Anyone notice all the talk of a FISCAL CLIFF?

[PeterEnergy]

Originally Posted by ralfy

Fractional reserve banking doesn't "dilute" money supply. It creates more money.

It must be blissful to contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.

Originally Posted by ralfy

Interest also creates more money

How so? If new money is created from the principal amount of a new loan, it means the money owed (with interest) is more than the money available in the money supply.

Originally Posted by ralfy

As pointed out to you many times, actual money supply shows that banks have lent even more than 10x.

Odd that you feel the need to point out to me what I am very aware of. Have I ever given you the impression I disputed this fact?

I wonder why this is not troubling to you. Even more, why you consider yourself on one hand, knowledgeable about the subject, but on the other hand claim there is no solution. It is like you have no capability of inductive reasoning, no ability to grasp the implications of these facts.

If I bring my broken car to an expert mechanic, he will get my car going again or if it is beyond repair recommend the better solution is to start over with a new one. He won't just say there is no solution.

[Mule Skinner]

Originally Posted by AtkPilot

It's unfortunate that our DEAR LEADER is cutting back the military to an extent not seen since the end of WWI.

The men & women of the U S military are the most highly trained professional fighting force I have ever had the honor to serve with.

Well this is ironic, isn't it? The conservatives are all clamoring for spending to be reduced. Since the military is a major spending item, it is an obvious place to look for cuts.

[PeterEnergy]

Originally Posted by Mule Skinner

Well this is ironic, isn't it? The conservatives are all clamoring for spending to be reduced. Since the military is a major spending item, it is an obvious place to look for cuts.

It is 4th on the list and the only one Constitutionally authorized. I agree military spending should be cut but the socialist entitlement programs should all be cut COMPLETELY first.

[ralfy]

Originally Posted by PeterEnergy

It must be blissful to contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.

Hey, I'm not the one who proposed increasing current money supply by tens of thousands of times.

How so? If new money is created from the principal amount of a new loan, it means the money owed (with interest) is more than the money available in the money supply.

Interest increases money supply because interest comes in the form of money.

Odd that you feel the need to point out to me what I am very aware of. Have I ever given you the impression I disputed this fact?

Well, you didn't dispute it, just ignored it. You don't like "big numbers," remember?

I wonder why this is not troubling to you. Even more, why you consider yourself on one hand, knowledgeable about the subject, but on the other hand claim there is no solution. It is like you have no capability of inductive reasoning, no ability to grasp the implications of these facts.

But it is! You want to see something more troubling? Try a "solution" like setting the price of gold to $180 billion a troy oz, which increases current money supply several thousandfold. Talk about monetary expansion.

If I bring my broken car to an expert mechanic, he will get my car going again or if it is beyond repair recommend the better solution is to start over with a new one. He won't just say there is no solution.

The problem is isn't that you are looking for repairs for a broken car or a new one. It's that what you want is a car that will never be broken. That's probably why you came up with a totally ridiculous "solution" such as increasing the price of gold to $180 billion a troy oz.

[PeterEnergy]

Originally Posted by ralfy

Hey, I'm not the one who proposed increasing current money supply by tens of thousands of times.

That is your response to providing a solution; criticize other solutions?

Originally Posted by ralfy

Interest increases money supply because interest comes in the form of money.

Circular. You are the most circular thinker I've ever encountered ... Dogs make puppies b/c dogs come in the form of puppies.

Originally Posted by ralfy

Well, you didn't dispute it, just ignored it.

You never heard of an uncontested fact?

Originally Posted by ralfy

You don't like "big numbers," remember?

No. Again, you missed my point. No matter how many trees you reference, there is still the relevant concept of the forest. You seem to argue b/c I am not acknowledging how many trees there are there cannot be a forest.

Originally Posted by ralfy

But it is! You want to see something more troubling? Try a "solution" like setting the price of gold to $180 billion a troy oz, which increases current money supply several thousandfold. Talk about monetary expansion.

Appeal to Diversion. This is your reply to why you consider yourself on one hand, knowledgeable about the subject, but on the other hand claim there is no solution?

Originally Posted by ralfy

The problem is isn't that you are looking for repairs for a broken car or a new one. It's that what you want is a car that will never be broken. That's probably why you came up with a totally ridiculous "solution" such as increasing the price of gold to $180 billion a troy oz.

