Is gold money? "no". even if its been used as money for 6000 years?

[InRareForm]

G3TltMNbgGQ

[scott]

I'll summarize for everyone who didn't watch the video:

Ron Paul: How come we just don't print a bunch of money and give it to consumers?
Ben Bernake: Because that isn't how economics wo...
Ron Paul: Sorry to interrupt you, but I'm almost out of time... let me ask you another question... is Gold money?
Ben Bernanke: Who the fuck is this guy?
Ron Paul: My time is up (man, this will be great on YouTube)

[ElNono]

:lol

thanks for the cliff notes :toast

[Agloco]

I'll summarize for everyone who didn't watch the video:

Ron Paul: How come we just don't print a bunch of money and give it to consumers?
Ben Bernake: Because that isn't how economics wo...
Ron Paul: Sorry to interrupt you, but I'm almost out of time... let me ask you another question... is Gold money?
Ben Bernanke: Who the fuck is this guy?
Ron Paul: My time is up (man, this will be great on YouTube)

:lol

Yep, pretty much sums it up.

[Blake]

I'll summarize for everyone who didn't watch the video:

Ron Paul: How come we just don't print a bunch of money and give it to consumers?
Ben Bernake: Because that isn't how economics wo...
Ron Paul: Sorry to interrupt you, but I'm almost out of time... let me ask you another question... is Gold money?
Ben Bernanke: Who the fuck is this guy?
Ron Paul: My time is up (man, this will be great on YouTube)

:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

I will give anyone that wants to sell the money face value of their gold coins. I especially like the US $20 pieces...

[RandomGuy]

Uh huh. So basically, Ron Pauls argument/logic boils down to:

"We've done X for 6,000 years, it must be right."
X in this case is "used gold as money".

Let's see if this is a logical or reasonable argument. If it is, we should be able to use something else for "used gold as money", and it would still hold true.

"We have forcibly bled people to cure diseases for 6,000 years, it must be right."

"We have delivered babies without washing our hands for 6,000 years, it must be right."

"We have allowed hereditary kings to be the established form of government for 6,000 years, it must be right."

"We have believed evil spirits will enter your mouth when you yawn for 6,000 years, it must be right."

I guess that is what passes for logical arugments among libertarians?

Sorry, I'm not convinced.


(edit)
the actual logical operation is:
"If we do something for 6,000 years, then it must be right", if one can find a case where doing something for 6,000 years is obviously wrong, you can discard the statement as being obviously illogical.

The only way you can think this means anything is if you can prove that everything done for the last 6,000 years is the correct way of doing something, or believing in something, a very tall order, indeed.

[boutons_deux]

correct, the 6000-years logic is bubba logic, infinitely regressive.

[Parker2112]

I'll summarize for everyone who didn't watch the video:

Ron Paul: How come we just don't print a bunch of money and give it to consumers?
Ben Bernake: Because that isn't how economics wo...
Ron Paul: Sorry to interrupt you, but I'm almost out of time... let me ask you another question... is Gold money?
Ben Bernanke: Who the fuck is this guy?
Ron Paul: My time is up (man, this will be great on YouTube)

Lol what a twisted/misinformed/biased take lol

[Parker2112]

Scott is defending bailouts of irresponsible billionaires, pain of the middle class not withstanding. What a douche.

[Parker2112]

Bernanke's voice was shaking the entire time.

Paul "why do banks hold gold?"
Ben "beats me ron"

[Parker2112]

correct, the 6000-years logic is bubba logic, infinitely regressive.

Progressive govts are failing all over Europe and here. Your point is?

[Parker2112]

Uh huh. So basically, Ron Pauls argument/logic boils down to:

"We've done X for 6,000 years, it must be right."
X in this case is "used gold as money".

Let's see if this is a logical or reasonable argument. If it is, we should be able to use something else for "used gold as money", and it would still hold true.

"We have forcibly bled people to cure diseases for 6,000 years, it must be right."

"We have delivered babies without washing our hands for 6,000 years, it must be right."

"We have allowed hereditary kings to be the established form of government for 6,000 years, it must be right."

"We have believed evil spirits will enter your mouth when you yawn for 6,000 years, it must be right."

I guess that is what passes for logical arugments among libertarians?

Sorry, I'm not convinced.


(edit)
the actual logical operation is:
"If we do something for 6,000 years, then it must be right", if one can find a case where doing something for 6,000 years is obviously wrong, you can discard the statement as being obviously illogical.

The only way you can think this means anything is if you can prove that everything done for the last 6,000 years is the correct way of doing something, or believing in something, a very tall order, indeed.

Give up on the logical chain of inferences, RG. You never can get to the end without twisting reality.

