Why do people think countries need centrally planned money?

About as far as you'll do to deny that deficit spending and FED manipulation of our money supply is actually good.


Regardless: personal attack noted.

Any chart that shows upward curves is an indicator of exponential growth. The degree is strictly a function of the exponent. HTH.

Again: personal attack noted.

Perhaps you can understand this if I say it again: we're not discussing whether what you're saying about how it works is true or not. We're discussing whether it is beneficial or harmful.

And it has nothing to do with global financiers which have manipulated Governments to position themselves for massive guaranteed profit and full control of the population? Perhaps I should remind you with a quote:

And perhaps a few others.

Alas, that is not what we're saying at all. Speaking for PLotor and everyone else who as argued your bat-(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy positions, we believe that they know exactly what they're doing.

Oh, and BTW: personal attack once again noted.

Oh, that you wish that is clear and evident. The work that people like me create is the only thing that sustains you.

 

That graph is real debt per capita. And right now it has been almost twice the amount that we were on pace for from the 1800s.

Hypocrisy must be fun!!

There is absolutely nothing you can say to get out of this. You are trapped and you have lost to a superior opponent. If I were you I would just start listening instead of expressing your opinions.

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat??? Whatever you are smoking can you please pass it to the next person

 

A given unit of the money adjusts in value. Once something is money, there is zero benefit to increasing or decreasing the amount of it. It's really very simple. I'm amazed you don't understand this.

 

The money in your pocket comes from deficit spending.

But you don't actually understand how it works. You first have to understand how it works before you can discuss what is more beneficial or not.

Yes, along with all those billions of dollars of actual products we use from foreign countries, the Government does position themselves for the massive profit that they get regardless of how well the economy does. Lol!!!

What's funny, is everything I'm saying is 100% factual. It is exactly how the country works and exactly what our economists do. I am a proponent of America's system. You are an opponent. You are the one that has to prove what America does is not beneficial. And that my friend, is difficult to do. Proving that the most robust economy in the history of mankind doesn't know what it's doing is a difficult task. One that can win you a Nobel Prize.

What?

 

What???? You couldn't even get by high school economics with this nonsense. Value comes from productivity. Productivity comes from transactions. Velocity creates transactions.

You are 100% incorrect about how money works. And it is embarrassing.

 

So based on this ideology, America would be most efficient if it had $1 in circulation?

 

Of course the value of money comes from productivity, and te value of money is infinitely adjustable. If the money supply magically doubled or halved it would have no effect because the value of the money would adjust. It is fascinating that you think more money = more wealth.

 

If left to the free market America would have $0 in circulation. America would use gold as money.

 

Correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency

The U.S. was not a fiat currency until 1971.

 

No, America would have whatever amount of dollars in circulation it needed because the dollar would be 100% backed by gold. Any individual who tried to issue dollars not backed 100% by gold would be charged with counterfeitting and go to jail.

I think you meant to say that if left to the free market, there would be zero Federal Reserve Notes in circulation, because nobody would ever accept paper monopoly money for payment of debts.

 

Only a "superior opponent" would actually brag about "real debt per capita" doubling from its projected amount in a non-FED environment being a good thing.



And - as is usually the case - the self-proclaimed "superior opponent" stubs his toe.

 

Lol, I know you are but what am I? Lol! Lol!

Yep. that was the dollar's last remaining tie to gold. Once that tie was severed, it became a true fiat currency.

False, the dollar was still linked to gold from 1934-1971.
You are highly misinformed. Go read about the Bretton Woods Agreement. We have not been running "this same very system" since 1934.

Irrelevent, incoherent babbling.

 

The period from 1870-1900 was the fastest and most permanent growing economic expansion the US has ever had. And there was almost zero inflation during that time period. Take a guess why.

 

people would transact in ounces and fractions of ounces not dollars.

 

The form of "money" in my pocket comes from deficit spending, yes. The question is: is it the most legitimate form of money we can have, and are there other forms which would serve the public better?

You seem bent on continuing to try to explain how the system works, when that isn't the issue. The issue is: is the system doing harm, and is it motivated by a desire for a Centralized Authority to control and profit?

You keep claiming that, as if I have to exhibit agreement with your claim that the system is great in order for you to cede that I know how the system works.

Your answer is illustrative. Perhaps you should consider that the entity who should be positioned for guaranteed profit isn't the Government (and what about the FED??), but The People.

I and others already have. You've claimed that the FED is supposed to maximize productivity, but it has illustrated no ability to do that when compared to the productivity of the past. You've claimed that we are aiming for maximum growth, when your metric of growth is creation and consumption of fabricated cloth bills of arbitrary value.

I'm looking for real growth: not growth that comes at the expense of debt on books.

No it isn't at all. The difficulty is only in those with an agenda to continue to preserve this clearly broken system.

You asked earlier where "money comes from". You didn't clarify whether you meant real value, or co-opted and contrived value.

Real money comes from work and value. It is literally a manifestation of society's determined level of worth for a person's or object's importance, efforts and ingenuity. Lots of things can skew both, as life isn't fair.

But a huge problem we're discussing isn't that life can screw with real value - and not mete out justice perfectly - but that an entity above the reach of the US People can do so with the very measuring stick of each of our individual values: our money supply.

The entity is the FED, and the rather small cabal of people who financially gain beyond the wildest imaginations of even most Governments.

 

You've both saying the same thing.

The "dollar" was created to represent gold in a more precise and portable way than "ounces" and "fractions of ounces".

If properly represented, they mean the same thing. At present, they do not, because we have literally had true value abrogated.

 

Yea, considering you could not redeem currency for gold, neither could you make contracts for gold, nor even possess certain types of gold long before 1971, the dollar was fiat before 1971. im not sure when the dollar was made official currency, maybe it was off and on throughout american history, but whenever the government declares dollars to be currency that makes it fiat.

 

no, I am not saying what he is saying. the dollar is a superfluous word that the free market would eliminate. there would be no dollars, there would only be units weight of gold

 

You're contradicting yourself. First you say that the Fed is capable of determining the magic number for the money supply that fixes the economy, and now you're saying that there is no magic number that fixes the economy. Which is it?

 

The dollar was directly convertible to gold from 1944-1971 during the Bretton Woods Agreement. It was not fiat during this time period. However I believe it was fiat during the GD though when gold was made illegal to own, but that was only for a short period of time. The government also issued fiat Greenbacks during the Civil War and made them legal tender.

False. Fiat currency is money which derives its value from government decree. Gold does not need government decree to be valuable. It is naturally valuable, therefore dollars which were convertible to gold were not fiat.

 

In a true free market, the dollar would be the official money of the United States. It would be 100% backed by gold and silver. It would be a true receipt note...not a fractional note, not a fiat note. There would be competing currencies but unless they were 100% sound like the dollar, they would not be able to compete with it.

 

The dollar would be fixed at a fraction of an ounce, perhaps 371 grains of silver as in the past. Carrying around coins with fractions of gold in them is not the most efficient way to make small transactions. The dollar would be the choice currency of the free market by default because it would be guaranteed to be 100% sound.

 

there would be no reason for an official money of the united states.

 

there would be no reason to name a certain weight of gold "dollar," that weight would be called by its weight.