Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

AQv-sdMCClQ

National Inflation Association

An hour and 14 minutes?

Summarize for me.

Also, I'm leering of trusting "news" sites that are so desperate for stories that they have to report on their own activity.

Symmetric Chaos-

This documentary was produced by a grass-roots organization. Moreover, the title of the documentary itself is a summarization. No pun intended. I posted this video simply to spread the word about the dangers of expanding government, not to mention government regulations that impact the liberties of all Americans.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Symmetric Chaos-

This documentary was produced by a grass-roots organization. Moreover, the title of the documentary itself is a summarization. No pun intended.

The title is not a summary, it tells me only the title of the video you posted.

Also, you didn't make a pun.

Originally posted by ushomefree


As a concerned citizen I would like to know what these regulations are but, having been burned before, I'm not willing to spend over an hour watching a video that may be absurd. Could you give me a few examples of these regulations and how they impact my liberties?

Symmetric Chaos-

If your unwilling to view a 74-minute documentary about the infringement of American civil liberties by governmental policies, I don't know what will. Is your house on fire? You obviously do not share the level of enthusiasm and concern that I have, not to mention the general populace in the US or NIA members. I'm not here to debate; I'm merely spreading a message (that I think is relevant in today's times). Watch the documentary or leave it alone.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Symmetric Chaos-

If your unwilling to view a 74-minute documentary about the infringement of American civil liberties by governmental policies, I don't know what will. Is your house on fire? You obviously do not share the level of enthusiasm and concern that I have, not to mention the general populace in the US or NIA members. I'm not here to debate; I'm merely spreading a message (that I think is relevant in today's times). Watch the documentary or leave it alone.

If you can take the time to write evasive paragraphs but can't write me a summary I can only conclude that you haven't watched the documentary yourself.

It just makes points showing the general collapse of the United States (both economically and politically).

It gives a number of examples showing just pure **** ups in the system and a few people who are preparing for the end of times.

Uhh, and unreasonable laws that make absolutely no sense or are applied in very strange ways. Like the body scanners at airports and how they said they wouldn't save the images but reports have found that thousands of these images are saved without reason.

Stuff like that, it's actually quite good.

I didn't watch the video, but I do agree that there are toooo many laws, toooo much government intrusions that are disrupting people lives. Just too much and if it doesn't stop like real soon, people are going to riot!

And I sure hope they do, cause I'll be right there with em.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I didn't watch the video, but I do agree that there are toooo many laws, toooo much government intrusions that are disrupting people lives. Just too much and if it doesn't stop like real soon, people are going to riot!

And I sure hope they do, cause I'll be right there with em.


Well, that's what the second amendment was made for. Shame that it has become virtually antiquated. What we SHOULD do is relax our "arms" laws so that state militias can arm themselves with tanks, fighter jets, bombers, and other lol stuff.

We should pretty much remove half of the laws we have, now, and amend the rest to be useful. When I say "half" I mean half.

yes, because blackwater isn't terrifying enough

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, because blackwater isn't terrifying enough

Nope a gun is a total equalizing force. You would be able to fight off Blackwater if they tried to oppress you, just because you have a gun.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nope a gun is a total equalizing force. You would be able to fight off Blackwater if they tried to oppress you, just because you have a gun.

Think they're better trained, see what you're getting at though. Blackwater is more of a tangible threat.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nope a gun is a total equalizing force. You would be able to fight off Blackwater if they tried to oppress you, just because you have a gun.

I've looked into it, it would take me at least 2-3 months of very deliberate saving to even buy a handgun

considering blackwater already owns an airforce (mostly transport, but still) I'd have a long way to go

I get the joke though

god, I'm sure I plug this all the time, but have you read Orwell's "you and the atom bomb"? in his terms, we might be seeing a new age of military relations, where even states don't have the money to compete with the forces of private military companies... like, governments could build an aircraft carrier, but their citizens demand social services, and thus, mega-corporates could become the strongest military powers on the planet...

