C-Span sucks community > Social Security, Medicare and Aging

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 2 2005, 06:51 PM

QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Mar 2 2005, 11:41 AM)

Bull poop.

I have engaged in discussion of all proposals, including those put forth by folks here. You're literally lying.
[right][snapback]59579[/snapback][/right]

You've taken apart a lot of people's programs and made your own tax increase proposal. Mostly it's just bitching about the Bush plan, which isn't barely more than a vague proposal at this point.

Grigorii

Mar 2 2005, 06:52 PM

QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Mar 2 2005, 12:43 PM)

I think the Bushista have erred by emphasizing their hype and lies. Everyone can think of a con scheme they’ve heard of which begins with a financial flim-flam. Tends to make peoples wary, all that BS.
[right][snapback]59581[/snapback][/right]

They're like a convention of aluminum siding and used car salesmen rolled into one, just better suits and excepting GW, grammar.

SpaceCowboy

Mar 2 2005, 06:56 PM

QUOTE(Art Vandelay @ Mar 2 2005, 01:46 PM)

Whatever that means. The SS program is full of hype and lies. The rest of your political statement makes very little sense.
[right][snapback]59582[/snapback][/right]

Thank you for your critique.

Permit me to express my satisfaction with my statement as written.

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 2 2005, 07:01 PM

QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Mar 2 2005, 11:53 AM)

Thank you for your critique.

Permit me to express my satisfaction with my statement as written.
[right][snapback]59587[/snapback][/right]

As an ex-businessman/flimflammer I suppose you'd recognize a scam when you see it.

SpaceCowboy

Mar 2 2005, 07:03 PM

QUOTE(Art Vandelay @ Mar 2 2005, 01:58 PM)

As an ex-businessman/flimflammer I suppose you'd recognize a scam when you see it.
[right][snapback]59589[/snapback][/right]

Correct.

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 2 2005, 07:05 PM

QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Mar 2 2005, 12:00 PM)

Correct.
[right][snapback]59590[/snapback][/right]

How did you get out without getting caught, and when can we expect the government to take everything over so we can have total honesty?

Grigorii

Mar 2 2005, 07:11 PM

QUOTE(Art Vandelay @ Mar 2 2005, 01:02 PM)

...and when can we expect the government to take everything over so we can have total honesty?
[right][snapback]59591[/snapback][/right]

Talk about a loaded script....you figure that the only options?

SpaceCowboy

Mar 2 2005, 07:18 PM

QUOTE(Art Vandelay @ Mar 2 2005, 02:02 PM)

How did you get out without getting caught
[right][snapback]59591[/snapback][/right]

Clean hands and courage.

Plus a little help from the good Lord.

QUOTE

, and when can we expect the government to take everything over so we can have total honesty?

The usual bull poopy.

Grigorii

Mar 2 2005, 07:20 PM

QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Mar 2 2005, 01:15 PM)

Clean hands and courage.

Plus a little help from the good Lord.
The usual bull poopy.
[right][snapback]59594[/snapback][/right]

Hard to hold firm against peer pressure

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 2 2005, 07:24 PM

QUOTE(Grigorii @ Mar 2 2005, 12:08 PM)

Talk about a loaded script....you figure that the only options?
[right][snapback]59592[/snapback][/right]

Loaded script? Now that's a first around here. Or is anything but the raise taxes and retirement age option off the table around here?

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 2 2005, 07:28 PM

QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Mar 2 2005, 12:15 PM)

The usual bull poopy.
[right][snapback]59594[/snapback][/right]

Well just being against business and private ownership leaves very few other options. You used to have some viable points that were fairly sensible, now it's turned into the same political rants that have little to do with anything but Bush. Which around here has become the usual bull doody.

SpaceCowboy

Mar 2 2005, 07:31 PM

QUOTE(Art Vandelay @ Mar 2 2005, 02:25 PM)

Well just being against business and private ownership leaves very few other options. You used to have some viable points that were fairly sensible, now it's turned into the same political rants that have little to do with anything but Bush. Which around here has become the usual bull doody.
[right][snapback]59597[/snapback][/right]

I have been quite willing to discuss this seriously, and have done so on several occasions. I am not against business and private ownership. It is the system that I revere, and which I seek to protect.

