Ron Paul slams Bernanke Today…

[Deal Hunter]

I see your point.

But…. aren’t we in a couple of wars that need a bit of funding now as well??? Is it less bothersome to expand money for Iraq? Is that less irritating than expanding money to fund a collapsing domestic economy?

I guess so.

I don’t see how debt free is a relative term in this case. If I owe you $110 and I give you $110, then I don’t owe you anything anymore. When Guido said, “Lucco Brazi sleeps with the fishes.” They were even, that should have been the end of the movie!

[Eugene]

Don’t you realize that all of this talk of M0, M1, M2, M3, etc., is all a charade to obfuscate and over-complicate the issue of a fiat monetary system versus one that is backed by tangible assets, such as gold and silver?

Every single one of them would exist in a monetary system that is backed by tangible assets. St Louis Fed web site offers downloadable series of M1, M2, and M3 going back to 1959. United States officially gave up on gold standard in 1971.

Yes our modern financial system is complicated. That’s the way of life. If you want to simplify things, going back on gold standard is not sufficient, you need to abolish fractional reserve banking.

I think the underlying point here is that paper (fiat) money should be backed by tangible assets such as gold and silver, rather than be printed out of thin air.

Money should be backed by the fact that sufficiently large numbers of peple are willing to accept this money as payment for goods. That’s the best way. What backs tangible assets? Does a gold coin have as much intrinsic value as 300 gallons of milk? Or is it simply that people trust gold just like they trust dollars?

Also, if printing is a problem for you, is gold mining a problem as well? With printing, you have a transparent government agency that controls your money supply and hopefully does not expand it too much. With gold mining, you have numerous private enterprises continually bringing potentially random amounts of gold on the market. What’s better?

[Eugene]

Don’t you realize that all of this talk of M0, M1, M2, M3, etc., is all a charade to obfuscate and over-complicate the issue of a fiat monetary system versus one that is backed by tangible assets, such as gold and silver?

Every single one of them would exist in a monetary system that is backed by tangible assets. St Louis Fed web site offers downloadable series of M1, M2, and M3 going back to 1959. United States officially gave up on gold standard in 1971.

Yes our modern financial system is complicated. That’s the way of life. If you want to simplify things, going back on gold standard is not sufficient, you need to abolish fractional reserve banking.

I think the underlying point here is that paper (fiat) money should be backed by tangible assets such as gold and silver, rather than be printed out of thin air.

Money should be backed by the fact that sufficiently large numbers of peple are willing to accept this money as payment for goods. That’s the best way. What backs tangible assets? Does a gold coin have as much intrinsic value as 300 gallons of milk? Or is it simply that people trust gold just like they trust dollars?

Also, if printing is a problem for you, is gold mining a problem as well? With printing, you have a transparent government agency that controls your money supply and hopefully does not expand it too much. With gold mining, you have numerous private enterprises continually bringing potentially random amounts of gold on the market. What’s better?

[Eugene]

Don’t you realize that all of this talk of M0, M1, M2, M3, etc., is all a charade to obfuscate and over-complicate the issue of a fiat monetary system versus one that is backed by tangible assets, such as gold and silver?

Every single one of them would exist in a monetary system that is backed by tangible assets. St Louis Fed web site offers downloadable series of M1, M2, and M3 going back to 1959. United States officially gave up on gold standard in 1971.

Yes our modern financial system is complicated. That’s the way of life. If you want to simplify things, going back on gold standard is not sufficient, you need to abolish fractional reserve banking.

I think the underlying point here is that paper (fiat) money should be backed by tangible assets such as gold and silver, rather than be printed out of thin air.

Money should be backed by the fact that sufficiently large numbers of peple are willing to accept this money as payment for goods. That’s the best way. What backs tangible assets? Does a gold coin have as much intrinsic value as 300 gallons of milk? Or is it simply that people trust gold just like they trust dollars?

Also, if printing is a problem for you, is gold mining a problem as well? With printing, you have a transparent government agency that controls your money supply and hopefully does not expand it too much. With gold mining, you have numerous private enterprises continually bringing potentially random amounts of gold on the market. What’s better?

[Eugene]

Don’t you realize that all of this talk of M0, M1, M2, M3, etc., is all a charade to obfuscate and over-complicate the issue of a fiat monetary system versus one that is backed by tangible assets, such as gold and silver?

Every single one of them would exist in a monetary system that is backed by tangible assets. St Louis Fed web site offers downloadable series of M1, M2, and M3 going back to 1959. United States officially gave up on gold standard in 1971.

Yes our modern financial system is complicated. That’s the way of life. If you want to simplify things, going back on gold standard is not sufficient, you need to abolish fractional reserve banking.

