is gold archaic as a standard for the money that society as a whole uses? Well exactly the reason why Libertarians argue it is superior: because it is scarce. With a population of over 300 million, how do you imagine this will work on a national scale? Gold would have to be valued at a lot of money or there would have to be lots of other competing currencies. Because people like simplicity and knowing that they money they used has to be accepted by everyone else for debts, people can plan. With a whole bunch of competing currencies, one week it's this currency but then oh wait people's values change and the next week it's a whole other currency. And on and on and on this goes and people's trust eventually begins to wear thin. With government money people by law have to pay you in it and denominate the price for their goods and services it in because it makes people's lives easier. Libertarians seem to be opposed to making people's lives easier by arguing for "competing currencies." 

 

References to authors who have made similar arguments to mine: Thomas Paine, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin. Thomas Hobbes actually inspired the founding fathers of America with his argument for the social contract and why governments form so I'd say that is also pretty relevant considering some Libertarians really love their Constitutions.   

 

I want to make it clear that I am not accusing you Michael or Stefan of clinging to these ideas. I have heard Stef's video why I was wrong about Libertarians and that was the basis of this posting. This was not an attempt to smear you or Stefan's name. And by the by, sometimes you gotta just be straight up with people. Having cookie cutter, perfectly crystalline arguments to present to Libertarians is never possible because no matter how many ways I try to counter their nonsense, I get the exact same responses over and over and over. I can recall Machiavelli famously writing that sometimes you have to be harsh in order to bolster people's confidence in your leadership. I get the feeling that in some small way Mad Dog Mattis was influenced by Machiavelli based on interpretations I have seen of him. I am sort of paraphrasing here but he pretty much sad "Whenever you are in a room with people, always have a plan to kill them with a knife." Or something to that effect.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hayek actually wrote that Welfare and social spending was not all that bad. The reason you have governments creating problems out of nothing is because of the fundamental nature of Capitalism; to capitalize. And what is the definition of capitalize? I urge you to look it up and think about how that can be interpreted by people without your moral values.  Does it mean the same thing to everyone? No clearly it does not. And because it does not and the consequences are far too high, we maintain governments. Now can the governments become corrupted by people who want to use it for their own interests? I did not once say this could not happen. But to then say that we would be better of without government control is to assume everyone would get along. Its as ridiculous as the argument put forth by the those who want open borders. "Oh yeah just relax all the laws and allow absolutely anyone into the country, that will end beautifully." This is the same in principle. You take away every single rule and the bad people in the world take advantage.

 

I would say, everyone can capitalize as much as he want or can - in the free market. And yes, the free market needs rules, the same rules that apply everywhere else - no initiation of force, voluntarily trade.

The duty of the state should be to protect these rules. Thats what the state is paid for. When the state prints money for its own purpose, and wants it paid back by the citizens, its not voluntarily any more.

Since it is, of course, very tempting for the state to abuse money, its best not to give him the opportunity. Money need not be controlled by anyone, money is a good and nothing else. Lets replace "money" with "car". Both are goods that can be traded, there is no difference. Everybody can capitalize cars as much as he can or want. (Yes money is more handy. But thats all). Shure everybody would be surprised if the state claimed the monopoly to produce cars. But magically (in fact, due to left agitprop) everybody believes that the state should control money.

 

Since money is a good as every other good, Hayek had the idea to treat it that way, i.e., a free market for money. Everyone is allowed to produce money, and the best and most valuable money will make its way. E. g. Bitcoin is such money.

 

regards

Andi

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you understand the implications of going back to a gold standard? Eventually the gold will come to be represented with claim checks because like its always said, government will just print the money. In the interest of the nation, people will not want to use a whole bunch of differing currencies. People like being able to plan and you can't do that if in one state you have one currency and then for a job you move to a different state and have to use a different currency. We have 300 million plus people in the country. Can you honestly imagine going back to a gold standard? And bitcoins too. What of them? Well if they are no sanctioned by the government who is going to trust their worth? Maybe a few communities here and there but most people are going to retain faith in the dollar until we experience a true hyperinflation. That has yet to happen so yeah its insults because these beliefs persist? What gives the money fiat currency its value? The fact that despite fear mongering, people still trust it. 

 

I'm not really sure what you're arguing against, because I didn't suggest anything to be done with the money system. I simply pointed out the nature of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument-to-emotionally-charged-language ratio in this post is staggering.

 

Do you have any examples of these libertarians you mention being dishonest, unethical, fear-mongers? any evidence of them being proven wrong over and over?

 

As for public schools, do you have any arguments for why public schools are great for society or just more accusations and emotional language?

