Reply With Quote
Damn yo, so Ron Paul was right?
I didn't discount it.
Damn yo, so Ron Paul was right?
Hopefully never.
The best track to prosperity is still to work hard, work smart, and don't spend more than you can afford. The world is not as hopeless a place as liberal spurstalkers like to paint it.
2 different problems can yield the same result. My point is that dollars will be worth a LOT less, thus ppl will hardly be able to afford anything. That's what ultimately happened in Argentina.the results have everything to do with the problem.
You can't get to that result with the US Dollars because that problem doesn't exist for the US.
this makes no sense. Supply and demand affects price of any product. This is not what I meant, Supply/demand of oil affects the dollar price. Thus dollar is pegged to oil. "Petrodollar"So it's oil that's pegged to the dollar, not the other way around. The supply/demand of oil affects the price of oil.
Anybody can buy gold. Even now. That won't change with gold standard, it's not suppossed to.Limiting "gold dollars" only creates an artificial bubble in the value of gold. There's nothing stopping the average joe to simply buy gold instead.
I say our congress needs to grow a spine and dramatically reduce the subsidies to the poor. It's costing us too much, and then the poor act as if it's the rich people's fault, not giving them enough money!Hopefully never.
The best track to prosperity is still to work hard, work smart, and don't spend more than you can afford. The world is not as hopeless a place as liberal spurstalkers like to paint it.
It sure sounded like it, or was that echos of your constant negativity towards anything I post? What was that $120 bit anyway. makes no sense.
You suck at the martyr card too.
You get constant negativity from everybody because you say stupid, inane and downright contemptible things over and over again. You claim that everyone who disagrees with you is the 'peanut gallery.'
Maybe just maybe we have a point, huh?
it is the rich people's fault for not providing middle-class jobs.
what people in charge know (and you don't) is that if you start starving the unemployed masses they will riot.
what needs to happen is there needs to be an incentive for these unskilled/uneducated people to work, because they get paid about the same whether they do or don't.
i think there are a few solutions. one, there shouldn't be incentive for people to breed just to get a larger welfare check; infact, there should be the opposite. lifetime pension for sterilization.
second, the government is stupid for just dolling out the same amount to an unemployed person as mcdonalds would. this provides no incentive for an unemployed person to work a minimum wage job instead of sitting on their ass. government should subsidize low-paying jobs by adding a percentage.
Last edited by greyforest; 02-14-2012 at 10:25 AM.
An apparent point of agreement with WC
it's ing shameful...so many humans are brought in to the world by people who cannot support them at all, an action which is rewarded.
I can somewhat agree with that. However, the rich who provide jobs are having a hard time competing against free trade agreements in place. Still, that isn't reason to increase the percentage of the marginal rate, or add surtaxes. Get rid of most or all tax deductions instead.
I'm not talking about starving them. I'm talking about reducing subsidies to the point they can't buy flat screen TVs, Bluray players, expensive Nike shoes, etc. Luxuries are for those who can afford them on their own.
Incentives and deterrents. Deterrants can cvome in many ways to make them want to get work instead of using the US issued hammock.
LOL... Careful... people will say you are as extreme as the call me.
I don't know about that. That is an insurance, not a welfare type subsidy. A person making good money and losing a job shouldn't suddenly not make enough to pay the important bills. Now instead of the normal 6 months worth of benefits over a year, what about reducing the benefit after the first six months, every month reducing a little less until it's something like 80% of what a minimum wage job would pay.
Now I agree they should work any job, but while on unemployment, they say you can't properly look for work while working full time, and will drop your benefits.
I'm not the only one to believe this. Just the only one here who doesn't give a about political correctness and will elaborate...
Basically the Fed announced an inflation target.
Which is taken as prima fascae evidence of a giant conspiracy by certain segments of the population.