Originally posted by Deadline
Think they're better trained, see what you're getting at though. Blackwater is more of a tangible threat.

actually, the point is more, there is no way that you or I as individuals could defend ourselves against blackwater, especially as daduemon suggested, if private citizens were allowed to buy high tech military vehicles and weapons systems. You or I would never be able to afford even a single stinger/javelin system, whereas Blackwater could afford multiple X35s (I guess they are called F-35s, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-35)

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, the point is more, there is no way that you or I as individuals could defend ourselves against blackwater, especially as daduemon suggested, if private citizens were allowed to buy high tech military vehicles and weapons systems. You or I would never be able to afford even a single stinger/javelin system, whereas Blackwater could afford multiple X35s

Yea that was obvoulsy one of your points.

oh

I'm pretty sure Sym was being sarcastic too

Originally posted by inimalist
god, I'm sure I plug this all the time, but have you read Orwell's "you and the atom bomb"? in his terms, we might be seeing a new age of military relations, where even states don't have the money to compete with the forces of private military companies... like, governments could build an aircraft carrier, but their citizens demand social services, and thus, mega-corporates could become the strongest military powers on the planet...



actually, the point is more, there is no way that you or I as individuals could defend ourselves against blackwater, especially as daduemon suggested, if private citizens were allowed to buy high tech military vehicles and weapons systems. You or I would never be able to afford even a single stinger/javelin system, whereas Blackwater could afford multiple X35s (I guess they are called F-35s, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-35)

Just read it.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with his premise. Obviously cheap weapons give power to more people but that doesn't make them weapons of democracy, as he puts it, it just makes them weapons of distributed tyranny. The issue of a peace that is not peace exists equally on the small scale and the large scale.

In fact it seems to me that it would create an identical situation in the end. Imagine if we abolished all governments, removed all weapons and gave everyone a pistol (that they couldn't get rid of). Orwell and platitude bearing Libertarians would have us believe that this would produce democracy ("an armed society is a polite society". But it wouldn't, it would produce military governments. Blackwater is still more powerful than you are, simply because there are more of them than you. We can fight back by banding together so Blackwater doesn't attack us but then we've perfectly recreated the "peace that is no peace", just on a scale of thousands rather than millions.

I think Orwell is still right about the current situation. Expensive weapons swing the advantage toward those already in power. And that strikes me as an intractable problem. If we never allow any groups or individuals to have lots of power/money then we'll just be crushed be the first people to try that.

Were all going to die.

edit: Except the rich people.

I'm maybe a noob, but what's the problem with intervention of the state in everydais buisinesses?

I live in Quebec, in Canada. we are the most taxed state in north america, and still, I don't believe it's that terrible.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
I live in Quebec, in Canada.

thats your problem right there

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just read it.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with his premise. Obviously cheap weapons give power to more people but that doesn't make them weapons of democracy, as he puts it, it just makes them weapons of distributed tyranny. The issue of a peace that is not peace exists equally on the small scale and the large scale.

In fact it seems to me that it would create an identical situation in the end. Imagine if we abolished all governments, removed all weapons and gave everyone a pistol (that they couldn't get rid of). Orwell and platitude bearing Libertarians would have us believe that this would produce democracy ("an armed society is a polite society". But it wouldn't, it would produce military governments. Blackwater is still more powerful than you are, simply because there are more of them than you. We can fight back by banding together so Blackwater doesn't attack us but then we've perfectly recreated the "peace that is no peace", just on a scale of thousands rather than millions.

I think Orwell is still right about the current situation. Expensive weapons swing the advantage toward those already in power. And that strikes me as an intractable problem. If we never allow any groups or individuals to have lots of power/money then we'll just be crushed be the first people to try that.

huh, I must have tuned out the "democracy" side of the paper. I always saw it more as a description of how possible civilian rebellion is in a modern society, with larger and more expensive weapon systems favoring the state. I agree entirely with your analysis in terms of democracy, there is nothing inherently democratizing about rifles being the dominant weapon of war, unless of course the people employing them want to use it for democratic means.

to me it is like the knight. knights tipped the balance of power toward kings and what not in the same way tanks do toward governments. sure, we are seeing suicide bombing and other insurgent tactics somewhat rebalancing things, but not really in the way that rifles did allow groups of common folk to oppose, say, colonial armies.

but, you know, Orwell was always an optimist

Originally posted by inimalist
thats your problem right there

Look no offense to Boubo but that was funny.

I've almost certainly made that joke before...

