The Stupidest Thing You Can Do With Your Money

You really discourage discussion when you start spouting your alt right rhetoric. Though I believe that is your goal ...

 

Because I already know you're going to avoid answering the real important questions that expose your ignorance and hypocrisy, I'm going to answer for you, Derideo.

You brushed straight past my suggestion of allowing individuals to control their own SS accounts, and place their own money into AAA bonds, preferring instead to allocate the money to a Government slush fund.

You continue to call such investments "a gamble", but it's asinine to call SS 'safe', and simultaneously call a AAA bond investment "a gamble".

Why?

Because they're both invested in the same thing.

 

You mean like the ones that Wall Street Casino Bossed BUNDLED with their predatory SUBPRIME mortgages and duped investors into buying?

Are you really that gullible that you BELIEVE that they are worth what those scamsters on Wall Street are telling you?



Obviously you FAILED to learn the lesson of 2008!

 

I'm not talking about junk bonds. Stop intentionally conflating terms.

 

I bought a PHYSICAL PROPERTY!

I did NOT purchase Wall Street Casino bundled predatory subprime Ponzi scam bonds.

You can be a sucker and gamble your retirement but I am not gullible like you are.

 

It has been my experience that the extremist alt right is allergic to facts and therefore incapable of engaging in civil discourse in a meaningful manner.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

OK, that alters my written text? You and he prefer a little 1 on 1 time?

 

You can't tell the difference because you don't know what the Wall Street Casino Bosses are dumping into them.

 

Yes. Obviously your intention ...

 

:::facepalm:::

Good grief.

Municipal bonds, Derideo. Learn something.

 

An opinion you've asserted without any rhetoric or facts whatsoever. What do diamonds have to do with this conversation? You want to base currency value on diamonds now? An equally asinine idea, but one I've not heard proposed until now. With what strange band of kooks do you test such ideas before sharing them in public? I have a feeling they're pranking you.

 

Wut? I'm providing an argument, and I'm providing parallel examples of assets which are limited. You made an assertion that one of the reasons you thought it was dumb to base our currency upon gold was that "it would be another reason for people to kill each other".

You provided no evidence at all for that; just your claim. I countered - even without requiring of you some evidence of your assertion - by pointing out that this isn't an additional reason; gold already has value; as do diamonds. The only reason that diamonds aren't used as currency (and they have been, in fact, though not widely - anything of value can be used as currency) is because gold is more easily divided.

It is another example of a valuable pulled out of the ground, and it is even more rare than gold. People aren't going to kill each other over them any more or less than they already have been, just like gold, regardless whether or not it is the basis of our currency. Your claim was a red herring, and a really odd one.

I've never suggested using diamonds as currency; it isn't as fungible as gold, or any other precious metal. For starters, diamonds do not melt. I used diamonds as an example of a rare-earth resource that people wouldn't kill themselves over any differently if they were made currency or not.

 

The point doesn't require evidence, it's based on logic. With fiat money, the amount of currency available is limited only by a society's productivity. Someone need only be innovative or useful in order to earn money. If, on the other hand, money is only available based on how many gold rocks there are to give it so-called "intrinsic value," then more people will devote time and energy to finding those rocks rather than doing anything useful. And eventually, as with any necessary limited resource, people will fight and kill each other over it.

Gold, silver, and diamonds are limited resources, but they aren't necessary. They're only valuable because people want them. If they were required in order to grow or maintain an economy, the entire game changes.

Anything has value if at least two people want that thing. Baseball cards are valuable but it's rare for people to kill each other over them because baseball cards aren't necessary. However, if baseball cards were no longer produced and we suddenly decided to base our currency on them - making them necessary - then people would definitely start killing each other over baseball cards. But if cardmakers continued to add cards to society at a rate that matched the increasing levels of productivity, then the impetus is not to get your hands on baseball cards, it's to do something productive to earn money - society realizes it doesn't need the baseball cards either, it just needs everyone to behave productively.