The author of the OP has this gem to support his thesis:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.htmlThe Fed’s most recent experience with Quan ative Easing also belies the entire notion that monetary manipulation can spur the economy. Between November 2010 and June 2011, the Fed tried to spur economic growth by purchasing $600 billion in Treasury securities, flooding the banking system with reserves and keeping interest rates low. In response the economy, which had been growing at a 3.4% annual rate, slowed to a 1% annual rate in the first half of 2011. Once, the Fed stopped supplying all of that liquidity, economic growth in the second half of the year accelerated to a 2.3% annual rate.
No, that's not how it works at all. Argentina couldn't issue pesos without having reserves in other currency (Euros, Dollars, etc). It's similar to what China is doing. The US doesn't have that problem.
You're still confused. It's the other way around: Oil is traded in US dollars, thus it's pegged to it. Supply and demand of oil simply affects the price of oil. From a currency standpoint, such trades are handled by the Fed and central banks. The Fed has no limit to provide the necessary dollars to conduct those transactions.
Sure it would. Right now gold is simply a traded commodity. You would be turning that into the official backer of your currency. That mean there needs to be enough gold to back up the money that's circulating out there. IE: you're creating a new demand for it.
I don't care what it sounded like. Apparently, you're the only one complaining about it.
The $120/month is what your average Chinese employee makes today. It makes complete sense when you're discussing bringing back manufacturing to this country.
once again you are talking about the problem. I was talking about the results which were regular folk lost a lot of their "wealth"
makes no sense at all. This is like saying price of potatoes is pegged to the dollar. Not at all, price of potatoes(or any other product) is tied to supply/demand.You're still confused. It's the other way around: Oil is traded in US dollars, thus it's pegged to it. Supply and demand of oil simply affects the price of oil. From a currency standpoint, such trades are handled by the Fed and central banks. The Fed has no limit to provide the necessary dollars to conduct those transactions.
I mean increases/decreases of oil affect dollar price in much the same way gold used to affect dollar back under gold standard. Thus, dollar price is pegged to oil
there is already the biggest demand for gold in the history of the world. A controlled gradual move to gold standard would not affect the deman more than a total economic meltdown would.Sure it would. Right now gold is simply a traded commodity. You would be turning that into the official backer of your currency. That mean there needs to be enough gold to back up the money that's circulating out there. IE: you're creating a new demand for it.
Not sure how this is a response to me.Basically the Fed announced an inflation target.
Which is taken as prima fascae evidence of a giant conspiracy by certain segments of the population.
Do you disagree that American purchasing power has been on the wane for at least a decade and that a weaker dollar makes repayment of our debts easier?
That's basic economics. Inflation has been here all the time, the only problem the US faces is to keep inflation at a respectable rate. Anything below 5% is probably "normal" inflation, much like it's been throughout US history. What you also want to avoid is getting into a deflation.
No it doesn't, because unlike the gold standard, where issuing of the dollar was dependent on the gold backing (and importers could ask their dollars be converted into gold), the current fiat dollar doesn't have or need that backing. And importers can't ask for their money in gold. The Fed can simply provide more dollars when needed to meet the market demand, and it can take them away whenever it wants to also.
This is a central difference between the gold standard vs the current system.
But there's not enough supply to convert our monetary base. Current gold investments come in many forms, including Gold futures. That's useless for the purposes of backing the currency. You need actual gold reserves.
It wasn't.
No, and no.
my bad, RG
not talking about issuing dollars. Talking about the value of the dollar. Let's think about it. If all countries trade oil in dollars(which is the case today), just that sole fact increases the value of the dollar immensely. Why? because there is high demand for these petrodollars. With me so far?
Now if you think for a bit and think of the price of oil. The price of oil will affect that petrodollar demand. Why? If the demand for oil goes down, means less people need the dollars to buy oil, which means dollar value goes down. And vice versa. That is why the value of dollar is pegged to oil.
exactly why I talked about having 2 currencies. Obviously the current currency we are not would not be converted to gold dollars. We would have to create a brand new currency, that is what I said since post 1.But there's not enough supply to convert our monetary base. Current gold investments come in many forms, including Gold futures. That's useless for the purposes of backing the currency. You need actual gold reserves.
