Why Gold?

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 21, 2009

Why Gold? By : TheBrutalTruth (2009-07-21 16:09:56)

So, here's an interesting question, and my attempts to answer it. Why use gold as the commodity to benchmark inflation against? What is the properties of gold that make this course of action so attractive?

It is a very simple question, but the answer is of course complex. First, there's the question of why Gold makes such an excellent benchmark. The answer to that of course is the fact that it was the original basis for the dollar. That is the US Dollar was at one point in time fixed at approximately 1/20th of an oz. So this gives a reasonable benchmark to compare the dollar to, because this figure of 1/20th of an oz of gold gives a definite value to where the dollar should be based on current gold prices.

With a known base value for Gold it is then possible to adjust inflation against the Gold Standard which was half-killed in the 30s and then completely abolished in the 60s.

Since then Gold Prices (despite the claims of central bankers who believed that they would fall) have soared to new highs almost every decade.

In 1980 Real Gold Prices topped $2,000/troy oz in 2007 Dollars. Gold then crashed as high interest rates lead to an increased demand for the fiat money supply of paper dollars. This brought Gold out of the stratosphere and down to a more reasonable figure of $100 - $200/troy oz.

In the 90s Gold soared to $300 - $400/troy oz. Once again it made the buffoons at the central bank look like monkeys showing that their belief that Gold had value based on its connection to the dollar was inaccurate and nothing but idiotic posturing.

In this most recent decade Gold has climbed from $400 - $600/troy oz in the beginning part of the decade to $800 - $1,000/troy oz. This recent price hike has been a result of government's negligence of maintaining the value of the US Currency.

The central bankers consistently argue that inflation is a necessity, but the truth is otherwise. Inflation is not a necessity. Inflation is an unnatural state for any economy, because Inflation only occurs when the quantity of goods available is declining.

In a normal, growing economy the natural tendency is towards deflation as labor becomes cheaper due to greater availability, and through greater automation and other productivity gains.

No, inflation is not a sign of a healthy vibrant economy. Inflation is the sign of a dying economy.

Regardless, let us look at what a dollar would be worth if it was still as good as Gold.

First, there's the Silver Eagle (1 oz of Silver) which was worth $1 while it was being minted at the turn of the century, and consisted of 1 oz of silver. The value of the silver content would now be $13.55. That is the value of the dollar has declined over 92.7% against silver.

Against gold the dollar has slipped further. A Gold Double Eagle ($20) which was approximately one ounce of gold would be worth $947 at current market rates for gold, giving a value per dollar of $47.35 at the original rate of 1/20th troy oz of gold per dollar.

Against gold the dollar has lost 97.9% of its value. Through the artificial tool of inflation the central bank (Federal Reserve) of the United States has stolen over 90% of the population's wealth from them.

This trend will accelerate and will continue due to the continued expansion of the federal deficit and the continued expansion of government's attempts to dictate every aspect of an individual's life. It is only due to the welfare state that the government is running continuous deficits, and its attempts to correct for these problems is the immoral theft of the savings of individuals through the unnatural immoral practice of debasement of the money supply.

Not only has gold maintained its value relative to its original costs (1 oz of gold bought a nice suit in 1913, and 1 oz of gold would still buy a nice suit today.) but it has proven that the people that were attempting to argue that it would lose its value (as opposed to the dollar losing its value) once the dollar was unpegged from it as having no true knowledge of economics. Ironically, the people that were predicting gold's demise were Keynesians.

KaleoXxX · Jul 21, 2009

i hate when bud is the price of gold per ounce. y dont we use bud to judge inflation costs

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 21, 2009

KaleoXxX said:
i hate when bud is the price of gold per ounce. y dont we use bud to judge inflation costs

Lack of reliable data.

The Warlord · Jul 21, 2009

Pish posh! We'll just print more money! LMAO

Good post.

hanimmal · Jul 21, 2009

-What happens if a poor country hits a huge vein of gold and instantly becomes super wealthy. It is interesting because it would allow for poor countries to become wealthy (like the middle east and oil), but would that be an interesting conundrum since it would help to expode some African countries into among the most wealthy. I kind of like that idea if the country was able to handle it, but most wouldn't and their new found wealth would be wasted.

-In terms of employment becoming cheaper, wages have historically been sticky in the negative. But maybe this would work if people could understand Real wage vs wage.

-Banks provide such a powerful tool for the economy and gold would affect it's ability to quickly move money from savers to borrowers that are expanding or openning their businesses and need the loans. The way it would have to work is if the banks didn't actually move the gold to other bank accounts, but then we are back to what is essentially used today.

The central bankers consistently argue that inflation is a necessity, but the truth is otherwise. Inflation is not a necessity. Inflation is an unnatural state for any economy, because Inflation only occurs when the quantity of goods available is declining.

In a normal, growing economy the natural tendency is towards deflation as labor becomes cheaper due to greater availability, and through greater automation and other productivity gains.

Small fix, it gets cheaper to a point, then it will start to become more expensive in opportunity costs.

If gold is not regulated (as I think from most your posts you would be very opposed to) then as more gold was dug up the value of it would continue to drop until eventually it would be worthless, much like a dollar is today (it is what it represents that is worth anything). So you would still get inflation and not deflation.

I am not sure about this so I will ask you what you think since you have put some time into looking at this, what do you think would happen in regards to wages across countries? If countries where to use the gold at their disposal would a place like Johannesburg, South Africa. See wages far exceed ours here in the states. Also how about countries with very little gold? It would be interesting to see how the balance of power would shit if we went back to gold.

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 21, 2009

hanimmal said:
-What happens if a poor country hits a huge vein of gold and instantly becomes super wealthy. It is interesting because it would allow for poor countries to become wealthy (like the middle east and oil), but would that be an interesting conundrum since it would help to expode some African countries into among the most wealthy. I kind of like that idea if the country was able to handle it, but most wouldn't and their new found wealth would be wasted.

The same thing that happens to a rich country that uses Gold. Spain during its height was bringing in gold from the new world and then frittering it away on foreign goods instead of domestic production. The end result was the end of the Spanish Dominance of European Politics.

The same thing that has happened in the Middle East where they assumed that $90+/barrel was a natural price for oil, and thus loaded themselves up with debt on wasteful luxuries when they could have been improving their infrastructure and following the strictures of their religion by preparing for a famine with the fruits of the fat years. The end result is an indebted, nearly insolvent Middle East that is no longer in a position to extend credit to the United States.

Which is yet another example of a nation that acquired great wealth (through hardwork and industriousness) and is now frittering it away on insipid luxuries, moronic ideas, and imbecilic plans. The end result will be similar to what has happened to the Roman Empire, Spain, and the Middle East.

-In terms of employment becoming cheaper, wages have historically been sticky in the negative. But maybe this would work if people could understand Real wage vs wage.

Of course wages have been bottom sticky, but the economy would force a correction for the greed of people who are not willing to allow their pay to go down with the value of the goods that they produce.

-Banks provide such a powerful tool for the economy and gold would affect it's ability to quickly move money from savers to borrowers that are expanding or openning their businesses and need the loans. The way it would have to work is if the banks didn't actually move the gold to other bank accounts, but then we are back to what is essentially used today.