[ChuckD]

Humans wiped their asses with leaves for a million years, and with TP for a few hundred. Are leaves toilet paper?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I'll summarize for everyone who didn't watch the video:

Ron Paul: How come we just don't print a bunch of money and give it to consumers?
Ben Bernake: Because that isn't how economics wo...
Ron Paul: Sorry to interrupt you, but I'm almost out of time... let me ask you another question... is Gold money?
Ben Bernanke: Who the fuck is this guy?
Ron Paul: My time is up (man, this will be great on YouTube)

scott gmafb, you university economists are seriously to ben bernanke as I am to vince young

[Ignignokt]

No but we can print money and give it to failed corporations instead of consumers, that's real economics - scott
It's so funny how scott missed the irony Ron Paul was trying to imply. What a fucking moron.

[Ignignokt]

Uh huh. So basically, Ron Pauls argument/logic boils down to:

"We've done X for 6,000 years, it must be right."
X in this case is "used gold as money".

Let's see if this is a logical or reasonable argument. If it is, we should be able to use something else for "used gold as money", and it would still hold true.

"We have forcibly bled people to cure diseases for 6,000 years, it must be right."

"We have delivered babies without washing our hands for 6,000 years, it must be right."

"We have allowed hereditary kings to be the established form of government for 6,000 years, it must be right."

"We have believed evil spirits will enter your mouth when you yawn for 6,000 years, it must be right."

I guess that is what passes for logical arugments among libertarians?

Sorry, I'm not convinced.


(edit)
the actual logical operation is:
"If we do something for 6,000 years, then it must be right", if one can find a case where doing something for 6,000 years is obviously wrong, you can discard the statement as being obviously illogical.

The only way you can think this means anything is if you can prove that everything done for the last 6,000 years is the correct way of doing something, or believing in something, a very tall order, indeed.
THis post was absent of cogent though and logic. Please tell me how equating gold as sound money equivalent to committing crimes against humanity.

[Winehole23]

No but we can print money and give it to failed corporations instead of consumers, that's real economics - scott
It's so funny how scott missed the irony Ron Paul was trying to imply. What a fucking moron.Scott's nutshell misses RP's implied critique of US bailout policy since 2006-7.

Eh, maybe...already we are very far away from the topic of gold as money or whatever. In a decade or so when our standard of living starts to deteriorate measurably, the topic of monetary reform might not seem so harebrained anymore.

[Winehole23]

Ah gad, this crap movie again. You outta strike up a conversation with Parker sometime. Seems you two've got a thing or two in common.

[ChuckD]

see gold is limited by nature..there is only so much of it in existence. unlike paper money which can just be printed at the treasury's desire, creating a never ending debt cycle. all money should be backed by something tangible.



So are diamonds. Are diamonds money?

[ElNono]

I'm not a fan of the FIAT economy either, but it's arguable that the US couldn't have developed at the rate it did since separating the currency from being pegged to the gold.

[cheguevara]

gold is about to plummet in the next couple of years. watch and see

[Ignignokt]

I'm not a fan of the FIAT economy either, but it's arguable that the US couldn't have developed at the rate it did since separating the currency from being pegged to the gold.

that's not true at all. The largest expansion of capital was during the industrial revolution. Britian, the US and many others were under the gold standard at the time.

[RandomGuy]

Bernanke's voice was shaking the entire time.

Paul "why do banks hold gold?"
Ben "beats me ron"

Ben's voice was shaking? :lol

You're cute and predictable. He seemed more bored than anything else.

[RandomGuy]

Give up on the logical chain of inferences, RG. You never can get to the end without twisting reality.

:rollin

A guy who believes that clouds in the sky are secret chemicals being sprayed on an unsuspecting population by some sinister plot lecturing anybody on "twisting reality" is the height of irony.

Welcome back. :toast

[baseline bum]

So Ron Paul is a young Earth nutter?

[RandomGuy]

So Ron Paul is a young Earth nutter?

I would not be surprised.

[MannyIsGod]

scott gmafb, you university economists are seriously to ben bernanke as I am to vince young

I LOLed

[RandomGuy]

THis post was absent of cogent though and logic. Please tell me how equating gold as sound money equivalent to committing crimes against humanity.

1) It was the very definition of logic, actually. Probably not something you are really familiar with, so I am not too surprised you didn't recognize it as such.

2) I did not equate anything to "crimes against humanity". If you are trying to claim that was what I said, that itself is a strawman logical fallacy. Please do not expect me to explain to you why I would equate them, as I do not believe they are equivalent.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

If one claims they're right for 6000 posts, then they must be right. :lol

Youre right, RG. :toast

[Winehole23]

I LOLedMe too. Where'd scott go?

[Winehole23]

that's not true at all. The largest expansion of capital was during the industrial revolution. Britian, the US and many others were under the gold standard at the time.By what measure?

[InRareForm]

archive this thread. shit is a clusterfuck.

[Winehole23]

Iggy was pretending he knew what he was talking about. Staying power?

[ElNono]

that's not true at all. The largest expansion of capital was during the industrial revolution. Britian, the US and many others were under the gold standard at the time.