SpaceCowboy

Mar 2 2005, 07:53 PM

I never saw the need to cheat in the financial services industry.

As I saw it, it was a rare privilege to be in a position where other people gave you their money in trust to let you earn what you could with it and return it when you were done.

It was a fiduciary responsibility, awarded to those who held themselves out to be worthy of public trust. We consistently made 15-20% return on our equity investment year in and year out with prudent management.

Plus that, it’s easy money, with no heavy lifting.

Nobody with honor would cheat on such an easy test.

That was before the greed is good crowd hit in the eighties.

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 2 2005, 07:56 PM

QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Mar 2 2005, 12:50 PM)

That was before the greed is good crowd hit in the eighties.
[right][snapback]59605[/snapback][/right]

So it was the Republican's fault? Somehow I could have guessed.

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 2 2005, 07:58 PM

I think the 'greed is good crowd" was born in the media (dem party) on the day Reagan was inaugurated.

SpaceCowboy

Mar 2 2005, 08:02 PM

QUOTE(Art Vandelay @ Mar 2 2005, 02:53 PM)

So it was the Republican's fault? Somehow I could have guessed.
[right][snapback]59610[/snapback][/right]

You are talking politics and Republicans. I'm talking about Wall Street in the eighties, by my personal observation.

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 2 2005, 08:12 PM

QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Mar 2 2005, 12:59 PM)

You are talking politics and Republicans. I'm talking about Wall Street in the eighties, by my personal observation.
[right][snapback]59614[/snapback][/right]

So what changed, and why? Did it change back in the 90s?

I'm sorry, it looks all to much like some sort of "back in my day" sort of thing that drives kids nuts. And my bet is that if Reagan had only won a single term wouldn't be talking about a "decade of greed". Maybe a half decade.

" Back in my day we only took reasonable profits, and liked paying taxes, and we only bought the small Beamer because we really cared about the environment"

lil bart

Mar 2 2005, 08:14 PM

QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Mar 2 2005, 10:34 AM)

Right, let's not concentrate on the changes that are needed. Let us simply demagogue the issue and equate OUR favorite changes to 'needed changes' and beat the crappe out of everyone who has the audacity to criticize our favorite changes.
[right][snapback]59576[/snapback][/right]

Phrase of ~~the~~ almost every day: "Let us simply demagogue the issue."

QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Mar 2 2005, 10:43 AM)

I think the Bushista have erred by emphasizing their hype and lies. Everyone can think of a con scheme they’ve heard of which begins with a financial flim-flam. Tends to make peoples wary, all that BS.
[right][snapback]59581[/snapback][/right]

Don't go cheerin' me up fer nuthin'.

QUOTE(Grigorii @ Mar 2 2005, 10:49 AM)

They're like a convention of aluminum siding and used car salesmen rolled into one, just better suits and excepting GW, grammar.
[right][snapback]59584[/snapback][/right]

I hate to think of Coconut missing these dry ices.

QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Mar 2 2005, 11:15 AM)

Clean hands and courage.

Plus a little help from the good Lord.
<snip>
[right][snapback]59594[/snapback][/right]

Our hero.

QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Mar 2 2005, 11:50 AM)

I never saw the need to cheat in the financial services industry.

As I saw it, it was a rare privilege to be in a position where other people gave you their money in trust to let you earn what you could with it and return it when you were done.

It was a fiduciary responsibility, awarded to those who held themselves out to be worthy of public trust. We consistently made 15-20% return on our equity investment year in and year out with prudent management.

Plus that, it’s easy money, with no heavy lifting.

Nobody with honor would cheat on such an easy test.

That was before the greed is good crowd hit in the eighties.
[right][snapback]59605[/snapback][/right]

So it's too late to send you the cash under my mattress for safekeeping & better earning?