 

Before you blame capitalism for depressions are you familiar with Austrian economics and business cycle theory? Or are you just complaining that we are ignorant of the important literature of the history of our country (which you have not named or explained what that has to do with the need for a state) while not making any effort to understand Libertarian arguments yourself? 

As for the emotionally charged language stuff, that doesn't actually invalidate my claims. Language used emotionally can lead people to do immoral and irrational things yes, but that is not a universal standard that applies in every single case. For example, people can get emotionally about wars and then link it to the Federal Reserve and the overprinting of money. Here my emotions are being used to get Libertarians on board with improving the system. You cannot simply throw it out because it is not something that suits you. Recently Stefan who has made the case for why Atheists suck used an approximation of this same reasoning. The analogy being that Atheists want to tear down everything that Christians hold dear. If you do not have an emotionally compelling reason or system to replace Christianity, why attack it so relentlessly?  

 

Capitalism basically means free market. Goods are exchanged voluntarily, you do not even need money for this.

What you need is a value that can be traded. Money represents value, real money has an intrinsic value such as gold, or is at least exchangeable into gold.

 

Now what any government does is corrupting this system and perverting it. Central banks can print money, its litterally made of thin air, adds to national debt, and the tax payer repays it.

This is how wars are financed.

This is the reason why governments continously invent  "problems"  which can only be "solved" with more money. Thats the fuel that drives this lunatic financial world.

This is why govermnents have a steady incentive to grow.

And this is why all states with central banks end up in socialism.

And all this is not capitalism, its the very opposite.

 

Have a look at the books from Friedrich August v. Hayek, eg. The Road to Serfdom, or the work from Ludwig v. Mises.

 

regards

Andi

And yet somehow there are examples of socialist governments not currently in any declared war where lots of innocent blood has been shed. Here is a list of all of the current socialist governments, some of which are involved in wars and some of whom aren't. To claim that this is a characteristic that is endemic to socialist governments is a correlation/causation fallacy. Notable on the list of Socialist governments that are not at war are India, Ethiopia, Portugal, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and some others. Not to be rude, but that shows a shocking ignorance of current world events and affairs. When you look at the facts, your theory of socialist governments constantly coming up with "problems" breaks down. How do governments create poverty for instance? The reason they have to spend money is to ameliorate the effects of Crony Capitalists who care only for monetary/financial profits.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states  

I'm not really sure what you're arguing against, because I didn't suggest anything to be done with the money system. I simply pointed out the nature of money.

I am arguing against using a different form of money or "competing currencies" one a national scale. The post you made about Donald Trump not being able to balance the budgets was great. I was connecting that to why a gold standard would not be feasible. It would end up being represented with some form of fiat currency because the transaction costs and also the possibility of theft are too high. If someone steals gold from you because it is scarce you either have to steal it back or steal it from someone else. If someone steals a dollar from you, because there is so many in circulation and because people have to use them to pay for things there is no big deal really. You just go to your local bank and request some more based on your savings account. Or you can also ask friends and relatives if it really came down to that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To claim that this is a characteristic that is endemic to socialist governments is a correlation/causation fallacy.

 

 

Thats true, and I did not claim that ;)

I wrote, "This is how wars are financed". 

The EU, for example, is a peace project, they say. We make all this dept-and-pay-til-you- are- dead without any war. In fact, there is not much left of an army over here, cause of all the welfare. :D

 

regards

Andi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am arguing against using a different form of money or "competing currencies" one a national scale. 

 

Ahhhhh. That's not clear from your post. I was scratching my head wondering what you were getting at. You should work on introducing your theme before arguing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, with time a new national currency is introduced because it is in the best interest of everyone in society to not have these ridiculous disruptions and revolutions happening all the time. If I recall correctly Zimbabwe is still a sovereign, functioning nation. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make by saying it has experienced hyperinflation in the past? So what? And despite what every so called "economist" has said about the US and hyperinflation here, has it actually happened yet? No it hasn't. Despite all of the fears over the federal reserve printing money, we still have an economy. An economy and government that favors financial interests, but that can be ameliorated with moral arguments even if the federal reserve is what people make it out to be. There is no actual evidence that it is. And besides, governments have to spend more money than they take in. They are not the same as households. If you balance the budgets there is no money in circulation. Economics Junkie has a great blog detailing why governments have to spend more than they take in for anyone even interested in not continuing this Libertarian diatribe.    

"Experienced hyperinflation in the past? So what?"

 

"So what" if it cost Ten million dollars to buy a loaf of bread. "so what" if the money you got in exchanged for your work is worthless.

 

Sorry, "so what" is not an argument. 