Banks are nothing more than a middleman, a dishonest middleman that relies upon fraud to conduct their business. Before the advent of the fiction of fractional reserve banking, a wholely dishonest system, banks kept 100% of their deposits on hand and charged a fee to store gold with them. The real solution for the banks would be to switch back to that system, but such a change to full reserve banking would not imply the end of banks acting as middlemen for making loans, it would just result in an end to their dishonesty.

Besides, another avenue would be easily opened if government would allow entrepreneurs to sell their stock directly to the public instead of requiring them to allow the banks to conduct their IPOs.

Small fix, it gets cheaper to a point, then it will start to become more expensive in opportunity costs.

Actually, short of having negative real work force growth labor's natural tendency is to decrease in value as more people become available to the work force.

If gold is not regulated (as I think from most your posts you would be very opposed to) then as more gold was dug up the value of it would continue to drop until eventually it would be worthless, much like a dollar is today (it is what it represents that is worth anything). So you would still get inflation and not deflation.

There is a limited quantity of gold, it is not possible to conjure gold out of thin air. A good chunk of the gold in circulation was mined over the course of the last several millenia with minimal amounts being mined in recent times.

I am not sure about this so I will ask you what you think since you have put some time into looking at this, what do you think would happen in regards to wages across countries?

Nothing, no one is saying that currencies have to be revalued. Just legal tender laws repealed and the markets allowed to adopt what currency they wish to adopt based on their opinion of its trustworthiness and ability to retain real purchasing power.

The paper dollar would still be good as only toilet paper while a Gold Double Eagle would be worth what an ounce of gold is worth. There is no need to allow the government to do anything more than operate mints (for a fee) or set content requirements for coins purported to be equivalent of government issued coinage.

Private Individuals, and banks, could easily open their own mints to compete with the government, providing easy access to mints for everyone.

If countries where to use the gold at their disposal would a place like Johannesburg, South Africa. See wages far exceed ours here in the states.

No, but they would probably see the benefit of producing the gold, because they would be able to spend it, but wages would not necessarily rise, because the value of gold would not be pegged to dollar convertability. Gold would be allowed to float by itself and just be used as a medium of exchange with Silver and Copper, and perhaps Platinum if the price difference between Gold and Platinum is sufficiently great, and stabilizes.

Also how about countries with very little gold? It would be interesting to see how the balance of power would shit if we went back to gold.

Countries that have had very little gold have been able to prosper under the Gold Standard. Japan from Admiral Perry's visit in the 1850s or 1860s to World War II. It emerged from isolation to secure a place of power through industriousness, perseverance and a desire to produce real wealth.

The same three traits thats served Japan so well also served the United States during the era from 1800 - 1950. Culminating in the status of the United States as the world's greatest creditor nation. A status that has since been frittered away by the welfare state and its inability to stop trying to fuck with something that is not broken.

Of course, now that it is broken they are trying to break it even more.

hanimmal · Jul 21, 2009

Banks are nothing more than a middleman, a dishonest middleman that relies upon fraud to conduct their business. Before the advent of the fiction of fractional reserve banking, a wholely dishonest system, banks kept 100% of their deposits on hand and charged a fee to store gold with them. The real solution for the banks would be to switch back to that system, but such a change to full reserve banking would not imply the end of banks acting as middlemen for making loans, it would just result in an end to their dishonesty.

Besides, another avenue would be easily opened if government would allow entrepreneurs to sell their stock directly to the public instead of requiring them to allow the banks to conduct their IPOs.

Throughout history there is an extremely sad example of how important lending money out through middlemen. The history of the jews. Their religion was the only one that allowed getting a return on lending out money. And they were the banks of the past people would store money with them and they would lend it out to get interest. Which is worth it because the people that get that money would be able to open businesses and make far more money than they paid in return.

(fyi this is not for you since you likely know this, but others may not)

When the jews would finally lend out enough money to the society they were in and the hierarchy owed them money it would revolt on them and kill and/or them out of their country. At what point it the economy the jewish people left would come crashing down leaving it decimated.

Throughout history the rise and falls of european cities/countries could be a history of the autrocities the jewish people faced.

The problem with selling bonds directly is space and time. As an individual investor I would 1. not have the time or knowhow to check every business to find the best place to invest. 2. I would not be protected from complete ruin if that company went out of business, or if they stole my gold. 3. The amount of money most people have to invest would not do much good. 4. If a small business was able to get 30-40 investors to open up it would almost be a fulltime job figuring out how much goes where creating inefficencies in that business. 5. Someone living in one state would have almost no way to monitor the money in a different one to be sure the money was being spent wisely.

Actually, short of having negative real work force growth labor's natural tendency is to decrease in value as more people become available to the work force.

Not if the later portions of labor are better suited for a different job, the opportunity costs would increase since they would be better used in another job. I was being nitpicky though sorry not trying to crap on your idea.

There is a limited quantity of gold, it is not possible to conjure gold out of thin air. A good chunk of the gold in circulation was mined over the course of the last several millenia with minimal amounts being mined in recent times.

The planet being as large as it is there are unknown quantities out there, and they already are keeping much of it out of circulation and shutting down mines due to wanting to keep the price high. But! I do think that this idea has some merit for one reason.

This would allow for one global currency (funny enough some people say Obama is trying to do this). That would allow (if the financial markets where able to still operate) for much better globalization.

OH! Question not to derail a good thread, but wouldn't a universal earth government (I heard on the right wing radio going crazy over this) that they say Obama is all for be better for individual rights. Since it would be so far removed that micromanaging its 'people' would not be possible. Having one currency would be a step towards this with the way our society works. Similar to when the church was the main form of government (about 0 ad, to 1800bc). Just a thought.

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 21, 2009

hanimmal said:
Throughout history there is an extremely sad example of how important lending money out through middlemen. The history of the jews. Their religion was the only one that allowed getting a return on lending out money. And they were the banks of the past people would store money with them and they would lend it out to get interest. Which is worth it because the people that get that money would be able to open businesses and make far more money than they paid in return.

(fyi this is not for you since you likely know this, but others may not)

When the jews would finally lend out enough money to the society they were in and the hierarchy owed them money it would revolt on them and kill and/or them out of their country. At what point it the economy the jewish people left would come crashing down leaving it decimated.

Throughout history the rise and falls of european cities/countries could be a history of the autrocities the jewish people faced.

Actually usury is a sin according to the Jewish Religion, just their leaders ignored the practice as long as it was only gentiles that were charged interest.

It was also seen as sinful by the Christians to charge interest, and thus the Jews were allowed to charge the Christians interest (I don't know about vice-versa)

Modern views on interest have changed so that it is seen as a form of recompense for lenders who are putting their money at the risk of not being returned.

The end result was of course the formation of banking, but you're ignoring the point that I am making about the Fractional Reserve System. I have no problem with the act of lending and borrowing money at interest.

The problem with selling bonds directly is space and time. As an individual investor I would 1. not have the time or knowhow to check every business to find the best place to invest.

1. If you are not making the time or effort to learn how to determine what business is the best place to invest in, then you have no business investing.

If you are relying upon mutual funds you are being foolish and naive. While they routinely spit out great returns when they are first founded once they are opened to the public after they are too big to return 15+ % they rarely match the market.

There was a book I read and posted about a while ago, but I don't remember the post. Maybe I can find it and post a link to it. Really interesting book that kind of goes into the ins and outs of the problems with the mutual fund model.