SpaceCowboy

Mar 2 2005, 08:17 PM

QUOTE(Art Vandelay @ Mar 2 2005, 03:09 PM)

So what changed, and why? Did it change back in the 90s?

I'm sorry, it looks all to much like some sort of "back in my day" sort of thing that drives kids nuts. And my bet is that if Reagan had only won a single term wouldn't be talking about a "decade of greed". Maybe a half decade.

" Back in my day we only took reasonable profits, and liked paying taxes, and we only bought the small Beamer because we really cared about the environment"
[right][snapback]59617[/snapback][/right]

No, silly.

We avoided the big Beamers because they were ostentatious.

lil bart

Mar 2 2005, 08:18 PM

QUOTE(Art Vandelay @ Mar 2 2005, 11:55 AM)

I think the 'greed is good crowd" was born in the media (dem party) on the day Reagan was inaugurated.
[right][snapback]59611[/snapback][/right]

I not only distinctly remember, but I used to clip and save, the articles in the press about the Christian sects who were heavily promoting this mantra at this same time, as well as its integration into political life. That doubtfully was coincidence.

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 2 2005, 08:20 PM

QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Mar 2 2005, 01:14 PM)

No, silly.

We avoided the big Beamers because they were ostentatious.

[right][snapback]59620[/snapback][/right]

Sorry, they don't make 4WD trucks so I wouldn't know.

Grigorii

Mar 2 2005, 08:22 PM

QUOTE(lil bart @ Mar 2 2005, 02:11 PM)

So it's too late to send you the cash under my mattress for safekeeping & better earning?

[right][snapback]59618[/snapback][/right]

One word, gold.

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 2 2005, 08:25 PM

QUOTE(lil bart @ Mar 2 2005, 01:15 PM)

I not only distinctly remember, but I used to clip and save, the articles in the press about the Christian sects who were heavily promoting this mantra at this same time, as well as its integration into political life. That doubtfully was coincidence.
[right][snapback]59621[/snapback][/right]

So we define a decade based on clipping from some Christian sects? I guess not watching the 700 club has left me out of the loop.

I'm afraid it sounds like the left using rw nuts to make a point. I find one person's self-interest is usualy another person's greed. Business exists to mazimize profits. If one business doesn't, it's competitors will be able to out expand it and they won't be in business long.

It sounds cruel, but it's the way it is. Employees seek to maximize income as well. And it didn't start in the 80s.

Russ Logan

Mar 2 2005, 08:37 PM

Nomarchy

Got a couple of issues with the cfeps.org excerpt you posted earlier, specifically with this bit"

"...Under Clinton, federal government receipts rose above 20% for the first time since WWII, indeed, receipts nearly reached the 1944 wartime peak. At the same time, federal government spending fell to about 17% of GDP -- the lowest since the start of the Viet Nam build-up. Of course, federal budget surpluses were supposed to run as far as the eye could see, enabling the government to retire all debt and then to accumulate trillions of dollars of claims on the private sector. This gave candidate Gore his main campaign issue: a proposal to lock away surpluses, to be consumed later by retiring babyboomers...."

Some of the "facts" (highlighted) are incorrect or "prove" the wishful thinking of those building the federal budget, regardless of administration. I am pulling my numbers from the Historical tables of the FY2001 Budget Submission (Clinton's last) and the FY2006 Submission (to get the actuals vs the estimates in the FY2001 document). Both Budgets are available through the OMB website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/), just click on "Budget", then scroll down to Prior Year Budgets. The tables download as a pdf each about 2MB in size.

Firstly, while the author(s) is/are correct that receipts did reach 20% of GDP in the final 4 years of the previous administration, falling below that in the final year FY2001; federal spending expressed as a percentage of GDP never dropped below 18.4% (FY2000) during the Clinton Administration.

