Jump to content
Due to the significant updates that have taken place, you now need to login with your display name or e-mail address, NOT your login name. ×
Due to posts that are 5+ years old being rebuilt, some of the older BBCodes may not have converted properly but still be in the post. Most posts are unaffected but some using what was our custom BBCode (like [spoiler]) will be a bit broken. ×

darkmage099

Members
  • Content Count

    2622
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About darkmage099

  • Rank
    Moss Giant Whipper

Profile Information

  • Location
    Goin down to South Park gunna have myself a time
  • Interests
    hockey
  1. Yes, but our politicians won't be telling us that. The devaluation of the dollar throughout the past years has been one of the main reasons why countries are now diverging out of the dollar and oftenly into the euro. State owned investment vehicles are getting more popular with each day too. I see... :-k hate to be picky but oftenly isn't a word Your http://www.dictionary.com definition of "limited" still doesn't get me any further to comprehend what "limited America" is supposed to mean, considering the broad and vague nature of that statement. Nevertheless, you seem to be able to narrow it down to "limited overspending politicians". Now ironically, I don't see that as a bad thing at all. Ok, let me re-explain. The gold system limits the people running America (or whatever country) because they are not fiscally free to run their government imposing whatever financial policies they want. This is proven when America severed its ties with the gold system because they wanted to overspend. The gold system was not allowing them to, therefore they cut it. At least that is my understanding... Ok...I'm assuming this is an extension to what I already agree with. Hey, nice to know though. Yes, but they can at least try to limit their spending. Reguarding socialism, I once heard that a pure socialist government is not good because it breeds laziness. In a republic (I'm not quite sure what it is called; but whatever America is), some people win and some people lose. In a socialistic society, it's a level playing field, so people get somewhat less ambitious. Me, I dont have enough knowledge about socialism to comment on it. I guess anyone that thought a big controlling central government was the key to unlocking and freeing a country would agree with that comment. I personally believe and I am making the assumption that Duke Freedom believes that a huge all powerful central government actually limits a country in the long run due to poor efficient use of money. Money is going to be spent either way. If the government takes more of it in taxes to help with economic growth and the greater good vs people getting to keep it and spending it for their own economic growth and greater good which way do you think it will be used more efficiently? So I guess my point is if you mean by it limits America in terms of how big the government can get I agree but if you say it limits America by limiting it's individual citizens then I would have to disagree. When I said it limits America, I mean it limits what the government can do with its money. It disallowed the gov't to spend money it did not have.
  2. darkmage099