2. I would not be protected from complete ruin if that company went out of business, or if they stole my gold.

And you would put all your eggs in one basket? Before I sold all to focus on my dental work I probably had investments in 10 - 20 different companies ranging from Coca-Cola to W Holdings, Inc. (Bank Holding Company based in Puerto Rico.) Diversified portfolios offer greater protection, find the company with the killer app in its field (or a dominant market position) and invest, after making sure that it is soundly managed (and probably reading the recent annual reports (10-Ks).)

3. The amount of money most people have to invest would not do much good.

100 * 1,000 = 100,000 that's enough to open a restaurant
1,000 * 1,000 = 1,000,000 that's enough for a small machine shop
10,000 * 1,000 = 10,000,000 more advanced tool and die shop
100,000 * 1,000 = 100,000,000 small auto factory

What I never got is if the employees of GM were so pissed off about losing their jobs, why didn't they ban together, take $4,000 or $5,000 of their severance each, band together and attempt to buy the local factory and prove that it was inept management that was the cause of the downfall of GM, and not inept unionized employees. In Dayton alone that would have been a pool of $400 - $500 Million, probably enough to buy the Morraine Truck Assembly.

4. If a small business was able to get 30-40 investors to open up it would almost be a fulltime job figuring out how much goes where creating inefficencies in that business.

No, it wouldn't, investment does not mean a seat on the board, or a voice in day to day operations of the company. In a stock company it just means a chance to vote for the people who will sit on the board, and oversee the general management of the corporation by electing the officers who will oversee the day to day management of the corporation.

And a lot of the tasks of keeping the books are automated or can be with a minimal amount of effort.

5. Someone living in one state would have almost no way to monitor the money in a different one to be sure the money was being spent wisely.

Non-issue. If you chose to invest in PepsiCo or The Coca-Cola Company would you be worried about how they spent your money. They might end up spending your investment on taking their top sales reps on a vacation. While you might think it is wasteful, it is clear that the management (who you extended your trust to, by investing in that company) decided that the best way to look after the interest of the stockholders was looked after.

More important is the fact that it would not be required that you worry about watching where the money is spent, because while I want to limit regulation (and do away with some) there are other regulations, such as annual and quarterly reporting requirements on corporations, that I would not want to do away with.

If you can not spare the effort to read a 10-K and a 10-Q once every 3 - 4 months then you have no business investing in the first place. If you can not bother to idly monitor the news for what is going on with companies you own shares in, you have no business investing in the first place.

At the same time, it is definitely not something that is for the faint of heart that will cry at the first sign of a down turn and lock in their losses by selling.

Not if the later portions of labor are better suited for a different job, the opportunity costs would increase since they would be better used in another job.

Labor is interchangeable, training is the only requirement. Of course, thinking about it, I wouldn't trust the average college student near a computer, lawn-mower or any other electrical device. I might (if I'm feeling generous) trust them near a pooper-scooper to clean up after my pets.

I was being nitpicky though sorry not trying to crap on your idea.

What, no offense taken, just don't take offense at my retort.

The planet being as large as it is there are unknown quantities out there, and they already are keeping much of it out of circulation and shutting down mines due to wanting to keep the price high. But! I do think that this idea has some merit for one reason.

This would allow for one global currency (funny enough some people say Obama is trying to do this). That would allow (if the financial markets where able to still operate) for much better globalization.

Gold is the universal currency, but the issue isn't that Obama wants a global currency. The issue is that Obama wants a Global FIAT Currency. And actually the usage of gold as currency would not mandate a global currency. It would still be possible for different nations to say that such and such a weight of gold is our standard unit of measurement of gold, and is equal to so many grams, grains, or troy oz.

OH! Question not to derail a good thread, but wouldn't a universal earth government (I heard on the right wing radio going crazy over this) that they say Obama is all for be better for individual rights.

Has the adamantium walled city called Washington D.C. been content to leave its citizens well enough alone?

Then what makes you think that a global government would be?

Since it would be so far removed that micromanaging its 'people' would not be possible. Having one currency would be a step towards this with the way our society works. Similar to when the church was the main form of government (about 0 ad, to 1800bc). Just a thought.

See above, and actually the church was never the main form of government, it just had an extensive say in the governing of nations.

Actually the date range is more like 200 ad - 450 ad (End of the Empire) and then from 800 ad - 1,400 ad (beginning of the Enlightenment/Renaissance).

During the time period from 450 ad - 800 ad Europe was a chaotic realm that was busy taking on its current forms. The church may have had power in Rome and the major population areas, but it was still trying to make inroads in the pagan (rural) areas of Europe.

hanimmal · Jul 21, 2009

The end result was of course the formation of banking, but you're ignoring the point that I am making about the Fractional Reserve System. I have no problem with the act of lending and borrowing money at interest.

You got me there, I guess I am lost on what you mean and missed that part.

1. If you are not making the time or effort to learn how to determine what business is the best place to invest in, then you have no business investing.

If you are relying upon mutual funds you are being foolish and naive. While they routinely spit out great returns when they are first founded once they are opened to the public after they are too big to return 15+ % they rarely match the market.

There was a book I read and posted about a while ago, but I don't remember the post. Maybe I can find it and post a link to it. Really interesting book that kind of goes into the ins and outs of the problems with the mutual fund model.

Cool I love books! I usually trade myself (made a killing off the banks). But there is so much information most people won't have a clue or the time to research it properly.

And mutual funds hardly ever break the buck (go under $1 per $1 invested if anyone reading this is not quite sure what that means) even the ones in this little depression we just had hardly went under 90 cents per dollar. But nothing is perfect, we can only hope for the last best way to do things since something better should always be coming.

And you would put all your eggs in one basket? Before I sold all to focus on my dental work I probably had investments in 10 - 20 different companies ranging from Coca-Cola to W Holdings, Inc. (Bank Holding Company based in Puerto Rico.) Diversified portfolios offer greater protection, find the company with the killer app in its field (or a dominant market position) and invest, after making sure that it is soundly managed (and probably reading the recent annual reports (10-Ks).)

Nice work, and sorry about the dental work. The sticking point (that may get cleared up when you explain fractional banking to me) is that without the banks ability to move money or some middle businesses doing the same direct investing is hard to do unless you buy bonds directly, and even then most companies won't deal with the small amounts that the average person could spend while diversifying.

100 * 1,000 = 100,000 that's enough to open a restaurant
1,000 * 1,000 = 1,000,000 that's enough for a small machine shop
10,000 * 1,000 = 10,000,000 more advanced tool and die shop
100,000 * 1,000 = 100,000,000 small auto factory

What I never got is if the employees of GM were so pissed off about losing their jobs, why didn't they ban together, take $4,000 or $5,000 of their severance each, band together and attempt to buy the local factory and prove that it was inept management that was the cause of the downfall of GM, and not inept unionized employees. In Dayton alone that would have been a pool of $400 - $500 Million, probably enough to buy the Morraine Truck Assembly.

But in absence of a truely liquid financial market getting that many investors would be tough. But again I may be missing part of the equation.

And with the Auto workers, most hardly have high school diplomas and would fast go bankrupt. And even if a few engineers would join up the amount of money it would take to build on such a small scale would never allow them to compete with the large auto companies. But that being said it is a good idea that the unions tried to do by buying the bonds of the companies in order to have some power to negotiate (too bad they completely lost touch with reality the last couple decades and are now just draining the average workers).

