vegetarianism in our future?

Sorry I don't answer fast enough for you. Debating on a politics forum may be a bit of fun, but it is not my life.

As to fiat money, it does not matter. Whether made of precious metals or of paper or ones and zeroes in a computer data base, money is simply a symbol of trade equity. (ie: how many sheep are worth a Ferrari?) It is when we forget money is just a symbol, and place real value on money itself that we get in trouble.
 
Anyway, it is rarely worth while debating with conspiracy theorists. You can only say "They aren't out to get you." so many times.
 
Good Luck said:
Sorry I don't answer fast enough for you. Debating on a politics forum may be a bit of fun, but it is not my life.

As to fiat money, it does not matter. Whether made of precious metals or of paper or ones and zeroes in a computer data base, money is simply a symbol of trade equity. (ie: how many sheep are worth a Ferrari?) It is when we forget money is just a symbol, and place real value on money itself that we get in trouble.
Click to expand...

It totally does matter. If it doesn't matter, then I should be able to go out and print my own money. Why can't I?

it's a scam perpetrate by the elite on the rest of us.
 
Here good luck

read this and you won't be as stupid anymore.

n a fiat money system, money is not backed by a physical commodity (i.e.: gold). Instead, the only thing that gives the money value is its relative scarcity and the faith placed in it by the people that use it. A good primer on the history of fiat money in the US can be found in a video provided by the Mises.org website.

In a fiat monetary system, there is no restrain on the amount of money that can be created. This allows unlimited credit creation. Initially, a rapid growth in the availability of credit is often mistaken for economic growth, as spending and business profits grow and frequently there is a rapid growth in equity prices. In the long run, however, the economy tends to suffer much more by the following contraction than it gained from the expansion in credit. This expansion in credit can be seen in the Debt/GDP ratio. We track the bubbles created by this expansion of debt at the inflation / deflation page.

In most cases, a fiat monetary system comes into existence as a result of excessive public debt. When the government is unable to repay all its debt in gold or silver, the temptation to remove physical backing rather than to default becomes irresistible. This was the case in 18th century France during the Law scheme, as well as in the 70s in the US, when Nixon removed the last link between the dollar and gold which is still in effect today.

Hyper-inflation is the terminal stage of any fiat currency. In hyper-inflation, money looses most of its value practically overnight. Hyper-inflation is often the result of increasing regular inflation to the point where all confidence in money is lost. In a fiat monetary system, the value of money is based on confidence, and once that confidence is gone, money irreversibly becomes worthless, regardless of its scarcity. Gold has replaced every fiat currency for the past 3000 years.

The United States has so far avoided hyper-inflation by shifting between a fiat and gold standard over the past 200 years.

http://www.kwaves.com/fiat.htm
 
But what happens when people lose faith in gold? It is, after all, just a pretty metal that has a certain rarity. It is good for electronics and jewelry. Any additional value attached to it (ie: as monetary backing) is strictly artificial. While a credit economy adds too much money too fast, being beholden to a limited resource for money has its problems also, such as the inability to adjust to the economic reality that real wealth is created in an active economy.

Again, the problem is when money itself is assumed to retain value. Value of hard currency is not in the amount of gold held in reserves. The real value in any economy comes when real goods are created or real services provided through labor. A person raises sheep, protects them from predators, feeds them, etc, they have greater value than the lambs the person started with. A group of people take raw materials and make various components which are assembled into a car, which has greater value than the raw materials it came from. That is the real economy. And the creation of wealth through the conversion of raw materials and labor into real goods and services cannot be met forever by adding to the gold reserves.

And quit assuming that because one dares disagree with you, it is out of ignorance. Your approach is way too similar to how democrats treated me before I left their lovely little organization.
 
Good Luck said:
But what happens when people lose faith in gold? It is, after all, just a pretty metal that has a certain rarity. It is good for electronics and jewelry. Any additional value attached to it (ie: as monetary backing) is strictly artificial. While a credit economy adds too much money too fast, being beholden to a limited resource for money has its problems also, such as the inability to adjust to the economic reality that real wealth is created in an active economy.

