Given the amount of new money that's been printed...

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



tsscls
Will inflation negatively imapct the US economy. If so, when?

Robtard
Now, right now.

ATX/UT ND Money
Originally posted by tsscls
Will inflation negatively imapct the US economy. If so, when?


I've had professors say that the government is actually hoping for inflation to help get out the recession like it did in the 80's

jinXed by JaNx
Who cares, Bama will save us.

FistOfThe North
WWII Germany printed curency out of it's value. Which is what the U.S. is doing now. Coming up with money that doesn't even exist yet.

There're rumors that if things fail Washington will create a multi-national monetary sytem yielding a new dollar that will based on that economy that certain qualifying coutries can and will use..Some thing like the E.U.

Will the NWO be after...? I forsee the future union of the E.U. and this new "Western" dollar.

Stay tuned, folks!

Robtard
Dude, US money has been worth only what people/countries perceieve it's worth since 1933, it is literally supported by it's own legend.

Symmetric Chaos
How many countries actually have a backing for their money anymore?

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Robtard
Dude, US money has been worth only what people/countries perceieve it's worth since 1933, it is literally supported by it's own legend.

But isn't the U.S. dollar backed by gold and/or other metals?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
But isn't the U.S. dollar backed by gold and/or other metals?

Not since about 1933.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not since about 1933.

I think they should bring back the backing. Should curb rapid value fluctuations.

The backing should be diversified to help prevent massive fluctuations that can occur.





I know the benefits of no backed tender, but what are the negatives?

What are the negatives of a backed tender? What about the positives?


If someone could educate me, and point me in the right direction, that'd be nice. I could make a better assessment.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
I know the benefits of no backed tender, but what are the negatives?

What are the negatives of a backed tender? What about the positives?

The positives and negatives of not having backing seem to be the same thing. Namely flexibility. Gold standard has trouble responding to economic problems but it's also less vulnerable to them for the same reason.

The biggest drawback to back tender that I know is, is that it would make gold prohibitively expensive.

Bicnarok
All this making money from no where raises the question "is it really worth anything" and what' s the point of companys making goods if they are worth imaginary money

Symmetric Chaos
The imaginary money is given worth by people's willingness to exchange it for goods and services. In a sense everything gains value that way.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Bicnarok
All this making money from no where raises the question "is it really worth anything" and what' s the point of companys making goods if they are worth imaginary money Well, the companies can really demand whatever they want for their products. They have "faith" in the money, so they accept it in exchange for their goods and services.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The biggest drawback to back tender that I know is, is that it would make gold prohibitively expensive.

But isn't that good? Wouldn't A diverse backing also protect against market flucuations? Wouldn't it also curb out of control inflation?



Take the Pound problem experienced recently because of silver dropping. If they had a diverse backing, the hit wouldn't have been so severe.


There are theories out that that no backing is a conspiracy perpetuated by that administration's politicians to make it easier to control things from behind the scenes. We would need Deano for further clarification, but I think there has got to be some sort of truth behind that. (Corruption, at some level, some where.)

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
But isn't the U.S. dollar backed by gold and/or other metals?

Not US, but there are countries which have at least 27% of their value backed up in gold.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
But isn't that good?

Raising the price of gold dramatically is a bad thing if you like computers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wouldn't A diverse backing also protect against market flucuations? Wouldn't it also curb out of control inflation?

It should, I see no reason that it would not. But then again I'm not an economist, there's almost certainly some line of logic that says backed currency is a bad idea. I believe the problem lies in the use of mining futures to back the economy. There's something called "pure strain gold" that's supposed to avoid that, but I have no idea how.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There are theories out that that no backing is a conspiracy perpetuated by that administration's politicians to make it easier to control things from behind the scenes. We would need Deano for further clarification, but I think there has got to be some sort of truth behind that. (Corruption, at some level, some where.)

Which is one of the more "realistic" conspiracy theories. An unbacked currency actually is much easier to control than one that is backed by a gold standard. In fact that's is acknowledged as the point of not having backing: when economies turn bad an unbacked currency can alter the market to stabilize things more quickly (in theory).

Deja~vu
Soon American money = peso.

Bicnarok
best go back to bartering, Ill give you some milk, you give me some bread. That way cutting these parasite banks out of the cycle

Deja~vu
Yeah, I agree. My friends talk about this bartering thing. Some of us are already doing some of it ourselves.

lil bitchiness

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bicnarok
best go back to bartering, Ill give you some milk, you give me some bread. That way cutting these parasite banks out of the cycle

I hit you really hard with a club and keep both.

Also, bartering is extremely inconvienient in modern times and use of money is a form of bartering just done by proxy.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I hit you really hard with a club and keep both.

Don't forget that it gives you a third option in the form of raepz. smile

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Also, bartering is extremely inconvienient in modern times and use of money is a form of bartering just done by proxy.

