Toms

[stdreb27]

So, you spend 50 bucks on a pair of canvas shoes. Then they turn around and spend 5 bucks on a better pair of shoes (they said they provide shoes that can handle the terrain better) and give it to some poor kid on some god forsaken part of the earth... God I love capitalism...
I personally I like to point out companies that make a profit while using philantropy as a core selling point... It is proof that capitalism works...
Now to come up with my idea to get hipster's parents money out of their pockets into mine...

 

[snakeblitz33]

Not really philanthropy, but I was thinking of a scam that someone could do if thy were in medical billing,... When you get a procedure done at a hospital, they send you all kinds of bills for months and months after. Well, what if someone. Reated a phony company and billed/ invoiced people who had those procedures? Some people will pay, no questions asked, if some numbers match up. Others will haggle over price and the con artist would say " I just talked to the mod, and they said we couldower the bill by $x if you could go ahead and start making payments today.".
It really is a sad little world we live in.

 

[dragonzim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/390156/toms#post_3453387
So, you spend 50 bucks on a pair of canvas shoes. Then they turn around and spend 5 bucks on a better pair of shoes (they said they provide shoes that can handle the terrain better) and give it to some poor kid on some god forsaken part of the earth... God I love capitalism...
I personally I like to point out companies that make a profit while using philantropy as a core selling point... It is proof that capitalism works...
Now to come up with my idea to get hipster's parents money out of their pockets into mine...
That $5 pair of shoes was probably made by that kid in a sweatshop that the company run in some 3rd world country too!

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/390156/toms#post_3453408
That $5 pair of shoes was probably made by that kid in a sweatshop that the company run in some 3rd world country too!
which might actually be more beneficial... (is china a 3rd world company)

 

[darthtang aw]

thought this might be about drums....obviously not.
darth (feeding kids for less than 20i dollars a day) Tang

 

[slice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/390156/toms#post_3453550
thought this might be about drums....obviously not.
darth (feeding kids for less than 20i dollars a day) Tang
I'm still unsure what this thread is about. What are your thoughts on the revocation of the Bretton Woods System and the threat of ending the US Dollar as the reserve currency?

 

[stdreb27]

The Bretton Woods system collapsed because it was quite simply a command system that mandated fixed exchange rate levels. The HUGE irony of the Ron Paul crowd who advocates a gold standard, is that they're in reality arguing for more government intervention...
Quite frankly the alarmist arguments of the end of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency is just that, alarmist. DESPITE the direction our current monetary is headed. It is still (compared to anyone else) the most stable. Look at the alternatives, the Euro? the Yuan? the Pound? every one of those currencies have other MAJOR issues that far outweigh the USD as a reserve currency. Especially considering our track record. 20 years down the road going the same direction, then we might see a serious shift in a different direction...
(I don't need google)

 

[darthtang aw]

I'm still unsure what this thread is about. What are your thoughts on the revocation of the Bretton Woods System and the threat of ending the US Dollar as the reserve currency?
I didn't purchase a 100 oz engelhard silver bar the other day for the hell of it.....
the problem for decades now is our currency was the currency to trade globally with. but as we export less and our trade deficit increases...trading in dollars is risky for other countries. thus the move to a more stable currency will occur.....with chinese exports on the rise and their trade deficit better than ours, i expect a move to the yen in the future unless we do something to change this....their is a reason we are doing what we do globally...and all of it is to ensure the value of the dollar and the strength of the dollar remain relavent.
oil is/was purchased only by us dollars (silent agreement with opec and why we are in the middle east) this strengths the value of the dollar...
a little known fact. In 2002 a country announced it would trade oil in any currency...not just the dollar.......shortly after...this country was invaded...we were told terrorist and wmds.....i am not much for conspiracy theories...but this action by iraq with currency was a bigger threat to us than wmd or terrorism...but you cant explain this to the average population.
the reason we sell our oil to other countries and purchase most of ours out of country is it actually strengthens our economy and dollar value. it is a form of dollar manipulation. as long as the dollar remains used at a high level globally through trade...it is valued more thus propping up our economy.
in short...with all that is going on through this administration and globally..buy silver and gold.

 

[darthtang aw]

using a gold standard does limit the depths of an economic plunge....but also limits the hieghts it can soar. there is a reason our economy is at the level it is...a gold standard would bring us back a century almost. ou involvement globally is what keeps our dollar value high and the strength of our economy. every economy worse off than us......is also less globally involved......i bet the chart comparrison would match up idnetically.

