Maybe its not all backed by gold and silver, but it is backed by things of value. If it where backed by nothing it would be worth nothing. The value of the dollar drops to spread it out and print more money, it represents a smaller and smaller percentage of the total value we hold. Its in the constitution for a reason, and we are going against the constitution in our current money scheme. If we have to pay up our dept, our credits no longer mean anything. If our country fails, the people living in it no longer have any value other than the things they own. If they saved $50,000 in money and our country had to hand over everything of value to pay debt, then that $50,000 the individual owned is nothing anymore. They move to another country and they are dirt poor, because all the have is americain bills that are nothing other than paper. This was thought about by the founding fathers, and thats why its in the constitution, its an obvious truth.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
The Debt Bomb Explosion
- Thread starter Saidin
- Start date
The constitution doesn't mean shit in this respect.
If a state spends too much money it simply goes bankrupt and has to go the the IMF to ask for loans. If you say that this is unconstitutional, because the IMF is not an organ of the state, then this simply means that on the international market the dollar will drop in value so no-one will be able to pay for his gasoline anymore or any other resource for that matter.
Any constitution can only go as far as state affairs themselves. There is no constitution anywhere that aplies to the international market.
There is no international constitution and no world-government.
The paleoconservatives who want to abandon central banks and all international (unconstitutional) involvement happen to be quite often the same people who believe in the freedom to drive hummers and buy cheap stuff from china.
Well, you gotta choose here: it's either the isolated america that has nothing to do with central banks, the IMF and international market and that is also a poor country, or it's the america that participate's in the international system and that depsite the crisis is still the wealthiest nation on earth.
But you can't have both.
If you want to eat, than you got to play the game of the market. Regulate a little here and there, but still got it functioning like it does.
If a state spends too much money it simply goes bankrupt and has to go the the IMF to ask for loans. If you say that this is unconstitutional, because the IMF is not an organ of the state, then this simply means that on the international market the dollar will drop in value so no-one will be able to pay for his gasoline anymore or any other resource for that matter.
Any constitution can only go as far as state affairs themselves. There is no constitution anywhere that aplies to the international market.
There is no international constitution and no world-government.
The paleoconservatives who want to abandon central banks and all international (unconstitutional) involvement happen to be quite often the same people who believe in the freedom to drive hummers and buy cheap stuff from china.
Well, you gotta choose here: it's either the isolated america that has nothing to do with central banks, the IMF and international market and that is also a poor country, or it's the america that participate's in the international system and that depsite the crisis is still the wealthiest nation on earth.
But you can't have both.
If you want to eat, than you got to play the game of the market. Regulate a little here and there, but still got it functioning like it does.
What's also interesting in this matter, is that the government has been spending massive amounts of money on 'homeland security':44% of all money spent on defence worldwide, is spent by the U.S. government.
But all the think-tanks working for the pentagon alone apparently wheren't able to consider the consequences for 'homeland security' from all the debts resulting from overspending and the dollar virtually being owned by the chinese central bank.
For the sake of 'homeland security' the government has been spending the country virtually into bankrupcy.
If you need a missile defence shield against russia and china, than why let those same chinese take-over the ownership of the national currency?
I don't believe that the USA is in serious danger, but the financial danger it currently is in is at least 10.000 times bigger than any military threat is now and has been for the last twenty years.
The chinese central bank is definately a greater threat to U.S. homeland security than osama bin-laden is.
Certainly when the chinese economy is gonna free-fall into a deep recession, wich is gonna happen sooner or later.
China is dubai multiplied by 1000.
But all the think-tanks working for the pentagon alone apparently wheren't able to consider the consequences for 'homeland security' from all the debts resulting from overspending and the dollar virtually being owned by the chinese central bank.
For the sake of 'homeland security' the government has been spending the country virtually into bankrupcy.
If you need a missile defence shield against russia and china, than why let those same chinese take-over the ownership of the national currency?
I don't believe that the USA is in serious danger, but the financial danger it currently is in is at least 10.000 times bigger than any military threat is now and has been for the last twenty years.
The chinese central bank is definately a greater threat to U.S. homeland security than osama bin-laden is.
Certainly when the chinese economy is gonna free-fall into a deep recession, wich is gonna happen sooner or later.
China is dubai multiplied by 1000.
Touche Guevara
Rising Star
The ultimate point:
If we had no debt, we would have no money. In order to eliminate all debt, we would need to eliminate all money (at this point). To get around this however, compounded interest would need to be an outlawed practice, and the ratio of savings/credit would have to be >1.
