|
|
is it just me or are the captions in that video way off?
am i being trolled here?
He's not going to be the Republican candidate anyway. They hate him for being too overtly conservative. He hasn't learned how to dole out his insanity in small bits yet. I do commend Santorum for being a frank and consistent politician, however, it's something pretty novel.Originally Posted by Hat_Truck
Ron Paul 2012.
Last edited by Good_Apollo; 02-28-2012 at 04:59 PM.
gold standard 2012
economic collapse 2013
If you say so. Economists have much more to say on that debate.
Regardless it's a moot point. 2012 is going to be between Romney and Obama. Extremely hard to say at this point who's going to win though. I'm leaning on incumbent as the most likely.
the gold standard is the most insane idea in a modern economy.
if ron paul wanted to win he would need to have realistic ideas of how the world works. unfortunately for everyone he doesn't.
hes the ralph nader of the right.
Yeah pretty much. A return to the gold standard would be self-destructive. The practical implications are a severe restriction of credit at a time when the economy is already weak. It's would be incredibly deflationary, so much so that the depression would look like a tea party in comparison (see what I did there). I mean the the whole point of having an anchor like gold is to prevent governments from issuing too much money, you know to prevent inflation, and inflation isn't really the issue anyway(not right now anyway). I don't think the current system is that great, however a return to gold isn't going to magic all the problems away, and that's certainly what economists of all philosophies are saying.
At least RP is closer to the mark on the social issues. Then again maybe that's just because Romney and Santorum are Romney and Santorum.
[Map
romney has the convictions of a wet noodle and santorum of a rabid dog.
ron paul is the best candiate in terms of personality. hes just a little insane.
I have enough confidence on the American people that they will see what a corporatist rat Romney is and would not vote for him. The man would clearly act on behalf of the corporations that support him and the corporations that he's part of. Romney would not do anything that would benefit American citizens. If given the chance, Romney would push the American people in front of a running train if it meant it would bring cash into his own pockets and the pockets of his fellow weasels. Romney is pro-corporations, not pro-people and when I say people I mean real human beings not the vile entities, the corporations, whom he likes to refer to as people since he's a big supporter of Citizens United. Citizens United, a ruling that should have never been made as it further corrupts the political arena of the United States with rampant use of unlimited amounts of money to shape the political field and the government for the sole benefit of the corporations and not those who the government is supposed to be serving: the people. Any political member who supports such a mockery of our system should not be allowed to set foot in office. We need someone who's determined to reshape this nation and bring it to its former glory and not someone who will drag this nation through a floor covered with feces. We need a government that benefits the people it's meant to SERVE not corporations who PUPPET it.
Last edited by Atrim3ntus; 02-29-2012 at 12:23 AM.
"Honestly I think the reason we all get so upset over this game is BECAUSE of how much we love it." -PieRowManSir
Don't worry Anyone that isn't an idiot would never let tha- ****. You. are. ****ed.
"Greenman101, spittin opinions like they're facts since '11 yo" -ZipperBear 2013
Or: Continue as normal, and thus bring forth the hyperinflation.
GG USA, you are screwed anyways.
and i thought german politicians would be dickheads xD
guys your country is hard venomed, america is going down^^
soon, you will produce the cheap as products for the chinese xD
but thats not the fault of the politicians, its the failure of the american ppl to not realize, that a system of 2 parties, who talk different things, but do the same (nothing), wont work.
Even the english realized that a 3rd party might be worth a try.
Go american ppl, start something new!
If you go on that way, you are ****ed^^
because obviously every country with a liquid currency experiences hyperinflation right?
Would it not be nice if money actually was worth something? The thing with fiat currencies (all currencies in the world atm), it's not backed by anything.. It's only worth what you believe its worth, and only viable if other people accept it. I support going back to the gold standard, so at least my money is backed by a precious metal. Economic collapses will come anyways, and surely on a much larger scale using fiat currencies..
Well, the U.S has a ridiculous ammount of debt. 15.4 trillion USD. When other nations are dumping their USD reserves (which they eventually will do), the market is flooded with even more dollars.. Concerning the debt: How will the U.S pay back? Printing more dollars.. And devaluating the dollar even further. From an economical viewpoint, imo the best alternative for the U.S is Ron Paul..
If you are interested in inflation, gold standard etc, check out NIA (National Inflation Agency), an organization that actually gives a **** about the U.S economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejjie...feature=relmfu
Derailed a bit, but hey.. **** Santorum.
you dont pay debts back by printing more money. thats how you get hyperinflation.
and even if you did, then why hasnt the US simply paid off all of its debts yet?
there are so many things wrong with what you said i dont even know what else to say...
its very simple:
No, You're wrong.
there is about 6 trillion dollars worth of gold that has been mined in human history. assuming that all of it is still in circulation, thats not even enough to account for half of the US economy, much less the global economy. but the us doesnt keep its entire economy in reserves you say? youre absolutely right. the us only keeps about 3 trillion dollars in reserves, which accounts for about 20% of global reserves. doing some math that means that the global economy has about 15 trillion dollars in reserves, but only 6 trillion dollars worth of gold.
then theres the issue that economic growth would be limited by gold reserves
not to mention the fact that a gold standard would limit the ability of the government to curb recessions using monetary policy.
and the fact that the value of the dollar would see incredible short run volatility, making the entire system unpredictable
and once gold production slows down, you would see a deflation in the value of the dollar, and deflation is literally the single worst thing that can happen to an economy.
the only retards that suggest a gold standard are people that have absolutely zero understanding of modern economics.
the ONE major positive of a gold standard is that hyperinflation becomes impossible, but good monetary policy can avoid that as well.
and i would like to add that gold is only worth what you believe it is worth. gold has almost 0 commercial value other then currency. if people didnt like its shinyness so much, it would just be another metal.
why not use tungsten or uranium or any other rare metal as a standard then?
or how about the insanely expensive platinum standard?
yes. im mad.
A gold standard doesn't mean gold is the only standard for money, it could be a variety of precious metals. Also here's what Ron Paul believes exactly: "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."
i find that ironic considering hes been trying to get rid of the federal reserve for over a decade.
and it doesnt matter what kind of metal you choose, all of the problems remain.
I doubt you will ever see a gold standard in your lifetime.
It might go up to $2k/ounce, if things get really bad, maybe even $3k +. Being officially used as another form of legal tender, possible and plausible.
However to be the only standard would basically destroy the economy, for reasons LP already mentioned.
Would mention though that a lot of people who suggest gold standards are gold bugs and have been holding gold since $500-$800 and what not, so obviously they will profit heavily off it.
Last edited by Lethe; 02-29-2012 at 10:03 PM.
Ramsay Sound Pack
People shouldn't need to validate themselves to others. Report to yourself.
Everyone needs a personal sanctuary, find yours.
That just isn't true:
http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml
The reason it's rarely used is because it's very expensive, even the process to create synthetic gold takes a nuclear reactor and comes out radiated with a cost higher than natural gold.
But that said I don't think the gold standard will be brought back either.
so most of the gold usage in the world is based upon its monetary value and percieved worth? shocker.
gold isnt the best metal for electronics, with tin being far superior for connectors and copper being the best for wiring. its use in electronics is 99% a gimmick for over priced high end electronics.
the only advantage gold really has is that its a decent conductor but is completely resistant to corrosion, so it does have some uses in extremely corrosive enviroments.
gold's value is based entirely on its rarity and the fact it is shiny. its uses outside its percieved monetary value are so minor that there would be plenty to go around.
Posting Permissions