Not sure if you put it like that. C'mon can't I have a laugh without it being disputed.

i thought it was funny enough to say twice.../shrug

Out of curiosity... who voted that the video "End of Liberty," contained propaganda on this thread? I'm interested in hearing your view points (if you don't mind). For those of you who enjoyed the video - regardless of your opinion - you may consider watching the documentaries below. Both were produced by the National Inflation Association on the subject of economics - more directly, the instability of government spending contributing to deficits and debt.


Melt Up
eb1n1X0Oqdw

Melt Up - Update
E4ez21OItqQ

I kind of got the feeling that they were trying to convince me to invest in gold and silver. Incidentally, that's what their website advertises. They sound like a business, and these videos are part of their advertising.



Doesn't mean they're flat-out wrong in what they're saying, I'm just skeptical toward their intentions.

The mission of the National Inflation Association (NIA) is to educate/prepare Americans on the prospect of hyperinflation. During hyperinflation, the dollar will have no value, and that is why NIA recommends diversifying out of the dollar and into precious metals - like gold and silver. Historically, precious metals have always proved to be the most stable form of currency. In any case, NIA is not a "business," as you put. NIA is a non-profit organization. In fact, NIA doesn't even except donations.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Historically, precious metals have always proved to be the most stable form of currency.

It's always good to base your argument on things that are entirely false.

What form of currency is more stable than precious metals?

None.

I agree. I'm curious to see what Symmetric Chaos thinks.

Originally posted by ushomefree
What form of currency is more stable than precious metals?

Pretty much all of them.

The ones we use today in the Western are artificially stabilized which is why the dollar doesn't fluctuate noticeably in value month to month. On the other hand the price of gold is reset every day. Just for example, the price of gold spiked very suddenly when the financial crisis hit. The value of the dollar stayed much steadier.

Our currency is totally getting off track. Everyone's selling their gold, copper..etc. Once the US Dollar isn't the World currency, we're doomed! I can see that happening soon. The US Dollar is becoming worthless especially once they start printing more of it. People are converting to other currencies.

Sorry, I haven't looked at the videos yet, but I've seen many talking about it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Pretty much all of them.

The ones we use today in the Western are artificially stabilized which is why the dollar doesn't fluctuate noticeably in value month to month. On the other hand the price of gold is reset every day. Just for example, the price of gold spiked very suddenly when the financial crisis hit. The value of the dollar stayed much steadier.

but noes! they keep printing money and soon we are going to be Zimbabwe with hyperinflation! Zimbabwe! their country starts with a z! that's how dire america's situation is!

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Once the US Dollar isn't the World currency, we're doomed!

Less "doom" and more "finally force the US to restructure its economy".

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I can see that happening soon. The US Dollar is becoming worthless especially once they start printing more of it.

The yuan is doing worse against the USD than it was in 1990.
The Euro is only doing slightly better against the US than in 1990.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Euro is only doing slightly better against the US than in 1990.

lol, you sure about that?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The yuan is doing worse against the USD than it was in 1990.
The Euro is only doing slightly better against the US than in 1990.

the Canadian dollar is at an all time high against the US, and we take pains to devalue our currency against yours

EDIT: errr, I can't say it is at an all time high today, but like, since we made effort to reduce the value of our dollar, it hasn't been this high above the value of yours for this long etc. There might have been points where ours spiked or yours dipped, but not like it currently is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
lol, you sure about that?

~1.25 vs ~1.65

Which would be a 30% improvement and evidence that I shouldn't try to eyeball things.

Originally posted by inimalist
the Canadian dollar is at an all time high against the US, and we take pains to devalue our currency against yours

EDIT: errr, I can't say it is at an all time high today, but like, since we made effort to reduce the value of our dollar, it hasn't been this high above the value of yours for this long etc. There might have been points where ours spiked or yours dipped, but not like it currently is.

They're about the same now, I think. Which is a large improvement (going from 1990).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
~1.25 vs ~1.65

Which would be a 30% improvement and evidence that I shouldn't try to eyeball things.

Actually I was referring to the Euro only being introduced in 1999.



That's probably the ECU you are looking up.