No, it wouldn't, investment does not mean a seat on the board, or a voice in day to day operations of the company. In a stock company it just means a chance to vote for the people who will sit on the board, and oversee the general management of the corporation by electing the officers who will oversee the day to day management of the corporation.

And a lot of the tasks of keeping the books are automated or can be with a minimal amount of effort.

Good point.

Non-issue. If you chose to invest in PepsiCo or The Coca-Cola Company would you be worried about how they spent your money. They might end up spending your investment on taking their top sales reps on a vacation. While you might think it is wasteful, it is clear that the management (who you extended your trust to, by investing in that company) decided that the best way to look after the interest of the stockholders was looked after.

More important is the fact that it would not be required that you worry about watching where the money is spent, because while I want to limit regulation (and do away with some) there are other regulations, such as annual and quarterly reporting requirements on corporations, that I would not want to do away with.

If you can not spare the effort to read a 10-K and a 10-Q once every 3 - 4 months then you have no business investing in the first place. If you can not bother to idly monitor the news for what is going on with companies you own shares in, you have no business investing in the first place.

At the same time, it is definitely not something that is for the faint of heart that will cry at the first sign of a down turn and lock in their losses by selling.

I agree this is basically what my careers will be and even though it hurts my brain at times, I am fully in agreement with that. But this fractional thing is really hampering my ability to spar this, I feel like someone with a hand behind my back and am taking body shots.

Squirmish people suck when investing. And what really sucks is that they are usually scared off by the super funds manipulating the market with big coordinated sell offs only to buy when it drops.

Labor is interchangeable, training is the only requirement. Of course, thinking about it, I wouldn't trust the average college student near a computer, lawn-mower or any other electrical device. I might (if I'm feeling generous) trust them near a pooper-scooper to clean up after my pets.

You had to toss in "average" with college student, I would have had fun with that if you didn't. Maybe something about dental work from someone without a degree, but damn it you took it away!

Gold is the universal currency, but the issue isn't that Obama wants a global currency. The issue is that Obama wants a Global FIAT Currency. And actually the usage of gold as currency would not mandate a global currency. It would still be possible for different nations to say that such and such a weight of gold is our standard unit of measurement of gold, and is equal to so many grams, grains, or troy oz.

Damn now I have to research Fiat currency........

"Fiat money is money declared by a government to be legal tender.[1] The term derives from the Latin fiat, meaning "let it be done". Fiat money achieves value because a government accepts it in payment of taxes and says it can be used within the country as a "tender" (offering) to pay all debts. In effect, this allows it to be used to buy goods and services and to pay tax. Where fiat money is used as currency, the term fiat currency is used. The most widely-held reserve currency, the US dollar, is a fiat currency."

It looks like it is already the case then since the US dollar is the fiat currency.

Has the adamantium walled city called Washington D.C. been content to leave its citizens well enough alone?

Then what makes you think that a global government would be?

I think that it would be much worse if we were smaller though (especially population) but we may (and most likely)never know.

And in order to fit all the countries in the laws would have to encompass so many different beilefs that it would have to be more accomidating/hands off.

See above, and actually the church was never the main form of government, it just had an extensive say in the governing of nations.

Actually the date range is more like 200 ad - 450 ad (End of the Empire) and then from 800 ad - 1,400 ad (beginning of the Enlightenment/Renaissance).

During the time period from 450 ad - 800 ad Europe was a chaotic realm that was busy taking on its current forms. The church may have had power in Rome and the major population areas, but it was still trying to make inroads in the pagan (rural) areas of Europe.

I am kind of a non-religion kind of guy so I hope I don't offend with this but:

What do you call a institution that collect money from the people that come through its doors, gives them laws to follow (that if they don't they get punished for all eternity ((And no I don't mean listening to Glenn Beck or that chick that always chirps about missing children on .. Nancy Grace)), and they have someone watching over them all the time so they better not mess up or he will know.

Not to mention all the attempts to keep the power from slipping like declairing war on ............ We should make a religious thread that might provide an intense debate. (btw it was a crusades remark).

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 21, 2009

hanimmal said:
You got me there, I guess I am lost on what
you mean and missed that part.

Fractional Reserve banking is the system where banks, instead of being obligated to keep all their deposits on hand engage in the dishonest practice of keeping only a portion of their deposits on hand on the gamble that not every depositor will demand their deposits on the same day.

It's this practice that lead to the drastic ability of bank runs to be destructive.

Under a Full Reserve System the banks would be required to keep all their demand deposits on hand, and would likely insist on being paid a fee for the service of storing a customer's money.

Cool I love books! I usually trade myself (made a killing off the banks). But there is so much information most people won't have a clue or the time to research it properly.

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/175697-third-path.html

And mutual funds hardly ever break the buck (go under $1 per $1 invested if anyone reading this is not quite sure what that means) even the ones in this little depression we just had hardly went under 90 cents per dollar. But nothing is perfect, we can only hope for the last best way to do things since something better should always be coming.

The problem with mutual funds is that they are routinely negligent when it comes to pursuing their duties as good corporate citizens.

Nice work, and sorry about the dental work. The sticking point (that may get cleared up when you explain fractional banking to me) is that without the banks ability to move money or some middle businesses doing the same direct investing is hard to do unless you buy bonds directly, and even then most companies won't deal with the small amounts that the average person could spend while diversifying.

No need to apologize, 4 months and it'll be paid off, and then I'm going on vacation for Christmas, and then back to investing. Temporary set back, nothing more, nothing less.

But in absence of a truely liquid financial market getting that many investors would be tough. But again I may be missing part of the equation.

The markets would still be liquid, just it would enable individuals to personally sell stock issues in corporations they attempting to start. Yes, there are going to be bad bets, but there also going to be potential titans like RCA, Zenith, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, General Electric, and so on and so forth.

And the other advantage of turning the brokers loose to be more aggressive in their solicitation is it would likely increase the amount of money being saved and invested, because the brokers would likely be forced by competition to try getting the lower and working classes interested in investing again.

Yes, there is always the risk of a bubble, but if the brokers are required to disclose all the risks, and actually take the time to educate potential customers on all the risks that investing entails then the country will ultimately be a much better place with a much more fluid economic system.

And with the Auto workers, most hardly have high school diplomas and would fast go bankrupt. And even if a few engineers would join up the amount of money it would take to build on such a small scale would never allow them to compete with the large auto companies. But that being said it is a good idea that the unions tried to do by buying the bonds of the companies in order to have some power to negotiate (too bad they completely lost touch with reality the last couple decades and are now just draining the average workers).

Andrew Carnegie, no formal education, forged an industrial empire.
Of course, I suppose, I should state that he was probably a genius, but there is nothing that precludes a GM worker from also being of the same caliber as Andrew Carnegie.

Besides, running a small corporation is not that challenging, there is nothing more than remembering the same principles that allow for good personal finances. Sales - Costs = Profit (Salary - Costs = Net Income)

I am sure that given the proper prodding those GM Workers (assuming that they are not at fault for GM's failure) would have been able to compete effectively against their former employer, and produce high quality products.

:: shrugs ::

just my opinion though.

Good point.

