Forums | MacLife

No, just get tinkerbell out of office.

The man literally must think money grows on trees. Another reason not to let spoiled little rich boys into the oval office.

sturner wrote:

No, just get tinkerbell out of office.

The man literally must think money grows on trees. Another reason not to let spoiled little rich boys into the oval office.

And yet Congress keeps passing his budgets, year after year.

Didn't I read somewhere that their approval rating just hit 10% or something?

Ah, well, let's blame the individual then.

What about the Democrats who, as individuals, have supported those policies and continue to do so?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Zowie, closing in on $10 trillion. That's a lot of green, man.

Where's all this headed?

Running an empire hell bent on spreading their kind of democracy at the end of a gun isn't cheap.

Yellowfin wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Yellowfin wrote:

NOW do you want a gold standard?

How would that help the situation?

Because it would put a lock on the cookie jar.  The Congress can't spend money that doesn't exist and can't make it exist as they do now with all the endless debt issuing and financial magic tricks they do now.  A gold standard establishes that money both governmentally spent and privately spent has a defined value, a finite supply, and guaranteed stability.  Hence why nearly no politician likes it or wants to inch one toe towards it.

The gold reserves of the United States are something like $100 billion. Is it realistic to expect America to function with that little cash in circulation? Even if you buy up massive amounts of gold (and financed how?), could you reach the level necessary to sustain the economy?

And even if you could, how would going back to a gold standard help the present situation?

And today the Fed dropped the interest rate, a full half point even, not the quarter point that people were expecting. But any drop here is a tad sketchy, interest rates are already quite low, and this whole credit crunch thing isn't going to be fixed by this, merely put off until some other time.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Yellowfin wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

How would that help the situation?

Because it would put a lock on the cookie jar.  The Congress can't spend money that doesn't exist and can't make it exist as they do now with all the endless debt issuing and financial magic tricks they do now.  A gold standard establishes that money both governmentally spent and privately spent has a defined value, a finite supply, and guaranteed stability.  Hence why nearly no politician likes it or wants to inch one toe towards it.

The gold reserves of the United States are something like $100 billion. Is it realistic to expect America to function with that little cash in circulation? Even if you buy up massive amounts of gold (and financed how?), could you reach the level necessary to sustain the economy?

And even if you could, how would going back to a gold standard help the present situation?

Go bi-metallic with silver in the short run in suitable amounts.  Allow price levels to adjust to something more rational.  $100 billion means nothing in and of itself--it's just a number.  If it's x% of the dollar demand then that means that the dollar demand is excessive by 100-x.  That means price levels are inflated by non-secured money by that percent. 

You solve all kinds of problems by nailing down the money supply.  As I stated above, the "national credit card" gets cut up.  It would destroy Congress' blank check budgeting.  It would be very useful in squashing the nauseating and utterly communist government activity of social engineering via transfer payments.  If absolutely nothing else it would solve the SS problem by making the fixed $ amounts worth vastly more than at present.  There would be kinks, sure, and short term market corrections, but reinstating a gold standard would be the best thing for our country in a very, very long time.

Last edited by Yellowfin (2007-09-19 12:33 pm)

GOLD

user wrote:

"just a number"?

Well yeah. If we switched to a gold standard, it would just vastly inflate the price of gold.

Yellowfin wrote:

Because it would put a lock on the cookie jar.  The Congress can't spend money that doesn't exist and can't make it exist as they do now with all the endless debt issuing and financial magic tricks they do now.  A gold standard establishes that money both governmentally spent and privately spent has a defined value, a finite supply, and guaranteed stability.  Hence why nearly no politician likes it or wants to inch one toe towards it.

You're ignoring the history of the last 25 years, where politicians have ramped up the national debt, and the Fed hasn't eased up on inflation to help the government make the interest payments.

Our budget deficits aren't being financed by inflation. They're being financed by massive and growing interest payments that are becoming a larger and larger portion of the government budget.

after-life wrote:

user wrote:

"just a number"?

Well yeah. If we switched to a gold standard, it would just vastly inflate the price of gold.

Yellowfin wrote:

Because it would put a lock on the cookie jar.  The Congress can't spend money that doesn't exist and can't make it exist as they do now with all the endless debt issuing and financial magic tricks they do now.  A gold standard establishes that money both governmentally spent and privately spent has a defined value, a finite supply, and guaranteed stability.  Hence why nearly no politician likes it or wants to inch one toe towards it.

You're ignoring the history of the last 25 years, where politicians have ramped up the national debt, and the Fed hasn't eased up on inflation to help the government make the interest payments.

Our budget deficits aren't being financed by inflation. They're being financed by massive and growing interest payments that are becoming a larger and larger portion of the government budget.

Which is why I don't by treasury bonds of any type.

bratboy wrote:

"Social engineering?" 

Why laugh, that is exactly what it is.