It's being a bit pedantic, but good if it made you check again

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They're about the same now, I think. Which is a large improvement (going from 1990).

not really, it benefits our economy to have our dollar lower than yours, which it was in the 90s (the majority, for some reason like 96 rings a bell as a bad economic time...)

thats why it is so rough, we have a deliberate fiscal policy that artificially deflates our currency (the same thing the US accuses China of, calling it economic warfare), we can count losses in millions or billions in terms of the money we lose by having a dollar that is competitive with yours. Ideally, we would be in the .7-.8 range, iirc.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually I was referring to the Euro only being introduced in 1999.



That's probably the ECU you are looking up.

Whoops. Same sort of concept. Kinda.


Anyway, for those that want to support the message of doom the USD has lost 97% of its value since 1850!
http://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus/

We need to look for a new model of money, not regress back to the past.

The dollar used to be based on the gold standard - and for good reason. It gave our currency - in fact, every currency around the world - it's value. It was backed/based on something with intrinsic value. Today, the dollar is based on nothing - merely propped up by low interest rates (regulated by the Federal Reserve).

For the latter of your statement regarding the price of gold v. the value of the dollar, such is completely false. When gold prices increase - or any other price in precious metals - it's because the dollar has lost value (purchasing power). Since currencies are no longer based on precious metals, fiat money is created out of thin air and interest rates are manipulated to compete with precious metals. The same applies to other currencies. Basically, precious metals in international markers are saying to the dollar, "Who's your daddy?" Understand?

Originally posted by King Kandy
We need to look for a new model of money, not regress back to the past. But the past was so much better. Everything was in Sepia.

Originally posted by ushomefree
The dollar used to be based on the gold standard - and for good reason. It gave our currency - in fact, every currency around the world - it's value. It was backed/based on something with intrinsic value. Today, the dollar is based on nothing - merely propped up by low interest rates (regulated by the Federal Reserve).

For the latter of your statement regarding the price of gold v. the value of the dollar, such is completely false. When gold prices increase - or any other price in precious metals - it's because the dollar has lost value (purchasing power). Since currencies are no longer based on precious metals, fiat money is created out of thin air and interest rates are manipulated to compete with precious metals. The same applies to other currencies. Basically, precious metals in international markers are saying to the dollar, "Who's your daddy?" Understand?
That's really specious logic. Hell, if what you said happened, the mere fact that gold became tied to the dollar would send its price way up.

The dollar is no longer based on precious metals. I don't fully understand what you are saying. Could you elaborate, please?

Originally posted by ushomefree
The dollar is no longer based on precious metals. I don't fully understand what you are saying. Could you elaborate, please?
If we decided that from now on, we'd base the dollar on metals (as you're advocating)...

the minute this was implemented, the value of metals would go up because of increased demand.

Originally posted by ushomefree
The dollar is no longer based on precious metals. I don't fully understand what you are saying. Could you elaborate, please?

so what happens to the nations where white people stole all their prescious metals because it made their currency more valuable they don't have precious metals?

also, doesn't this make gold a resourse now worthy of military intervention, like oil? Like, the same way the US interprets oil reserves in the Middle East as part of its strategic objectives, is the same now true of African gold mines?

maybe I don't get what you mean?

We don't even need to think that far ahead, I think. Supply and demand alone will increase the price of precious metals. All I'm saying is this: governments with a printing press to create fiat currency - a currency no longer based on precious metals - will fail over time. The bottom line is, precious metals give currency their value. Precious metals have always won, historically. Does that seem like an accurate statement?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Precious metals have always won, historically. Does that seem like an accurate statement?

when did they last compete?

Originally posted by ushomefree
We don't even need to think that far ahead, I think. Supply and demand alone will increase the price of precious metals. All I'm saying is this: governments with a printing press to create fiat currency - a currency no longer based on precious metals - will fail over time. The bottom line is, precious metals give currency their value. Precious metals have always won, historically. Does that seem like an accurate statement?

No, that seems like an incorrect statement

Everyday, dude. C'mon.

Originally posted by ushomefree
We don't even need to think that far ahead, I think. Supply and demand alone will increase the price of precious metals. All I'm saying is this: governments with a printing press to create fiat currency - a currency no longer based on precious metals - will fail over time. The bottom line is, precious metals give currency their value. Precious metals have always won, historically. Does that seem like an accurate statement?
No, that's not true at all. You just admitted that the price of metals fluctuates; that is not "stability".