Again, the problem is when money itself is assumed to retain value. Value of hard currency is not in the amount of gold held in reserves. The real value in any economy comes when real goods are created or real services provided through labor. A person raises sheep, protects them from predators, feeds them, etc, they have greater value than the lambs the person started with. A group of people take raw materials and make various components which are assembled into a car, which has greater value than the raw materials it came from. That is the real economy. And the creation of wealth through the conversion of raw materials and labor into real goods and services cannot be met forever by adding to the gold reserves.

And quit assuming that because one dares disagree with you, it is out of ignorance. Your approach is way too similar to how democrats treated me before I left their lovely little organization.
Click to expand...

People don't lose faith in gold because the scarcity of gold is not a fiction. In lieu of eliminating money completely would you not agree that fixing it to something like gold would be a good idea?

You're not stupid because you disagree, you're stupid because you can't recognize how the hyperinflationary nature of fiat currency can and most likely will reduce americans to poverty despite lifetimes of hard work.
 
I already explained the drawback of basing currency on a limited resource. It cannot react to the creation of real wealth. Unless you were willing to constantly change the ratio of resource to monetary unit, in which case you'd be back to people assigning value to money. (Which you do any way. The government says "A dollar is worth x grams of gold" they are still in control of the representative value of the dollar.

I have also been very explicit in my criticism of being a credit society. But the advantage of a credit society is the consumer is not bound to accept credit when offered. They can, like I have, wait until they have saved enough for what they want.
 
Good Luck said:
I already explained the drawback of basing currency on a limited resource.
Click to expand...
No you didn't.
It cannot react to the creation of real wealth. Unless you were willing to constantly change the ratio of resource to monetary unit, in which case you'd be back to people assigning value to money. (Which you do any way. The government says "A dollar is worth x grams of gold" they are still in control of the representative value of the dollar.
Click to expand...
But there is a reality to the scarcity of gold, which the government can do nothing about.

As far as reacting to the creation of real wealth, that seems like a phrase composed entirely of b.s.
I have also been very explicit in my criticism of being a credit society. But the advantage of a credit society is the consumer is not bound to accept credit when offered. They can, like I have, wait until they have saved enough for what they want.
Click to expand...

How about having a debt foisted on us by a government that creates money for it's totalitarian fascist purposes? Can we say no to that?

You're completely full of shit.
 
Try reading my earlier statements. It clearly explains hat is meant by the creation of real wealth. Gold, being a limited and somewhat scarce resource, cannot react to the creation of real wealth unless the ratio of gold to dollar is constantly adjusted. And if constantly adjusted, there is no more real limit to those adjustments, making it of no more stability than fiat money. Not to mention, as I pointed out before, that setting the ratio of gold to dollar is arbitrary to begin with. They can set a gram of gold to equal a thousand dollars, or a million. It is arbitrary, and still fully under their control whether the actual amount of gold available is under their control or not.

And what is with the continued denigrading epitaphs. Are you incapable of debate without adding personality and insult?
 
Good Luck said:
Try reading my earlier statements. It clearly explains hat is meant by the creation of real wealth.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.
Gold, being a limited and somewhat scarce resource, cannot react to the creation of real wealth unless the ratio of gold to dollar is constantly adjusted.
Click to expand...
Since "reacting to the creation of real wealth" is a meaningless phrase, you have no point.
And if constantly adjusted, there is no more real limit to those adjustments, making it of no more stability than fiat money.
Click to expand...

Meaninglessness on top of meaninglessness is still meaningless.
Not to mention, as I pointed out before, that setting the ratio of gold to dollar is arbitrary to begin with. They can set a gram of gold to equal a thousand dollars, or a million. It is arbitrary, and still fully under their control whether the actual amount of gold available is under their control or not.

And what is with the continued denigrading epitaphs. Are you incapable of debate without adding personality and insult?
Click to expand...

But it would be fixed. Constantly adjusting it would be like fiat money, so a non fiat system WOULD BE fixed. But I like your idea of eliminating money altogether. Do you still believe that? Is it either no money or fiat money for you? That seems to be a schizophrenic position.

I just call stupid stupid, Don't take it personally.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No it doesn't.

Since "reacting to the creation of real wealth" is a meaningless phrase, you have no point.
Click to expand...
Okay, let's take it a little at a time.

