America Explained

[Duke_Freedom]

So if most reserves are in American dollars, then has the whole world taken a serious hit from the devaluation of the dollar?

 

 

 

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 specifically said that it limits America. You said it limited the overspending politicians. Same [cabbage] different name.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Politicians are only in the playfield for so many years. They don't really care what happens after they leave. Hence, they usually want to overspend as an attempt to become more popular (by lowering taxes, providing better health-care, social security or less crime.. you name it). However, what's important here is that they don't really have a long-term vision in mind by doing so and the price of this overspending is oftenly paid by future generations. This is also a good reason why I think that most socialist parties are not as "social" as they claim to be.

 

 

 

What Ambassador mentions is just another point: governments are nearly always extremely inefficient with their spending.

[darkmage099]

So if most reserves are in American dollars, then has the whole world taken a serious hit from the devaluation of the dollar?

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

I specifically said that it limits America. You said it limited the overspending politicians. Same [cabbage] different name.

 

 

 

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...

 

 

 

 

 

Politicians are only in the playfield for so many years. They don't really care what happens after they leave. Hence, they usually want to overspend as an attempt to become more popular (by lowering taxes, providing better health-care, social security or less crime.. you name it). However, what's important here is that they don't really have a long-term vision in mind by doing so and the price of this overspending is oftenly paid by future generations. This is also a good reason why I think that most socialist parties are not as "social" as they claim to be.

 

 

 

What Ambassador mentions is just another point: governments are nearly always extremely inefficient with their spending.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.