Comes from being a software engineer, if I was going to start a business I would be busting my ass to organize a program to help me do my books how I want, instead of relying on the dumbed down accounting software that is available off the shelf.

I agree this is basically what my careers will be and even though it hurts my brain at times, I am fully in agreement with that. But this fractional thing is really hampering my ability to spar this, I feel like someone with a hand behind my back and am taking body shots.

Lol, sorry, though the first part of this post does address Fractional Reserve vs Full Reserve Banking.

Squirmish people suck when investing. And what really sucks is that they are usually scared off by the super funds manipulating the market with big coordinated sell offs only to buy when it drops.

Buy low and sell high is a sucker's game. No one can compete with the automated software that they have on the trading desks of the big brokerages, except a person that has the money to get the real time quotes delivered to them, and the money to be able to submit their own bid and asks and take advantage of the float between bid and ask prices.

You had to toss in "average" with college student, I would have had fun with that if you didn't. Maybe something about dental work from someone without a degree, but damn it you took it away!

Damn now I have to research Fiat currency........

"Fiat money is money declared by a government to be legal tender.[1] The term derives from the Latin fiat, meaning "let it be done". Fiat money achieves value because a government accepts it in payment of taxes and says it can be used within the country as a "tender" (offering) to pay all debts. In effect, this allows it to be used to buy goods and services and to pay tax. Where fiat money is used as currency, the term fiat currency is used. The most widely-held reserve currency, the US dollar, is a fiat currency."

It looks like it is already the case then since the US dollar is the fiat currency.

Yeah, actually the US Dollar wasn't a fiat currency until dollar-gold redeemability was ended and its value was no longer tied to the value of a real commodity.

I think that it would be much worse if we were smaller though (especially population) but we may (and most likely)never know.

Yes, inflation would suck a lot more with fewer people.

And in order to fit all the countries in the laws would have to encompass so many different beilefs that it would have to be more accomidating/hands off.

Not really, a lot of beliefs are pretty consistent with each other. Judeo-Christianity do not really differ from Islam (there's 1/3rd the global population right there.)

Another 3/12ths with Confucianism/Buddhism (including Shinto)

Another 1/6th with Hindu

And most of them are pretty similar, except in a few details

Polytheism vs Monotheism
Cows being Sacred vs Cows being Food
Pigs being Kosher vs Pigs not being Kosher

Besides, with the differences between standards of living in the Developed World, Developing World and Undeveloped World, you are not likely to see a global government that is truly capable of ruling in a fair and just manner.

I am kind of a non-religion kind of guy so I hope I don't offend with this but:

What do you call a institution that collect money from the people that come through its doors, gives them laws to follow (that if they don't they get punished for all eternity ((And no I don't mean listening to Glenn Beck or that chick that always chirps about missing children on .. Nancy Grace)), and they have someone watching over them all the time so they better not mess up or he will know.

Well, seeing as how there is no proof that God does or does not exist I am actually at a loss, but I would actually call that a Socialist Tyranny.

Big Brother is WATCHING You, you, and you (and even YOU!)

Not to mention all the attempts to keep the power from slipping like declairing war on ............ We should make a religious thread that might provide an intense debate. (btw it was a crusades remark).

Eh, You have to remember that it was the Muslims that attacked the Byzantine Empire first, and then continued through to threaten Austria-Hungary and even Spain, Sicily, Macedonia, and the list of minor powers with strong ties to the church continues.

Do I think religion is a viable excuse for starting a war. Not so much, but if some group is attempting for forceably convert the world through conquest than people have a right to defend themselves. Organized Religion has done bad things, but it also routinely does good things.

what... huh? · Jul 22, 2009

TheBrutalTruth said:
Organized Religion has done bad things, but it also routinely does good things.

So you believe it is a wash...

What good thing would you say accounts for the Spanish inquisition, or the holocaust?

On gold... gold is no different than the arbitrary measure applied to the dollar. Its intrinsic values (as a conductor for instance) have very little use to the common person.

Gold was also once rare, which gave it more false value. Now I don't know many people who don't have some... and some have a lot. If the shit ever really hits the fan, what gives anyone the belief that this shiny yellow mineral is going to hold value, especially considering it's weight/transportation difficulties.

Food is money. Horde food. Grow food. Have means to defend yourself, your family and your money... which is food. The gold and diamond markets are stockpiled, withheld, and manipulated. There is nothing inherently valuable about either to you or I.

If we enter a depression equal to or worse than before, you sit on your gold... it won't buy my food.

hanimmal · Jul 22, 2009

Fractional Reserve banking is the system where banks, instead of being obligated to keep all their deposits on hand engage in the dishonest practice of keeping only a portion of their deposits on hand on the gamble that not every depositor will demand their deposits on the same day.

It's this practice that lead to the drastic ability of bank runs to be destructive.

Under a Full Reserve System the banks would be required to keep all their demand deposits on hand, and would likely insist on being paid a fee for the service of storing a customer's money.

I get it so instead of just holding the 10% they would hold say 50%.

The one thing with that (which long term might not be a horrible thing to slow growth) would be that it would shrink our economy by about ...... the number looks rediculous I won't even bother putting it down, but a lot. Since the average lent dollar by banks gets circulated approx. 12 times.

But again we get back to our central dissent of views: you tend to trust the people and have their mistakes and gains be on them, I would rather trust in the fact that peoples greed will always screw things up so better to calculate what that greed will do and set things up with within that context.

The markets would still be liquid, just it would enable individuals to personally sell stock issues in corporations they attempting to start. Yes, there are going to be bad bets, but there also going to be potential titans like RCA, Zenith, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, General Electric, and so on and so forth.

And the other advantage of turning the brokers loose to be more aggressive in their solicitation is it would likely increase the amount of money being saved and invested, because the brokers would likely be forced by competition to try getting the lower and working classes interested in investing again.

Yes, there is always the risk of a bubble, but if the brokers are required to disclose all the risks, and actually take the time to educate potential customers on all the risks that investing entails then the country will ultimately be a much better place with a much more fluid economic system.

I like it in a vacuum. But in reality the brokers would eventually go the way of quickloans and develope ways to sell everyone under the sun things they don't/can't understand, like the suprime mess. If you have not seen it I really reommend watching the film maxed out. It is a seudo documentary but does show the insanity/inhumanity of the banks.

Andrew Carnegie, no formal education, forged an industrial empire.
Of course, I suppose, I should state that he was probably a genius, but there is nothing that precludes a GM worker from also being of the same caliber as Andrew Carnegie.

Besides, running a small corporation is not that challenging, there is nothing more than remembering the same principles that allow for good personal finances. Sales - Costs = Profit (Salary - Costs = Net Income)

I am sure that given the proper prodding those GM Workers (assuming that they are not at fault for GM's failure) would have been able to compete effectively against their former employer, and produce high quality products.

:: shrugs ::

just my opinion though.

I think that the auto workers did go a long way in hurting the industry. I happen to have lived in Michigan for a while and know a lot of them. They would tell me stories of bathroom coke parties, breaking things on the line to get the day off ect. What started out and really helped out our country (unions) early on when we needed more job protection has definantly turned into a monster of a mess.

The big issue though I have with it is that they would never be able to compete with price. And would go bankrupt period. They would have to make a awesome high end car to even touch the manufacturing costs they would have. But then who would they sell too.