You keep saying this even though t is untrue. No matter how many fiat monopoly funny money zeroes you want to attach to a finite item what drives the value is the rarity of the item, gold in this case. From the value, comes its buying power. The buying power of a precious metal is not driven by how many infinitely increasing fiat there is but the goods and services. Finite to finite drives the relative value, not infinite (or constantly changing) to finite. Why harp or stop at $180 B/oz. Why not $100 T?



It is sad you continue to think it matters.

[Adnihilo]

Originally Posted by Altarboy

Won't happen. We will always print more money and China and Co. will be glad to loan it to us. I guess we'll just sign over some of our national assets to them-like Yellowstone, Yosemite, GSM etc..

China has Billions less, now they bought Canada...er, Canadian oil company(s).

[Gristle62]

The China-man and his wife have already been checking out our multi-million dollar mansions. Yes I observed this very thing this passed summer. Silence is all I got to my questions of what they wanted and what were they doing on private property. I'm just wasting ink talking/typing about Capitol Hill and politicians. They've all already sold us down the road.

[ralfy]

Originally Posted by PeterEnergy

That is your response to providing a solution; criticize other solutions?

You mean you still think that what you gave, set the price of gold to 180 billion a troy oz., is a solution? You're kidding, right?

There's no solution for reasons I explained earlier.

Circular. You are the most circular thinker I've ever encountered ... Dogs make puppies b/c dogs come in the form of puppies.

Not circular, unless you think interest is not paid in the form of money.

You never heard of an uncontested fact?

Apparently, you have not.

No. Again, you missed my point. No matter how many trees you reference, there is still the relevant concept of the forest. You seem to argue b/c I am not acknowledging how many trees there are there cannot be a forest.

"Big numbers" refer to the forest.

Appeal to Diversion. This is your reply to why you consider yourself on one hand, knowledgeable about the subject, but on the other hand claim there is no solution?

There is no contradiction between the two.

You keep saying this even though t is untrue. No matter how many fiat monopoly funny money zeroes you want to attach to a finite item what drives the value is the rarity of the item, gold in this case. From the value, comes its buying power. The buying power of a precious metal is not driven by how many infinitely increasing fiat there is but the goods and services. Finite to finite drives the relative value, not infinite (or constantly changing) to finite. Why harp or stop at $180 B/oz. Why not $100 T?



It is sad you continue to think it matters.

How do you measure the rarity of that item, and in this case gold? Don't you do so using dollars? In fact, you even proposed that we should add more "fiat monopoly funny money zeroes" to the price of gold and set it to $180 billion a troy oz. And now you want it lowered to $100,000? How nice. From dozens of "funny money zeroes" we should probably just add less than two.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Your last sentence is my description of your situation.

[jleverin]

I cringe everytime the word is used by the media, it has become so common that I don't think people are even paying attention anymore-they are just going shopping with their credit cards, think that's what TPTB want.

[PeterEnergy]

Originally Posted by ralfy

How do you measure the rarity of that item, and in this case gold? Don't you do so using dollars?

I know that by "dollar" you refer to fiat Federal Reserve Notes (FRN). The answer is no. I do not measure the rarity of a fiat note to other fiat note.

It used to be - and still is - that a US dollar is so many grains of silver. This is how I price items but it is not how I measure rarity. It is just another Non Sequitor from you.

[ralfy]

Originally Posted by PeterEnergy

I know that by "dollar" you refer to fiat Federal Reserve Notes (FRN). The answer is no. I do not measure the rarity of a fiat note to other fiat note.

Yes, but you set the value of gold based on the same, and to make matters worse, suggest that we increase the price to, say, $180 billion a troy oz, just to be sure?

Well, that'll solve the fiscal cliff.

It used to be - and still is - that a US dollar is so many grains of silver. This is how I price items but it is not how I measure rarity. It is just another Non Sequitor from you.

Wait: so now you're defending the use of US dollars because you think they are worth "so many grains of silver."

Please tell me you're kidding.

[PeterEnergy]

I am not defending using FRN's. I'm saying to keep and price things in PM's like silver, like US silver dollars.

[ralfy]

Originally Posted by PeterEnergy

I am not defending using FRN's. I'm saying to keep and price things in PM's like silver, like US silver dollars.

Same problem. With around 40 billion ounces of silver worldwide, you get less than 6 ounces of silver per person. That's less than $200 per capita.