 

How about "so what" to your "message" that lacks an actual argument. I asked for an argument on why you dont think it will happen to the US, Still didnt get anything, just rambling. You mention hyperinflation hasnt happened in US yet, where is your argument it wont? I am still waiting. It seems you dont even know the basics of economics.

 

No one will take your "message" seriously with statements like this

 

"Experienced hyperinflation in the past? So what?"

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When you look at the facts, your theory of socialist governments constantly coming up with "problems" breaks down. How do governments create poverty for instance?

 

The central bank and thus the state controlled money is implemented in every western country, also in the US. For the causes described, on the long run more and more power is held by the state, merging in socialism/communism/collectivism.

 

Some of the "problems" the state is eager to solve: Alleged racism in school and university, controlling what can be said and how, creating of "safe zones" in university where only uniform opinions are allowed ( more or less a communists training camp), gender - neutral language. Over here its claimed that there are dozens of different sexes, still searching for an example of each. Global warming, a "problem" that mainly exists in some secret computer algorithms, but there are voices who want to subordinate worlds economy to a CO2 bank, and thats commanded economy. Joachim Schellnhuber, adviser of Angela Merkel, wrote "The Great Transformation" to transform worlds economy into a central planned economy.https://www.die-gdi.de/en/transformation-towards-sustainability/ 

The "Great Transformation" is a term created by Karl Marx, now, of course only for the sake of environment, the lefts try a new attempt.

Then we have the problem with refugees. In Germany a politician of the Green Party came up with the idea to confiscate private property for housing of refugees.

 

 

If you want proof how influence and size of government are related to prosperity have a look here: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2016-annual-report

Recent example how government creates poverty is Venezuela.

 

 

regards

Andi

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Experienced hyperinflation in the past? So what?"

 

"So what" if it cost Ten million dollars to buy a loaf of bread. "so what" if the money you got in exchanged for your work is worthless.

 

Sorry, "so what" is not an argument. 

 

How about "so what" to your "message" that lacks an actual argument. I asked for an argument on why you dont think it will happen to the US, Still didnt get anything, just rambling. You mention hyperinflation hasnt happened in US yet, where is your argument it wont? I am still waiting. It seems you dont even know the basics of economics.

 

No one will take your "message" seriously with statements like this

 

"Experienced hyperinflation in the past? So what?"

 

Where is your argument that it will happen? Hello? The burden of proof does not lie with me to prove that hyperinflation will occur. You are making an extraordinary claim that will affect the lives of millions of people. The onus is on you to prove that we will experience hyperinflation and that your philosophical prescription will be the most beneficial for the most people. This is such a classic Libertarian tactic. Claim that I have no knowledge of economics and that everything I am doing is rambling. How pathetic and boring..... Where is your proof that this is going to happen in the US?  

The central bank and thus the state controlled money is implemented in every western country, also in the US. For the causes described, on the long run more and more power is held by the state, merging in socialism/communism/collectivism.

 

Some of the "problems" the state is eager to solve: Alleged racism in school and university, controlling what can be said and how, creating of "safe zones" in university where only uniform opinions are allowed ( more or less a communists training camp), gender - neutral language. Over here its claimed that there are dozens of different sexes, still searching for an example of each. Global warming, a "problem" that mainly exists in some secret computer algorithms, but there are voices who want to subordinate worlds economy to a CO2 bank, and thats commanded economy. Joachim Schellnhuber, adviser of Angela Merkel, wrote "The Great Transformation" to transform worlds economy into a central planned economy.https://www.die-gdi.de/en/transformation-towards-sustainability/ 

The "Great Transformation" is a term created by Karl Marx, now, of course only for the sake of environment, the lefts try a new attempt.

Then we have the problem with refugees. In Germany a politician of the Green Party came up with the idea to confiscate private property for housing of refugees.

 

 

If you want proof how influence and size of government are related to prosperity have a look here: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2016-annual-report

Recent example how government creates poverty is Venezuela.

 

 

regards

Andi

The government in Venezuela is a Crony Capitalist government and a protectionist one as well. Here is the definition of Crony Capitalism:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism  So it is the well connected, the 1%, that are stealing the wealth from everybody else to line their own pockets. If you are in support of the 1% maintaining their hegemony, then fuck you. You are anti-human and fundamentally immoral. The only confiscation of wealth would be from the guys at the top and it would be redistributed to everybody else. I don't see how this is a problem. These redistribution would only apply to the people who are making literally millions of dollars year in and year out. The reason the government has to spend a whole bunch of money is because all of the Cronies are lobbying to get the rules written in their favor. You seem to be just fine with this exploitation which is disgusting, absolutely disgusting.  