Nono here is some better explanation how trade of oil in dollars helps dollar value. Maybe I'm not explaining correctly
The valuation of the U.S. dollar was rather shaky after August 1971 when the Nixon had to “de-link” the dollar from the $35 per oz. “gold standard.” According to Dr. David Spiro’s research on this issue, in 1973-74 the Nixon administration sought to alleviate this situation by negotiating assurances from King Saud of Saudi Arabia to price oil in dollars only, and to invest their surplus oil proceeds in U.S. Treasury Bills. <7> In return the U.S. would protect the Saudi regime. These agreements created the phenomenon known as “petrodollar recycling,” and ensured a steady flow of oil and dollar denominated investments from Saudi Arabia. The U.S. prints billions of fiat dollars that U.S. consumers provide to other nations via trade when we purchase their imported goods. Hundreds of billions of these dollars become ‘petrodollars’ when used by nations to purchase oil/energy from OPEC producers. Approximately $600 to $800 billion petrodollars are annually re-cycled from OPEC sales and invested back into the U.S. via Treasury Bills or other U.S. dollar-denominated assets. This recycling bolsters the dollar’s international “liquidity” value.
The fact that all buyers of oil must first buy dollars to pay for the oil supports the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and eliminates our currency risk for oil. Oil priced in “petrodollars” and the dollar as the world’s reserve currency has supported the value of our currency which by normal economic logic, given America’s trillions of dollars in trade deficits over the past decade, should have much less purchasing power than it currently possesses. An enlarged E.U. and a strong euro are challenging this arrangement.
However, as long as the dollar remains the monopoly oil transaction currency, its “storage of wealth” is theoretically derived from the simple fact that it purchases between 1.5 and 1.9 gallons of crude oil. (Using OPEC price range of $22-$28 per barrel, and 42 gallons in a production barrel). No other hard currency in the world can be used to directly purchase the most valuable commodity in the world – oil. This unique geo-political agreement with Saudi Arabia has worked to our favor for the past 30 years by eliminating any fluctuation (currency risk) in our oil purchases in relation to the dollar’s valuation, raising the entire asset value of all dollar denominated assets/properties, and facilitating the Federal Reserve in creating a truly massive debt and credit expansion (or `credit bubble' in the view of some economists). In effect, global oil consumption via OPEC “petrodollar recycling” provides a subsidy to the U.S. economy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com...dress=114x1101
Nope, not with you. You still think the US Dollar is this "limited" commodity. This very likely comes from the gold standard way of thinking. I really suggest you go read that book 2centsworth linked in the other thread.
It isn't. Not since the gold standard. As a matter of fact, that's a good reason not to go back to the gold standard.
I understood you clearly since post 1. It's the same thing. This "new" currency would be backed by gold, and fluctuate very much the same way gold fluctuates. Since I know for a fact that you'll be converting progressively to the gold backed currency and you're going to need gold to do that, the obvious reaction is to go buy gold, since it's going to become more scarce (and thus more valuable) during your conversion process. At the same time, the market will saturate with old currency, and thus depreciate, reinforcing the demand for gold.
This is exactly what I was pointing out in my previous post. The fact that the Fed handles the entire trade in dollars means the value of the dollar is (relatively) unaffected from the oil trade. As that bolded part says, if we were under the gold standard and the US Dollar would be a "limited" commodity, then "by normal economic logic, given America’s trillions of dollars in trade deficits over the past decade, should have much less purchasing power than it currently possesses."Nono here is some better explanation how trade of oil in dollars helps dollar value. Maybe I'm not explaining correctly
The fact that all buyers of oil must first buy dollars to pay for the oil supports the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and eliminates our currency risk for oil. Oil priced in “petrodollars” and the dollar as the world’s reserve currency has supported the value of our currency which by normal economic logic, given America’s trillions of dollars in trade deficits over the past decade, should have much less purchasing power than it currently possesses. An enlarged E.U. and a strong euro are challenging this arrangement.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