Yeah, actually the US Dollar wasn't a fiat currency until dollar-gold redeemability was ended and its value was no longer tied to the value of a real commodity.

So are these people just trying to stir up all these scary emotions by saying Obama wants to do this, when in reality it has already been done for about 60 years?

Not really, a lot of beliefs are pretty consistent with each other. Judeo-Christianity do not really differ from Islam (there's 1/3rd the global population right there.)

Another 3/12ths with Confucianism/Buddhism (including Shinto)

Another 1/6th with Hindu

And most of them are pretty similar, except in a few details

Polytheism vs Monotheism
Cows being Sacred vs Cows being Food
Pigs being Kosher vs Pigs not being Kosher

Besides, with the differences between standards of living in the Developed World, Developing World and Undeveloped World, you are not likely to see a global government that is truly capable of ruling in a fair and just manner.

And I think that is why it would have a better chance of working. To work on such a large scale you would have to worry about the large things that you could manage like corporations, banks, ect. And leave the small stuff on the will of the people like how to act. It would eliminate most the need for armies since there would be a place to take disagreements as opposed to now, who can tell us not to do something. And seriously someone should be able to without starting a war.

And instead of telling countries they cannot leave the union (aka a few people trying to score votes in texas and alaska come to mind, if not the civil war) just let them and they no longer are under the protection or financial structure of the global government, and free to do what they want if the citizens vote for it.

I would use the analogy of a small school vs medium school, vs huge school.
Small: Principal and teachers are able to talk one on one with students to hear their issues and reason with them to do the right thing.
Medium: Small enough to be able to know the trouble makers too big to do anything about it before it happens so they just use tyranny and punishment on them.
Large: If it isn't a shooting or a fire I will deal with it when someone brings it to my attention.

Well, seeing as how there is no proof that God does or does not exist I am actually at a loss, but I would actually call that a Socialist Tyranny.

Big Brother is WATCHING You, you, and you (and even YOU!)

I call it ever sunday growing up! But there is room for god in science, I just get bummed that there is not much room for science in most peoples veiws on god.

And I do think that religion has been very good for our society as a whole through the last few thousand years. All the laws (shouldn't kill, steal, covet they neighbor stuff) is the essentials to the constitution (Life liberty, property). And without it we would have most likely driffted along continuing to kill each other off until we figured it out. It is so hard to get who killed who first in the ancient holy wars in the name of peace and godliness.

what... huh? · Jul 22, 2009

hanimmal said:
And I do think that religion has been very good for our society as a whole through the last few thousand years. All the laws (shouldn't kill, steal, covet they neighbor stuff) is the essentials to the constitution (Life liberty, property). And without it we would have most likely driffted along continuing to kill each other off until we figured it out. It is so hard to get who killed who first in the ancient holy wars in the name of peace and godliness.

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that these are the tenants of empathy, which is why they seem to make so much sense as law, biblical or otherwise?

You assume these tenants come from the bible, as it (Torah really) is one of the earliest recorded examples of this intuitive behavioral guideline. It makes sense to us, as certainly a divine rule should. However I am without God, and I subscribe to these tenants not out of fear of legal recourse, but because I am rational.

God speaks to equal treatment, and also how you should treat your slaves.

Christianity in particular has a way of adopting and incorporating heathen rituals and rules in order to embolden and make easier a change of dogma which supports itself. God is not required for empathy or compassion. Reason is. Empathy existed before the 10 commandments, it just wasn't in authoritarian practice. God did not give us these rules, we gave them to God.

What has religion done which even begins to make up for its harm? You don't have to hold yourself to the last millennium.

hanimmal · Jul 22, 2009

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that these are the tenants of empathy, which is why they seem to make so much sense as law, biblical or otherwise?

Um.. Not sure where this came from, but I guess if it is a question, the answer is "yes I have". We all seem to have some sort of ethical compass although not everyones is the same I think that the majority feels the same way about the 'major' ones and that is why we could agree on something like that for so long.

And also why the general concenus is that if we place thing down with the power of written word it will make us feel better about forcing those beliefs on others that don't feel the same way.

hat has religion done which even begins to make up for its harm? You don't have to hold yourself to the last millennium.

Basically helped give us a guideline that allowed us to set up large groups of people without going crazy on eachother (due to eventual disagreements that always arise). Provided food and shelter for millions of people, opened schools (which ironically they eventually became scared of the best minds and worked to stiffle them), became an outlet for some of the best artists to do wonderful works, basically helped bring about modern society through a cohesive unity of centeralized law.

And now I feel that we have evolved past needing them as a whole. Not that everyone is there yet, but we are moving into the next 'phase' of our evolution I feel where we hopefully can put all the violence behind us even if it is a few hundred years away, we are on the right track.

what... huh? · Jul 22, 2009

hanimmal said:
Basically helped give us a guideline that allowed us to set up large groups of people without going crazy on eachother (due to eventual disagreements that always arise). Provided food and shelter for millions of people, opened schools (which ironically they eventually became scared of the best minds and worked to stiffle them), became an outlet for some of the best artists to do wonderful works, basically helped bring about modern society through a cohesive unity of centeralized law.

And now I feel that we have evolved past needing them as a whole. Not that everyone is there yet, but we are moving into the next 'phase' of our evolution I feel where we hopefully can put all the violence behind us even if it is a few hundred years away, we are on the right track.

I would argue that law is more important than God... and that this guidance came from higher reasoning, and religion was the tool of the time to control the masses... and generally a bad idea. Law works better.

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 22, 2009

what... huh? said:
So you believe it is a wash...

What good thing would you say accounts for the Spanish inquisition, or the holocaust?

On gold... gold is no different than the arbitrary measure applied to the dollar. Its intrinsic values (as a conductor for instance) have very little use to the common person.

Gold was also once rare, which gave it more false value. Now I don't know many people who don't have some... and some have a lot. If the shit ever really hits the fan, what gives anyone the belief that this shiny yellow mineral is going to hold value, especially considering it's weight/transportation difficulties.

Food is money. Horde food. Grow food. Have means to defend yourself, your family and your money... which is food. The gold and diamond markets are stockpiled, withheld, and manipulated. There is nothing inherently valuable about either to you or I.

If we enter a depression equal to or worse than before, you sit on your gold... it won't buy my food.

No, I believe on the whole religion has done more good than harm.

I also believe you are a dumb ass that can't add 1 + 1, based on the fact that you are trying to blame the Church for the deranged actions of a Socialist Lunatic named Hitler.

My advice?

Go read a few books about World War II, and the Weimar Republic.

and stop being such an ignorant bigot.

Now, if you don't mind, I'll return to the mature conversation I was having, instead of dealing with your infantile verbal flailing.

what... huh? · Jul 22, 2009

TheBrutalTruth said:
No, I believe on the whole religion has done more good than harm.

I also believe you are a dumb ass that can't add 1 + 1, based on the fact that you are trying to blame the Church for the deranged actions of a Socialist Lunatic named Hitler.

My advice?

Go read a few books about World War II, and the Weimar Republic.

and stop being such an ignorant bigot.

Now, if you don't mind, I'll return to the mature conversation I was having, instead of dealing with your infantile verbal flailing.

So, in my ignorant opinion, I believe that acts perpetrated in the name of God denotes something negative to it's devotees.