The money system was a very intelligent way to create one man very rich, and in fact, have the possibility to own everything, back when the first banker arose. However, since then, it has become a system - one system, a bank of countries, controls the money. Now it has become something that it wasn't intended to, and in fact uses rules that are so blatanly disregarding of human cognition, it's simply amazing they 1. were made 2. worked 3. are still around.
Example: Compounded interest
How many of you have credit cards, yet are still participating within this thread?
Blind to the hand in front of you, yet the details beyond, clear as crystal.
If we had no debt, we would have no money. In order to eliminate all debt, we would need to eliminate all money (at this point). To get around this however, compounded interest would need to be an outlawed practice, and the ratio of savings/credit would have to be >1.
The money system was a very intelligent way to create one man very rich, and in fact, have the possibility to own everything, back when the first banker arose. However, since then, it has become a system - one system, a bank of countries, controls the money. Now it has become something that it wasn't intended to, and in fact uses rules that are so blatanly disregarding of human cognition, it's simply amazing they 1. were made 2. worked 3. are still around.
Example: Compounded interest
How many of you have credit cards, yet are still participating within this thread?
Blind to the hand in front of you, yet the details beyond, clear as crystal.
GreenD said:
Could you explain this to me, because I still don't get it?
Have you watched zeitgeist?
What happens is, the bank makes money, with the expectation that the government will pay it back with interest. The only reason the government would do this, is if they expect they would make money, from money... i.e. trading with other countries. However, our government spends more money than it makes (always). This means, that when the government takes money from the banks, and gives it to us, via trickling through the system, your paycheck, a loan, a credit card, etc... That money is actually OWED to the bank the government got it from. I.e. by you recieving a paycheck, and since the government is consistently in debt, that money is a representation of the governments debt.
Also, since the money is expected to be payed back as interest - that means there is always some part of the government that cannot be paying back the loans it takes from the bank. Since this is the case forever, since way back in the 1800's, there has always been excess debt, and since we get our money from the government only - that means that there will always be excess debt passed onto us, by loans. (This can be completely avoided however if no one ever takes out a loan, uses a credit card, etc...)
The government does do something nice though, it keeps itself in debt, rather than directly passing it onto us, that is why our deficit is something like 450 trillion or some ridiculous number like that. That means though - that our government will NEVER get out of debt, never. Because in order for the government to pay off that debt, it has to make money - that is through taxes, foreign trade, etc. But if all of that debt were transfered to the people of america, not only would we all be sitting on 100,000 dollars of debt, we would never be able to pay it off, because the money created to make the payments to pay off the debt would be in form of a debt to the bank which would only exasserbate the total debt of our system!
In other words, the ONLY way debt can be eliminated, is if no more loans or credit cards are used, and if another country were to go into debt, giving us a surplus of $.
IT just DOESN'T work.
What happens is, the bank makes money, with the expectation that the government will pay it back with interest. The only reason the government would do this, is if they expect they would make money, from money... i.e. trading with other countries. However, our government spends more money than it makes (always). This means, that when the government takes money from the banks, and gives it to us, via trickling through the system, your paycheck, a loan, a credit card, etc... That money is actually OWED to the bank the government got it from. I.e. by you recieving a paycheck, and since the government is consistently in debt, that money is a representation of the governments debt.
Also, since the money is expected to be payed back as interest - that means there is always some part of the government that cannot be paying back the loans it takes from the bank. Since this is the case forever, since way back in the 1800's, there has always been excess debt, and since we get our money from the government only - that means that there will always be excess debt passed onto us, by loans. (This can be completely avoided however if no one ever takes out a loan, uses a credit card, etc...)
The government does do something nice though, it keeps itself in debt, rather than directly passing it onto us, that is why our deficit is something like 450 trillion or some ridiculous number like that. That means though - that our government will NEVER get out of debt, never. Because in order for the government to pay off that debt, it has to make money - that is through taxes, foreign trade, etc. But if all of that debt were transfered to the people of america, not only would we all be sitting on 100,000 dollars of debt, we would never be able to pay it off, because the money created to make the payments to pay off the debt would be in form of a debt to the bank which would only exasserbate the total debt of our system!
In other words, the ONLY way debt can be eliminated, is if no more loans or credit cards are used, and if another country were to go into debt, giving us a surplus of $.
IT just DOESN'T work.
polytrip said:
i still don't get it. My point is that the people can end up shit out of luck because they hold no real value in there play money. Just because you passed around currency that has real world wide value dosen't mean you can't have a central bank. It means you can actually go bank rupt though, as in no more money to spend. But, your not supose to spend money you don't have, if i go broke no one is going to help me. Whats the point of dept if you can just print your way out of it, if thats the case why not just print enough money so everyone can have some, instead of people going without food, heat, water or homes. The constitution is to protect the people in the country, not the stock market or the government rulling them.