When a person or group of people work, they create wealth. A person who raises sheep for a living does the labor of moving the sheep around their various pastures, keeps them safe from predators, feeds them in the winter, etc. etc. etc. The sheep he raises increase in value during the growth process due to the harvesting of wool and meat products. Wealth has been created through labor guiding the natural growth of sheep.

A group of people work in a mine. They take ore and send it to the processing center where other people process it into usable raw materials, iron, aluminum, copper, gold, etc. The processed raw materials have a higher value than the ores dug out of the Earth. Wealth has been created through labor by extracting raw materials from the Earth.

Another group of people work in a factory. They take the raw materials that come from a variety of processing plants and make a variety of components out of those raw materials. The components have a greater value than the raw materials. Labor again has created wealth by fashioning usable products from raw materials.

And then we have another group of people. They take the components manufactured in a number of factories, and from those components they assemble a Ferrari. The Ferrari has greater value than the individual components. Again, wealth has been created through labor.

Now, labor at various levels adds various amounts of wealth to the economy. So the question comes what are those various type of labor worth in relation to each other? The person who raises sheep wants a Ferrari. How many sheep must he raise from lambs to equal the value of a Ferrari?

That is where money comes in. It provides a means by which totally unrelated labor sectors can trade with each other. The car assemblers want wool coats and mutton. The sheep herder wants a Ferrari. Through the medium of money, they can come to an equitable exchange that would have been all but impossible had there been no medium of exchange.

Since money is nothing more than a symbol of relative value to allow trade between unrelated labor sectors, it does not matter whether the money also represents a fixed (or unfixed) amount of a precious metal, or whether it is just numbers in a computer. The real purpose of money is achieved when the sheep herder can trade the fruits of his labor for his society's medium of exchange (money) and then take that medium of exchange and trade it for the Ferrari he desires.

Additionally, it is ONLY through labor that wealth can be created. Wealth is the accumulated possession of raw materials, manufactured products, agriculturally active land, etc., OR money which represents the value of those things. But wealth based on the false assumption that money itself has real value ends up being a house of cards.

When wealth is properly distributed, it can stimulate the process through which labor creates wealth; and in doing so the possessor of the stimulating wealth claims some of the additional wealth created.

AssHatZombie said:
But it would be fixed. Constantly adjusting it would be like fiat money, so a non fiat system WOULD BE fixed. But I like your idea of eliminating money altogether. Do you still believe that? Is it either no money or fiat money for you? That seems to be a schizophrenic position.
Click to expand...
First, point out where I said we should get rid of money. I never made that claim, so either quit putting words in my mouth or go reread what I posted before, but without the know-it-all smart assed attitude that is preventing you from comprehending some very basic principles.

When we get in trouble is when we assume that money itself has value, and that value has to be "protected" by attaching it to some arbitrary real item whose value is then artificially inflated due to the fact it now is equated with money. If money is fixed at a specific value to an item of limited availability, then that fixes the amount of money. But the guy out there raising sheep, and the series of groups of people processing raw materials and fashioning them into real goods are creating additional wealth and adding that wealth to the economy. The economy needs more money to represent the wealth that has been created. But OOPS, we only have so much gold. Value is artificially repressed, and the economy stagnates.

OTOH, as you have correctly pointed out, when money is released in too large of quantities for the wealth of labor to account for, (either by adjusting the amount of gold a dollar represents, or by using fiat money) we end up with deficit spending, a wildly skewed accumulation of false wealth, and again end up in trouble. (I won't bother to address your claims of motivation for releasing too much money.)

The trick is to find a balance between money supply and the creation of wealth through labor. This is no easy trick, as there is no basic mathematical formula available to do the work for us.

AssHatZombie said:
I just call stupid stupid, Don't take it personally.
Click to expand...
Be careful who or what you call stupid. There are many very intelligent people who would disagree with you about taking us back to a gold standard currency. I also know some very intelligent people who do think we need to go back to a gold standard. Both sides have their theories about the relationship of money to economy. Neither side has proof their theory is more correct.
 
asshat is afraid of being outsourced again so he's afraid of investing. Actually he's afraid of slot. Its pittyfull.
 
Good Luck said:
Okay, let's take it a little at a time.