    Pros & Cons

    pro: fun and interesting con: never know if it actually happened or you imagined it happened. :x
  3. And I argued that it is and was a rubish theory, please read again. The fact that countries world wide keep such a large dollar reserves, has nothing to do with dollar-only-oil. In short the relevant history went more like this. Before countries world wide started to collect dollars as bank reserves, they used to keep huge amounts of gold. Now America proposed the following system: instead of keeping gold reserves, you could have dollars. America promised that dollars would always be "as good as gold" meaing that dollars would always be exchangable for gold at the ratio of $35 / ounce gold. The world liked the idea for a variety of reasons or were put under political pressure to like it. Either way, the world bought into America's dollar-hegemony scam and agreed to start accumulating dollars as bank reserves. After all, the dollar was as good as gold, what was there to worry about? Indeed, there was little to worry about, except for the treachorous behavior of America on this point. In 1971 they broke their promise that the dollar, by no longer backing it with gold. Many countries protested, but in the end they did nothing / did not dare to do anything. As a result, the gold price rose to a peak of $850 / ounce in 1980. If you compare that to the $35 / ounce America had promised, you should know there was something wrong and that the whole world was betrayed. Why countries still choose to maintain large dollar reserves after this is beyond my comprehension. Political pressure may, once again, have played a significant role. Furthermore, before the world was seduced into the dollar-system, many countries used to have gold standards on their own currencies. However, as part of the dollar-system, America forbid everyone from maintaining such a gold standard. Okay, so it's not that the countries need dollars for JUST oil, but the fact remains that countries do need American dollars. I still think oil has a lot to do with it despite what you said. So if most reserves are in American dollars, then has the whole world taken a serious hit from the devaluation of the dollar? Again, you didn't read my argumentation at all. I said 'problem of gold' lies in overspending politicians, who spend more money than they can afford. Obviously, that is not a 'problem of gold' at all, that is a 'problem of overspending politicians'. Clearly, someone has to pay that overspending anyway and it happens with the 'invisible' inflation tax. Gold simply disallows politicians to make use of the inflation tax - hence why they hate it. America was not "being limited" (what is that supposed to mean even... it sounds just as ridiculous as the statement "dollar is backed by oil") by anything. Actually, it doesn't sound ridiculous at all. LIMITED limÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷itÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ed /ÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¹Ã¢â¬Â lÃÆââ¬Â°ÃâêmÃÆââ¬Â°ÃâêtÃÆââ¬Â°Ãâêd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lim-i-tid] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâadjective 1. confined within limits; restricted or circumscribed: a limited space; limited resources. Now that we've cleared up the definition of limited...The gold standard does (or rather did) limit America by limiting the overspending politicians. Hence, the reason for breaking off from the gold system. I fail to see how that sounds ridiculous. Furthermore, I did read what you said; saying I didn't is kind of ridiculous. I specifically said that it limits America. You said it limited the overspending politicians. Same [cabbage] different name. Gold fulfills the role of money quite well. Gold has ALWAYS remained a valid currency throughout all times. Gold has somehow always intrigued people too. I don't think that there's an answer to the why question regarding that. The question is the bolded. And you said it cannot be answered. End. Oh, and gold has not always been the valued currency :wink:
  4. BlueLancer, it somewhat surprises me to see you make such a ridiculous statement. Anyway, the dollar is not "backed by oil". The choice of words in stating that is already extremely poor. The dollar is not "backed" by anything and has not been since the one-sided cancellation of the gold standard by America in 1971. What IS argued here, is that "the dollar derives a significant portion of its value from the fact that oil is being traded only in dollars". Nevertheless, I still disagree. While I can "agree" that the fact that oil is being traded only in dollars implies a constant 'demand' for dollars, this arguement on its own is extremely fallacious. To start with the most obvious issue: it only looks at the demand side of dollars. What about those who supply the oil? They get dollars for their oil. Dollars they might not even want or need. Obviously, those who receive dollars for their oil while not being interested in keeping those dollars, still have all the abilities to sell these dollars back on the market. Hence, the 'artificial' dollar demand caused by dollar-only-oil is countered by the subsequent dollar supply of those who receive these unwanted 'artificial' dollars. The net result is barely any extra demand for dollars. That does not mean the dollar-only-oil does not contribute to the dollar-hegemony at all, however. The dollar-only-oil ensures increased trading volume of dollars (following from the fact that non-americans wanting to buy or sell oil HAVE to deal with dollars), clearly making the dollar a more liquid currency. The dollar-only-oil is certainly a factor, but just not the most important one and arguably not even a major one. If the dollar-hegemony was based on dollar-only-oil then the system would have long collapsed, right after the gold standard was removed. Dollar-only-oil does not explain why 65.7% of the worlds foreign exchange reserves are dollars. They certainly don't need such a huge dollar-reserves just to be able to buy oil. I think that was the point the article was making. The dollar WAS backed my oil because there WAS a high demand for the dollar (as the supply wasn't as high yet). However, there is now a decrease in demand because the suppliers, oil-producing countries, are selling their dollars into the economy. This devalues the dollar, and therefore decreases its value. To combat this, the oil producing countries are asking for money in Euros which is hurting it MORE. There's nothing wrong about the gold system. The issues from a gold system are generally derived from overspending politicians. Politicians always want to spend more than their budget allows them to. Debt financing allows for this, by letting the inflation tax do its work. A gold system prevents debt financing and inflation tax and is thus unwanted by most politicians. The gold standard disallowed America to continue its massive, yet unsustainable, money supply growth, which allowed America to live far above its standards. Thus it was removed. America backstabbed the whole world by breaking their promise that their "dollar is as good as gold". Their dollar is worthless paper or erasable electronic data. The whole world foolishly stepped into America's dollar-hegemony-system with both of their feet. That's exactly the problem! It keeps nations in check so the nations dont want it. America was being limited by the gold system so they said "screw it" and left it. Like the article said, the world got conned. Simply stated: gold = money. While regarding the dollar it's more like: dollar = faith. Essentially that goes for any non-backed currency by the way. I think he is asking why gold...and not something else LINK: HERE
  5. Who sold Israel their lands? Was it the Palastenian gov't? Well, the people still have a right to be angry, and it's not like they can act against their gov't. If someone sold my land, I'd probably fight too. You can't seriously expect them to huddle in a corner and surrender. Why should the other countries apologize? They feel threatened that any Western nation can just walk in, dispose of a government, and put foreign people in. They have a right to be angry as well. It should be Palestine who should grant Israel a state and not the other way around. The Palestinians should be the ones to decide.