Agreed. Only barter when you are both in a bartering position. (lulz, my puns.)

Red Nemesis
Money eliminates the requirement of a double coincidence of wants that is inherent in a barter system. It also acts as a 'store of value'. The only problem I see (after 5 seconds of thought) is that the banks have broken trust. There's nothing wrong with money, only with the hoarders of money.

Bardock42
Well, it also makes it much easier to tax. Which, from my point of view, sucks, though others tend to disagree. I think that's partly the motivation between bartering experiments, lil b referred to, though.

Robtard
How would you propose a society pay for needs like police(the legal establishment as a whole, really) and firemen, if not taxes?

Symmetric Chaos
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess his answer will boil down to "privatization".

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
How would you propose a society pay for needs like police(the legal establishment as a whole, really) and firemen, if not taxes?

Either by voluntary taxation, which is basically the community getting together to pay for it.
Or individual contract.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Either by voluntary taxation, which is basically the community getting together to pay for it.
Or individual contract.

"Voluntary taxation" wouldn't work, maybe in an ideal community, but you're fully aware of greed and human nature. If anything, you end up with one guy in a jumpsuit with a broom handle as a weapon and a bucket of piss for fire-fighting.

Explain "individual contract"?

Robtard
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess his answer will boil down to "privatization".

Well, that would only breed rampant corruption, I believe we saw this happen in Robocop 2 (which sucked, compared to Robocop, which was awesome).

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
"Voluntary taxation" wouldn't work, maybe in an ideal community, but you're fully aware of greed and human nature. If anything, you end up with one guy in a jumpsuit with a broom handle as a weapon and a bucket of piss for fire-fighting.

Explain "individual contract"?

It could work, I think. Greed or not. It's in no way my preferred system.

Individual contract is easy. You pay a company for them to protect you.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Well, that would only breed rampant corruption, I believe we saw this happen in Robocop 2 (which sucked, compared to Robocop, which was awesome). Oh, Robocop 2, you are right, I was wrong, I saw the light, thank you...Frank Miller apparently no expression

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
It could work, I think. Greed or not. It's in no way my preferred system.

Individual contract is easy. You pay a company for them to protect you.

In a utopia yes, not in reality.

Well, that's not very good either, as any person could then pay to get a free pass on crimes. Sure, that happens today to some extent, but your scenario if would be rampant.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
In a utopia yes, not in reality.

Well, that's not very good either, as any person could then pay to get a free pass on crimes. Sure, that happens today to some extent, but your scenario if would be rampant.

Well, at the moment the government has that, they can just go out imprison you, steal your money, even kill you. There's no real reason to assume a government is the only way to ensure security and wealth, especially since it itself is not doing the best of jobs.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, Robocop 2, you are right, I was wrong, I saw the light, thank you...Frank Miller apparently no expression

?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
? Nevermind, just making a joke about someone writing something fictional not having any bearing on reality. And apparently Frank Miller wrote Robocop 2.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, at the moment the government has that, they can just go out imprison you, steal your money, even kill you. There's no real reason to assume a government is the only way to ensure security and wealth, especially since it itself is not doing the best of jobs.

That's part of the question, if not, then what would be better?

It's easy to pick something apart and point out the flaws, thinking of something that is both better and would actually work is far different.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nevermind, just making a joke about someone writing something fictional not having any bearing on reality. And apparently Frank Miller wrote Robocop 2.

You really didn't think I was serious about Robocop being a valid point?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
That's part of the question, if not, then what would be better?

It's easy to pick something apart and point out the flaws, thinking of something that is both better and would actually work is far different. Well, but isn't that what you are doing? I mean, you aren't even picking it apart or giving arguments, you really just say "Wouldn't work, NEXT!". Both those and many others are possibilities, which might ultimately not work, but a simple dismissal certainly doesn't do them justice. Especially since they do work, in smaller scenarios under particular circumstances already.

Either way, I am just not interested in having a long debate about my anarchists believe, in which I have to put up with "Just wouldn't work", rather than any thought out arguments. If you'd like to discuss the advantages and problems of different systems fair enough, I'd like to do that, but not such silliness again.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
You really didn't think I was serious about Robocop being a valid point?

No, the joke didn't need that though.

Robtard
I'm looking at your thoughts from a realistic point of view.

Voluntary taxation wouldn't work in a modern society, if anything you'd end up with a police department and fire department unable to cope with the needs of the society who do not want to feed into it in the first place. Sure, you can say "well, **** those people then, they get what they paid for, but then my house burns down or I get robbed because my neighbors just didn't want to give this month, yet I did." Then there's the 'he gave less, so I'm giving less' spiral down to nothing.

Fair enough, but please don't take the stance that I blindly dismissed you.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm looking at your thoughts from a realistic point of view.