I'm talking about GDP (production).

[Ignignokt]

By what measure?

Capital investments which grew by 500 percent, Murrary Rothbard has always argued this.

[Ignignokt]

I'm talking about GDP (production).

GDP was not used to measure Economic growth until 1934. THis would not suffice in comparing the nineteenth century.

[Ignignokt]

Winehole, if you would actually pick up a history book instead of posing as a pseudo intellectual, you'd know about the Gilded age. I'm sorry, but you're outmatched. go do some reading.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

lol Jared Lee Lougher people crying about the gold standard

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/1/11/1294738710825/Jared-Lee-Loughner-007.jpg

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

8zsUNnFVMsE

[ElNono]

GDP was not used to measure Economic growth until 1934. THis would not suffice in comparing the nineteenth century.

And the gold standard wasn't dropped until Nixon ('71). Those 37 years are as good reference as any, tbh. I mean, we've been out of the gold standard for only 40 years.

[ElNono]

I will agree that the numbers during those 37 years could be skewed due to the WWII and the great depression.

[Winehole23]

And the gold standard wasn't dropped until Nixon ('71). Those 37 years are as good reference as any, tbh. I mean, we've been out of the gold standard for only 40 years.Judge ye by the fruits. How'd it turn out?

[boutons_deux]

Being off the gold standard isn't the cause the Banksters' Great Depression, and being on the gold standard didn't prevent the financial disaster of 1929 and the 1930s Great Depression.

Deregulation of the financial and corporate sectors, both directly responsible, allows the criminal money mob to cause great economic instabilities, inequalities, and thievery that are much lessened and rendered tolerable by effective regulation.

[ChuckD]

It's kind of hilarious that the crowd that wants to go back on the gold standard is the same crowd that wants no financial regulation. Tying your currency to a fixed amount of malleable jewelry making metal is the ultimate financial restrainer.

[Winehole23]

Just kick everyone who disagrees into the same ditch. The mob that already agrees with you won't object.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

So are diamonds. Are diamonds money?

That's a whack comparison. There are way way more grades of diamond than gold, and you can't melt diamonds down and recast them into diamonds.

They are precious, yes, but there are practical reasons they've never been used as currency and gold has.

[ChuckD]

That's a whack comparison. There are way way more grades of diamond than gold, and you can't melt diamonds down and recast them into diamonds.

They are precious, yes, but there are practical reasons they've never been used as currency and gold has.

I think it's mostly a matter of availability. Western culture and finance came from Europe, and migrated to the eastern coast of North America. Not a lot of diamonds either place. Gold is just found in more places. Diamonds are pretty much only found in Kimberlite pipes, ancient volcanic formations.

One thing is for sure, you can carry a LOT more portable wealth in diamonds on your person than you can in gold. There is a reason that most diamond clearing/cutting houses are run/owned by Jews. No group has ever needed to pick up and run as often as they have. They probably got tired of leaving their wealth behind fleeing Pogroms.

The fact that you can't melt and combine them is the reason the bigger diamonds are disproportionately more valuable than small ones. Two ounces of gold is worth twice as much as one ounce, but a two carat diamond is worth more than twice as much as a one carat diamond.

[Parker2112]

It's kind of hilarious that the crowd that wants to go back on the gold standard is the same crowd that wants no financial regulation. Tying your currency to a fixed amount of malleable jewelry making metal is the ultimate financial restrainer.

Who has said anything about the gold standard lately?

Its about the Fed. Its about restraining the ability of these people, who operate outside our government, to flood our economy with new currency, giving the ultra wealthy first crack at spending it, and drowning our citizens with debt and rising prices.

Restraint can happen in a ton of ways. Gold standard. Silver standard. Legislation. Adhering to Constitutional limits.

Gold standard is dangerous because you allow the currency to be manipulated just as easily as by putting a private Fed in charge. I dont think your going to find many informed critics of big government advocating for the gold standard.

Find much more info here:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182864

[RandomGuy]

Being off the gold standard isn't the cause the Banksters' Great Depression, and being on the gold standard didn't prevent the financial disaster of 1929 and the 1930s Great Depression.

Deregulation of the financial and corporate sectors, both directly responsible, allows the criminal money mob to cause great economic instabilities, inequalities, and thievery that are much lessened and rendered tolerable by effective regulation.

The 1930 Depression was not the only financial crisis the US, or the world for that matter, has experienced.

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

http://history1800s.about.com/b/2008/10/01/financial-panics-of-the-1800s.htm

Plenty of countries on the gold standard have experienced total financial meltdowns. The gold standard is not the panacea that the gold bugs like to think it is.

[boutons_deux]

yep, there have been plenty of bubbles and bubble popping fabricated and exploited by the financial class. As result, the non-moneyed classes suffer from their real wealth being sucked up by the vampire-squid.

Marx was approximately right when he said give capitalists enough rope and they will hang (everybody else).