Secondly, it is quite true that in the FY2001 Budget Federal surpluses were predicted "as far as the eye can see", in this case FY2005 the last year estimated.
But as a perusal of Table 1.1 in the budgets shows these surpluses were almost all a result of the estimates of the "Off-Budget" surpluses (read Social Security), to wit:

FY.............Estimate of surplus overall.....SS surplus estimate (actual)

2000...................166.7B............................147.8B(149.8)
2001...................184B...............................158.6B(160.7)
2002...................186B...............................172B(159.7)
2003...................185B...............................184B(160.8)
2004...................195B...............................194B(155.2)
2005...................215B...............................213B(162) All estimates at this time

Which, had this been explained in these terms, by either camp, I seriously doubt that the lock box (LOL!) proposal would have gotten even the limited support it did get. The truth was deadly to it.

Now many things happened, as the author(s) state from the Clinton years to today, 9/11, recession, WOT, etc., that throw the FY2001 budget (submitted during CY2000) crystal ball into the dream realm. However I would point out that a surplus of 184B was predicted for the FY2001 Budget in its submission. The actual for that FY was 128.7B or about 75% of estimate in just 1 year. Anyone who seriously thinks these guys at OMB are good at crystal ball gazing - about that land on the Brooklyn Bridge...

Something more to ponder.

lil bart

Mar 2 2005, 08:41 PM

QUOTE(Art Vandelay @ Mar 2 2005, 12:22 PM)

So we define a decade based on clipping from some Christian sects? I guess not watching the 700 club has left me out of the loop.

I'm afraid it sounds like the left using rw nuts to make a point. I find one person's self-interest is usualy another person's greed. Business exists to mazimize profits. If one business doesn't, it's competitors will be able to out expand it and they won't be in business long.

It sounds cruel, but it's the way it is. Employees seek to maximize income as well. And it didn't start in the 80s.
[right][snapback]59627[/snapback][/right]

It was not "the left using rw nuts to make a point." It was the right using religion to make a new political front.

The reports were wide, in the mainstream press, and active on my university campus, which is where my attention was garnered and the interest formed.

And it was not "business to maximize profits." It was "greed is good."

Words used to mean things. Though I'm sure, if you're inclined, you can parse and dismiss that one, among others, all day. But do note: it was their word.

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 3 2005, 12:53 AM

Sects, sects, sects. Don't y'all think of anything else?

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 3 2005, 03:29 AM

Jim Kolbe on C-Span discussing SS. Some quotes from Harry Reid, Charley Rangle, as well as some points about making tough choices regarding taxes, CPI, and retirement ages.

Nomarchy

Mar 3 2005, 06:49 AM

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 2 2005, 11:21 AM)

Loaded script? Now that's a first around here. Or is anything but the raise taxes and retirement age option off the table around here?
[right][snapback]59596[/snapback][/right]

Dude, which part of me almost totally being on board with arebuntz's plan did you not understand?

Nomarchy

Mar 3 2005, 11:07 AM

Time and time again . . .

The new bullshit line by the Bush Administration . . .

Nomarchy

Mar 3 2005, 11:08 AM

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 2 2005, 12:17 PM)

Sorry, they don't make 4WD trucks so I wouldn't know.
[right][snapback]59623[/snapback][/right]

Translated in English for the rest of us?

Nomarchy

Mar 3 2005, 11:11 AM

QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Mar 2 2005, 12:34 PM)

Nomarchy

Got a couple of issues with the cfeps.org excerpt you posted earlier, specifically with this bit"

"...Under Clinton, federal government receipts rose above 20% for the first time since WWII, indeed, receipts nearly reached the 1944 wartime peak. At the same time, federal government spending fell to about 17% of GDP -- the lowest since the start of the Viet Nam build-up. Of course, federal budget surpluses were supposed to run as far as the eye could see, enabling the government to retire all debt and then to accumulate trillions of dollars of claims on the private sector. This gave candidate Gore his main campaign issue: a proposal to lock away surpluses, to be consumed later by retiring babyboomers...."

Some of the "facts" (highlighted) are incorrect or "prove" the wishful thinking of those building the federal budget, regardless of administration. I am pulling my numbers from the Historical tables of the FY2001 Budget Submission (Clinton's last) and the FY2006 Submission (to get the actuals vs the estimates in the FY2001 document). Both Budgets are available through the OMB website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/), just click on "Budget", then scroll down to Prior Year Budgets. The tables download as a pdf each about 2MB in size.