 

And if "big government" is a problem, then I would suspect the standard of living in most European countries to be sub par. Apart from the ongoing migrant crisis which is a problem caused by foreign intervention, Europe is doing pretty damn well and the citizens appreciate being taxed in order to guarantee certain goods that the market will not necessarily provide. This is Civics 101 although it is apparent to me that you have never bothered attending public school. How telling and unfortunate that you still believe in the fantasy that an unfettered market will be the most ideal. For example, the UK is ranked 10th in the world in economic freedom based on the most recent metrics. How unfortunate that facts contradict your ignorant arguments.

 http://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedkingdom

So why should there not be competing currencies?

Because people like having certainty in the value of their money. Imagine what it would look like if in one part of the country you had one currency and if you wanted to go to another state you would have to start using the new currencies and figure out the transaction costs of currency conversion etc. etc. Fiat currencies make life much easier because people don't have to spend hours haggling and negotiating in competing currencies. Have you ever even questioned how this could go wrong? Or do you just assume the best case scenario and ignore or disparage anyone providing counter evidence? 

Can anyone on this thread even fathom the reasons for why fiat currencies are still used and valued by billions of people? Where is Ancapistan? Where is the evidence for a Libertarian Utopia IN THE REAL WORLD AND NOT IN THEORY? The burden of proof is on you to prove how this would work and then convince all of the "Statists." You have to have evidence of a completely unregulated and unfettered market economy in the world today, otherwise your theories are bullshit.   

Economic collapse materialized in Venezuela. It materialized in Germany after WW I, hyperinflation and poverty were main reasons for the rise of fascism. Just to name two examples.

Europe had a goldstandard til 1913, then central banks were founded to finance the dawning war. Without central banks and the possibility to keep  citizens liable for unlimited debt WW I would have lasted only 2 weeks. So the slaughter could continue for 4 years. Even the winners like Great Britain had to pay back til the year 2003 (!).

 

A central bank and fiat money is the ultimative government tool for power. The central bank is actually an idea of Karl Marx, one of his points in the communistic manifest, to withdraw power from the capitalists (i.e. everyone who is productive) and transferring it to the state.

So all this crazy financial business where billions and billions circle around the globe, the financial crises from 1929 and litterally all major financial crises since then can be traced back to central bank action. Ironically, the lefts accuse capitalism for all this. But in fact its the output of an idea of Karl Marx and the very opposite of capitalism.

Recommended: https://www.amazon.de/The-Creature-from-Jekyll-Island/dp/B00NTQBJ5C/ref=sr_1_2/255-0756903-4013444?ie=UTF8&qid=1486634238&sr=8-2&keywords=creature+jekyll+island

 

 

regards

Andi

Two words: Crony Capitalism 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isaac blocked me on Facebook for asking, "compared to what?" on a similar posting. I was genuinely curious about how he was judging cabinet choices and who he would have thought could win the election and make better ones and apparently that was not he desired path.

 

Bottom line, Isaac, people seeking government power have a fault at the outset, so he have to get over that and make judgments about desired versus expected outcomes. And we have to accept that our arguing about it is probably an academic exercise unless we have an audience of hundreds of thousands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isaac blocked me on Facebook for asking, "compared to what?" on a similar posting. I was genuinely curious about how he was judging cabinet choices and who he would have thought could win the election and make better ones and apparently that was not he desired path.

 

Bottom line, Isaac, people seeking government power have a fault at the outset, so he have to get over that and make judgments about desired versus expected outcomes. And we have to accept that our arguing about it is probably an academic exercise unless we have an audience of hundreds of thousands.

You were not curious at all. That is a bunch of bullshit. You were pulling moral relativism trying to make me seem insane for questioning Cronyism. I never once said that Hillary would have been better. In fact I said exactly the opposite that she would have been just the same. You think because you donate a lot that you have some special kind of clout huh? Typical Corporatist. Well guess what bitch, I ain't backing down. I'm not scared of you. Let the public record speak for itself. It's a good thing I will be staying far far away from the corporate world thanks to you. I am not even mad just amused at this pathetic attempt to try and assassinate my character. What do you think will come of it honestly?  

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were not curious at all. That is a bunch of bullshit. You were pulling moral relativism trying to make me seem insane for questioning Cronyism. I never once said that Hillary would have been better. In fact I said exactly the opposite that she would have been just the same. You think because you donate a lot that you have some special kind of clout huh? Typical Corporatist. Well guess what bitch, I ain't backing down. I'm not scared of you. Let the public record speak for itself. It's a good thing I will be staying far far away from the corporate world thanks to you. I am not even mad just amused at this pathetic attempt to try and assassinate my character. What do you think will come of it honestly?  

