| Author |
 Replies: 25 / Views: 3,115 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1064 Posts |
Do I detect a bit of irony in some of these posts?  Good thread! |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3692 Posts |
[I think you're detecting sarcasm, not irony. (Pardon me, but I'm like that, JackB.)]
And no, I will not celebrate. By the same token, it's hard to even bring it up in normal everyday conversation without sounding like a quack. Some people don't like being shaken out of their comatose sleep. Come to think of it, that's why the process was so incremental, so that one generation could be wiped out before they could complain about the next step. We have to teach our children about this in schools and out. Money should be in the hands of the people, to withdraw as they see fit, when they see fit. Right now there is a huge mismanagement and pillaging of resources, but I'm preaching to the choir.
On a sweet note, it has made rare coins even rarer (I think) due to the billions of coins pumped out each year, so that one low mintage is much scarcer by comparison. I could be wrong, though, it's been known to happen.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1208 Posts |
Libertad: You got that right. "Incrementalism" is the preferred method of government growth.
People don't get alarmed by 1000 small changes as opposed to 1 big change.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
592 Posts |
Precious metals are just as arbitrary. The only thing they have going for them is they're physical.
An ounce of silver is an ounce of silver no matter what. But an ounce of silver has no actual value until you get a unit to trade it for, like chickens or dollars.
The Fed is not an intrinsically bad idea, merely one option for establishing a functioning system under the flawed notion that all things must have "value" and be attainable through transaction.
So no, not going to celebrate the anniversary of the Fed. Wouldn't celebrate its demise either, nor would I have celebrated the founding of it. I am largely indifferent to the Fed and simply accept it as a part of my current circumstance vis a vis our transaction-based world.
Edited by SaintRidley
07/11/2012 01:42 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
Precious metals are just as arbitrary. The only thing they have going for them is they're physical. The other thing would be theres a finite amount of them as opposed to the ability to print unlimited quantities and have massive inflation. Both have positives and negatives and either could be abused in the wrong hands or under poor leadership. Youd think in the feds hundred years of existence they would have realized having the same bills and coin values as when they formed is a terrible idea |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
592 Posts |
Quote:
The other thing would be theres a finite amount of them as opposed to the ability to print unlimited quantities and have massive inflation. True enough. I always sort of subsume that point into the physical aspect. That which is tangible is never limitless. Quote:
Youd think in the feds hundred years of existence they would have realized having the same bills and coin values as when they formed is a terrible idea You would think so, wouldn't you? Of course, idiocy and incompetence always seem to find their way to the top in any system. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
You would think so, wouldn't you? Of course, idiocy and incompetence always seem to find their way to the top in any system. Maybe by the 200th anniversary the penny will finally be gone!! I guess when you get everything fro free or paid for by the tax payers you lose touch of how meaningless change really is now aside from collecting. Even a lot of toll roads now you need more than change to get through the toll. Must have been nice back in the old days when everything you carried was actually capable of purchasing something |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1817 Posts |
Quote:Could this be next years "special" ASE reverse proof set? If the Mint celebrated the centennial of the FRS with a special ASE, they would need to change the face value to $25.00 or else make the special ASE the size of a Half Dime (15mm) with 1/25th oz. of Ag to prove the point of fiat money.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
965 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10047 Posts |
Only youth beleive the fed has done anything for our country that could conceviably be called good. Its all part of the re-education system away from the facts and history.
No system in history ever backing their money with good faith (LOL) has not eventually had it come back to bite them.
History also shows that PMs do keep their intrinsic value for what they can be exchanged. A silver US coin nowadays will buy about the same amount of gas it did when they were circulating.
But a dollar bill from the same era will not, when spent today, buy even close near what it did back then (despite the fact it says "redeemable in silver" - b/c its not anymore).
Unfortunately, history proves over ad over that absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you give a bunch of humans the ability to make money out of thin air and spend it anyway they like - you are NOT going to end up with a good, honest, and sound system.
I will celebrate by being glad that at least it took this long for the collapse.
How much squash could a Sasquatch squash if a Sasquatch would squash squash? Download and read: Grading the graders Costly TPG ineptitude and No FG Kennedy halveshttps://ln5.sync.com/dl/7ca91bdd0/w...i3b-rbj9fir2 |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3692 Posts |
Grrrrrr... bunch of humans!
I think that the "thin air" argument is exaggerated. It does take /some/ work to pump out trillions of dollars.
I think that the problem is actually in the acceptance of old dollars as legal tender. In theory it's a great idea because it gives more faith to the dollar, that it will always be accepted even 50-100 years later. What's gone is the ability to exchange those dollars for tangible assets, that is, dollars in a precious form. But either way, a paper dollar has work behind it just as silver dollars do. I think that the difference is that paper money is "infinite" so that incredible wars can be funded and fought (Vietnam, Iraq, and every other US intervention in Latin America and the Middle East) and eventually justified through fear. Enemies are defeated by knowing them and connecting with them in the social world, not by throwing bombs at them.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
I think that the difference is that paper money is "infinite" I mean in some ways it is, but inflation will catch up with you like the 100 trillion zimbabwe bill. The real problem is when you have a government like we do now whose answer is to spend our way out of everything. Silver wouldnt stop that wed just see less silver in coins or the price per ounce skyrocket as we devalue it out printing more and more |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10047 Posts |
Quote:
I think that the "thin air" argument is exaggerated. It does take /some/ work to pump out trillions of dollars. Tell that to our new record breaking level of debt that last 4 years. If our money had been backed by precious metals, the massively mismanaged amounts of money spent for (historically proven as failure concept) failed "stimulus" would not have been there to waste. The only work involved in this faux political move was the working of the presses to print the money. It was during a rubber stamp legislative era. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3692 Posts |
"Infinite" in quotations, of course. I think that the real danger would be digital money in full. It would be like a slot machine where you "win" on every pull only you're betting more than you're winning.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
965 Posts |
I think Libertad has a point, the federal reserve cannot print as much money as they want without the government issuing more and more bonds. I think if they printed another 2-3 trillion or so dollars the treasury market would take a hit and the government would have to raise interest rates. This would absolutely sink our economy, because the government would have to raise interest rates on mortgages, in addition to raising the total national debt. This would have a cumulative effect, inflation may rise to 10% (even in the fed's twisted calculation)compounding the problem. This is in addition to our very complicated fractional reserve banking system that is constantly multiplying our total money supply by lending more and more money both publicly and privately. So... In other words, the fed should not print more money until the stimulus + QE 1 and QE 2 has been completely spent, (A large amount of it is still in the accounts of the large banks that were bailed out). But... If the fed doesn't print more money, there is no way that the net GDP is going to be positive for the coming year. The reason the economy has been growing lately is purely the dollar's value going down, not the total amount of wealth created going up. So the fed has got itself in a catch 22. Thankfully, the dollar has been exceptionally strong lately due to investors bailing out of the stock and commodity markets. This may influence the fed's decision on whether or not to make a true QE 3. (not the sly quantitative easing that has been going on recently.)So all in all I think I agree with libertad's premise bot not his conclusion, central banks are dangerous because the entire economy is in the hands of either the government, or a state sponsored monopoly.I'm not sure which is worse  (sorry about not making paragraphs didn't realize my rant was so long)  |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 25 / Views: 3,115 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 07/10/2012 9:52 pm