I didn't realize it was a single socialist which perpetrated the holocaust. I believe it was a country... a few of them as memory serves.

I also remember us not entering that war when it started... nor when our allies asked our assistance. Nor do I remember our attitudes being very positive in this country about Jews. Perhaps I need a refresher, because I felt that it was not a moral imperative which forced us to war, but one which didn't. I guess I see subtlety, where you see a single person as responsible.

Jewish, by the way, is not a race... it is a religion. It was not a holocaust to Semites, descendants of Shem... but to Jews. *And a lot of gypsies too... but we don't erect memorials to them... do we? Why is that? Maybe because outside of Hollywood, nobody has a particularly romantic notion of the Gypsy culture. We, and I don' mean Americans only here, because largely we don't have to deal with them, I mean we as a world culture largely ignore that horror, save a whisper in history. We (as Americans) felt the same way about Jews at the time. At least that was what I had learned. It was my understanding that this was largely due to religious differences.

I guess it is my ignorance which associates a religion with the nations which perpetrated and were complicit with an eradication of the people of a specific religion.

I am lazy you see, and thought I already had done some research, so by all means...

Enlighten me.

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 22, 2009

hanimmal said:
I get it so instead of just holding the 10% they would hold say 50%.

I was thinking more like 100%.

The problem with the current fractional reserve system is going to take a bit of effort to explain.

Let's say you have a $1,000,000 that you deposit into the bank.

The bank, under a 10% reserve requirement can turn around and loan out $900,000 of that, and keep $100,000 on reserve.

However the $900,000 will likely find its way back into deposits, and thus the bank now has $1.9 Million in Liabilities (Deposits), $1 Million in assets and $1 Million in reserves.

With the 10% of the $1 Million tied to the original deposit, the bank can then tie another 90K to the $900,000 loan deposit and loan out another $810,000.

It is then allowed to repeat this cycle until it either hits a bottom of how much it wants to lend, or the amount available for lending is less than how much a customer wants (who really wants to borrow less than $50?)

At the end of all this mumbo jumbo the bank will have $10 Million in deposits (liabilities), a drastically higher amount in loans, and zero dollars is excess reserves (while having ~$1 Million in required reserves.)

The one thing with that (which long term might not be a horrible thing to slow growth) would be that it would shrink our economy by about ...... the number looks rediculous I won't even bother putting it down, but a lot. Since the average lent dollar by banks gets circulated approx. 12 times.

Actually it's probably a lot less than that. I don't think a dollar can circulate more than 5 times before being taxed out of existence.

But again we get back to our central dissent of views: you tend to trust the people and have their mistakes and gains be on them, I would rather trust in the fact that peoples greed will always screw things up so better to calculate what that greed will do and set things up with within that context.

Depends on how you define greed. You see, I don't think it can be applied to businessmen, because they provide a service or good that people want, and just make a small profit on it. It takes volume for them to actually make large profits.

On the other hand, supporters of the welfare state that are part of the welfare class are greedy. They want to take other people's money with out providing any kind of contribution to society. That, imo, is greed.

I like it in a vacuum. But in reality the brokers would eventually go the way of quickloans and develope ways to sell everyone under the sun things they don't/can't understand, like the suprime mess. If you have not seen it I really reommend watching the film maxed out. It is a seudo documentary but does show the insanity/inhumanity of the banks.

Pseudo-Documentary, you mean like Moore's shit?

Besides, if it has a biased view point to begin with I'm not interested. If the imbecile that filmed it is interjecting their opinions into the film, I'm not interested. Get some one that is unbiased and has nothing to gain (whether it be money, or ego-gratification) for portraying banks one way or the other to make a documentary and I might be interested in the results.

The claims that banks are sociopathic fails when one considers the fact that they provide a service of loaning money. If they do not make sure they get their money back, and are paid, then they will not be able to continue to remain in business and thus everyone loses their services.

I would actually say that the person that made the documentary probably doesn't understand economics, and is probably a sociopath that can not understand why they are not capable of functioning in society.

Even the title makes the person behind it sound retarded, Maxed Out? Any one with the least amount of common sense can understand that being a position where all of one's credit reserves are tapped out is a stupid position to be in. Any one that can't understand that, needs either a few quick lessons in economics, or for some one to knock some sense into their thick skulls.

I think that the auto workers did go a long way in hurting the industry. I happen to have lived in Michigan for a while and know a lot of them. They would tell me stories of bathroom coke parties, breaking things on the line to get the day off ect. What started out and really helped out our country (unions) early on when we needed more job protection has definantly turned into a monster of a mess.

The big issue though I have with it is that they would never be able to compete with price. And would go bankrupt period. They would have to make a awesome high end car to even touch the manufacturing costs they would have. But then who would they sell too.

Not always necessary to compete on price, and if they didn't have the legacy costs that GM has, and that THM (Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi) are acquiring then it is quite possible they could compete successfully on price.

So are these people just trying to stir up all these scary emotions by saying Obama wants to do this, when in reality it has already been done for about 60 years?

I believe you referring to global currency. No, the problem is the Obama's plans revolve around forcing a global currency upon us, instead of allowing the global market to switch to gold. Such a change is just as bad as the government using legal tender laws to force everyone to take paper money regardless of their wishes, or using the force of law to extort everyone's gold.

And I think that is why it would have a better chance of working. To work on such a large scale you would have to worry about the large things that you could manage like corporations, banks, ect. And leave the small stuff on the will of the people like how to act. It would eliminate most the need for armies since there would be a place to take disagreements as opposed to now, who can tell us not to do something. And seriously someone should be able to without starting a war.

Most corporations don't need more than local supervision, and besides, the farther away from the people the bureaucracy is the greater the chances of it being corrupted by interests that pretend to represent what people want.

Besides, the current problem with our political system is an amazing lack of representation due to too few representatives in the House.

And instead of telling countries they cannot leave the union (aka a few people trying to score votes in texas and alaska come to mind, if not the civil war) just let them and they no longer are under the protection or financial structure of the global government, and free to do what they want if the citizens vote for it.

You're assuming that the government would ever allow such a thing to happen. History clearly demonstrates that tyrants (whether they be elected or hereditary) will always be tyrants.

I would use the analogy of a small school vs medium school, vs huge school.
Small: Principal and teachers are able to talk one on one with students to hear their issues and reason with them to do the right thing.
Medium: Small enough to be able to know the trouble makers too big to do anything about it before it happens so they just use tyranny and punishment on them.
Large: If it isn't a shooting or a fire I will deal with it when someone brings it to my attention.

Bad analogy, a better analogy would be that of a small city, medium sized city and a large city.

I call it ever sunday growing up! But there is room for god in science, I just get bummed that there is not much room for science in most peoples veiws on god.

Eh, dumb asses and fanatics everywhere, what can you do about it?

And I do think that religion has been very good for our society as a whole through the last few thousand years. All the laws (shouldn't kill, steal, covet they neighbor stuff) is the essentials to the constitution (Life liberty, property).

Well, I would definitely say that the founding fathers based a lot of what they placed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution on religion, or their views of religion.

Such as the need for men to be self-governing and self-responsible and for government to not interfere in their lives. They also (Jefferson, Franklin, one of the Adams) were abolitionists that viewed slavery as an immoral institution. Doesn't necessarily mean that Jefferson didn't practice it, but part of his decision was the fact that had he manumitted his slaves they would have had to leave Virginia, because Virginia at the time didn't allow freed blacks to continue to reside in the state.

