darkmage099

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.

pro: fun and interesting con: never know if it actually happened or you imagined it happened. :x

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:

GTFO

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

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.

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...

Yeah, but that is not what this thread is about :wink: Gold had its uses.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

No European country (i'm not sure if any country does in fact) is on the gold standard whereby its currency is completely backed by gold reserves. Of all countries the US maintains the largest reserves of gold bullion. There is no gold standard.

You clearly don't understand the metaphorical idea behind the heart. I wasn't talking in metaphor. brain != rationality

Exactly. It also effectively explains everything America is doing in the Middle East. Also, it points out why the gold system doesn't work that well :? . Kind of sucks right. Now, I dont know how terrorism fits in there (scapegoat?), but that's a different story.

Brain, all your heart does is pump blood. There's no "feelings" in that.

I was browsing through random stuff and came across this article, which gives sufficient explanation about why America is in the Middle East and why the American economy is what it is. NO, it is not a conspiracy theory but rather an objective look at the U.S status in the world and why things may be happening. The article is quite long, so I will highlight the parts that I think are important. Feel free to argue against it. :) [hide] Effects of debt related fiat currency The US gross domestic product (GDP) is approximately $12,000,000,000,000 ($12 trillion). The federal government should borrow money on the global market based on its creditors believing they will be repaid in full with interest. However, it also prints new currency (M3) that dilutes the value of the currency. Britain recovered from the highest recorded national debt of 250% of its GDP after World War II. Britain repaid its debts to about 50% of G.D.P. Debt burdens of 150% of GDP have proven unsustainable. Smaller countries are not credit worthy anywhere near this level. Argentina lost its ability to borrow after its debt hit 65% of GDP. A borrowing limit for the United States using 150% of its $12 trillion GDP would be about $18 trillion. The official Treasury debt equals $4.6 trillion but the government has also spent money borrowed from the trust funds. The government owes $3.2 trillion, of which, $2 trillion is to Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Count this and the US has a debt of $6.6 trillion. However, the Social Security trust fund requires an additional $4 trillion to cover its obligations. Add this $4 trillion and the current debt is $10.6 trillion. Medicare trustees states the fund faces a shortfall of $9 trillion in obligations. Now, the prescription drug benefit reflects another $21 trillion deficit that to cover its supplementary obligations. This debt must be borrowed as there is no trust fund from which it can be taken. This aggregate debt is $40.6 trillion, which is well beyond the unsustainable 150% of GDP limit of $18 trillion. Total U.S. obligations of $40.6 trillion are nearly 338% of the GDP. Now the USA must remain an empire. An empireÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s economic foundations, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, are based on its ability to tax other nations. An imperial ability to tax demands a better, stronger economy and military. Subject taxes go to improve the living standards of the empire and to strengthen the military dominance that is necessary to enforce the collection of such taxes. Nation-states tax its citizens but an empire can tax other nation-states. America can tax the entire world indirectly via inflation. It does not need to enforce direct payment of taxes as the predecessor empires as it distribute a fiat currency to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars via M3 growth and paying back each dollar with less economic goods. This difference is an imperial tax. The U.S. economy would not dominate the world economy if the U.S. dollar was tied to gold. The M3 currency could not increase if it was limited to a gold reserve. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, substantially increased the currency in circulation, and rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. President Roosevelt removed the dollar from gold in 1932. The U.S. dominated the world economy from an economic point of view but was not an empire as the fixed value of the dollar did not allow the extraction of economic benefits from countries since these dollars remained convertible to gold. With William Jennings BryanÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s famous "Cross of Gold" speech, Keynesian monetary policies, and the historical record during the Gilded Age of depressions and bank panics represented by an onerous gold standard that most economists reject, no one is suggesting a return. Under the gold standard, the money supply was so limited with unprecedented economic, industrial, and population expansion that deflation resulted and ended the era with the Panic of 1873. However, deflation is not the problem with fiat currency. The United States accumulated the worldÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s gold by supplying allies with provisions during WWII and receiving payment in gold, which allowed the dollar to become the world currency. However, the dollar supply is no longer limited to the availability of gold since the Bretton Woods arrangement. An Empire began when foreign governments could not exchange dollars for gold. The supply of dollars was increased to finance Vietnam and LBJÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s Great Society, where most of those dollars were given to foreigners in exchange for economic goods. America was without prospect of buying these dollars back. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was a classical inflation tax. A country normally imposes this tax on its own citizens but this time around an inflation tax was imposed on the entire world. In 1970-1971 foreign governments were demanding repayment for their dollars in gold, which caused the U.S. Government to default on August 15, 1971 by severing the link between the dollar and gold. This was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government as it had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, but the world was powerless to respond. The world had been taxed and it could not do anything about it. Therefore, the U.S. became an Empire. Since, America sustains it Empire by continuing to tax the rest of the world. The United States must force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. The economic reason to for the world to hold dollars since it could not buy back its dollars with gold was controlling the purchase of oil. Since 1972-73, the empire ensures the world only accepts U.S. dollars for oil. Because the world had to buy oil, it needs U.S. dollars. Since the world uses ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the worlds demand for dollars increases. Dollars are not exchangeable for gold but remain the only way to buy oil. The economic essence is that the dollar is backed by oil. As long as that remains the case, the world has to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars because they needed dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar is the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world is assured. The American Empire can continue to tax the rest of the world. If the dollar loses its oil backing our Empire may cease to exist. Imperial survival dictates oil is sold only for dollars. Oil reserves remain in sovereign states that are not strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. Political or military means will be used to change any minds if a different payment is demanded. A man who last demanded Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. This caused the recession of March 2001. Countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. We defended the dollar that supports the American Empire. We set an example, anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars will be punished. We went into Iraq to defend our Empire. Two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold only in U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was restored and the president descended victoriously from a fighter jet to state mission accomplished. The current home values relative to inflation adjusted currency are the highest in history. Other housing booms have been an offshoot of excess profits during the roaring 20's, specifically Florida's growth and development, at the end of the World War II when property loans expanded to home loans, and then expanded to giving loans on mass produced items such as washers and dryers. The later increasing prices in the 70ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s and 80ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s were related to economic booms. However, the latest housing market value has no such foundation. Increasing dollar circulation causes currency inflation reflective of the outstanding debt, as that is how the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank operates. The government quit providing the M3 numbers on the date that IRAN had planned to start using another currency to sell its oil and has not released it since. Global inflation has been controlled by the government by allowing US consumers to borrow it so its circulation is taxable. First bankruptcy was overhauled then the rates were cut to entice internal borrowing. Cars had 0% interest t rates. Home lending was whatever amount you wanted (i.e. ads for 125% of value). Tons of currency entered the US market. Cars quit selling, and then houses quit increasing in price, now hedge funds, which are unregulated, are acquiring companies using debt. Solid companies have to borrow massive amounts internally or become takeover targets. USA has spent $50,000,000,000.00 on rebuilding Iraq, not including costs of the war or troop support. Who is left to borrow next? Wars have always been won by the country that can best liquate its assets. The Iranian government, which has over $53B dollars, is trying to use the Iranian Oil Bourse. This leads to the destruction of the financial system underpinning of our Empire as the Bourse is based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that implies payment for oil in Euro. This circumvents the U.S. dollar by allowing oil to be bought or sold for the Euro. Europeans will not buy and hold dollars needed for oil if they pay with their own currencies. Adoption of the Euro for oil transactions provides the European currency with a reserve status that benefits Europeans at the expense of Americans. Chinese and Japanese will deplete dollar reserves and diversify with Euros that protect against the threat of depreciation of the dollar and spend remaining dollars without replenishing its holdings. Russia's economic interest is to adopt the Euro since the bulk of their trade is with European countries, oil-exporting countries, China, and Japan. Russians are buying gold with depreciating dollars. Arab oil-exporting countries will diversify its rising mountains of depreciating dollars with European countries who prefer the Euro for its stability and to avoid currency depreciation. Britain has a strategic partnership with the U.S. The two leading oil exchanges are New YorkÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s NYMEX and LondonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s (IPE) International Petroleum Exchange both of which has London IPE interests and itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s British Pound. The British did not adopt the Euro namely because the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros which would destroy the currency of a strategic partner. The Iranian Oil Bourse has the interests of the Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arab who will adopt the Euro and seal the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen. The Iranian Oil Bourse would collapse the dollar, accelerate inflation, and increase U.S. long-term interest rates driving deflation or hyperinflation. If the Fed raises interest rates it will start a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, with a total financial collapse. Or, inflation where long-bond yield sinks the financial system in liquidity and hyperinflation destroys the economy. The sinews of war are infinite money. ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ Cicero First paper money issued in the Western world circulated in 1690 Massachusetts to pay for troops to fight against the French in King William's War (Nine Years' War, Europe). In 1729 Ben Franklin published, "A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of Paper Currency". Ever hear the old quote, "Not worth a Colonial?"[/hide] So far, I cant think of any reasons why this argument is illogical. Can anyone provide some, or is it right? Enjoy.