I think the underlying point here is that paper (fiat) money should be backed by tangible assets such as gold and silver, rather than be printed out of thin air.

Money should be backed by the fact that sufficiently large numbers of peple are willing to accept this money as payment for goods. That’s the best way. What backs tangible assets? Does a gold coin have as much intrinsic value as 300 gallons of milk? Or is it simply that people trust gold just like they trust dollars?

Also, if printing is a problem for you, is gold mining a problem as well? With printing, you have a transparent government agency that controls your money supply and hopefully does not expand it too much. With gold mining, you have numerous private enterprises continually bringing potentially random amounts of gold on the market. What’s better?

[Eugene]

Don’t you realize that all of this talk of M0, M1, M2, M3, etc., is all a charade to obfuscate and over-complicate the issue of a fiat monetary system versus one that is backed by tangible assets, such as gold and silver?

Every single one of them would exist in a monetary system that is backed by tangible assets. St Louis Fed web site offers downloadable series of M1, M2, and M3 going back to 1959. United States officially gave up on gold standard in 1971.

Yes our modern financial system is complicated. That’s the way of life. If you want to simplify things, going back on gold standard is not sufficient, you need to abolish fractional reserve banking.

I think the underlying point here is that paper (fiat) money should be backed by tangible assets such as gold and silver, rather than be printed out of thin air.

Money should be backed by the fact that sufficiently large numbers of peple are willing to accept this money as payment for goods. That’s the best way. What backs tangible assets? Does a gold coin have as much intrinsic value as 300 gallons of milk? Or is it simply that people trust gold just like they trust dollars?

Also, if printing is a problem for you, is gold mining a problem as well? With printing, you have a transparent government agency that controls your money supply and hopefully does not expand it too much. With gold mining, you have numerous private enterprises continually bringing potentially random amounts of gold on the market. What’s better?

[greekfire]

If the war is worth justifying, in terms of our national defense, then at least shouldn’t we have the courtesy of getting a declaration of war from our Congress, as is mandated in the Constitution.

Regarding the argument in the third paragraph of your last statement, the $110 that you owed me years ago is worth much less now. Now you owe me $150, and I want you to pay up now. The FED’s response is to simply print the money out of thin air. It just doesn’t work that way.

[greekfire]

If the war is worth justifying, in terms of our national defense, then at least shouldn’t we have the courtesy of getting a declaration of war from our Congress, as is mandated in the Constitution.

Regarding the argument in the third paragraph of your last statement, the $110 that you owed me years ago is worth much less now. Now you owe me $150, and I want you to pay up now. The FED’s response is to simply print the money out of thin air. It just doesn’t work that way.

[greekfire]

If the war is worth justifying, in terms of our national defense, then at least shouldn’t we have the courtesy of getting a declaration of war from our Congress, as is mandated in the Constitution.

Regarding the argument in the third paragraph of your last statement, the $110 that you owed me years ago is worth much less now. Now you owe me $150, and I want you to pay up now. The FED’s response is to simply print the money out of thin air. It just doesn’t work that way.

[greekfire]

If the war is worth justifying, in terms of our national defense, then at least shouldn’t we have the courtesy of getting a declaration of war from our Congress, as is mandated in the Constitution.

Regarding the argument in the third paragraph of your last statement, the $110 that you owed me years ago is worth much less now. Now you owe me $150, and I want you to pay up now. The FED’s response is to simply print the money out of thin air. It just doesn’t work that way.

[greekfire]

If the war is worth justifying, in terms of our national defense, then at least shouldn’t we have the courtesy of getting a declaration of war from our Congress, as is mandated in the Constitution.

Regarding the argument in the third paragraph of your last statement, the $110 that you owed me years ago is worth much less now. Now you owe me $150, and I want you to pay up now. The FED’s response is to simply print the money out of thin air. It just doesn’t work that way.

[gdcox]

Graham

‘Printing’ money is a cost to all as inflation rises (all other things constant).

Injecting money which is raised from higher government debt does not raise prices but lands all taxpayers with higher future taxes.

[gdcox]

Graham

‘Printing’ money is a cost to all as inflation rises (all other things constant).

Injecting money which is raised from higher government debt does not raise prices but lands all taxpayers with higher future taxes.

[gdcox]

Graham

‘Printing’ money is a cost to all as inflation rises (all other things constant).

Injecting money which is raised from higher government debt does not raise prices but lands all taxpayers with higher future taxes.

[gdcox]

Graham

‘Printing’ money is a cost to all as inflation rises (all other things constant).

Injecting money which is raised from higher government debt does not raise prices but lands all taxpayers with higher future taxes.

[Author]

Posts