Firstly, while the author(s) is/are correct that receipts did reach 20% of GDP in the final 4 years of the previous administration, falling below that in the final year FY2001; federal spending expressed as a percentage of GDP never dropped below 18.4% (FY2000) during the Clinton Administration.

Secondly, it is quite true that in the FY2001 Budget Federal surpluses were predicted "as far as the eye can see", in this case FY2005 the last year estimated.
But as a perusal of Table 1.1 in the budgets shows these surpluses were almost all a result of the estimates of the "Off-Budget" surpluses (read Social Security), to wit:

FY.............Estimate of surplus overall.....SS surplus estimate (actual)

2000...................166.7B............................147.8B(149.8)
2001...................184B...............................158.6B(160.7)
2002...................186B...............................172B(159.7)
2003...................185B...............................184B(160.8)
2004...................195B...............................194B(155.2)
2005...................215B...............................213B(162) All estimates at this time

Which, had this been explained in these terms, by either camp, I seriously doubt that the lock box (LOL!) proposal would have gotten even the limited support it did get. The truth was deadly to it.

Now many things happened, as the author(s) state from the Clinton years to today, 9/11, recession, WOT, etc., that throw the FY2001 budget (submitted during CY2000) crystal ball into the dream realm. However I would point out that a surplus of 184B was predicted for the FY2001 Budget in its submission. The actual for that FY was 128.7B or about 75% of estimate in just 1 year. Anyone who seriously thinks these guys at OMB are good at crystal ball gazing - about that land on the Brooklyn Bridge...
Something more to ponder.
[right][snapback]59633[/snapback][/right]

I still can't quite figure out what your point is, Russ.

Nomarchy

Mar 3 2005, 11:21 AM

QUOTE(Grigorii @ Mar 2 2005, 12:19 PM)

One word, gold.
[right][snapback]59625[/snapback][/right]

The value of gold is no different than the value of fiat money. It is sheer folly to believe that the value of gold is, in any way, different than the value of any other unit of account.

Nomarchy

Mar 3 2005, 11:26 AM

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 2 2005, 12:22 PM)

So we define a decade based on clipping from some Christian sects? I guess not watching the 700 club has left me out of the loop.

I'm afraid it sounds like the left using rw nuts to make a point. I find one person's self-interest is usualy another person's greed. Business exists to mazimize profits. If one business doesn't, it's competitors will be able to out expand it and they won't be in business long.

It sounds cruel, but it's the way it is. Employees seek to maximize income as well. And it didn't start in the 80s.
[right][snapback]59627[/snapback][/right]

Nah, the 'left' can be as pragmatiic as you would want them to be.

Grigorii

Mar 3 2005, 02:18 PM

QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Mar 3 2005, 05:18 AM)

The value of gold is no different than the value of fiat money. It is sheer folly to believe that the value of gold is, in any way, different than the value of any other unit of account.
[right][snapback]59834[/snapback][/right]

Why does the value of gold in any fiat system change inversely with the relative value of those fiat units (aside from the wold supply of gold); as the value of the dollar decreases it takes more dollars to purchase an ounce of gold. If the dollar collapses, as is possible, wold you rather have a kilo of gold or pickup truck full of dollar bills? Many times in history paper money systens have collapsed. Can you name one time gold has become worthless? Gold is one of many classes real property wise folks convert fiat money to, and have always done so.

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 3 2005, 03:26 PM

Gold has intrinsic value. It's not merely a unit of measure. Somebody said an ounce of gold will usually buy a good man's suit. Regardless of the actual dollars involved gold is a fairly steady and safe investment. Especially in troubled economic times..

http://www.goldinstitute.org/uses/

Gold's superior electrical conductivity, its malleability, and its resistance to corrosion have made it vital to the manufacture of components used in a wide range of electronic products and equipment, including computers, telephones, cellular phones, and home appliances.

