Conservatives and anti-intellectualism

[gonzojournals]

We are discussing your point that gold is an arbitrary a value as paper money not the bigger issue of fiat currency. Your point is incorrect because of the comodity values. While gold has significant commodity value a piece of paper has pretty much none (it's pretty expensive to recycle paper and what you can do with what's left is pretty limited while gold is easy to convert and the product retains its full value).

Your argument is stupid. You have not produced a damn thing that shows mine lacking.

So your argument is that gold should have the value of any other metal?

We should back our currency with steel or copper, then.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Why not bread?

 

[gonzojournals]

Why not bread?

Or uranium or lead or helium or glass or anything that has "value".

 

[Timshel]

So your argument is that gold should have the value of any other metal?

We should back our currency with steel or copper, then.

No, my argument is that it has real value. Strawmen and red herrings will not make your dumbass comment anymore correct.

Value is based on utility. Gold is far more useful than steel or copper. There are many other reasons why it makes better money. But there is no reason why other precious metals cannot be used.

Why not bread?

I know you think you are being witty, water, but you really just show that you are an intellectually lazy dumbass.

I am sure you can answer why not bread quite easily yourself. For one, it will rot. Two, same problem of carrying around cords of wood. That is, you'd have to carry quite a few loaves around with you.

Please, there are plenty of intelligent arguments against gold backed money. Quit being a dumbass and find one.

Or uranium or lead or helium or glass or anything that has "value".

This why I asked you why you think gold became money in the first place? Plenty of other commodities have been used as money. Any can be. But gold has significant advantages over all others.

 

[gonzojournals]

This why I asked you why you think gold became money in the first place? Plenty of other commodities have been used as money. Any can be. But gold has significant advantages over all others.

Isn't that value there, however, because it we say it has value (for instance, the industrial value of gold comes from the fact that we decide that industry is necessary, which in turn requires gold for certain processes)?

What is the difference between the market saying that money has value and the government saying that money has value?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Isn't that value there, however, because it we say it has value (for instance, the industrial value of gold comes from the fact that we decide that industry is necessary, which in turn requires gold for certain processes)?

What is the difference between the market saying that money has value and the government saying that money has value?

When it's arbitrary, as with fiat currency, it's the power to CREATE the currency and how that gives the creating entity an inordinate amount of power to dictate society's agenda that is the problem.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I think the ultimate currency would be little cubes of energy that could be used as energy or transformed into matter of your choosing. The value would always be constant. It would not inflate over time. We just need to work out the safety issue.

 

[Epicurus]

I think the ultimate currency would be little cubes of energy that could be used as energy or transformed into matter of your choosing. The value would always be constant. It would not inflate over time. We just need to work out the safety issue.

LOL

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, my argument is that it has real value. Strawmen and red herrings will not make your dumbass comment anymore correct.

Value is based on utility. Gold is far more useful than steel or copper. There are many other reasons why it makes better money. But there is no reason why other precious metals cannot be used.



I know you think you are being witty, water, but you really just show that you are an intellectually lazy dumbass.

I am sure you can answer why not bread quite easily yourself. For one, it will rot. Two, same problem of carrying around cords of wood. That is, you'd have to carry quite a few loaves around with you.

Please, there are plenty of intelligent arguments against gold backed money. Quit being a dumbass and find one.



This why I asked you why you think gold became money in the first place? Plenty of other commodities have been used as money. Any can be. But gold has significant advantages over all others.

Not one is literally calling for a currency in which you carry around the gold you're planning on using. They issue notes that are redeemable in that metal. And then, the value doesn't really matter. You'd simply have to set it to a lot of copper rather than a little gold, but in the end it wouldn't make a difference.


YOu seem to be laboring under the impression that a system in which no inflation at all is present would be best. That's not necessarily true. Whenever there was no inflation in the 1870's the economy crashed.

 

[Damocles]

Or uranium or lead or helium or glass or anything that has "value".

To carry as much lead or helium to have the same commodity value as gold would take way too large of a wallet. As for Uranium, the unpleasant side effects of either having to constantly protect ourselves from the cash or the diseases that came along with it makes that one untenable. This has to be one of the most idiotic posts ever.

Gold is a nice easily convertible exchange. Amazingly, instead of changing money, you can simply weigh it and find it's value in any market. While cash, it has no real value as a commodity, it is small pieces of paper. In order to carry as much as a small amount of gold is worth in its commodity value you would need a roomful of cash, likely more.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

To carry as much lead or helium to have the same commodity value as gold would take way too large of a wallet. As for Uranium, the unpleasant side effects of either having to constantly protect ourselves from the cash or the diseases that came along with it makes that one untenable. This has to be one of the most idiotic posts ever.

Gold is a nice easily convertible exchange. Amazingly, instead of changing money, you can simply weigh it and find it's value in any market. While cash, it has no real value as a commodity, it is small pieces of paper. In order to carry as much as a small amount of gold is worth in its commodity value you would need a roomful of cash, likely more.

Damo, same thing. No one has ever advocated people actually going around and trading in gold. That would be ridiculous.

You can do it now anyway. Surprise, no one does it, because the mere thought is retarded. What they did whenever they had the gold standard was to issue notes that were redeemable in a specific amount of gold. People DID NOT literally carry around bars of gold.

So, why not give people a note that's redeemable in a certain amount of uranium? Uranium keeps its value even better than gold! Or maybe just a whole buttload of copper?

That's the point he was trying to make. Don't be - disingenous.