 

It's not bullshit at all. Would any other candidate that had a change to win have more or less cronyism? What I was driving at is that there's better things to judge them by than whether or not they had business dealings with friends or family or donations to political parties.

 

I've never been insulting to you. I'm not what benefit you will derive from insulting me. My arguments are evaluated on their merits not my donation level.

 

If you have issue with the experience I presented, by all means bring out the facts. But, since you blocked me, I don't have a record of the conversation anymore, let alone a public one.

 

For the record, I consider corporations (as a legal fiction of the state) one of the few entities that *can* be taxed and regulated without it being an initiation of force. How does that make me a corporatist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is your argument that it will happen? Hello? The burden of proof does not lie with me to prove that hyperinflation will occur. You are making an extraordinary claim that will affect the lives of millions of people. The onus is on you to prove that we will experience hyperinflation and that your philosophical prescription will be the most beneficial for the most people. This is such a classic Libertarian tactic. Claim that I have no knowledge of economics and that everything I am doing is rambling. How pathetic and boring..... Where is your proof that this is going to happen in the US?  

Why do you feel we are only speaking to the US? who ever said it is only directed to the US?

 

You say it "affect the lives of millions of people", and yea it did, the millions living in Zimbabwe, Venezuela etc

 

You see how that holds actual sustains? while your BS claim saying Ron Paul or The great Alex Jones is affecting the lives of millions of people by warning them of history? cool story bro, maybe try facts. Maybe try looking at the numbers of the people actually affected rather than going with your feelings.

 

I am making the extraordinary claim? when Every fiat currency in history has eventually collapsed? :D oh look the sun has risen every day throughout history but listen guys, this particular day here.. It wont rise!!

 

Its quite simple, if you understand economics 

 

Which fiat currency in history has worked?

 

what has been the cause of fiat currency collapsing?

 

and since you like to single out USA, and not go with economic principles, then make the argument, what makes the US different?

 

Which goes back to my 1st response to you, where is the actual argument?

 

I am not sure if I am getting through to you, maybe you can call into Stefan Show as I feel he would do a better job getting you to understand. I truly wish you well, But if there is no argument, then there is no point in me continuing this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government in Venezuela is a Crony Capitalist government and a protectionist one as well. Here is the definition of Crony Capitalism:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism  So it is the well connected, the 1%, that are stealing the wealth from everybody else to line their own pockets. If you are in support of the 1% maintaining their hegemony, then fuck you. You are anti-human and fundamentally immoral. The only confiscation of wealth would be from the guys at the top and it would be redistributed to everybody else. I don't see how this is a problem. These redistribution would only apply to the people who are making literally millions of dollars year in and year out. The reason the government has to spend a whole bunch of money is because all of the Cronies are lobbying to get the rules written in their favor. You seem to be just fine with this exploitation which is disgusting, absolutely disgusting. 

You use the fact that Venezuela is a crony capitalist nation (which is arguable) to show why their fate would not foreshadow our own, yet in the same paragraph proceed to describe how the US operates in the exact fashion laid out in the definition you provided bolstering the very point you were trying to rebut, so I'm confused as to your point.

 

Yes, the well-connected use the government to secure their fortune through creating barriers to entry and offloading the costs of enforcement onto the taxpayers. How exactly will they allow their wealth to be confiscated and redistributed if they are in control?

 

Cronies are lobbying to get rules written in their favor therefore the government has to spend a bunch of money...? I'm not following the logic here if you want to expand on that.  Right now it seems less an argument and more just an explanatory claim.  

 

 

 

And if "big government" is a problem, then I would suspect the standard of living in most European countries to be sub par. Apart from the ongoing migrant crisis which is a problem caused by foreign intervention, Europe is doing pretty damn well and the citizens appreciate being taxed in order to guarantee certain goods that the market will not necessarily provide. This is Civics 101 although it is apparent to me that you have never bothered attending public school. How telling and unfortunate that you still believe in the fantasy that an unfettered market will be the most ideal. For example, the UK is ranked 10th in the world in economic freedom based on the most recent metrics. How unfortunate that facts contradict your ignorant arguments.

 http://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedkingdom

 

People look fat and happy during their debt-financed shopping sprees too, that doesn't mean their lifestyle is sustainable.

 

I suppose if the citizens appreciate being taxed so much then they wouldn't need to be coerced to do so, no?

 

What goods could not be provided by the market (i.e. without force)?

 

 

 

Because people like having certainty in the value of their money. Imagine what it would look like if in one part of the country you had one currency and if you wanted to go to another state you would have to start using the new currencies and figure out the transaction costs of currency conversion etc. etc. Fiat currencies make life much easier because people don't have to spend hours haggling and negotiating in competing currencies. Have you ever even questioned how this could go wrong? Or do you just assume the best case scenario and ignore or disparage anyone providing counter evidence? 

