BF2S Forums DAST Chat

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Really?

Just go to the wikipedia article on The Gold Standard. Three advantages are listed. As opposed to nine disadvantages.

This being one of the funniest to consider:


The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 metric tons.[23] This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $8.3 trillion is in circulation or in deposit (M2).[24] Therefore, a return to the gold standard, if also combined with a mandated end to fractional reserve banking, would result in a significant increase in the current value of gold, which may limit its use in current applications.[25]



Do you honestly think you can regulate an economy by mining a single, finite resource?

No AR, I want you to explain in your own words why a gold standard is bad. You make a lot of stupid comments here that have zero substance. Let's see if you can back up your comment for once or if you're just a mindless zombie mouthing the words like any other religious zealot.

Wikipedia = a mindless zombie?

You can control inflation/deflation by printing money and/or buying government bonds.

You can't do that with gold because you need a gold reserve, (ala Fort Knox) that can match the amount of current bonds. There is not enough gold in the world that can achieve the amount the US currently would need.

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

No AR, I want you to explain in your own words why a gold standard is bad. You make a lot of stupid comments here that have zero substance. Let's see if you can back up your comment for once or if you're just a mindless zombie mouthing the words like any other religious zealot.

Wikipedia = a mindless zombie?

You can control inflation/deflation by printing money and/or buying government bonds.

You can't do that with gold because you need a gold reserve, (ala Fort Knox) that can match the amount of current bonds. There is not enough gold in the world that can achieve the amount the US currently would need.

No AR, you are the mindless zombie, not wikipedia. You bring nothing to the table. I've never seen you intelligently argue anything on this forum. You just regurgitate whatever you heard someone else say, or what you read.

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Oh I'm sorry. I thought that your statement was of so little substance you could easily have said "Well, at least he isn't as bad as that guy who isn't running, going to run, or would even be nominated because that guy was bad!" and still be as insightful.

Oh really? So when dsl brought up faith and I opined with an example of how voters will let some of it slide (ie Wright), it was of no substance? Your response was ridiculous, and typical of people who have no business engaging in a debate. You just made up a hyperbolic statement because you couldn't understand the connection. .. or you're too lazy to offer a real response.

Okay. We'll go with your "well he aint as bad as Wright."

What has Obama done that is detrimental to the US because of his religous view/Wright's influence?

Because I don't think you have to draw too long a bow to see what someone like Palin or Bachmann would do to the classroom curriculum if elected. "Teach the controversy", perhaps? lol

Jay wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I know. So I don't get why a gold standard would be any better other than that it is limited.

Well, it's not, really. The primary reason that people like Paul advocate it is because they dislike the Federal Reserve and what it represents: an elitist institution granted godlike powers to 'manage' the US economy. It's rather difficult to force inflation (which is one of the primary missions of the Fed) when you're dealing with a not easily reproduceable resource. He would take the value of money out of the hands of politicians, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Edit - It also makes it much harder for politicians to deficit spend when the money is backed.

For others, it's a romantic attachment to having a tangible value for the money they hold instead of it just being a piece of paper with portraits on it.

I don't favor a return to the gold standard personally, but I can understand the appeal.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I know. So I don't get why a gold standard would be any better other than that it is limited.

Well, it's not, really. The primary reason that people like Paul advocate it is because they dislike the Federal Reserve and what it represents: an elitist institution granted godlike powers to 'manage' the US economy. It's rather difficult to force inflation (which is one of the primary missions of the Fed) when you're dealing with a not easily reproduceable resource. He would take the value of money out of the hands of politicians, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Edit - It also makes it much harder for politicians to deficit spend when the money is backed.

For others, it's a romantic attachment to having a tangible value for the money they hold instead of it just being a piece of paper with portraits on it.

I don't favor a return to the gold standard personally, but I can understand the appeal.

imo there does need to be a commodity attached to the value of money.  It could be labor

Kmar wrote:

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Isn't that already the case, by and large?

For the most part, yeah. Money is supposed to be a representation of a persons time. The only place where this breaks down is with things like social handouts where no time is exchanged for the money.

Time and skill set. Obviously we aren't all getting equal pay for equal time.

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Oh really? So when dsl brought up faith and I opined with an example of how voters will let some of it slide (ie Wright), it was of no substance? Your response was ridiculous, and typical of people who have no business engaging in a debate. You just made up a hyperbolic statement because you couldn't understand the connection. .. or you're too lazy to offer a real response.

Okay. We'll go with your "well he aint as bad as Wright."

What has Obama done that is detrimental to the US because of his religous view/Wright's influence?

Because I don't think you have to draw too long a bow to see what someone like Palin or Bachmann would do to the classroom curriculum if elected. "Teach the controversy", perhaps? lol

Here we go again. You're implying that I think Obama's religious views or Wright's influence is really important to voters. You've got that precisely wrong. Despite Rush, Fox, and McCain's best efforts, voters were willing to ignore seemingly radical positions when it comes to faith (as a whole). My statement was a direct response negating the importance of religion.

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Well, it's not, really. The primary reason that people like Paul advocate it is because they dislike the Federal Reserve and what it represents: an elitist institution granted godlike powers to 'manage' the US economy. It's rather difficult to force inflation (which is one of the primary missions of the Fed) when you're dealing with a not easily reproduceable resource. He would take the value of money out of the hands of politicians, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Edit - It also makes it much harder for politicians to deficit spend when the money is backed.

For others, it's a romantic attachment to having a tangible value for the money they hold instead of it just being a piece of paper with portraits on it.

I don't favor a return to the gold standard personally, but I can understand the appeal.

imo there does need to be a commodity attached to the value of money.  It could be labor

Isn't that already the case, by and large?

Kmar wrote:

being a Mormon isn't going to be. And how did Hitler fit in to your interpretation?

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Here we go again. You're implying that I think Obama's religious views or Wright's influence is really important to voters. You've got that precisely wrong. Despite Rush, Fox, and McCain's best efforts, voters were willing to ignore seemingly radical positions when it comes to faith (as a whole). My statement was a direct response negating the importance of religion.

You're the one who said "Not as bad as Wright"...

I kind of interpreted that as you thought he was not as bad as Wright...

He's not. But that wasn't the point. The point was that if Wright wasn't a turnoff with his inflammatory comments, being a Mormon isn't going to be. And how did Hitler fit in to your interpretation?

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

You're the one who said "Not as bad as Wright"...

I kind of interpreted that as you thought he was not as bad as Wright...

He's not. But that wasn't the point. The point was that if Wright wasn't a turnoff with his inflammatory comments, being a Mormon isn't going to be. And how did Hitler fit in to your interpretation?

Wright wasn't a turnoff because he wasn't running...