You want to vote for a guy who won't even pledge to the flag? Wow... Anyway, we're in debt. It sucks. We all know it. No need to make a thread about it. Source please? every country owes debt to other countries, nobody is complaining because they pay interest. It's funny that you suggest that someday the debt will be due, if anybody ever complains about the debt owed to the U.S, they have the largest military in the world to answer to. Lol, Malo. :lol: Japan: Hey, America...you kinda owe us like...640 billion dollars. I think we deserve this favor... America: ... News: In recent news, Japan has been nuked...again. K, neither did I. ...what? I think you misunderstand debt. It's not the fact that America is in debt, but the fact that they aren't progressively trying to stop going further in debt. In fact, it's almost the entire opposite! That doesn't make it good. Yeah but now...we're not (or not supposed to be). I'm going to laugh at you if you think the "war on terror" is helping the economy. Except when our dollar is worth a rupee... Oh hey, let's not build tanks anymore. Yeah, the US is going to sell everything in its country to pay of debt to its own citizens and its treasury. :roll: We dont want to have to stop "spending" in order to pay of our debt. That's bad. Debt isn't a bad thing...not paying it off is. :lol: Err, why dont you provide the research as it is your claim and the burden of proof is on you. So you're saying inventing GPS will pay of a fraction of our 9 trillion dollar debt...? B) = end of the world. Bad things.

Not sure which part you find funny.. :? The US national debt IS around $9 trillion dollars. Or maybe you didn't know trillion is a real number as well... 9 trillion dollars= 9000 billion dollars. If that's still hard to grasp, americans owe over 9000000000 million dollars to other countries. Each citizen of the US is about $30,000 in debt to other nations. That's almost the amount the american economy is worth annually. Although I agree with you, your statement isn't entirely correct. According to gov't site(dl the links), we owe about 4-5 trillion dollars to our own treasury.

Way to respond to all the LOGICAL arguments. It shows a lot about what you're made off...

8/10 sweet and simple.

agreeeeeeeeeeeeed