Re: U.S. 'Dollar' doomed after Feb. 1, 2006
- From: "Fjord" <bp_harmon@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Oct 2005 17:06:02 -0700
Rob Petrie wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Fjord" <bp_harmon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1130337434.965804.144000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > The Bernake quote is very hackneyed. Notice all of the ellipses...
>
> It doesn't change the thrust of his answer not one iota.
Says you. Part of your "quote" isn't even from his speech. Those that
are in there were presented out of sequence.
You lied by attributing statements to him that were not his.
> So, why should ANYBODY have a power of issuing money at no cost?
Of course, what does Bernake mean by "at no cost?" at no _material_
cost, or without consequence?
If Bernake thinks there's no consequence, then why point out that a
valuable item, if produced in unlimited quantities, would become
worthless?
> > As it is, I fail to see how a gold based currency is any less prone to
> > manipulation and economic shock.
>
> Because governments can NOT create it on a printing press!
> Simple enough for you to understand?
No, but governments can seize all of the privately owned gold, Or
capriciously change the number of dollars per ounce of gold, or have
their pals buy all the gold or sell it all short for profit.
Backing the currency with a commodity doesn't keep the government any
more honest, nor would I feel any safer.
> > The gov't can change the exchange
> > rate or confiscate the gold outright.
>
> Isn't that just theft and what FDR did in 1933?
INDEED! Clearly demonstrating that a gold-backed currency is no more
secure than a fiat one. Thank you for admitting that.
> > Speculators with large access to
> > wealth can play with the gold market for extreme profit.
>
> Or with cattle futures, as Hillary Clinton "did" (from inside experts)
> when she was effectively the president.
Irrelevant, but I take it that you agree, gold backed currencies are no
better. thanks!
> > Gov'ts that persue foolish inflationary
> > policies are punished, those that pursue sound economic ones are
> > rewarded.
>
> Name me ONE government (ex., the U.S. Government) that has been
> "punished" since 1913 when it unconstitutionally gave that awesome power to
> a bunch of private bankers so the government could run deficits and print
> the difference away that falls hardest on the poor and working class? Don't
> count the fact the government grows larger as some type of 'punishment',
> since it routinely justifies growing bigger in economic crises it either
> manufactures itself or aids and abets.
I'm not going to hunt to give you am example for your loaded question.
But if you'd like an example of a gov't being punished for poor
monetary policy: 1970s stagflation and double digit interest rates.
Made worse by energy shocks, admittedly, but bad monetary policy made
it worse.
Hyperinflation in latin america also leaps to mind.
> > There's no commidity backing the money that some third party
> > can manipulate.
>
> Yeah, right. <sarcasm>
Yeah, right! <no sarcasm>
> And no one individual or small cabal of elite private bankers (let's
> say, the Federal Reserve group) can also manipulate the currency for seizing
> wealth by hidden ways while they can blame 'inflation' on greedy
> speculators, oil barons, higher labor wage demands, etc., etc., etc.
Sure! so we agree again, gold based currencies and fiat currencies can
both be manipulated by governments, meaning one is not necessarily any
"safer" than the other.
That sure was easy.
.
- References:
- U.S. 'Dollar' doomed after Feb. 1, 2006
- From: Rob Petrie
- U.S. 'Dollar' doomed after Feb. 1, 2006
- Prev by Date: Re: Rosa Parks on a coin?
- Next by Date: Re: Starting a US Type Set - Advice?
- Previous by thread: Re: U.S. 'Dollar' doomed after Feb. 1, 2006
- Next by thread: WTB: BEP Hand-Pulled Proof souvenir cards in Las Vegas
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
