- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,390
- 19,525
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
And the MC and poor have been robbed by inflation ever since.
BREAK IN CASE OF EMERGENCY: How to overthrow the government and break the banks
- Thread starter The Coup
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The Coup
Premiership Player
- Sep 4, 2014
- 3,641
- 1,682
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #27
Currencies linked to gold have collapsed as well.
Tell me, what is it about gold that has so much inherent value?
If everyone stopped believing gold had value tomorrow, it would be a shiny worthless chunk of metal. And it costs money to store it and protect it.
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
yeah, nah. purchasing power in the US has increased 2.5x in real terms:
http://andolfatto.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/ron-pauls-money-illusion-sequel.html
your implicit assertion that inflation does not occur under a gold standard is also demonstrably incorrect.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,390
- 19,525
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Please show from 2008 to 2014 or disregard that chart.yeah, nah. purchasing power in the US has increased 2.5x in real terms:
http://andolfatto.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/ron-pauls-money-illusion-sequel.html
your implicit assertion that inflation does not occur under a gold standard is also demonstrably incorrect.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,390
- 19,525
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
or even to 2012
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,390
- 19,525
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Gold has been the true value of money since the start of time. It is also why China and India have been loading up on the stuff. When the US dollar goes under, China will replace it with a currency backed by gold.
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
huh? why? you asserted that inflation had been robbing people "ever since [roosevelt]". i showed you data that illustrates your assertion is just ideological bias. you DO realise that the time period you request is a period of deflation/record low inflation, yeah? it won't help your argument at all.
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
hahahahahahahahahahaha.
The Coup
Premiership Player
- Sep 4, 2014
- 3,641
- 1,682
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #34
LOL no it hasn't and no it isn't.
You dodged the question too: what is the worth of gold based on?
I'll tell you the answer: The same thing fiat currency is based i.e. nothing but human belief in its worth.
People use whatever the * is handy as currency, if they need currency in their life (not everyone does).
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,390
- 19,525
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Wages have collapsed in most countries except Australia. Unrest in Egypt and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia due to US dollar led inflation. Oil is sold in US dollars. The Fed Reserve keeps printing worthless dollars. The end result, oil sold in US dollars has eroded purchasing power. Especially in the Middle East. Not to mention that if they used the same measurement of inflation as in 1990, inflation in the U.S. is running at about 10%.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,390
- 19,525
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
I didn't dodge the question. The question was false to start with. Gold has stood the test of time. Gold doesn't have the same volatility as worthless money. Only government manipulation can cause that.
i'm not making a stand here, i am merely pointing out the facts. of course a country does pretty well when it benefits from heaps of investment during the good times and then avoids shelling out when things go **** up. that should be pretty obvious to everyone. would be like me taking out a loan for a house, not paying the loan back and keeping the house. of course things would look pretty good for me!
well, if we're being technical the RBA could simply print more money; ergo the amount of debt wouldn't increase. also, the amount of debt caused by the GFC was huge in the US, but TARP was pretty negligible in the long term (as most of it got paid back).
Your missing my/the point, if the banks is nationalised of course the government should help, because its the countries debt as they own the company. if the company is owned by private citizens then its the responsibility of those private citizens to sort their s**t out.
I've sold my house in the city and the one on the gold coast the profits allowed me not only to pay off the loans i had for those properties. it allowed me to buy a house in western Sydney and get loans for another two investment properties.
Now if i go tit's up should the government step in and give me a loan that enables me to KEEP my assets? keep me doing well and allowing me to bring back confidence in my investors? I mean, I graduated high school in 03 i left school with $230 to my name and never had parents who were in a position to help me financially I've done ******* fantastic! I'm great for the economy I've generated wealth for myself and by extension the country through taxes (so many, Many taxes). It is in the long term better for the government refinance me and keep me doing well. Should i get underwritten by the government?
Now here's the thing i had the option to invest in a development instead of those 2 other houses. the potential for profit looked amazing like be an actual multi millionaire, problem was as all investments it relies on the actual airport being built at the location and pretty much on time to attract other investors in the later stages of the development.