 

[slice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/390156/toms#post_3453561
The Bretton Woods system collapsed because it was quite simply a command system that mandated fixed exchange rate levels. The HUGE irony of the Ron Paul crowd who advocates a gold standard, is that they're in reality arguing for more government intervention...
Quite frankly the alarmist arguments of the end of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency is just that, alarmist. DESPITE the direction our current monetary is headed. It is still (compared to anyone else) the most stable. Look at the alternatives, the Euro? the Yuan? the Pound? every one of those currencies have other MAJOR issues that far outweigh the USD as a reserve currency. Especially considering our track record. 20 years down the road going the same direction, then we might see a serious shift in a different direction...
(I don't need google)
I'm not a Ron Paul fan, if that's what you think.
I'm still studying this, but my concern is the continual manipulation of our currency's value for the sake of politics. The Gold Standard at least takes some amount of political manipulation out of the mix. I agree with your evaluation of most developed country's currency stability, except those of the larger OPEC countries.
And, treasury debt owed to foreign countries scares the crap out of me. Bernake is a fool, Geithner is an idiot; I don't care for either one of them with their fingers on the switches and knobs.
-I didn't expect you, Darth or Reef would have to use google....

 

[stdreb27]

No I wasn't implying you were a Ron Paul fan. I'd just finished, telling a Ron Paul fan why the gold standard failed. He couldn't understand that a gold standard would bring in more government involvement into currency markets... Politicians can play with factors that influence the valuation of the USD compared to other currencies. But they can't do that much, (see the last 3 years of Obama screwing things up)
Keep in mind a domestic gold standard would define exactly what we owe some 3rd world countries... While a fiat money system does not... However, I'm not so worried about places like China owning a crapload of our debt, (ESPECIALLY if we could somehow return to a balanced budget) because 1 if we don't need to borrow any more who cares what the Chi-coms say. and 2 with a huge amount of their capital tied up in US financial notes, (despite popular belief) we may just hold the stronger hand. Because we could survive them cutting us off, but if it ever came to it. They'd be more hurt than we would if we said, fine we'll just default on your holdings... Think of it as a financial nuclear bomb... Where we hold the only nuke. They're not going to invade us to recoup their losses...
As for imports and exports, we still export a lot, even factored for inflation, before the recent instability, more than we had at the heights of the industrial revolution... We just import a crapload more. Who would work at Foxcomm US at 17 dollars a day? I still hold that in areas that require high quality manufacturing, we're still king. It is the kitchen toaster and daumn cell phones that we don't bother making anymore... Keep in mind at the height of our world dominance in manufacturing, our factory floor workers were making similar money, (yes adjusted for inflation)...

 

[slice]

Hmmm...
I'm still trying to wrap my head around much of this, but I'm catching up quickly.
My position at this point is that currency manipulation for political gain (read: spending/buying votes) can/has become ruinous. A stand alone BBA would merely be an automatic trigger for runaway tax increases. I would like to see a budget cap pegged to a % of GDP (then again, we haven't even HAD a budget in nearly 3 years...another problem).

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice http:///t/390156/toms#post_3453637
Hmmm...
I'm still trying to wrap my head around much of this, but I'm catching up quickly.
My position at this point is that currency manipulation for political gain (read: spending/buying votes) can/has become ruinous. A stand alone BBA would merely be an automatic trigger for runaway tax increases. I would like to see a budget cap pegged to a % of GDP (then again, we haven't even HAD a budget in nearly 3 years...another problem).
I'm in no way a fan of any sort of changes to the constitution... Balanced budget, or what... The last thing I want is to let these jokers monkey around with the constitution. I don't care what is next to their name (R) or (D)...
You know, constitutionally, it is congress's job to issue currency. Later on, they decided, you know we just don't want to screw with it, so lets make a federal bank. Let them do what they do, make it non-partisan. Let the president nominate the chair, we'll oversee them, and let it go from there... Hence the Federal Reserve. Since Reagan they really haven't messed to much with it. After he removed Volkmer and stuck in Greenspan, even Clinton figured out that the lasse fair policies ended up fueling a tremendous form a growth. Then dang W got caught up with the wrong crowd and appointed old Ben who's been running around like it is 1970 screwing with anything... As misguided as I think he is I don't necessarily thing that politicians have been really screwing with his decisions. So much as he just went to the wrong schools and listed to the wrong pompous morons who think they can actually control an economy...

 

[darthtang aw]

To second what Streb has stated. The other thing to remember is we have seen more economic growth as a nation since abandoning the Gold Standard. Yes there have been hiccups and such, along the way, but that is expected. For the most part our nation is actually stronger financially without the gold Standard. Take a close look at those who are asking for a return to the Gold Standard....and ask yourself "why".
During the Great Depression...Interest rates were raised to increase the value of paper money to prevent people from demanding gold in exchange for paper money. A gold standard forces countries to hoard their gold. Because of the gold Standard, the gold standard prolonged the Great Depression. Had there not been a gold standard then, interest rates could have been lowered by the fed, and jump started the economy sooner.
A Gold standard places value of a country's economy directly tying it to gold, instead of the resourcefulness and determination of its people.