 

Good grief. You have to know about your employment of your rank double standard. Your argument doesn't require evidence, but mine - which I likewise believe relies on logic - does?

:facepalm:

Does anyone think this is a good point? FFS, AtsamattaU, people mine/pan/wildcat for gold already. It's worth $1250/oz! Your claim that something different is going to happen if it becomes the basis of a currency is silly; it's already a currency.

:facepalm:

We have more than enough gold upon which to base our economy. How much gold do you think we need for an economic base of our currency?

You're going to have to throw a lifeline. I would be amazed if you find a single soul who can rationally defend what it is you're claiming. People kill other people for paper with dollars on it. People also equate gold already in that same way.

You're not making one lick of sense.

 

I asked for evidence or rhetoric, neither of which you offered until the previous post, other than calling people killing each other "robbery."

There is not an economy left in the modern world that is based on the gold standard, and you're criticizing my point? Did The Onion send you?

I love that you give the value of gold in terms of fiat currency - which you want to then base on how much gold we have.

Seriously, where do you test this stuff before you go out in public? Were you at Porcfest last month and forgot how the real world operates? Here's what Business Insider has to say about your statement:

When it comes to gold, the gold bugs argue that gold is money. Simply put, that is not exactly correct. Gold was money 150-200 years, and even centuries, ago. In the US, if you wanted to buy something, you could pay for it with a gold coin. Those days are long gone. I repeat, those days are long gone.​

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself. Your reasoning, so far, remains terrible - though I am getting a good chuckle.

All I said is that it's limited. You claim there's more than enough gold to base an economy. You tell me how much we need for an economic base.

OK I'll throw you a lifeline since you're having so much trouble with this simple concept. Here is the M1 money supply since 1960. How do you make that number go up as the population grows? Your choices are (a) you don't need to - flatline it, (b) by putting more gold into the U.S. bullion depository, or (c) reduce the dollar's value as needed so you can put more into circulation. What's your approach?

 

I told my wife to donate my body to the medical students to play with when I croak. And have a memorial service with a picture like they do in China. Problem solved.

 

You asked for evidence and simultaneously declared that you needn't provide any yourself.

Red herring. What's germane about all economies going neo-Keynesian? That's not a point in contention, and - in fact - it would be expected, since I cited the IMF as culpable in promulgating this controlling form of monetarism.

:facepalm:

So? It's the accepted measure. What's that got to do with the point? Do you want to even try to refute the point? Gold has value whether it's a currency base or not. That, in fact, is why it's appealing as a currency backer.

​

So you drag out a statement that claims that there is no longer a Gold Standard, and you think you're adding to the debate? Good job.

In real terms, using a standard of present fiat value of $1250/oz, we would not have near enough.

And - in realsville - we also understand how badly our economy has been inflated. That's quite the point, actually. We would need an equivalent fiat value of about $30,000oz, and a whole lot of pain.

I'm blaming the system we have now for our ills, and explaining what should have been done. I'm not saying anything about realistically doing this at this point. You, though, are so emotional and so anxious to make this personal that you cannot stand an actual discussion on the trouble that has been wrought by the FED/IMF and fiat currency.

Your lifeline has absolutely nothing to do with defending the asinine point you attempted to make before.

I can assure you that there is nothing rational you could offer that would ever give me any trouble, and I certainly hope it salves your apparent inferiority complex to continue to attempt to impugn my intelligence. I'm guessing it's the same urge that causes mid-aged men to buy Corvettes.

What you see in that chart is an exponential rise in the M1 - and you don't seem able to connect the dots between that metric and a mathematically inevitable spread in the wealth gap, nor understand exactly how that robs people who cannot invest in a manner that maintains the pace of inflation you naturally support the FED artificially creating.

 

I can only guess, but never be certain,unless you state your point.

I do know deflation is very scary to some..

 

If she is willing to do that.