Originally posted by twhitehead Where did you get that piece of propaganda from? No rational person ever thought it was 'theoretically impossible'.
Especially when it has happened a half dozen time in the last century, and many times before. The problem is that nobody in government or business wants to look at the real culprit, because it is them. Borrowed money finances booms, and the subsequent busts are predictable, as are the bailouts, which results in the next recycle.
Originally posted by finnegan As I said, the video would interest someone open to different thinking in economics. Obviously a debate based on not watching it has nowhere to go. Bye.
The Fed just prints what we need. What system could be better?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra What "real value" would you base the dollar on?
Gold and silver standards worked for a long time, until governments wanted to spend more than they held in gold. The current system is created by greedy politicians, and supported by their business cohorts.
Originally posted by normbenign Gold and silver standards worked for a long time, until governments wanted to spend more than they held in gold. The current system is created by greedy politicians, and supported by their business cohorts.
Do you think the US system was untainted by greedy politicians supported by their business cohorts, before going off the gold standard?
Originally posted by normbenign Gold and silver standards worked for a long time, until governments wanted to spend more than they held in gold. The current system is created by greedy politicians, and supported by their business cohorts.
Having the economic activity in your society limited by the amount of a shiny, but fairly useless, metal that is available is rather silly.
Would you support a "daffodil standard" rather than a "gold standard"? They make equal economic sense.
Originally posted by JS357 Do you think the US system was untainted by greedy politicians supported by their business cohorts, before going off the gold standard?
Of course not, but the ability to spend unlimited by anything was obviously not what they wanted, then or now.
Originally posted by no1marauder Having the economic activity in your society limited by the amount of a shiny, but fairly useless, metal that is available is rather silly.
Would you support a "daffodil standard" rather than a "gold standard"? They make equal economic sense.
I don't care if the standard is metal, but some relatively rare commodity instead of politically connected bankers, who also stand to profit by the expansion of the money supply. Obviously, the dictatorial control of money supply, grants bankers and government great control over economic factors, as well as unfair opportunities for profits.
Originally posted by no1marauder The value of the dollar is set in currency markets which are about as "free" as any that exist. The Fed can't dictate it.
As we've seen, declines in the US dollar, can bleed over onto the world economy. There are hardly any "free" markets anywhere on the planet. Those that exist prosper, but are comparatively small.
The US economy is far from free, as when it declines, it begs for the central bank for aid.
Originally posted by normbenign Gold and silver standards worked for a long time, until governments wanted to spend more than they held in gold. The current system is created by greedy politicians, and supported by their business cohorts.
The value of gold and silver is just as imaginary as the value of a stack of paper or the value of a bunch of numbers in a computer.
Originally posted by normbenign As we've seen, declines in the US dollar, can bleed over onto the world economy. There are hardly any "free" markets anywhere on the planet. Those that exist prosper, but are comparatively small.
The US economy is far from free, as when it declines, it begs for the central bank for aid.
Could you name some of those free markets so we can study them? Do they have a gold standard?
Originally posted by no1marauder Having the economic activity in your society limited by the amount of a shiny, but fairly useless, metal that is available is rather silly.
Would you support a "daffodil standard" rather than a "gold standard"? They make equal economic sense.
We all prefer the Obama standard.
Sure, it's worthless, but it's what we say it's worth so who cares? 😛
Originally posted by normbenign Sure I understand that what ifs will always be less convincing than what actually happened, but overall nobody predicted the progress of the last century.
From covered wagons to jet aircraft and rockets in my great grandmothers lifetime.
05 Feb '16 17:22
Different Economics
Back to Top