Me not being under written by anybody went to a financial advisor to look at it, there's actually 3 sites for the airport being considered which means even if it goes ahead the development may be a waste of money and further more although the company guarantees to return capital if site isn't approved, there using current investor's funds for other projects as well. which mean if those projects don't work out there's no money to actually pay back if they need to.
needless to say i followed my financial advisor's cautions and gave up on my short lived dream not ever working, making let's play videos in the nude while i drink rum and getting a blow job from south american house keeper.
I needing to secure my finance future and being responsible instead I work from midnight through to 10 am commute another 1.5 hours each way, my GF has a thing for opening blinds, constantly hog's the laptop and the only time i get a blow job is when she has drunk all my rum and done my own washing.
but if i was underwritten by the government?
The Coup
Premiership Player
- Sep 4, 2014
- 3,641
- 1,682
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #38
The question was not false, your reality is false so you can't answer it without admitting you don't know what you're talking about.
So your answer is "Because we used to use it".
Solid reasoning, very academic.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,390
- 19,525
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
If you believe so
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
what absolute nonsense, rofl.
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
you're merely describing your preferred arrangement. i'm not saying i disagree with it, but it's not the reality of deposit guarantees per se, or iceland specifically.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Some people need a lesson in basic economics.
Banks lending money is good for the economy...It's how people buy (build) houses, how companies expand, and thus how jobs are created.
Lower interest rates are good because they make people more likely to borrow/spend.
Banks charge rates depending in large part on what they get the money at (deposit rates, interbank lending rates, etc).
What rates banks get money at is determined in large part on their risks, so government guarantees (be they real or inferred) mean they get money cheaper, so can lend it cheaper, thus promoting growth and employment.
The main role of government when it comes to banking however is actually regulation. Ensuring they have sufficient reserves, that their assets have a reasonable risk profile, etc. This is what happens in Australia (Aus gov doesn't generally guarantee the banks), and because the system is regarded as well regulated/low risk, Aus banks get 'cheap' money. Iceland failed to do that, and the highly foreseeable risk of currency rate changes that weren't adequately allowed for meant their banks failed.
Generally, I agree that private companies failing has nothing to do with the government, but in Iceland's case the government failed in it's job too.
Banks lending money is good for the economy...It's how people buy (build) houses, how companies expand, and thus how jobs are created.
Lower interest rates are good because they make people more likely to borrow/spend.
Banks charge rates depending in large part on what they get the money at (deposit rates, interbank lending rates, etc).
What rates banks get money at is determined in large part on their risks, so government guarantees (be they real or inferred) mean they get money cheaper, so can lend it cheaper, thus promoting growth and employment.
The main role of government when it comes to banking however is actually regulation. Ensuring they have sufficient reserves, that their assets have a reasonable risk profile, etc. This is what happens in Australia (Aus gov doesn't generally guarantee the banks), and because the system is regarded as well regulated/low risk, Aus banks get 'cheap' money. Iceland failed to do that, and the highly foreseeable risk of currency rate changes that weren't adequately allowed for meant their banks failed.
Generally, I agree that private companies failing has nothing to do with the government, but in Iceland's case the government failed in it's job too.
The Coup
Premiership Player
- Sep 4, 2014
- 3,641
- 1,682
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #45
Banks are required to facilitate money between people, that is true.
There is no logical reason for them to run as a for profit business though.
We have the safest (i.e. lowest risk) and most profitable banks in the world, and also the most expensive retail banking sector in the world by far.
Put them back into the hands of the people that created them and overnight every Australian would be thousands of dollars better off every year.
There is no logical reason for them to run as a for profit business though.
We have the safest (i.e. lowest risk) and most profitable banks in the world, and also the most expensive retail banking sector in the world by far.
Put them back into the hands of the people that created them and overnight every Australian would be thousands of dollars better off every year.
telsor
Hall of Famer
You mean the shareholders? That's who owns them now. Try it, you can buy shares in any of the banks and share in their profits.
Huh... None of our banks failed
The people who created them sold them.
As for the "logical reason", by that logic no business should exist.
There's demand for their services, that's why they're profitable.
The Coup
Premiership Player
- Sep 4, 2014
- 3,641
- 1,682
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #50
You don't understand how the CBa was formed by the look of it, or the special quasi government funded status the big four still enjoy.
Take your economic liberalism pamphlet to the IPA meetings where they actually buy that frogshit. Also the place they produce it, funnily enough.