Originally posted by ushomefree
Everyday, dude. C'mon.

of the top 10 economic powers in the world, which are based on the gold or metallic standard then? Which of the G8? G20?

No... I'm saying that governments around the world manipulate the money supply and interest rates to compete with precious metals - not the other way around. Fiat currency is based on nothing; precious metals have intrinsic value and is far more stable than currency notes. That's all I'm saying. You disagree with that?

Originally posted by ushomefree
precious metals have intrinsic value

wut?

Precious metals can not be created out of thin air - there is a limited supply.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Precious metals can not be created out of thin air - there is a limited supply.

Neither can rocks. Do they have intrinsic value?

Not in a monetary system, apparently. Maybe diamonds?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Not in a monetary system, apparently. Maybe diamonds?

Why those, but not common rocks?

Hell of a question, ha ha! I have no idea. That's a very, very interesting question. It truly is.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Precious metals can not be created out of thin air - there is a limited supply.

yes, but the value of that supply isn't intrinsic

the value of a gram of gold is based on no property in and of itself, but rather on the price of gold in the market, or in a monetary system based on it, some consensus about the spending power of a gram.

A state could still easily lower or raise that consensus, for the same arbitrary reasons seen in the manipulation of monetary currency.

Pretend canada has more metal resources than the states, and thus, in a metal standard, a more valuable dollar. We could still manipulate the value of a gram of that metal such that our dollar is worth less than yours, in terms of real spending power, and we would, because we would have the same financial incentive. currency can be manipulated regardless of how it is "backed"

this would simply cause international conflict over gold reserves, as it did when gold was the standard

Originally posted by ushomefree
No... I'm saying that governments around the world manipulate the money supply and interest rates to compete with precious metals - not the other way around. Fiat currency is based on nothing; precious metals have intrinsic value and is far more stable than currency notes. That's all I'm saying. You disagree with that?
Yes, I completely disagree with that. We can, and do, assign fluctuating values to precious metals based on supply and demand. This would create a very unstable global economy if all money derived from them.

No, not at all. It would force governments to live within their means. Having a money supply based on the amount of gold bullion in reserves, for example, acts as a regulator. The US and other countries that side stepped the gold standard simply wanted more freedom to spend. It's really that simple - nothing complicated about it.

Originally posted by ushomefree
No, not at all. It would force governments to live within their means. Having a money supply based on the amount of gold bullion in reserves, for example, acts as a regulator. The US and other countries that side stepped the gold standard simply wanted more freedom to spend. It's really that simple - nothing complicated about it.

but even with a gold standard, you could revalue your currency such that you could never pay back loans, or spend more than you have based on other nations evaluation of your stock

you act as if nations never had economic turmoil when there was a gold standard...?

I'm also sort of interested in what your thoughts on the prospects of a gold standard increasing international conflict over the resource?

To avoid the revaluing of precious metals, you'd probably need to make them into physical currency. Which would be dumb.

Originally posted by ushomefree
No, not at all. It would force governments to live within their means. Having a money supply based on the amount of gold bullion in reserves, for example, acts as a regulator. The US and other countries that side stepped the gold standard simply wanted more freedom to spend. It's really that simple - nothing complicated about it.
It won't act as a regulator at all; you can arbitrarily set the value of gold to anything you want.

First, it's impossible to "revalue" any given currency. All that can be done is manipulation through its supply and interest rates attached to loans, T-Bills and the like. We don't need to conduct a massive research project to confirm this. Ask yourself one thing: Have prices in commodities risen or dropped? Obviously, prices have risen. End of story.

Second, even under a gold standard, economic hardships are guaranteed to occur, just not to the degree that they are today. Governments would be more accountable. The US government is 14+ trillion dollars in debt, and this doesn't include unfunded liabilities like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - something to the tune of 75 trillion dollars. And let us not forget Obama care set to become law in 2014. Yep... insanity!

And lastly, the plight over precious metals will simply be won over nations with the strongest currency. I think it's that simple, but I could be wrong. For example, China will have the capacity to purchase more precious metal reserves than the US. And what are we going to do about it? Go to war? I think not.

How?