The views on man being created with inalienable rights by their creator (Life, Liberty and Property) was definitely based on religion.

Makes me wonder if the reason why some of the power-mongerers out there are so full of hatred for religion is because it teaches that man should be free, and that he is endowed with those inalienable rights.

And without it we would have most likely driffted along continuing to kill each other off until we figured it out.

Code of Hammurabi, it wasn't really religion that came up with the strictures against Murder, Theft, Rape, and Faulty Workmanship, but Religion certainly did play a large role in ensuring that society formed around those principles and continued to uphold them.

It is so hard to get who killed who first in the ancient holy wars in the name of peace and godliness.

Not really, the muslims killed "heathens" in the Middle East first under the guide of their pedophilic "prophet."

what... huh? · Jul 22, 2009

I guess that was easier.

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 22, 2009

what... huh? said:
So, in my ignorant opinion, I believe that acts perpetrated in the name of God denotes something negative to it's devotees.

I didn't realize it was a single socialist which perpetrated the holocaust. I believe it was a country... a few of them as memory serves.

One socialist, or many socialists, it was all built around a cult of personality surrounding the one that encouraged the many to do so. It was the scapegoating of the Jews by Hitler in his speaches that led to the Holocaust.

I also remember us not entering that war when it started... nor when our allies asked our assistance.

Like I said, go read some more.

While we didn't get involved right away, it was because there was no war immediately after Hitler came to power. It wasn't until 1939 that Britain and France stopped trying to appease Hitler's National Socialist Germany.

It also isn't the duty of the United States to go off and interfere in the politics of other nations (despite recent beliefs to the otherwise.) It wasn't until Pearl Harbor that we could justify getting involved, because at that point it stopped being a foreign war, and became one that involved us.

Nor do I remember our attitudes being very positive in this country about Jews.

Why are we talking about the Jewish? Or the past even, attitudes change, well except that of bigots. You have clearly made up your mind about religion, and I'm not going to waste my time, or your time trying to explain to you why your views are just as bigoted as any other bigots.

Perhaps I need a refresher, because I felt that it was not a moral imperative which forced us to war, but one which didn't.

Moral imperatives do not make good policy, they are the tools of tyrants and would be tyrants. It wasn't until Japan attacked us (possibly provoked into by FDR) and Germany declared war on us that we got involved. Attacking other nations with out provocation regardless of what they are doing is immoral.

I guess I see subtlety, where you see a single person as responsible.

I already answered this...

Jewish, by the way, is not a race... it is a religion.

The Jewish are actually a people that practice Judaism. Your statement demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the Jewish. They are a people that share a common religion, but even before then they were a people.

If they were not a people, it would have been impossible for them to retain an identity inside Egypt during their enslavement by the pharaohs. Judaism didn't make the Jewish, Jewish. The Jewish were Jewish before Judaism, just they named their religion for themselves.

It was not a holocaust to Semites, descendants of Shem...

Your confusing pre-exodus with exodus and post-exodus. The Semites were before the Jewish were Jewish (practitioners of Judaism) not after.

but to Jews. *And a lot of gypsies too... but we don't erect memorials to them... do we? Why is that? Maybe because outside of Hollywood, nobody has a particularly romantic notion of the Gypsy culture.

Well clearly if there was even a romantic notion of Gypsy culture in Hollywood there would be movies about it. The United States however does not have much experience with Gypsies. That doesn't mean that everyone doesn't realize that the Holocaust wasn't limited to just the Jewish.

But if you are going to speak of excluding individuals, don't neglect to mention the handicapped (mentally and physically) and homosexuals that were thrown in the concentration camps, nor the Belorussian POWs that were forced into the concentration camps.

We, and I don' mean Americans only here, because largely we don't have to deal with them, I mean we as a world culture largely ignore that horror, save a whisper in history. We (as Americans) felt the same way about Jews at the time. At least that was what I had learned. It was my understanding that this was largely due to religious differences.

Like I said, infantile flailing.

You are assuming that the United States was a hegemenous nation. We were not, there was a large minority that were German, Italian and Japan, who clearly could not be expected to turn against Germany, Italy and Japan, and were thus horded off to internment camps for their ethnicity.

I guess it is my ignorance which associates a religion with the nations which perpetrated and were complicit with an eradication of the people of a specific religion.

Hitler also persecuted Christians and attempted to eradicate Christianity.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id2.html

"...under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists. As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler, said publicly in 1941, 'National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.'

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Nazism

Hitler and the Nazis enjoyed widespread support from traditional Christian communities, mainly due to a common cause against the anti-religious German Bolsheviks. Once in power, the Nazis moved to consolidate their power over the German churches and bring them in line with Nazi ideals. The Third Reich founded their own version of Christianity called Positive Christianity which made major changes in its interpretation of the Bible which said that Jesus Christ was the son of God, but was not a Jew and claimed that Christ despised Jews, and that the Jews were the ones solely responsible for Christ's death. Thus, the Nazi government consolidated religious power, using allies to consolidate Protestant churches into the Protestant Reich Church, which was effectively an arm of the Nazi Party.
Dissenting Christians went underground and formed the Confessing Church, which was persecuted as a subversive group by the Nazi government. Many of its leaders were arrested and sent to concentration camps, and left the underground mostly leaderless. Church members continued to engage in various forms of resistance, including hiding Jews during the Holocaust and various attempts, largely unsuccessful, to prod the Christian community to speak out on the part of the Jews.
The Catholic Church was particularly suppressed in Poland because of the Church's opposition to many of Nazi Party's beliefs. Between 1939 and 1945, an estimated 3,000 members, 18% of the Polish clergy[127], were murdered; of these, 1,992 died in concentration camps. In the annexed territory of Reichsgau Wartheland it was even harsher than elsewhere. Churches were systematically closed, and most priests were either killed, imprisoned, or deported to the General Government. The Germans also closed seminaries and convents persecuting monks and nuns throughout Poland. In Pomerania, all but 20 of the 650 priests were shot or sent to concentration camps. Eighty percent of the Catholic clergy and five of the bishops of Warthegau were sent to concentration camps in 1939; in the city of Wrocław (Breslau), 49% of its Catholic priests were killed; in Chełmno, 48%. One hundred eight of them are regarded as blessed martyrs.[127] Among them, Maximilian Kolbe was canonized as a saint.
Protestants in Poland did not fare well either. In the Cieszyn region of Silesia every single Protestant clergy was arrested and deported to the death camps.[127]
Not only were Polish Christians persecuted by the Nazis, in the Dachau concentration camp alone, 2,600 Catholic priests from 24 different countries were killed.[127]
Outside mainstream Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses were direct targets of the Holocaust, for their refusal to swear allegiance to the Nazi government. Many Jehovah's Witnesses were given the chance to deny their faith and swear allegiance to the state, but few agreed. Over 12,000 Witnesses were sent to the concentration camps, and estimated 2,500-5,000 died in the Holocaust.

Click to expand...

Hitler was clearly using the existence of Christianity to further his own goals, and to corrupt its churches.

I am lazy you see, and thought I already had done some research, so by all means...

Enlighten me.

Enlighten yourself, I refuse to slave further for your benefit.

Why Gold?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member