Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by mmm....shiney!, Sep 14, 2019.
Nah bugger it its not worth debating.
Would you rather;
a) having only $1 where a beer cost $1.
b) having only $100 where a beer cost $50
There has never been a 1 to 1 backing, so technically it has always been fiat.
He would prefer the good days where gold was controlled by the government instead, and when you had gold bullion outside of their banks in a great depression that you end up in jail for it
Nothing wrong with @JohnnyBravo300 craving a system where our currency is based on "sound money". A system where in order to become wealthier you have to voluntarily exchange value with others, rather than feed off the teat of the inflationary sow.
^ that system existed when we had kings. Didn’t work very well for the majority. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
It never happened bro. No one went to jail for owning gold and they were allowed to keep a certain amount anyway. Theres always a market for gold legal or not.
It worked great in america and we never had a king. We had the strongest growth and became the world leaders in production and industry under a sound money system.
Now it's all evaporated under fiat and crooked self destructing politics.
The middle class wont survive without sound money.
Oh there were arrests for owning too much gold if you refused to hand it over, under the gold reserve act, but usually people just handed it over and they just seized the gold to keep the bank reserves full. For a very long time you were only allowed to keep a couple of ounces or the irs would come knocking.
I bet the gov would seize gold if they were togo back to the gold standard, they have done it before.
Plus the gov sets the value of gold not the market, so both fiat and gold standard the price value is determined by the government. And the amount you could own was determined by the goverment,
You also failed under gold standard, so much so you started printing money beyond the gold holdings to stop the country going bankrupt so it wasnt a full success.
Im not against gold, but the gold standard wasnt this great liberated currency many like to romanticise that as it was. You were still prisoners the government under both systems
Ps sorry about spelling and grammer, on iphone and its 1am
Then stop crying about it and move your self out of the middle class.
Change careers if your not going any where.
The only person limiting where you stand in the world is your self. people always have tobe victims of some body, usualy self inflicted.
Ive sat in many of a smoko room listening to other workers complain all the time usually union guys about how the system is against them, How the boss screws them how the system screws them., but none have the initiative tobe the boss, work hard save their money and put their savings where their mouth is and build a business. They just complain how the dead end job they selected for them selves isnt paying off, and how they are sick of being stuck in some particular class.
But there is always another guy who is sitting down and instead of complaining is figuring out how he can go from the shit kicker to owning a company to hire the shit kickers.
Guess which one is likely to move out of the working class? It isnt the guy complaining about the system
I'm no victim and dont claim to be. I'm in a much better financial position than most. It's not me I'm worried about.
The irs didnt even exist when they made gold illegal haha. I dont know where you get your info!
The gold money system never failed. It's just didnt give them the means to spend like they want to so we went full fiat.
Gold has never failed as money.
Was it called the irs in the 70's ? because it wasnt legal to own gold upto then also when Ever president ford removed the 1930's act. i think it was 1974. As for what ever the irs was called for around the great depression time? Idont know off the top of my head, but doesnt matter as you still had tax collectors and auditors for the government so what ever the name of the mob who did it then doesnt matter the fact is those guys came knocking, your just trying to get me on a name technicality.
But you know as well as i do, the gov forced people to hand over gold and it wasnt legal to own more than. Afew ounces when gold was set at $35 an ounce and the gov set the gold value. So yes you are a bitch to gov just like fiat. Under fiat they dont need your gold stack, under gold standard your stack would likely end up in fed reserves not by your choosing. Likely when ever the country gets into finacial trouble like the 30's and the government needs to fill the vaults, and in return you end up with paper to the value of the gold the government dictated its value as being, vs now where gold is set by the market not the government.
And yes gold standard did fail, and money printing was used to stop the us from going bankrupt. The fact there is no gold standard is proof it failed.
The US is ruled by the oligarchy and probably has a king that rules over the rest. The king says that Trump must go and all methods must be used. Sometimes I wonder, why don't the oligarchy get rid of the election, become just like the PRC. To me, there's actually not much difference. The king gets to rule forever and the American middle class might actually be better off.
It was the IRS in the 70s yep, ever since ww2 when the income tax was introduced to finance the war.
Before that the govt was financed by tariffs and the richest of the rich were taxed too.
Back then someone with 25k was a well off person and the taxes weren't such a kick in the balls, today you're at the verge of poverty at 25k and losing 20 percent of your income can be a huge deal.
See how it works?
They used the "tax the rich" excuse back then (same as today), now everyone pays out the butt and it's still not enough.
Not trying to argue with you at all, just having a good discussion. I'm not trying to get you on a name technicality, just some IRS history.
I learned alot about the IRS when I beat them in 2006, they classified me as uncollectable and they said I wont be hearing from them again.
It was a game changer in my life and well worth the hassles and threats they put me through.
Someday when I get bored again I may sue them for every dime I've ever paid plus interest. I'd like to have that all back.
I agree corruption is much more rampant now and spending is more reckless. But you have to understand America even in the early 1900s was on a fractional reserve gold standard, that's what allowed to system expand so rapidly. If it was truly limited to a 1 to 1 gold backing the expansion would have never happened and the majority of people would still be very poor.
Like with everything in life balance is the key. A full gold standard is bad for the majority and a unlimited money supply with no restrictions is bad too, as us humans can't control our self. History has proven that a fractional reserve gold standard gets the best results. Maybe next year we might see that system once again.
Kings and central banks. Pretty much the same thing.
A system of currency using sound money doesn’t need centralisation.
I agree, yet "centralisation" always forms. This is a human nature problem, as most people are lazy and hate thinking and a few like to play the game and take all the control. This gradient of different states will always create the same outcome.
That's why in Atlas shrugged they only took the very few smart & honest people into the new society. They understood no system can fix most people.
I dont know if the people of Argentina, Venezuela and zimbabwe would consider themselves lucky to have a fiat system. Theres no more middle class anymore or at least it's been totally redefined.
I know in some of those places they spend they day panning gold so they can feed their families with the few specks they find.
They sure arent working by the hour and theres no work to be had.
Mirror images of every other failed currency through history and many more sure to fail in the coming years.
It's hard to argue with a 100 percent failure rate.
^ yep rampant corruption is not good.
Ayn Rand was a minarchist. From my understanding she felt that society was best served by having the elites determine the direction for society, not so much dictating but guiding benevolently. John Galt came to the conclusion in "Atlas Shrugged" that society had gone too far and that the elites were being crushed by the collectivists. This is why he removed them from the mainstream to a secret location, with the exception of his old mate Danneskjold whose job was to destroy the world so that Galt may rebuild it.
It was always Galt's intention to return to society once the old structures had been torn down.
Humans will always be human, that's why there are groups of people out there now building decentralised systems that can sidestep some of the less savoury aspects of human nature. Some of these are minarchist, many of the original designers were anarchist. I'm certain Rand wouldn't have approved of their projects.
Most people are good, centralised fiat monetary systems make it more challenging for the "good" people to live moral lives.
Separate names with a comma.