Gold has extraordinarily high reflective powers that are relied upon in the shielding that protects spacecrafts and satellites from solar radiation and in industrial and medical lasers that use gold-coated reflectors to focus light energy. And because gold is biologically inactive, it has become a vital tool for medical research and is even used in the direct treatment of arthritis and other intractable diseases.

davis¹³

Mar 3 2005, 03:34 PM

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 3 2005, 09:23 AM)

Gold has intrinsic value. It's not merely a unit of measure. Somebody said an ounce of gold will usually buy a good man's suit. Regardless of the actual dollars involved gold is a fairly steady and safe investment. Especially in troubled economic times..
http://www.goldinstitute.org/uses/

Gold's superior electrical conductivity, its malleability, and its resistance to corrosion have made it vital to the manufacture of components used in a wide range of electronic products and equipment, including computers, telephones, cellular phones, and home appliances.

Gold has extraordinarily high reflective powers that are relied upon in the shielding that protects spacecrafts and satellites from solar radiation and in industrial and medical lasers that use gold-coated reflectors to focus light energy. And because gold is biologically inactive, it has become a vital tool for medical research and is even used in the direct treatment of arthritis and other intractable diseases.
[right][snapback]59893[/snapback][/right]

I saw a whole show on gold. It is amazing.

And really cool.

But I've always been a fan of high tech.

The treasure divers pull gold off the ocean floor and after minimal cleaning it looks like new. Amazing stuff. Wish I had a house full.

Nomarchy

Mar 3 2005, 04:21 PM

QUOTE(Grigorii @ Mar 3 2005, 06:15 AM)

Why does the value of gold in any fiat system change inversely with the relative value of those fiat units (aside from the wold supply of gold); as the value of the dollar decreases it takes more dollars to purchase an ounce of gold. If the dollar collapses, as is possible, wold you rather have a kilo of gold or pickup truck full of dollar bills? Many times in history paper money systens have collapsed. Can you name one time gold has become worthless? Gold is one of many classes real property wise folks convert fiat money to, and have always done so.
[right][snapback]59879[/snapback][/right]

What determines the fiat money value of gold? Its 'intrinsic' value?

Grigorii

Mar 3 2005, 04:44 PM

QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Mar 3 2005, 10:18 AM)

What determines the fiat money value of gold? Its 'intrinsic' value?
[right][snapback]59933[/snapback][/right]

Price of gold in US dollars

2003 $417.25
2002 $342.75
2001 $276.50
2000 $272.65
1999 $290.25
1998 $288.70
1997 $287.05
1996 $369.00
1995 $387.00
1994 $383.25
1993 $391.75
1992 $333.00
1991 $353.15
1990 $386.20
1989 $401.00
1988 $410.15
1987 $486.50
1986 $390.90
1985 $327.00
1984 $309.00
1983 $380.00
1982 $447.00
1981 $400.00
1980 $594.90 Peak at $850.00
1979 $459.00
1978 $208.10
1977 $161.10
1976 $133.77
1975 $139.29
1974 $183.77
1973 $106.48
1972 $63.84
1971 $44.60
1970 $38.90
1969 $41.00
1968 $43.50
1967 $35.50
1966 $35.40
1965 $35.50
1964 $35.35
1963 $35.25
1962 $35.35
1961 $35.50
1960 $36.50
1959 $35.25
1958 $35.25
1957 $35.25
1956 $35.20
1955 $35.15
1954 $35.25
1953 $35.50
1952 $38.70
1951 $40.00
1950 $40.25
1949 $40.50
1948 $42.00
1947 $43.00
1946 $38.25
1945 $37.25
1944 $36.25
1943 $36.50
1942-1934 $35.50
1933 $32.32
1932-1879 $20.67
1878 $20.69
1892 $20.67
1877 $21.25
1876 $22.30
1875 $23.54
1874 $23.09
1873 $22.74
1872 $23.19
1871 $22.59
1870 $22.88
1869 $25.11
1868 $27.95
1867 $27.86
1866 $28.26
1865 $30.22
1864 $47.02
1863 $31.23
1862 $27.35
1861-1858 $20.67
1857-1852 $20.71
1851-1843 $20.67
1842 $20.69
1841 $20.67
1840 $20.73
1839 $20.73
1838 $20.73
1837 $21.60
1836 $20.69
1835 $20.69
1834 $20.69
1833-1817 $19.39
1816 $19.84
1815 $22.16
1814 $21.79
18131792 $19.39