Originally posted by ushomefree
First, it's impossible to "revalue" any given currency. All that can be done is manipulation through its supply and interest rates attached to loans, T-Bills and the like. We don't need to conduct a massive research project to confirm this. Ask yourself one thing: Have prices in commodities risen or dropped? Obviously, prices have risen. End of story.

Second, even under a gold standard, economic hardships are guaranteed to occur, just not to the degree that they are today. Governments would be more accountable. The US government is 14+ trillion dollars in debt, and this doesn't include unfunded liabilities like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - something to the tune of 75 trillion dollars. And let us not forget Obama care set to become law in 2014. Yep... insanity!

And lastly, the plight over precious metals will simply be won over nations with the strongest currency. I think it's that simple, but I could be wrong. For example, China will have the capacity to purchase more precious metal reserves than the US. And what are we going to do about it? Go to war? I think not. By chance, are you a member of NIA?

Yes, I am. If your thinking about becoming a member, don't waist your time. You could join to support them, but your not going to get more access to the site or have special privileges than that of non subscribers. All these guys do is talk about economics. I submitted a question to them, but I had to sign up in order to do so. And my question was answered; it was cool.

In any case, I have a lot of respect for NIA. Others share my enthusiasm. NIA has grown by leaps and bounds since I first ran into them. The president of NIA - Gerard Adams - was recently on prime time television about 3 months ago. Check out the interview below (if your interested). He's just a young, educated man with a passion in economics.

F3FdGoMs2c0

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
To avoid the revaluing of precious metals, you'd probably need to make them into physical currency. Which would be dumb.

or have a single global currency

Originally posted by ushomefree
First, it's impossible to "revalue" any given currency. All that can be done is manipulation through its supply and interest rates attached to loans, T-Bills and the like. We don't need to conduct a massive research project to confirm this. Ask yourself one thing: Have prices in commodities risen or dropped? Obviously, prices have risen. End of story.

so what is the non-arbitrary value of gold in terms of buying power?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Second, even under a gold standard, economic hardships are guaranteed to occur, just not to the degree that they are today. Governments would be more accountable. The US government is 14+ trillion dollars in debt, and this doesn't include unfunded liabilities like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - something to the tune of 75 trillion dollars. And let us not forget Obama care set to become law in 2014. Yep... insanity!

the stuff that is blatantly incorrect is covered in the video, essentially, social security runs a surpluss in the tillions, and is projected to actually increase in such in the future:

rnSeILUljvk

otherwise, how would a new valuation on money get rid of the debt or stop overspending? Unless, as was suggested, you are literally making the money out of gold, or, ya, we adopt a global currency.

Originally posted by ushomefree
And lastly, the plight over precious metals will simply be won over nations with the strongest currency. I think it's that simple, but I could be wrong. For example, China will have the capacity to purchase more precious metal reserves than the US. And what are we going to do about it? Go to war? I think not.

but America already considers things like oil as a strategic resource that it assumes it owns and will go to war over, or support terrible regiemes because of. How would gold not become the exact same? It has already happened, look how the world was cut up during colonialism due specificially to trying to expand trade and increase the coffers, resource exploitation included.

I have no clue, but to attempt to answer your question, I'll say this: less than a year ago, the price of an ounce of gold was $800. Today, it is $1300+. This is evidence of the dollar losing it's value (purchasing power).



The figures that I presented over Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are not conjured. You can view the postings for yourself here. They are located at the bottom of the page. In fact, unfunded liabilities equate to 100+ trillion dollars. Deficits at this level are unsustainable, and all you need is a basic understanding of mathematics to understand this. The reason the government is attempting to raise the age eligibility on Social Security - if they haven't already - is because the government can't afford it, not because they have surpluses. Think!



You assume way, way too much. Nations rise and fall; this is a historical fact. America is not what it used to be and the world is slowly turning it's back on our country. America has lost it's charm, thanks to debt and the inflation of our currency, for one. China, Russia and Saudi Arabia (as we speak) are confiding in ways to diversify away from the dollar. This of course, is not a good thing, but we're good to go on Social Security, right? Sorry - just having a little fun.

Let me get this straight, we're the number one debtor nation in the world, with virtually no manufacturing base and export deficits, but we're supposed to tackle China during an economic war. Are you out of your mind?! America is flat broke. If China wanted, they could collapse the US economy over night. All they'd have to do is demand payment on their T-Bills.