Voluntary taxation wouldn't work in a modern society, if anything you'd end up with a police department and fire department unable to cope with the needs of the society who do not want to feed into it in the first place. Sure, you can say "well, **** those people then, they get what they paid for, but then my house burns down or I get robbed because my neighbors just didn't want to give this month, yet I did." Then there's the 'he gave less, so I'm giving less' spiral down to nothing.

Fair enough, but please don't take the stance that I blindly dismissed you. Well, what you said was blind dismissal, you might have good reasons for it, though I tend to notice that the reasons people give are based on an inherent belief that it can't work.

As for that argument, that's a hypothetical that might happen, although Police and Fire Departments aren't necessarily the most costy of things. And I believe you give your fellow people too little credit. If you get together with your neighbours and talk about protection, I'd assume more than a few people would be willing to pay together to get protection. The police department and fire departments on the other hand would not be differently motivated I'd assume, if anything, better due to being an actual employee of someone. I mean, there are already voluntary firefighters all over the place. I just don't believe that being robbed of your money by the government so that that can pay for fire fighter services is the only way to ensure that protection...imo, not even the best or a very good one.

Robtard
Listen, I'm open to anything that would lower my taxes, Uncle Sam takes a deep cut; I don't like it anymore than you do.

Police and Fire were just two examples of a much larger whole.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Listen, I'm open to anything that would lower my taxes, Uncle Sam takes a deep cut; I don't like it anymore than you do.

Police and Fire were just two examples of a much larger whole.

Great, we are on the same page then.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Robtard
How would you propose a society pay for needs like police(the legal establishment as a whole, really) and firemen, if not taxes?

If you're refering to the example I gave, there wouldn't be any ''money'' to pay it with.
Their payment would come in the form of other goods and services.

Noone is saying this will WORK, but as a hypothetical example, that is how it would work.
Doctor offers healthcare, for his policing or firemen service, and the farmer offers food...etc.

Firemen and policement wouldn't really need money anyway in the examples above, since it would be worthless if the whole society is based on exchange of goods and services for other goods and services.

KidRock
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If you're refering to the example I gave, there wouldn't be any ''money'' to pay it with.
Their payment would come in the form of other goods and services.

Noone is saying this will WORK, but as a hypothetical example, that is how it would work.
Doctor offers healthcare, for his policing or firemen service, and the farmer offers food...etc.

Firemen and policement wouldn't really need money anyway in the examples above, since it would be worthless if the whole society is based on exchange of goods and services for other goods and services.

That would never work.

What if I am high school janitor and want to buy a laptop. Will I mop the floors of the guys houses that make each component of the laptop?

Deano
if you want to realise the sheer insanity of the monetary system then just watch'zeitgeist addendum'

you can watch it online.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by KidRock
That would never work.

What if I am high school janitor and want to buy a laptop. Will I mop the floors of the guys houses that make each component of the laptop?

No, you suck it up and admit you have no useful skill and their starve to death or sell your body.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, you suck it up and admit you have no useful skill and their starve to death or sell your body.

Hah! Goddamn straight.

Originally posted by KidRock
That would never work.

What if I am high school janitor and want to buy a laptop. Will I mop the floors of the guys houses that make each component of the laptop?

It is actually, exactly what Symmetric Chaos said.

In society like that, you either have some useful skills, or you starve and have nothing.
End.

It would rid world of a lot of excess baggage.

jinXed by JaNx
Jesus. You people worry to much about this crap. I'm movin to Canada until America wisens up and introduces a flat tax plan. This Stimulus Bill will just give you nightmares if you worry to much about it. I mean, the goddamn gomment became bold enough to steal in front of our eyes. What does that tell you about our system now? They don't even have the courtesy to give us a reach around and divert our attention as they're ass raping us.

Bardock42
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Jesus. You people worry to much about this crap. I'm movin to Canada until America wisens up and introduces a flat tax plan. This Stimulus Bill will just give you nightmares if you worry to much about it. I mean, the goddamn gomment became bold enough to steal in front of our eyes. What does that tell you about our system now? They don't even have the courtesy to give us a reach around and divert our attention as they're ass raping us. You apparently worry enough to move countries.

inimalist
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Jesus. You people worry to much about this crap. I'm movin to Canada until America wisens up and introduces a flat tax plan. This Stimulus Bill will just give you nightmares if you worry to much about it. I mean, the goddamn gomment became bold enough to steal in front of our eyes. What does that tell you about our system now? They don't even have the courtesy to give us a reach around and divert our attention as they're ass raping us.

Canada doesn't have a flat tax, and the only reason we didnt have a stimulus bill was that our banks refused one

and while we are better poised than most western nations (our banks were considered too old fashioned prior to the crisis and are now an envy of the world) its going to be bad here.