When a person or group of people work, they create wealth.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It depends on what you call "wealth". Goods manufactured and sold at a loss do not create wealth.
A person who raises sheep for a living does the labor of moving the sheep around their various pastures, keeps them safe from predators, feeds them in the winter, etc. etc. etc. The sheep he raises increase in value during the growth process due to the harvesting of wool and meat products. Wealth has been created through labor guiding the natural growth of sheep.
Click to expand...
He increases sheep, but they must be valued by others and traded for a positive benefit for wealth to accrue.
A group of people work in a mine. They take ore and send it to the processing center where other people process it into usable raw materials, iron, aluminum, copper, gold, etc. The processed raw materials have a higher value than the ores dug out of the Earth. Wealth has been created through labor by extracting raw materials from the Earth.
Click to expand...
A. It must be traded for gain to create wealth. And to whom does the wealth accrue in the miner context?
Another group of people work in a factory. They take the raw materials that come from a variety of processing plants and make a variety of components out of those raw materials. The components have a greater value than the raw materials. Labor again has created wealth by fashioning usable products from raw materials.

And then we have another group of people. They take the components manufactured in a number of factories, and from those components they assemble a Ferrari. The Ferrari has greater value than the individual components. Again, wealth has been created through labor.

Now, labor at various levels adds various amounts of wealth to the economy. So the question comes what are those various type of labor worth in relation to each other? The person who raises sheep wants a Ferrari. How many sheep must he raise from lambs to equal the value of a Ferrari?

That is where money comes in. It provides a means by which totally unrelated labor sectors can trade with each other. The car assemblers want wool coats and mutton. The sheep herder wants a Ferrari. Through the medium of money, they can come to an equitable exchange that would have been all but impossible had there been no medium of exchange.

Since money is nothing more than a symbol of relative value to allow trade between unrelated labor sectors, it does not matter whether the money also represents a fixed (or unfixed) amount of a precious metal, or whether it is just numbers in a computer. The real purpose of money is achieved when the sheep herder can trade the fruits of his labor for his society's medium of exchange (money) and then take that medium of exchange and trade it for the Ferrari he desires.

Additionally, it is ONLY through labor that wealth can be created. Wealth is the accumulated possession of raw materials, manufactured products, agriculturally active land, etc., OR money which represents the value of those things. But wealth based on the false assumption that money itself has real value ends up being a house of cards.

When wealth is properly distributed, it can stimulate the process through which labor creates wealth; and in doing so the possessor of the stimulating wealth claims some of the additional wealth created.


First, point out where I said we should get rid of money. I never made that claim, so either quit putting words in my mouth or go reread what I posted before, but without the know-it-all smart assed attitude that is preventing you from comprehending some very basic principles.

When we get in trouble is when we assume that money itself has value, and that value has to be "protected" by attaching it to some arbitrary real item whose value is then artificially inflated due to the fact it now is equated with money. If money is fixed at a specific value to an item of limited availability, then that fixes the amount of money. But the guy out there raising sheep, and the series of groups of people processing raw materials and fashioning them into real goods are creating additional wealth and adding that wealth to the economy. The economy needs more money to represent the wealth that has been created. But OOPS, we only have so much gold. Value is artificially repressed, and the economy stagnates.

OTOH, as you have correctly pointed out, when money is released in too large of quantities for the wealth of labor to account for, (either by adjusting the amount of gold a dollar represents, or by using fiat money) we end up with deficit spending, a wildly skewed accumulation of false wealth, and again end up in trouble. (I won't bother to address your claims of motivation for releasing too much money.)

The trick is to find a balance between money supply and the creation of wealth through labor. This is no easy trick, as there is no basic mathematical formula available to do the work for us.


Be careful who or what you call stupid. There are many very intelligent people who would disagree with you about taking us back to a gold standard currency. I also know some very intelligent people who do think we need to go back to a gold standard. Both sides have their theories about the relationship of money to economy. Neither side has proof their theory is more correct.
Click to expand...

You're stupid.

My side is correct. It is simply a fact that fiat money causes massive inflation, thus depriving working people of the full value of their life savings.

I understand money is a way to quanitify work. But with the rampant inflation caused by fiat currency all our work is devalued over time, regardless of how much we saved, due to the ongoing process of currency creation by the state. Ultimately IN a fiat currency system the only way to maintain power is not through value creation it is through an entities proximity to the source of money creation, this is why fiat money warps the entire society.

You're longwinded, yet daft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top