 

[stdreb27]

It does turn the economy into a zero sum game...

 

[mantisman51]

That is assuming the price of gold is static. There is no limit to what gold can be worth, so the money printed would merely have to be equal to what the gold is worth. So as the economy would grow, the price of gold would go higher, allowing more money to be printed. So, that is not a good argument against a gold standard. The biggest benefit is that the Fed couldn't print more money and put us further in debt.

 

[darthtang aw]

That is assuming the price of gold is static. There is no limit to what gold can be worth, so the money printed would merely have to be equal to what the gold is worth. So as the economy would grow, the price of gold would go higher, allowing more money to be printed. So, that is not a good argument against a gold standard. The biggest benefit is that the Fed couldn't print more money and put us further in debt.
yet we were running deficits even under a gold standard. deficits are a bigger threat to the economy than money printing as long as inflation and interest rates remain low. there was a fifteen year period when this country experienced 5 recessions due to the raising of interest rates because of holding a gold standard.
i am curious....list point by point why you feel a gold standard would solve many of our problems. i bet i cam point out numerous cases where our nations history proves these thoughts wrong.
i am sorry, this is one aspect the conservatives, tea party, and glenn beck are wrong on.

 

[mantisman51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/390156/toms#post_3453903
yet we were running deficits even under a gold standard. deficits are a bigger threat to the economy than money printing as long as inflation and interest rates remain low. there was a fifteen year period when this country experienced 5 recessions due to the raising of interest rates because of holding a gold standard.
i am curious....list point by point why you feel a gold standard would solve many of our problems. i bet i cam point out numerous cases where our nations history proves these thoughts wrong.
i am sorry, this is one aspect the conservatives, tea party, and glenn beck are wrong on.
I don't think going back to the gold standard would be better. Just pointing out that it does not limit the money supply when the economy is growing. It doesn't matter to me either way. I don't fear the gold standard or the current reserve system. Either way super-rich bankers will rig the system to enrich themselves and other super-rich bankers and drain the system dry like they have all the way back to the beginning of paper money in the U.S. Our currency system is corrupt. It has always been corrupt and always will be corrupt and every person in any position of power in the reserve system will ensure it stays corrupt. But I don't know of any way to change it. Any finance system will be ran by bankers and money will be skimmed by the super-wealthy. Bankers would set up a system to suck a gold standard monetary system dry, too.

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/390156/toms#post_3453749
That is assuming the price of gold is static. There is no limit to what gold can be worth, so the money printed would merely have to be equal to what the gold is worth. So as the economy would grow, the price of gold would go higher, allowing more money to be printed. So, that is not a good argument against a gold standard. The biggest benefit is that the Fed couldn't print more money and put us further in debt.
Whoh whoh, ok first off, printing money doesn't put us further in debt... The issue with printing money is that it arbitrarily increases the money supply and there is a direct tie between printing money, and inflation. If anything, printing more and more money will lower the value of our debts... (the Germans did this after WWI.) Basically they pursued a government intervention pro-growth monetary policy, (Kaynes) and had periods of hyperinflation. And we were handed worthless paper for reparations.
When we borrow money. TYPICALLY, what we do is that we print of a piece of paper.(although just recently I saw a story saying they were going electronic) Then we go out and say, this is face value for this bond. How much are you willing to pay for it. Then the USG pays out interest according to the terms of the bond. The "cash" is then deposited somewhere, that is wasted in some government "program" (this is VASTLY oversimplified...) Eventually the Chicoms bond will mature, a 30 year bond is common. They'll go turn it in, and get face value for the bond.
Second, OF COURSE IT HAS TO BE RELATIVELY STATIC. What is the point of having a dollar backed by gold, IF one day your dollar is worth 1 gram of gold and the next it is worth .5 grams of gold...
That is a the whole definition of the gold standard... The piece of paper that you hold that you consider money, is representative of a predetermined amount of gold. So that can't change. Or else, there would be a fiat form of valuation to that note. And well, that would leave us in the same situation that we are in now... THE ONLY WAY to grow the money supply would be to get more gold. So some joe would walk up to fort Gold Nugget say I have this gold rock. Give me a piece of paper that I can trade to the barber for a hair cut.

 

[mantisman51]

I never said it added to the debt, thus the AND between the two statements. The price of gold fluctuated up and down based on economic output the whole time we were on the gold standard, so history shows that to be a moot point. There is not T notes to back up every $ printed. I think you might be confusing debt, deficit and planned inflation. But it makes no difference. I was merely pointing out that on the gold standard the currency must be worth the gold in reserve and that the price of gold swung widely during the period we were on a gold standard.