I would humbly suggest that a law be put forward equating any specific platform position of any politician with a sworn legal affadavit. In other words, make their fibs into real crimes. Would ANY of your current candidates either endorse or honor such a law? If not – ask them why.

Political democracy is doomed to remain little more than a popularity/financing contest without it … & in the absence of its logical corollary, economic democracy, it soon decays into elitism. Are ANY of your presidential hopefuls even mentioning this? Ask them why not.

I’ve seen growing talk of the need for another revolution in America. Such an event would make your Civil War look like kindergartners’ nap-time. I’m astonished at anyone who could advocate such a horrific blodbath, let alone still believe that such massive & barbaric violence could generate ANY positive outcome. Albert Camus warned long ago that every single revolution has led to MORE state repression of citizens, & yours was no exception; the “patriots” infuriated by King George’s taxation were the monied elite, privately resenting what they considered their inherent right to rule “their” republic. Most people in the colonies – with no earthly use for things like stamps & tea – paid no taxes whatsoever. The “patriots” knew that a catchy slogan could alter that situation in a very lucrative way – enter “No Taxation Without Representation.”

They also dreaded the accelerating growth of progressive popular culture among the “rabble” & saw a revolution as a perfect opportunity to crush it – sound familiar? The first thing they did after defeating Britain was to drive thousands of Loyalists into Canada, many of them peaceful folk who wanted to stay, then profiteer richly from their confiscated land, homes & possessions. The ones who refused to leave quickly or quietly enough were either “converted” – or, more often, butchered. If your courts adhered to their noble standards today, your non-whites would be legally subhuman, & your women would be chattel. American history has been turned into a justification for its own decline. Orwell would weep.

Except that for all of recorded history, man has liked the shiny metal. And, used it as money.

>The value gold has is only the artificial value that
> we have agreed it has.

It does have “real value” if people exchange for it.

>A yellow metal cannot solve the economic problems that
> humans create.

Well it would keep the money supply “honest”. See the value of a metal based currency is that the King has to shave coins to debase the currency. In today’s world, if we were on a gold standard, the Congress would have to pay for its policies. Now they can just run off some more “counterfeit bills” and slip them into circulation. When we left the gold standard that freed the gooferment to have an unlimited supply of spendable cash.

The dead old white guys, for as smart as they were, didn’t foresee that we really needed private money. Competing currencies would give us choices in what we used for money.

You can’t solve the problem of big gooferment without a four pronged approach, the first is an “honest metal backed money” . This pins the gooferement’s ability to enforce an inflation tax on the marketplace.

(End the dole, end the various wars, and kick the gooferment out of education) are the other three. imho)

>Why not spend your time working on those?

I’m trying, but big gooferement is like a gordian knot!

Glad you’re happy.

>Hitler and the Axis Powers take over the world.

Well, if we were minding our own biz, then there was a generation of men who would have still been alive. Hitler wasn’t without opponents. And, there was a lot of friction between Italy – Germany – Japan and Russia. All I’m saying is that it wasn’t “our fight”. Remember the japanese admiral Yahmato’s comment about invading America “rifleman behind every blade of grass”. Occupying a foreign country is must easier said than done.

>We should have continued to allow Japan to bomb us.

FDR steered the Japanese into that aggression.

>psycho dictator who was practicing genocide.

The genocide never entered into any of the political considerations. It was dusted off to justify the policy. Sort of like and after the fact justification.

>tomorrow we found a mine

Not much. A little gentle expansion. Far better that the “counterfeiting” operation going on in DC.

>money to you today

Gold has been money for all of recorded history.

>we must be rational and reasonable

OK, can you name one gooferment program that accomplishes something close to it’s stated objectives. And, should you find one — I have not — then look at all the cost estimates.

>nowhere near our downfall

I sure hope you’re right. I’d suggest that your 100 year estimate is way to optimistic. I don’t know what the correct answer / guesstimate is. But, if I was betting, then I’d look at the historical duration of empires.

If what you’re saying is correct, about FDR and funding the war, you’re in a sense saying he made a mistake? I’m trying to understand how somebody could possibly make the argument that FDR funding the war is a mistake. So should we have not entered the war because it would inflate the dollar? You’re right, we should have let Hitler and the Axis Powers take over the world. We should have never stormed Omaha Beach. We should have continued to allow Japan to bomb us. What a waste of money to help save a country from a psycho dictator who was practicing genocide.

I agree with you on the fact that inflation is detrimental, but how do we fix it? Commodity backed currency is not the answer. What if tomorrow we found a mine where millions of ounces of gold or silver are found? What do you think that would do to the value of the currency? If you have a free market for money, then you have to adjust the value. If 80 years ago there were only 100 cars in your town, and now today, there are thousands, don’t you think they should go down in value? Or on the other hand, if a computer was made tomorrow that had twice the capabilities of your current computer, shouldn’t the price go up? If your television’s picture is in high definition, shouldn’t the price be higher than a television set from 1970? How much higher? I’d guess somewhere in the area of 95% higher! Why do you pay more for a nice dinner than a box of Mac & Cheese? Because it’s a better product. Face it, things are just better than they were 80 years ago, or even 40 years ago for that matter. Why shouldn’t the price of something go up if it’s an improved product?

My point is this…you can never have a set number of anything in this world. Things are constantly changing value, gaining or losing. You have to realize that everything always changes, our perception of things are constantly changing. What is worth a lot of money to you today, may be worthless tomorrow.

I do like your rebellious spirits, and I don’t believe our government is anywhere close to completely efficient. But in order for us to change, we must be rational and reasonable. You can’t clean up a disaster overnight, it takes time. You can only set reasonable goals and build off of those in order to slowly make radical changes.

And our civilization is nowhere near our downfall. I’d say with our weapons superiority we are at least 100 years away from the end. But it is inevitable, one day our empire will crumble, you are correct in that assessment.

No, why can’t we have a free market in currencies as we did before the legal tender laws were passed mandating that everyone had to accept these phony unconstitutional federal reserve notes.

>And the reason we stopped using volatile commodities as a peg for our currency is that the prices of gold and
>silver fluctuated so much that we had to frequently change how much the paper backing was worth to the metals.

No, the reason FDR took us off the gold standard was so that he could spend as much as he wanted on welfare and warfare. And the people were to dumb to see the con.

>The dollar has not depreciated 95% since 1970. That is a blatant lie, did you make that number up?

No even the Federal Reserve will admit that the dollar has depreciated.

between 61 & 97 2.39% per year average by the Fed’s own numbers. The math is a little tortured to minimize the impact.

However, other credible sources

1970-01-01 37.900
2001-01-01 175.600
CPI 175 from 37 looks a lot more than 95%

435.49%

And no one seems to dispute the impact.

Costs of Inflation
4. Inflation does reduce the purchasing power of money.
5. Inflation does redistribute income. On average, individuals’ incomes do increase as inflation increases. However, some peoples’ wages go up faster than inflation. Other wages are slower to adjust. People on fixed incomes such as pensions or whose salaries are slow to adjust are negatively affected by unexpected inflation.

>You’re a moron.

You’re right “Putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t make it beautiful and annoys the pig.”

One can’t reason with a “true believer”. If you wish to believe that everything in money is just peach keen, then do so in peace. But, let’s not kid around with the what is the single biggest crime of the gooferment — messing with the money. It’s what brings down civilizations (i.e., Romans; Germans; English) and our turn is coming. Quickly.

One of many..