 

Please enlighten me, how could it go wrong? I'm definitely open to evidence.

 

 

 

Can anyone on this thread even fathom the reasons for why fiat currencies are still used and valued by billions of people? Where is Ancapistan? Where is the evidence for a Libertarian Utopia IN THE REAL WORLD AND NOT IN THEORY? The burden of proof is on you to prove how this would work and then convince all of the "Statists." You have to have evidence of a completely unregulated and unfettered market economy in the world today, otherwise your theories are bullshit.

 

You realize your statement asserts that unless something has existed in the past it cannot exist in the future, right?

 

"I have a theory on how we could ride in carriages without a horse!"

"Bullshit! And here's a gun to your head to not even let you try."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Law (Economist 1671-1729) Established first Central Bank of France, after various wars had depleted supplies of Gold and Silver coin. Switched from precious metals to Government Guarantees and Shares in various companies as currency, which the government, think monarchical faction gained control over.

 

Fast forward a generation.

 

French Revolution (1789)

 

Present day fiat currency (US Dollar) backed by oil and various shares and "Government Guarantees".

 

I live in the UK, it really sucks. If you have money you can pretty much get what you want goods wise. There are massive expenditures that "have" to be paid for "some how", including the NHS, Military, Education etc. Until now that has been paid for by the remnants of assets of the Empire, North Sea Oil, Weapons and cashing in on a brand name, now hollow. Production wise the UK has some of the highest energy costs in the world (Tax). It's also true that people in the UK have begun to use wood burners (as Stefan said in a recent video) instead of heating oil, considering the UK has very little forest and was dependent on imports of wood during the Napoleonic Wars this is not a good sign. IMO unless you are trading, corrupt, on older contracts, or born hard/maybe stupid making a living is not easy. "Row well and Live" Fuck that. If there were open borders between the US,Canada, Australia and the UK there would be massive emigration from the UK. 70 million UK (England most densely populated country in World), 36 million Canada.

 

On the plus side with a fiat currency system you get all of the bombastic music as people get their heads sawn off ISIS or French revolution style. Think of all the movies and musicals. But, hey maybe at the last possible minute Trump with the help of various people might help avert all of that or soften the blow, ain't seen nothing yet. Only takes a few people to fire the shots, to be heard all around the World.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Present day fiat currency (US Dollar) backed by oil and various shares and "Government Guarantees".

 

 

The US dollar, like every other currency not pinned to a resource or other currency, is backed by nothing. The value is generated by the government by demanding it in taxes, which gives it value to the taxpayer, and thus causes it to be a medium of exchange.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US dollar, like every other currency not pinned to a resource or other currency, is backed by nothing. The value is generated by the government by demanding it in taxes, which gives it value to the taxpayer, and thus causes it to be a medium of exchange.

While not incorrect, I would push back on the phraseology of your description. It obscures a level of iniquity inherent in the interaction. The government declares "you owe us x percentage of the product of your labor under threat of incarceration, or death should you resist! And we'll only accept this medium which we alone control!" - essentially forcing you to use that currency. Saying that action is generating value in the currency for the taxpayer.... I don't know. Yes you value the item because it allows you to remove the threat imposed, but it seems to me there should be a clear distinction between the value of removing the infliction of a detriment and the value of the production of a benefit. Should we not say that we use the currency because the government forces us to as opposed to the government says we have to pay our taxes in that currency so it has value?

 

Maybe I'm making too much of it, or perhaps I misunderstood you, what do you think?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While not incorrect, I would push back on the phraseology of your description. It obscures a level of iniquity inherent in the interaction. 

 

I didn't elaborate because I figured everyone here knew exactly what is meant by the word "taxes".

 

 

The government declares "you owe us x percentage of the product of your labor under threat of incarceration, or death should you resist! And we'll only accept this medium which we alone control!" - essentially forcing you to use that currency. Saying that action is generating value in the currency for the taxpayer.... I don't know.

 

That's exactly the sort of "value" I'm referring to, here: safety from violence. However, it would be hard to argue against, that once a currency becomes uniform and accepted, there is a MAJOR value knowing that you can take it anywhere in a country and have it recognized and accepted. Just like roads built by the government are done so at the threat of violence, once they're built we can use them to run our businesses.

 

 

Yes you value the item because it allows you to remove the threat imposed, but it seems to me there should be a clear distinction between the value of removing the infliction of a detriment and the value of the production of a benefit. Should we not say that we use the currency because the government forces us to as opposed to the government says we have to pay our taxes in that currency so it has value?

 

Maybe I'm making too much of it, or perhaps I misunderstood you, what do you think?