Hell, in this case i feel angered, the government can just print there unlimited funds, yet we have to struggle to pay the bills, decide...hmmm whats more important, go see the doctor to be healthy or buy some food so i can continue to eat. If its important to create fake money to make the world go round, why not print enough so people other than government can actually have some to survive on. And with all the fake money they need to print, why does it do no good, why can't they print money for things that really matter, like educating people so our human race has better odds of surviving longer and making more advancedments. Scholls are underfunded, and they want the people to pick up the slack, the people whos already struggle with money problems.
I could be wrong, i just would hate to see and fear a time where they announce your money is worthless and the gold is gone, everything you worked for is gone, deal with it.
GreenD said:
Most of that documentary is misquoted bullshit. The whole money thing is way oversimplified and they forget to mention a lot of key information.
When you watch a documentary like that, always research it afterwards.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I am in support of the zeitgeist movement/venus project, but those documentary's were unecassary and highly mis-informing.
polytrip said:
This is not wholly true. China has been smart in a lot of ways by taking the cash they have and buying commodities. Gold, silver, copper, iron companies from all over the world. They invest and purchase hard assents in countries like Zimbabwe and Sudan where the West wont tread for "humanitarian" reasons. The Chinese don't care, they just want control of the resources, and have done a very good job of buying them up.
They are due for a recession, unless they can come up with a way to re-enliven their economy with new technology (just as they are doing with re-newables). Dubai was all paper money and construction. The Chinese were smart and at least took the paper and bought real substantial assests with them.
True, the chinese have been realy smart. I also believe that they will overcome the recession that's looming (don't know what political consequences it might have tough) and that they will become a global power.
But when it comes to economic's, it's all bubbles and hypes these days.
People treasure mythologic beliefs about economic's that baffle me.
When the american economy was doing well, nobody was complaining about the debts. They where there, but those who mentioned them where ridiculed. Now we have to believe that the world is gonna end, and it's the same media that didn't care at firsr that are now spreading these horror story's
So now china is the new 'miracle' and you will see that once it slides into recession, the same idiots are gonna say that china was never a serious candidate to become an economic superpower and that it's a retarded thirdworld country after all.
Same fro greece. Everybody's talking about greece right now. But it's financial position isn't that much different from that of the UK.
If the anglo-saxon financial media organizations believe that greece is in deep trouble, than they have to acknowledge that britain is also up to it's nose in stinking shit. And they would also have to acknowledge that france and germany are financially in a better position than the UK.
Anyway, we all have been spending a little too much, the past decades. So yes, the economy is going to slide into a recession again, because that problem (debt) hasn't been solved yet by all the eceonomic stimulus package's governments around the globe have been throwing at it.
But that doesn't mean the world is gonna end.
We've just been spoiled over the past 20 years.
But when it comes to economic's, it's all bubbles and hypes these days.
People treasure mythologic beliefs about economic's that baffle me.
When the american economy was doing well, nobody was complaining about the debts. They where there, but those who mentioned them where ridiculed. Now we have to believe that the world is gonna end, and it's the same media that didn't care at firsr that are now spreading these horror story's
So now china is the new 'miracle' and you will see that once it slides into recession, the same idiots are gonna say that china was never a serious candidate to become an economic superpower and that it's a retarded thirdworld country after all.
Same fro greece. Everybody's talking about greece right now. But it's financial position isn't that much different from that of the UK.
If the anglo-saxon financial media organizations believe that greece is in deep trouble, than they have to acknowledge that britain is also up to it's nose in stinking shit. And they would also have to acknowledge that france and germany are financially in a better position than the UK.
Anyway, we all have been spending a little too much, the past decades. So yes, the economy is going to slide into a recession again, because that problem (debt) hasn't been solved yet by all the eceonomic stimulus package's governments around the globe have been throwing at it.
But that doesn't mean the world is gonna end.
We've just been spoiled over the past 20 years.
What i find a bit concerning in relation to especially the U.S. debts, is that there is a growing tendency in american politics, wich includes the obama administration, to see the debts as no big problem but as 'cheap money' and an insurance for good and stable (economic) relations with china.
On the short term this may very well be so.
But i don't think anybody can foresee the consequences this all may have on the long term.
And it is plausible to say that whatever these consequences may be, the greater the debts, the greater they they wíll be.
On the short term this may very well be so.
But i don't think anybody can foresee the consequences this all may have on the long term.
And it is plausible to say that whatever these consequences may be, the greater the debts, the greater they they wíll be.
Similar threads