Nomarchy

Mar 3 2005, 06:52 PM

QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Mar 3 2005, 08:18 AM)

What determines the fiat money value of gold? Its 'intrinsic' value?
[right][snapback]59933[/snapback][/right]

Grigorii

Mar 3 2005, 07:51 PM

QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Mar 3 2005, 12:49 PM)

[right][snapback]59971[/snapback][/right]

If not locked in by law, the market. That was the point of all the yearly numbers; as I am certain you know the historic data associated with and relative to the yearly price of gold in dollars. As I said, I know of fiat systems where the bills have become toilet paper, or "shin plaster" but know of no time in recorded history when gold has become valueless.

Had we gone back on the gold standard when gold was at peak in 1980, and allowed the price of gold to float if would be around $15-1700.00 an ounce in current dollars. As I have said I don't oppose fiat money, but don't trust such a system in private hands as it can be easily adulterated purely for profit and the temptation is likely beyond resisting; so also can gold adulterated with/by amalgam but a specimen test will spot that eaisly.

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 3 2005, 08:50 PM

QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Mar 3 2005, 04:18 AM)

The value of gold is no different than the value of fiat money.
[right][snapback]59834[/snapback][/right]

Bart Katz

Mar 3 2005, 08:51 PM

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 3 2005, 02:47 PM)

[right][snapback]60052[/snapback][/right]

Isn't Fiat going out of business?

lil bart

Mar 3 2005, 08:54 PM

QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Mar 3 2005, 12:48 PM)

Isn't Fiat going out of business?
[right][snapback]60054[/snapback][/right]

It's a good day when a Fiat goes out of the driveway under its own volition.

Nomarchy

Mar 3 2005, 08:55 PM

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 3 2005, 12:47 PM)

[right][snapback]60052[/snapback][/right]

The response of an expert in monetary economics, to be sure.

Nomarchy

Mar 3 2005, 08:56 PM

QUOTE(lil bart @ Mar 3 2005, 12:51 PM)

It's a good day when a Fiat goes out of the driveway under its own volition.
[right][snapback]60057[/snapback][/right]

Oh geez! Every American is an expert on Fiat automobiles . . .

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 3 2005, 08:57 PM

QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Mar 3 2005, 01:48 PM)

Isn't Fiat going out of business?
[right][snapback]60054[/snapback][/right]

To be replaced by another Italian job, Ronzoni downhill.

lil bart

Mar 3 2005, 08:58 PM

QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Mar 3 2005, 12:53 PM)

Oh geez! Every American is an expert on Fiat automobiles . . .
[right][snapback]60060[/snapback][/right]

My father had one for a few sorry-assed years. I earned the right to poke endless fun at them. They are not notorious for nothing.

Arturo_Vandelay

Mar 3 2005, 09:00 PM

QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Mar 3 2005, 01:52 PM)

The response of an expert in monetary economics, to be sure.
[right][snapback]60058[/snapback][/right]

Take gold anywhere in the world and compare who will take it as opposed to random brands of fiat paper. I'm pretty good with the basics. Gold versus paper?

Not even close.

Grigorii

Mar 3 2005, 09:03 PM

QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Mar 3 2005, 02:53 PM)

Oh geez! Every American is an expert on Fiat automobiles . . .
[right][snapback]60060[/snapback][/right]

Northern Italians are among some the finest mechanical engineers ( autos, motorboats, aircraft and associated engines) in the world; but for years they built with inferior materials. For example the materials they used for many years in making gaskets, seals and bearings on internal combustion engines,

Bart Katz

Mar 3 2005, 09:03 PM

QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Mar 3 2005, 02:53 PM)

Oh geez! Every American is an expert on Fiat automobiles . . .
[right][snapback]60060[/snapback][/right]

Anyone that's even been close to one is.