http://www.marke****ch.com/story/why-larry-summers-wants-to-take-away-the-100-bill-2016-02-16p
That also means it's easier for you to cash out your retirement accounts and take your money somewhere.
Before they take it.......
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/why-larry-summers-wants-to-take-away-the-100-bill-2016-02-16p
That also means it's easier for you to cash out your retirement accounts and take your money somewhere.
Maybe it will come to a grinding halt, leading to a correction. Such is life.
I just hope that you aren't suggesting more Government to solve this problem.
You're probably right. All of your wealth digital, and controlled by the banks/Fed...
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/why-larry-summers-wants-to-take-away-the-100-bill-2016-02-16p
That also means it's easier for you to cash out your retirement accounts and take your money somewhere.
Before they take it.......
Before they take it.......
The problem with your correction is that we, not those responsible, are going to be the ones to take it in the chin and/or nuts. The 'government solutions' I see hinge on the elimination of the government-sponsored guarantee to lose for our people, including and especially the eradication of one-sided trade agreements which help foreign interests and domestic business interests who are positioned to do exactly what is being done here. Further elimination of oppressive regulations for us and none for the others in what that dumbass Friedman calls a 'flat world' economy which is anything but flat when considering the vast disparity in regulations is necessary. While we are at it, some tariffs would be in order. Our founders set up the republic to operate on tariffs as its primary source of revenue for a good reason. It would serve us well to rediscover that fact.
Oh yes, they are getting ever closer to their hot sweaty dreams of controlling our wealth to the extent that we have only that portion of our wealth that they want us to have access to at any given time. This would allow for such manipulations as freezing assets to manipulate the economy or helping themselves any time they so choose. The only viable solution I could see once this happens is to convert your electronic 'paper' that says you have money into tangible assets of some type suitable for either use or barter as it comes in so that you don't have any large sum sitting as a target. This is especially true regarding the retirements funds that have been on the receiving end of lustful eyeballing for quite some time now, generally with thoughts of nationalizing such funds into Social Security 2.0: The massive redistribution.
The problem with your correction is that we, not those responsible, are going to be the ones to take it in the chin and/or nuts. The 'government solutions' I see hinge on the elimination of the government-sponsored guarantee to lose for our people, including and especially the eradication of one-sided trade agreements which help foreign interests and domestic business interests who are positioned to do exactly what is being done here. Further elimination of oppressive regulations for us and none for the others in what that dumbass Friedman calls a 'flat world' economy which is anything but flat when considering the vast disparity in regulations is necessary. While we are at it, some tariffs would be in order. Our founders set up the republic to operate on tariffs as its primary source of revenue for a good reason. It would serve us well to rediscover that fact.
Oh yes, they are getting ever closer to their hot sweaty dreams of controlling our wealth to the extent that we have only that portion of our wealth that they want us to have access to at any given time. This would allow for such manipulations as freezing assets to manipulate the economy or helping themselves any time they so choose. The only viable solution I could see once this happens is to convert your electronic 'paper' that says you have money into tangible assets of some type suitable for either use or barter as it comes in so that you don't have any large sum sitting as a target. This is especially true regarding the retirements funds that have been on the receiving end of lustful eyeballing for quite some time now, generally with thoughts of nationalizing such funds into Social Security 2.0: The massive redistribution.
Yeah, look/listen for stories about moving towards cashless societies. They've been around for awhile. Probably most "reputable" financial folks will poo-poo this prospect as tin-foil-hat wearing flights of fancy. But with the way things are going, with the financial problems that are out there, would anybody be all that surprised if they made the announcement the decision's been made?
The problem with your correction is that we, not those responsible, are going to be the ones to take it in the chin and/or nuts. The 'government solutions' I see hinge on the elimination of the government-sponsored guarantee to lose for our people, including and especially the eradication of one-sided trade agreements which help foreign interests and domestic business interests who are positioned to do exactly what is being done here. Further elimination of oppressive regulations for us and none for the others in what that dumbass Friedman calls a 'flat world' economy which is anything but flat when considering the vast disparity in regulations is necessary. While we are at it, some tariffs would be in order. Our founders set up the republic to operate on tariffs as its primary source of revenue for a good reason. It would serve us well to rediscover that fact.
I can't figure out what you want to do. Eliminate regulations or create more of them?
By what standard do you support infringing on the peoples' right to trade freely? The 'common good'?
IndyDave1776 said:We hear so much argument about equality and freedom, then let's get rid of the one-sided trade agreements and treat all imports alike regardless of the nationality of the importers.
.... We hear so much argument about equality and freedom, then let's get rid of the one-sided trade agreements and treat all imports [STRIKE]alike[/STRIKE] the way the exporting countries treat our goods regardless of the nationality of the importers.
If the US were to go back on the gold standard our trade imbalances would have to end, the rest of the world would have to go back on the gold standard as well.
Or pick a new fiat currency such as the Euro.
Switching to a gold standard could have disastrous results for our economy. There's a lot you can't know until it happens, and this is one of those things.
The problem with "free trade" is that it isn't.
We in the USA are in a unique position where we have a fiat currency that also happens to moonlight as the worlds reserve currency. There is currently high demand for dollars. High demand means higher price. Higher price means we can buy things from the rest of the world at a discount.
This means that the goods we make are expensive to us and the rest of the world. Manufacturing will necessarily move from the USA to other countries so they can sell these goods back to us for dollars.