OTSQozWP-rM

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
To avoid the revaluing of precious metals, you'd probably need to make them into physical currency. Which would be dumb.

No, bank notes work just fine that way because that's how that system is supposed to work. The "dollar" would represent an exact amount of gold that backs that dollar.

And one wonders why people are leaving the US left and right. I've been reading about all this for some time, but lately it's been getting pretty scary.

We're going to be a 3rd World country.

I remember reading about Great Britain's world currency power until the US Dollar became the World Currency and it devastated their economy. Is what I read true? I think it happened just after WWII If what I read about it was true, it was horrible.

Just released in the news today: IMF Calls for Dollar Alternative. The implications of this is staggering.

I don't quite understand. Do they want to revalue the Dollar or replace it?

The IMF wants to replace it. If I understood the news article correctly, the IMF - because the dollar is unstable - wants to diversify away from the dollar using a basket of other currencies known as Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). In addition, the IMF wants to introduce SDR bonds to diversify away from US T-bills. The news article also explained that SDRs could be used in pricing commodities like oil and gold - no longer the dollar.

I don't know the intricate details behind such proposals, but I do know enough to understand that this is not good for America. Governments and banking institutions around the world are simply growing wary and concerned over the dollar thanks to our corrupt, spineless politicians in Washington. This is why the majority of Americans wanted nothing to with federal bailouts, massive spending packages and additional social programs like Universal Health Care. We need to stabilize the dollar immediately and regain the world's confidence in the dollar before it is too late.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Precious metals can not be created out of thin air - there is a limited supply.

And yet the US alone produces hundreds of tons of gold every year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your missing the point of this entire thread, not to mention a number of recent posts with members of the forum. What exactly are you talking about? Could you elaborate and try communicating yourself to me with more than one sentence?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your missing the point of this entire thread, not to mention a number of recent posts with members of the forum. What exactly are you talking about? Could you elaborate and try communicating yourself to me with more than one sentence?

gold supplies aren't finite

there are many ways nations can aquire more gold, and if a gold standard is introduced, they have even more incentive to do so

In sym's case, he is talking about mining new gold from the ground. I've mentioned invading or other forms of military force used to aquire new gold.

unless currency is set to some global standard (one world currency) the price of gold is not finite on a supply or demand side

Originally posted by ushomefree
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your missing the point of this entire thread, not to mention a number of recent posts with members of the forum. What exactly are you talking about? Could you elaborate and try communicating yourself to me with more than one sentence?

You implied that the supply of precious metals was static. That is factually wrong, the world's supply of them is constantly increasing. Worse that constant influx comes from just a few nations. That was part of the reason the US went off the gold standard, they didn't want to depend on Russia and South Africa to produce their money.

note, i never said my point was as good as sym's

I have never implied that precious metals were "static." I honestly have no idea where your getting this information from. I stated that precious metals - to include gold - are "limited" in supply, which is true. There is a limit to precious metals on the planet, and they must be mined. That is precisely what gives them intrinsic value.

The point is, precious metals cannot be manufactured or created out of thin air like fiat currencies around the world, to include the dollar via a printing press. I thought that was obvious. As for the latter portion of your post, countries around the world simply usurped the gold standard to ensure monetary flexibility to spend (beyond their means). It's called greed. That's it!

But the value of precious metals can be arbitrarily set, regardless of how much a nation has. And as inimilast said, what about the inevitable wars and invasions that will result from it? In that sense we'd be creating a new oil.

This whole conversation is ridiculous, in my view. Precious metals are finite, but the search to find them is infinite. As I have stated to Symmetric Chaos, precious metals can not be manufactured in a factory or printing press out of thin air. Precious metals are a natural resource, and it can not be manipulated like fiat currency.



You missing the point in what I'm trying to convey. The US has lost it's position as an economic superpower. We're merely floating on fumes. The only thing keeping us afloat is the dollar as the world's currency. Once the dollar is debased - which it will - we'll have no hope. Forget about invading countries and/or military might to persuade influence. Without a stable currency, you have nothing.



The world is already set to a global currency standard. It's called gold and silver, and other precious metals. Once the gold standard was usurped, the money supply and interest rate games came into play.