 

I 100% agree. That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

"The government forcing us to use it" and "the government says we have to pay taxes in it" are the same thing. Like I said, I figured I didn't have to elaborate on what "pay taxes" actually means on these boards. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic collapse is not a "conspiracy theory".  It has happened to many societies throughout history when they live beyond their means for too long and can no longer pay their debts.  The price of gold and silver tends to rise in times of economic uncertainty and therefore it is considered a good investment by those who expect such a collapse in their lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Present day fiat currency (US Dollar) backed by oil and various shares and "Government Guarantees".

The US dollar, like every other currency not pinned to a resource or other currency, is backed by nothing. The value is generated by the government by demanding it in taxes, which gives it value to the taxpayer, and thus causes it to be a medium of exchange.

So it is possible to "create" value by inflicting violence on people?

 

I generally hold value to be positive assertions, not negative ones. i.e

I value not having my legs broken by the mafia.

Waking up with a horse head.

Being melted in acid.

Being ass-raped.

Eating lard.

Hit by meteor.

Tortured on a Japanese Gameshow.

Fear of being jailed for tax evasion and then ass raped.

Ad Infinitum.

 

I wouldn't say I value roads per se, I perhaps value the freedom they may or may not provide. I mean in Norway one of the roads was built with slave labour sometimes ploughed into the concrete, I think it would be better if people stuck more to boats. Great Wall of China probably an interesting tourist attraction, built with workers that were murdered for their labour.

 

I still hold by my premise that the US dollar is backed by Oil, various shares and Government Guarantees. Oil because when the USA came off the Gold Standard completely in 1971 in order to continue to siphon off wealth due to the Vietnam war an alternative was devised. That alternative was backing the murderous Saudi regime in return for Oil. I mean France and other countries wanted their Gold reserves back and they aren't exactly going to take paper or Bud Lite in payment. Generally I don't think "the Elites" want the general crap "us peasants" produce(toilet paper exempted, though maybe they use currency in Venezuela), they want Ferraris, Yachts, Don Perigon Champagne, Private Jets all often exempt from taxation. The fact that something maybe demanded does not add value to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is possible to "create" value by inflicting violence on people?

 

In the same way intruders "create" value for locks on doors.

 

I still hold by my premise that the US dollar is backed by Oil, various shares and Government Guarantees.

 

Where is the law that says the dollar is defined by a certain amount of oil? The law used to state that a dollar was defined by a certain amount of gold. This is what "gold-backed" meant.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the same way intruders "create" value for locks on doors.

 

 

 

Where is the law that says the dollar is defined by a certain amount of oil? The law used to state that a dollar was defined by a certain amount of gold. This is what "gold-backed" meant.

And not just defined, right? I think you were able to bring in your notes and demand the gold they represented.

 

 

I didn't elaborate because I figured everyone here knew exactly what is meant by the word "taxes".

I see. Though I have noticed a lot of new people who think being red pilled means you're a conservative now, lol. The predations of government hasn't exactly been a hot topic on the show for the past year and a half.

 

That's exactly the sort of "value" I'm referring to, here: safety from violence. However, it would be hard to argue against, that once a currency becomes uniform and accepted, there is a MAJOR value knowing that you can take it anywhere in a country and have it recognized and accepted. Just like roads built by the government are done so at the threat of violence, once they're built we can use them to run our businesses.

I agree. I guess I feel the need to throw the caveats in, but that could be a personal tic.

 

"The government forcing us to use it" and "the government says we have to pay taxes in it" are the same thing. Like I said, I figured I didn't have to elaborate on what "pay taxes" actually means on these boards. :)

You're right. I guess the reason I pointed it out is because "have to" has become so colloquially detached from necessity - "I have to have this thing" "you have to watch this show" "I have to go to the store" "you have to pay your taxes" - in that way people don't connect the reality of what is occurring vis-à-vis government. Again, that could be a result of my personal experience discussing the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the same way intruders "create" value for locks on doors.

So by smashing a window or breaking an entry, value is created/generated, what if the person becomes an insomniac or moves out of the neighbourhood, takes their own life; is value then generated for the worms. I think Frédéric Bastiat's "Broken window fallacy" refutes this. Perhaps it is good to purge the weak, their values in the final outcome were inferior anyway, they did not endure. Maybe it would be a good thing to have countries like Sweden burn, maybe even accelerate it. ("To serve as warning flag to others". "Or that never again moment"). As Constantinople burns, Rome begins to rise in Renaissance. If someone were to assert their values above all, they would perhaps be the good and valuable. How best could someone create value through violence?