The solution is simple, but it also entails the loss of unlimited power for our government - the end of the fiat currency system. Ron and Rand Paul are exactly right. If the US were to go back on the gold standard our trade imbalances would have to end, the rest of the world would have to go back on the gold standard as well.
You couldn't have a country that ran a trade imbalance for 4 decades because all the gold would flee that country. That is exactly the reason that Nixon closed the gold window and turned the US dollar into worthless chits of paper. Since 1971 the US dollar has been backed by nothing. The "full faith and credit" is a lie because there is nothing that a bankrupt government cannot repay all it's obligations.
End the Fed, return to hard money and the problems will disappear.
"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." Keynes
AtTheMurph said:The problem with "free trade" is that it isn't.
We in the USA are in a unique position where we have a fiat currency that also happens to moonlight as the worlds reserve currency. There is currently high demand for dollars. High demand means higher price. Higher price means we can buy things from the rest of the world at a discount.
This means that the goods we make are expensive to us and the rest of the world. Manufacturing will necessarily move from the USA to other countries so they can sell these goods back to us for dollars.
The solution is simple, but it also entails the loss of unlimited power for our government - the end of the fiat currency system. Ron and Rand Paul are exactly right. If the US were to go back on the gold standard our trade imbalances would have to end, the rest of the world would have to go back on the gold standard as well.
You couldn't have a country that ran a trade imbalance for 4 decades because all the gold would flee that country. That is exactly the reason that Nixon closed the gold window and turned the US dollar into worthless chits of paper. Since 1971 the US dollar has been backed by nothing. The "full faith and credit" is a lie because there is nothing that a bankrupt government cannot repay all it's obligations.
End the Fed, return to hard money and the problems will disappear.
"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." Keynes
Oh it would be a massive adjustment, but that adjustment is going to be forced upon us one of these days (not necessarily the gold standard, but the debt expansion will reach its limits) and that will be even worse.
The gold standard is not perfect, but AtTheMurph is correct that having our currency as the global fiat is what allows us to continue with such a big trade deficit
Gold makes a decent currency because it's fungible and difficult to counterfeit. It's also relatively scarce (somewhat related to the ability to counterfeit).Why is the gold standard better?
Whatever the form of currency, it can be exchanged for services just as it can be for commodities.One of the things that is recognized by a fiat currency that is impossible with a gold standard is that not all economic value is a physical item. Service economies make many, many people wealthy, and there isn't a physical good to be had. If we always have to trade physical goods for nonphysical services (such as a web forum like this one, someone detailing my car, etc.), we soon run out of the physical thing. And so the physical thing has to be worth less and less over time.
Growth of wealth? Are you counting wealth in fiat currency?And therein lies the rub: A gold standard forces deflation. This is very bad news. The growth of wealth worldwide massively outpaces the mining of gold, and a gold standard makes that impossible.
We're not. We're creating debt faster than we are creating growth. And even so what would be the point or benefit? It's an illusion granted us by having this global fiat currency. Things like that always roll downhill on the other side.A trade deficit is only a real problem if it leads to a shrinking GDP. So long as we're creating more wealth than we're sending away in trade, we're still getting richer.
Growth of wealth? Are you counting wealth in fiat currency?
Deflation isn't the ultimate boogeyman. Deflation makes things cheaper to buy. It's good for a guy who doesn't have much money, and it's good for savers. It's bad for debtors.
That's why our government is so afraid of it. They've built a debt-based economy.
By "growth of wealth" I mean an increase in the total value of everything that exists.
One of my employees is excellent at cabinetry. Last year he used some reclaimed lumber we had in storage to build a wonderful oak cabinet in our dining hall. The boards were worth maybe $300, but that cabinet is easily $3000.
He added to the overall value of everything that exists, yet no new gold was created. And this happens all the time all over the world. So gold isn't a good measure of all the wealth in the world.
Surely you don't deny that the process of turning iron ore into automobiles (for example) adds to the total wealth of the world. Yet it doesn't add gold.
Silver was used for money in many societies also. But that's a fine point. And actually if gold had more industrial uses, it would make it even less desirable as a currency because it would cause more value fluctuation. Money is intended to be a medium of exchange, preferably with a stable value. If gold were only money (ie had zero industrial uses) the miners then serve as a minor service industry to help facilitate money, much as bankers should do. Currently bankers have an overwhelmingly dangerous share of the economy.Honestly, I would say that gold mining is one of the things that does very little to add real wealth to the world; gold doesn't have nearly the industrial utility of silver (or many other metals for that matter). Most of gold's value comes from the agreement that it has value. It's neither scarce compared to need nor intrinsically useful for many purposes.
You don't like prices going down when you buy things?Deflation may not be the ultimate boogeyman, but it's pretty stinking bad. When something will cost less tomorrow, there's incentive not to buy. When everyone has incentive not to buy, the bottom drops out of the economy. That's not my idea of a good plan.
Stable value with the ability to loan can allow for steady growth, with a balance between saving and borrowing. You are correct that we don't DESIRE severe deflation. But it's somewhat like gravity. The longer you resist it, the harder the smack-down when it comes.I'm a saver myself; I haven't had a cent of debt for years. I have money in savings. I'm not real big on inflation. But I do see the value to everyone when there is incentive to spend money. It maximizes demand, which drives production, which drives employment. That's good for people who like to be employed. It leads to economic growth.
The government built our economy?