 

[gonzojournals]

I fear for the board when Watermark is able to understand a concept the rest of you cannot.

 

[Waterbaby]

I fear for the board when Watermark is able to understand a concept the rest of you cannot.

U R a cuntbag.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Anyone else not surprised that almost every totalitarian movement of the 20th century was backed by a wave of nativism and anti-intellectualism? The Khmer Rouge actually shot people for wearing glasses.

In a simialar way, our modern conservatives act. They oppose any effort to think of a situation in depth. Conservative commentors actually cut peoples mics and throw them off set because intellectual arguments are too complex for them to handle, and justify this with some sort of non-sensical ad hominem attack. It's a dangerous age whenever someone can be attacked simply for knowing more than someone else.

A most excellent point Water. The phenomena of anti-intellectualism has more to do with political extremism than with either conservative or liberal political beliefs as their are many examples of authoritrianism and totalitarianism by both liberal and conservative extremist. There is precious little room for intellectual or rational thought for a "true believer".

If your interested in understanding the psychology of these fanatics I suggest reading the book "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. It's an essay on the psychology of fanatics and how they impact mass political movements.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Any examples?

I can give you a ton of examples of the conservative extremist anti-intellectualism.

Their incessant attempts to undermine biology education.

Their inability to grasp the fiasco they have created in Iraq and how it has jeapordized our national security and not enhanced it.

Their almost religious zeal to cut taxes, even to the point of jeapordizing our national interest by indebting us to foreign interest and their refusal to balance the budget.

The manner in which they assign incompetent party loyalist to government positions for which they are not qualified.

Their attacks on our public education system in which educators who do not toe their party line are marginalized.

Their position on public science policy which discredits qualified scientist while advancing the views of religious extremist. Even when it is manifestly not in the public interest, such as their attacks on our public health infrastructure.

Need more examples?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

There does appear a relationship to anti-intellectualism and the conservative movement.

It's spread all over the world stage today.

There's a relationship to anti-intellectualism and all extremist political movements, left of right. The Communist movement of Europe was just as brutal and thugish as the Fascist movement, for example.

Those on the far left are just as anti-intellectual as those on the far-right and, in fact, make the best recruits to the far right.

The main differance at this point in time in our history is that the extremist conservative movement has political power (though thank God they have discredited themselves) and those on the far left are to few in number and have been marginalized.

Why do you think the right wing talking heads hate John McCain and would rather see Hilliary elected? That's because McCain poses a huge threat to them. If McCain wins the nomination and the election the right wing nut jobs become marginalized. They will no longer be king makers. Rational conservatives and moderate and liberal Republicans will have a voice again while their's will become an anoying whisper soon to be forgotten by the dust bins of history.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

There's a relationship to anti-intellectualism and all extremist political movements, left of right. The Communist movement of Europe was just as brutal and thugish as the Fascist movement, for example.

Those on the far left are just as anti-intellectual as those on the far-right and, in fact, make the best recruits to the far right.

The main differance at this point in time in our history is that the extremist conservative movement has political power (though thank God they have discredited themselves) and those on the far left are to few in number and have been marginalized.

Why do you think the right wing talking heads hate John McCain and would rather see Hilliary elected? That's because McCain poses a huge threat to them. If McCain wins the nomination and the election the right wing nut jobs become marginalized. They will no longer be king makers. Rational conservatives and moderate and liberal Republicans will have a voice again while their's will become an anoying whisper soon to be forgotten by the dust bins of history.

They're not king makers. Never have been. They reflect what THOUGHFUL ENGAGED conseratives want. It's not johh mccain. And real conservatives also reject the "do what wins" strategy. A strategy we are told we must be happy with now.

The extreme left and extreme right are unified in their recognition that the current internationalist fascist craze sweeping humanity is indeed quite harmful.

 

[gonzojournals]

I can give you a ton of examples of the conservative extremist anti-intellectualism.

Their incessant attempts to undermine biology education.

Their inability to grasp the fiasco they have created in Iraq and how it has jeapordized our national security and not enhanced it.

Their almost religious zeal to cut taxes, even to the point of jeapordizing our national interest by indebting us to foreign interest and their refusal to balance the budget.

The manner in which they assign incompetent party loyalist to government positions for which they are not qualified.

Their attacks on our public education system in which educators who do not toe their party line are marginalized.

Their position on public science policy which discredits qualified scientist while advancing the views of religious extremist. Even when it is manifestly not in the public interest, such as their attacks on our public health infrastructure.

Need more examples?

I need more examples, since only a couple of those have anything to do with intellectualism.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, same thing. No one has ever advocated people actually going around and trading in gold. That would be ridiculous.

You can do it now anyway. Surprise, no one does it, because the mere thought is retarded. What they did whenever they had the gold standard was to issue notes that were redeemable in a specific amount of gold. People DID NOT literally carry around bars of gold.

So, why not give people a note that's redeemable in a certain amount of uranium? Uranium keeps its value even better than gold! Or maybe just a whole buttload of copper?

That's the point he was trying to make. Don't be - disingenous.

Except back when they had gold coins. The reason they used notes was because they were even lighter. However if you are trading in gold you can carry enough to buy stuff. Ever seen a $5 gold coin?

 

[gonzojournals]

Except back when they had gold coins. The reason they used notes was because they were even lighter. However if you are trading in gold you can carry enough to buy stuff. Ever seen a $5 gold coin?

Ever see a man eat his own head?