 

Where is the law that says the dollar is defined by a certain amount of oil? The law used to state that a dollar was defined by a certain amount of gold. This is what "gold-backed" meant.

I never said defined by, I said backed by. There is no law or explicit agreement, just as there is no explicit agreement in the concept of "Joint Enterprise", how else was the USA to settle Balance of payment issues with foreign creditors? I read that the dollar was defined originally by Silver and not Gold, Gold being impractical for everyday transactions and Silver being plentiful due to Spanish mining in Mexico. So Gold-Certificates could be considered, Dollars? Modern day Federal Reserve Notes, Dollars? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So by smashing a window or breaking an entry, value is created/generated, what if the person becomes an insomniac or moves out of the neighbourhood, takes their own life;

 

By having some force that smashes windows or breaking and entering in existence, this gives a value to door locks and window bars to prevent it. Not too sure what's being misunderstood here.

 

I never said defined by, I said backed by. There is no law or explicit agreement, just as there is no explicit agreement in the concept of "Joint Enterprise", how else was the USA to settle Balance of payment issues with foreign creditors? I read that the dollar was defined originally by Silver and not Gold, Gold being impractical for everyday transactions and Silver being plentiful due to Spanish mining in Mexico. So Gold-Certificates could be considered, Dollars? Modern day Federal Reserve Notes, Dollars? 

 

Right, and as I mentioned, backed by was defined by law. Whether it was gold or silver or lead or tinfoil doesn't matter. When the government says "an ounce of gold is worth 36 dollars, because we said so", now a dollar is defined as 1/36 oz. of gold, because that's what it's "backed by". The definition is legal in nature.

 

Obviously, money is valuable insofar as you can buy something with it. If dollars can fetch you oil, where euros or yuan cannot, then that is a value the dollar has that the others don't. It doesn't mean that dollars are backed by oil. Dollars can also make my mortgage payment and buy me dinner, but that doesn't mean they're backed by mortgages and food.

And not just defined, right? I think you were able to bring in your notes and demand the gold they represented.

 

At least that's what they said. I'm sure most of us around here know that there were WAY MORE notes in circulation than there was gold.

 

I used to collect coins and I have some gold and silver certificates. You'll still catch one of these in circulation every once in awhile. The Treasury Sigil stamp on notes today is green (the stamp to the right of the president on the note), but silver certs were blue and the gold certs were red.

 

Interestingly enough, this is what's written on mine:

 

On a 1 Dollar Silver Cert (blue stamp): "ONE DOLLAR IN SILVER PAYABLE TO BEARER ON DEMAND"

On a 5 Dollar Gold Cert (red stamp): "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND FIVE DOLLARS"

 

The first one is pretty clear. That second is, what would you say... recursive? Of course you can't exchange these for the metals anymore, but tied to gold/silver was definitely what they were going for.

 

 

I see. Though I have noticed a lot of new people who think being red pilled means you're a conservative now, lol. The predations of government hasn't exactly been a hot topic on the show for the past year and a half.

 

 

It's all obfuscation and euphemisms, right? We have to invent a whole new language for violence to obscure the fact that it is, indeed, violence. Your irritation with the language used for this is understandable.

 

"Red-pilled" may have been watered down to mean conservative, but if that's what we have to do to save civilization, then I'm more than happy to start there. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, and as I mentioned, backed by was defined by law. Whether it was gold or silver or lead or tinfoil doesn't matter. When the government says "an ounce of gold is worth 36 dollars, because we said so", now a dollar is defined as 1/36 oz. of gold, because that's what it's "backed by". The definition is legal in nature.

 

Obviously, money is valuable insofar as you can buy something with it. If dollars can fetch you oil, where euros or yuan cannot, then that is a value the dollar has that the others don't. It doesn't mean that dollars are backed by oil. Dollars can also make my mortgage payment and buy me dinner, but that doesn't mean they're backed by mortgages and food.

You still didn't answer my initial question of if the US dollar is backed by nothing, how was and is the USA supposed to settle balance of payment issues with other countries being a debtor nation? The art of the unseen or implicit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By having some force that smashes windows or breaking and entering in existence, this gives a value to door locks and window bars to prevent it. Not too sure what's being misunderstood here.

Ok 2 examples to make my point.

 

Would a policeman?

a) Prevent injuries to the public.

b) Prefer or appreciate more people being knifed to death.

 

Would a locksmith?

a) Make locks to keep horses in the stables. Cut keys etc

b) Prefer or appreciate more break ins, to provide security.

 

If the later they are not a policeman and they are not a locksmith. 

 

In the same way "Guns don't kill people, I do". (Postal II)

Tools don't give value to people, people give value to tools. Behind the tool there is a fundamental desire or need, in the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.