  6. Forgot to finish your sentence. You tried to make them your subordinates. They declined. As was said before, it was sort of already their land...
  7. Yeah, but that is not what this thread is about :wink: Gold had its uses.
  8. John Dalton? Well I think atomic theory would have sprung up but perhaps at a later time. People thought of matter in a particulate nature centuries before Dalton. He just formulated Atomic theory which (the core of it, anyway) stands to this day. I'm aware a greek phlosopher thought of this it is just something intresting to think about. Democritus? Yeah, nothing would have changed. It was more like this: man1: I discovered atoms man2: You're right man3: some guy before suggested this thousands of years ago, but it had no influence on your present day discovery. man1: Yeah, but let's give him some credit. Something like that. Dalton formed the basic theory of matter including the nature of atoms, elements and compounds, the latter being in fixed ratios of elements . ** Did Democritus or any other early thinkers say anything about compounds? **Edit: He also devised the first concept of atomic mass, probably why an amu (atomic mass unit) is these days alternately called a Dalton. Yes, I understand that, but my point was, AFAIK, these discoveries by Dalton were independent of Democritus' philosophies. I'm almost positive that compounds were not discussed because this theory of Democritus' was rejected by many thinkers of the time, namely Aristotle. We'd most probably be (or have) Jewish upbringing. Many religious wars between Islam and Judaism might have occurred in the last 2000 years, there would have been no Nazi Genocide as we know it. Jews wouldn't have been secluded to commercial jobs in Europe, and thus mercantilism, capitalism and Marxism probably wouldn't have existed, so we'd probably have a completely different world economical system. Wrong, Christianity spread, not Judaism. There are far too few Jews to compete with the spread of Islam. jesus is jewish. judaism and christianity split off because we don't believe jesus was a profit... and other stuff. question... where would jesus go? temple or church. :?: Yes, but Judaism would have never spread to Rome and eventually to everywhere in Europe. Paul of Tarsus was forced to leave Israel and preach elsewhere. As far as I know, from that point on it was spread by the pupils of Paul (and other dudes?). The rapid spread of Christianity to Europe had little to do with Jesus.
  9. You're an idiot. If anyone attacked the US, it'd be with (nuclear) bombs not guns and tanks. :roll: I love how you misread that last sentence I put in there. As well, if they aren't going to invade the U.S., nor have the Economical power, nor can they use nuclear attacks, what else is there? Nothing. Hence why I created a scenario based on a picture, and a previous thread that existed a few weeks ago. It actually sounded like you thought it was probable. I seriously hope that was a joke, or you must lack serious basic economic knowledge. Just the threat of war would be enough to skyrocket the price to $150 dollars per barrel. Why doesn't the USA invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia? Look at those countries main export, then look at the main importer (USA). Got the hint? Why did the USA invade Iraq? Look at the country's main export, then look at the currency they started dealing it in (Euro), and the main importers (not USA). Funny enough, under Saddam Iraq exported next to no oil directly to the US and started dealing in the Euro currency, the next thing you know hellfire missiles rain on Baghdad and he gets executed for the alleged killing of 182 shia muslims in the Dujail village which happened in the 1980's. Article :P
  10. If America goes down, it takes every other part of the world with it.except maybe antarctica^^ I saw somewhere that some countries have enormous amounts of money invested in American banks (saudi-arabia i think, or some other oil countries) and if they would withdraw part of their money, america would be bankrupt in matter of a few days. No, if America "went down" there would be the rise of a new economic power. The world wont just go into chaos. Yes, some will lose out, but it's not going to spark a world-wide depresson.
  11. John Dalton? Well I think atomic theory would have sprung up but perhaps at a later time. People thought of matter in a particulate nature centuries before Dalton. He just formulated Atomic theory which (the core of it, anyway) stands to this day. I'm aware a greek phlosopher thought of this it is just something intresting to think about. Democritus? Yeah, nothing would have changed. It was more like this: man1: I discovered atoms man2: You're right man3: some guy before suggested this thousands of years ago, but it had no influence on your present day discovery. man1: Yeah, but let's give him some credit. Something like that.
  12. Now this is just ridiculous. He's saying that the US economy was limited by the gold reserve when dollars were backed up by gold? It most certainly wasn't. The value of the dollar changed and when people came to the "gold windows" to redeem their dollars for gold they were bet with a nasty surprise. The gold standard was eliminated because it just didn't work and the dollar has been a floating currency ever since. It was limited by gold because the US needed more currency, which it did not have (the gold for). From my understanding, the gold did limit it. The gold standard is flawed but so is the alternative. The article explains both. The rest, that's BlueLancer's argument, which I look forward to hearing.
  13. [hide] Norway has paid of all it's debt and it's one of the wealthiest countries in the world, plus it's the wealthiest nordic country and has extensive, free social security and healthcare for all citizens, has one of the longest life expectancies and GDP... It donates billions to foreign aid and charity as a state every year... Your theory of "if a government isn't in debt, it's doing bad" makes no economic sense. How the heck is a country better off if it loans money from others? Hmmm, good point it probably doesnt make sense but its a sort of quote from my history teacher... lets see if i can find anything on it... nope not with all this worring about the US's debt... His name was hamilton i think he was pro-national debt (else he had a counterpart who was) in like the 1800s (not sure on the timeline, but that should be the century). or and i did do the research but i didnt bother posting it cause i didnt think you people would like the results. the fact was the debt is only growing at about 3x the inflation rate and historically the US's debt has always grown with the point is that the US is still the richest country in the world. kinda, im saying the debt has a purpose... right now its building because of the war. War makes research advance at a far faster rate then during peace, and a was when the world ends... but yes B) basicly is end of world too. (at least for me.. cause I live there...). Bad things. for now... but at least some of that debt was used on government research and so we shall dind i was refering to my history class i took last year.[/hide] Nuclear, what you seem to think is that debt is good. I dont know where you're getting this idea, but I'd like to know. Can you provide some sufficient evidence? Just because you're rich doesn't mean you have no problems in life. Just because you're a rich country doesn't mean you dont have to worry about anything.
  14. Because gold is pertty....no seriously. It's been a valuable metal because it...looks good. Other than that, I'm not really sure. I know there have been other metals used for economics such as copper in ancient China, silver in the Age of Exploration, and Iron back before it could be made.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.