Our politicians are no less corrupt either, we just don't have the same major journalism here to reveal it. There is an member of parliament who was found to have mafia ties, and the story was buried two days after it was released.

chithappens
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Jesus. You people worry to much about this crap. I'm movin to Canada until America wisens up and introduces a flat tax plan. This Stimulus Bill will just give you nightmares if you worry to much about it. I mean, the goddamn gomment became bold enough to steal in front of our eyes. What does that tell you about our system now? They don't even have the courtesy to give us a reach around and divert our attention as they're ass raping us.

You know a fair government where everything runs like a machine in the best interest of the people at all times?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by chithappens
You know a fair government where everything runs like a machine in the best interest of the people at all times?

A lot of people do. They're just all wrong.

LordFear
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
But isn't the U.S. dollar backed by gold and/or other metals?

Yeah that is slowly fading away if not already. U.S is quickly running on fumes and other countries are realizing this day by day

Darth Jello
The number one cause of inflation and devaluation of currency, the root cause of printing new money, is actually short selling of currency which can only happen if currency can be bought and sold without regulation from a private entity, such as a Central Bank.
Germany solved their hyperinflation during the depression by shutting down the central bank and printing its own money (the only good thing Hitler, and Andrew Jackson before him, ever did) so if Obama wants to avoid hyperinflation he should do what a lot of Americans have been saying and shut down the Federal Reserve and make short selling illegal. Theoretically the existence of a privately owned central bank violates the 13th amendment anyway.

King Kandy
Originally posted by chithappens
You know a fair government where everything runs like a machine in the best interest of the people at all times?
It really is. It's no secret that countries with the highest living standards have high govt. regulation.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Jello
The number one cause of inflation and devaluation of currency, the root cause of printing new money, is actually short selling of currency which can only happen if currency can be bought and sold without regulation from a private entity, such as a Central Bank.
Germany solved their hyperinflation during the depression by shutting down the central bank and printing its own money (the only good thing Hitler, and Andrew Jackson before him, ever did) so if Obama wants to avoid hyperinflation he should do what a lot of Americans have been saying and shut down the Federal Reserve and make short selling illegal. Theoretically the existence of a privately owned central bank violates the 13th amendment anyway.

I couldn't agree more!


...now if I could only get you to revise your social policy perspectives....

Darth Jello
Sorry, I'm a social democrat, I think evidence has shown that free market capitalism is as bad if not worse than communism.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Sorry, I'm a social democrat, I think evidence has shown that free market capitalism is as bad if not worse than communism.
Definitely as bad. Capitalism is based on benefiting the top, communism is based on benefiting the bottom.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Sorry, I'm a social democrat, I think evidence has shown that free market capitalism is as bad if not worse than communism.


I agree that capitalism fails. So does socialism. So does communism.

It is the hybrid that works best.

I think a capitalist-socialist system works best. Of course, I lean more towards capitalism than you do, which was what my joke was about.

I'm of the Thomas Paine mentality when it comes to governing.

King Kandy
west-european socialism is the best system.

KidRock
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Sorry, I'm a social democrat, I think evidence has shown that free market capitalism is as bad if not worse than communism.

I hope your evidence doesn't consist of anything related to the US economy within the past 50 years.

Darth Jello
That middle ground is what social democracy is. The only way my opinions and ideas defer from the European model is that as long as it's equitably and humanely applied, I have no problem with the death penalty, I'm far more of a Proudhon style capitalist in the sense that I don't believe in globalization and that conglomeration/corporation should be avoided most of the time in favor of an economy of many small and medium sized businesses, I think internet should be treated as a utility and should be run like any other state run monopoly like power and water, and I think countries have no need for a government leader such as a president or prime minister that acts as anything but a tie breaking vote or a figurehead during peace time.

So I guess Social Democrat with classical Anarchist overtones.

King Kandy
Originally posted by KidRock
I hope your evidence doesn't consist of anything related to the US economy within the past 50 years.
You mean how it's sucked lately because of lack of regulation?

KidRock
Originally posted by King Kandy
You mean how it's sucked lately because of lack of regulation?

Yeah, like how we bailed out Chrysler with billions of dollars only to have them file for bankruptcy a year later.

King Kandy
Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, like how we bailed out Chrysler with billions of dollars only to have them file for bankruptcy a year later.
...Are you saying Chrysler wasn't going under before we bailed them out? There was a bailout because they were already tanking.

KidRock
Originally posted by King Kandy
...Are you saying Chrysler wasn't going under before we bailed them out? There was a bailout because they were already tanking.

Uhh..exactly.

They were going under before we bailed them out, and they're going under after we bailed them out.

Wouldnt the smart thing to have done was let them tank LAST year BEFORE WE GAVE THEM BILLIONS OF DOLLARS?

blink

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.