Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What's really wrong with America
#61
(08-15-2011, 05:22 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: Note that giving money to gold is retarded too. Gold doesn't do anything, it just sit there in a vault.
And is extremely overvalued as we speak. Yet poeple keep buying it.
That all depends. Ask anyone from a country that fell apart who fared the best. It was the people with gold and diamonds (if they didn't get robbed). It's worked quite well for people alive today.

Gold has proven itself for hundreds of years, and continues to prove itself in other countries today.

"If people weren't so hypocritical, they would donate more of their time and their money to directly help their causes. Instead they want the government to force me to give them my time and my money." - Catpiss, The Great
Reply
#62
In turbulent times throughout history, folks who wanted to flee their country or survive disruption and revolution would have a stock of gold coins since they were universally accepted. I don't know what would happen today if someone offered to pay with gold coins. Probably not feasible.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#63
(08-14-2011, 09:02 PM)quadrat Wrote:
(08-12-2011, 08:21 PM)WmLambert Wrote: In reality, for government to throw money at anything, it must first drain it out of the economy. It is already being spent - and being spent on the basis of market forces rather than some political nimrod's shopping list.

you can also state that a private investor wanting to throw money at anything has to drain it out of the economy first, on the expense of projects which might be more useful. private investor has the goal to make max money with min manpower, while the government, for all intents and purposes should act the other way around, making the economy serve and occupy as many people as possible.
Actually, a private investor does not have a goal to maximize profit at minimum manpower. The manufacturing or hands-on part is what it is, and if an enterprise is manpower intensive to make money, or not, it is good to go if the whole thing is positive. Many enterprises have been favored by governments and given tax breaks just because they do employ workers who pay taxes.

The government, on the other hand, earns no revenue. All of it's funding comes from taxes and fees. It comes directly from the wallets and purses of the public. It is more economically successful doing that, then entering the marketplace in an entrepreneurial position. When it has done so in the past, as it did in the 18th and 19th centuries, the results were always horrendous, and the people rose up in revolt, kicked the politicians out of office who were involved in it, and handed the enterprises over to private industry, which immediately reversed the negative nature of these schemes, turned them around successfully with quality for far less.

The only legitimate thing the government has done economically is point to a need and use the bully-pulpit and tax-based initiatives to encourage the free market to work for a worthwhile goal, as is done during wartime and special projects like Apollo. The Apollo project gave us micro-miniaturization, and the solid circuit era that propelled the U.S. to the top of the international technological heap. The byproduct of this old project is a NASA culture that is generations ahead of the purely private space race endeavors. The individual entrepreneurs working on space today are busy reinventing the wheel.

NASA was a magnet for like-minded invention over generations - but that like-minded attraction will soon reappear in the private sector.
Reply
#64
(08-15-2011, 05:51 PM)I Am The Great Catpiss! Wrote:
(08-15-2011, 05:22 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: Note that giving money to gold is retarded too. Gold doesn't do anything, it just sit there in a vault.
And is extremely overvalued as we speak. Yet poeple keep buying it.
That all depends. Ask anyone from a country that fell apart who fared the best. It was the people with gold and diamonds (if they didn't get robbed). It's worked quite well for people alive today.

Gold has proven itself for hundreds of years, and continues to prove itself in other countries today.
It doesn't have to be gold though. It's just anything that is not paper money that people value in any given situation. If things got desperate enough gold wouldn't be valuable either. Tools, food, clean water, ammunition, etc. These things all have intrinsic value because they allow us to do things. gold doesn't do anything for us. You can't make food with it or use it as fuel. You can't build a house with it. It's just an alternate means of exchange outside of government control. Gold is gold and you can't print more.

Reply
#65
(08-16-2011, 09:34 AM)WickedLou9 Wrote: http://ai-jane.org/bb/forumdisplay.php?fid=25
It doesn't have to be gold though. It's just anything that is not paper money that people value in any given situation. If things got desperate enough gold wouldn't be valuable either. Tools, food, clean water, ammunition, etc. These things all have intrinsic value because they allow us to do things. gold doesn't do anything for us. You can't make food with it or use it as fuel. You can't build a house with it. It's just an alternate means of exchange outside of government control. Gold is gold and you can't print more.

I think that's the main point Lou. S5

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#66
(08-16-2011, 09:34 AM)WickedLou9 Wrote: http://ai-jane.org/bb/forumdisplay.php?fid=25
It doesn't have to be gold though. It's just anything that is not paper money that people value in any given situation. If things got desperate enough gold wouldn't be valuable either. Tools, food, clean water, ammunition, etc. These things all have intrinsic value because they allow us to do things. gold doesn't do anything for us. You can't make food with it or use it as fuel. You can't build a house with it. It's just an alternate means of exchange outside of government control. Gold is gold and you can't print more.

I think that's one of the main points Lou. S5

The only thing that gold fails to do is expand with the growing economy. If the money supply does not keep up with the size of the overall economy, there will be natural deflation. But we have had so much inflation that it would take a long, long, time to get back to the starting point.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#67
WLou9 Wrote:It doesn't have to be gold though. It's just anything that is not paper money that people value in any given situation.
True, and that was my point above, yet gold is also the most transportable valuable. Diamond may have more value per weight, but they are more difficult to sell, and sell often with a steep loss.

Gold is your currency of choice in troubled situation and even in normal times, but the point is, it's not an investment, at least it shouldn't be.
A failure of the system, currently is that too many nvestor took gold as an investment, more than for capital preservation. One can even say that gold became the crazy trade thing of the moment, a speculative game. That's certainly modifying thousand years old rules of basic barter as we speak. Because gold is not a safe and stable value anymore. Investors in gold have been winners so far, it quadrupled in 30 years, yet it's undeniably overvalued. Just like the Swiss franc. Gold cannot be just like the Swiss franc, can it?
It could fall at any moment.

I was reading the other day that gold value hasn't been modified since 1970 because the oil/gold ratio is still the same. The idea was that you buy the same quantity of oil with an ounce of gold today as in 1970.

This is a dangerous shortcut. Economy is far more complex than that. In fact both gold and oil are more expansive, not only compared to the $, but against anything else. Against a foreign currency, against an hour of labor, against a sac of potatoes, against a mp3 download,... whatever you compare to oil and incidently to gold, makes oil more expansive proportionaly. Oil is more expansive for everybody in the world, not only USD holders.

While there are some good reasons to value oil around $100 a barrel, I don't see any good reason to value gold at $1800 an ounce.

One thing works in favor of gold thought: demography. But for how long? S23 When poeple will realize the buying power gold has, they will finaly sell it to buy themselves a new car, a swimming pool or the last iGadget.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)