Is the World Safe for Conversation Anymore?
hemihead said:“Money is backed by assets”
There is nothing behind the US dollar, and there hasn’t been since august 15 1971, when it was removed from the gold standard and became a fiat currency.
All money is a social construct.
Did you think someone is stacking up gold to guarantee all the trillions the Fed is printing right now? Hell no they ain’t. They issue bonds....which are themselves just bits of paper (not even that these days). Bonds are an interest-bearing IOU, so every dollar printed (written in to a bank ledger really) is a debt.
So, it’s even worse than you thought. Not only are dollars not backed by anything, each one actually represents a debt burden on the economy, and devalues every dollar printed previously.
That’s why the US dollar exchange rate is in the toilet....money machine go brrrr, and it works only as long as everyone agrees that the paper still has value.
The us needs to print low value money to stimulate their economy, but because their politics is corrupt the money has gone in to holding up asset prices instead of stimulating production (which they could have done by giving it to actual people instead of investment banks). This also causes the dollar to devalue relative to other currencies, but usually the money you are printing stimulates the economy as fast or faster than inflation. What the US has done has brought inflation, but no increase in production. This means the us soon can’t service its debt...and the whole thing falls down like a house of cards.
The next step for the us is to interfere directly in bond yields and currency value.
That is a very bad thing, and will lead (or has a very high chance of leading) to the end of the US dollar as a global currency, which will drive up interest rates even further, crippling the us economy under the weight of its own debt repayments on all those bonds they issued. Get ready for at least 10 very hard years in the US.....there is no free ride in modern economic theory.
(Very good primer on how the US debt cycle works here. Hint; you’re fucked.
https://youtu.be/PHe0bXAIuk0)
See also the pound sterling and Dutch gilder collapses. This is nothing new.
Thank you for the another clear economic summary, Hemi. And for the link. Cheers, Josh.
There is nothing behind the US dollar, and there hasn’t been since august 15 1971, when it was removed from the gold standard and became a fiat currency.
All money is a social construct.
Did you think someone is stacking up gold to guarantee all the trillions the Fed is printing right now? Hell no they ain’t. They issue bonds....which are themselves just bits of paper (not even that these days). Bonds are an interest-bearing IOU, so every dollar printed (written in to a bank ledger really) is a debt.
So, it’s even worse than you thought. Not only are dollars not backed by anything, each one actually represents a debt burden on the economy, and devalues every dollar printed previously.
That’s why the US dollar exchange rate is in the toilet....money machine go brrrr, and it works only as long as everyone agrees that the paper still has value.
The us needs to print low value money to stimulate their economy, but because their politics is corrupt the money has gone in to holding up asset prices instead of stimulating production (which they could have done by giving it to actual people instead of investment banks). This also causes the dollar to devalue relative to other currencies, but usually the money you are printing stimulates the economy as fast or faster than inflation. What the US has done has brought inflation, but no increase in production. This means the us soon can’t service its debt...and the whole thing falls down like a house of cards.
The next step for the us is to interfere directly in bond yields and currency value.
That is a very bad thing, and will lead (or has a very high chance of leading) to the end of the US dollar as a global currency, which will drive up interest rates even further, crippling the us economy under the weight of its own debt repayments on all those bonds they issued. Get ready for at least 10 very hard years in the US.....there is no free ride in modern economic theory.
(Very good primer on how the US debt cycle works here. Hint; you’re fucked.
https://youtu.be/PHe0bXAIuk0)
See also the pound sterling and Dutch gilder collapses. This is nothing new.
Thank you for the another clear economic summary, Hemi. And for the link. Cheers, Josh.
Josh said:
Thank you for the another clear economic summary, Hemi. And for the link. Cheers, Josh.
Do you mean to say that you agree with his idea the US dollar is backed by nothing?
I thought you knew US dollars are backed by bonds which are backed by actual assets.
Because you brought up Bill Still before, I thought you knew about fiat.
Thank you for the another clear economic summary, Hemi. And for the link. Cheers, Josh.
Do you mean to say that you agree with his idea the US dollar is backed by nothing?
I thought you knew US dollars are backed by bonds which are backed by actual assets.
Because you brought up Bill Still before, I thought you knew about fiat.
EdibleWords said:
Do you mean to say that you agree with his idea the US dollar is backed by nothing?
I thought you knew US dollars are backed by bonds which are backed by actual assets.
Because you brought up Bill Still before, I thought you knew about fiat.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp
Fiat currencies are based only on faith that the government regulating that currency will honour them (the dollar, and the bond that created it). Nothing else.
Do you mean to say that you agree with his idea the US dollar is backed by nothing?
I thought you knew US dollars are backed by bonds which are backed by actual assets.
Because you brought up Bill Still before, I thought you knew about fiat.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp
Fiat currencies are based only on faith that the government regulating that currency will honour them (the dollar, and the bond that created it). Nothing else.
Posted: 28th February 2021 5:01pm
EdibleWords
Bonds are valuable. Their value is fixed by the real assets backing them. Taxes, property, etc.
Edible did you know ...
You own NO property!!! You can’t own property. Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours. You are listed as a TENANT. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)
EdibleWords
Bonds are valuable. Their value is fixed by the real assets backing them. Taxes, property, etc.
Edible did you know ...
You own NO property!!! You can’t own property. Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours. You are listed as a TENANT. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)
Valeriyabeyond said:Posted: 28th February 2021 5:01pm
EdibleWords
Bonds are valuable. Their value is fixed by the real assets backing them. Taxes, property, etc.
Edible did you know ...
You own NO property!!! You can’t own property. Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours. You are listed as a TENANT. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)
I don’t know as much as you about this. But I can say that common law supersedes Senate documents.
Having said that, if you don’t know your rights you don’t have any!
There can be no contract without fair and equal consideration. Therefore such documents cannot strip the living man of his natural rights.
EdibleWords
Bonds are valuable. Their value is fixed by the real assets backing them. Taxes, property, etc.
Edible did you know ...
You own NO property!!! You can’t own property. Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours. You are listed as a TENANT. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)
I don’t know as much as you about this. But I can say that common law supersedes Senate documents.
Having said that, if you don’t know your rights you don’t have any!
There can be no contract without fair and equal consideration. Therefore such documents cannot strip the living man of his natural rights.
hemihead said:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp
Fiat currencies are based only on faith that the government regulating that currency will honour them (the dollar, and the bond that created it). Nothing else.
Not disagreeing about faith having something to do with it. Faith is a value setting tool.
That faith is carefully regulated confidence in real assets, just as the price of gold is fixed in London.
Speaking of which, we know that it’s a rigged game. They manipulate for inside deals.
Nobody is in love with central banking BS. There’s clearly funny business afoot.
All the same “thin air” is a poor description (to say the least) of what happens when your pen prints your obligation to pay, which is value. That’s where the principal comes from.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp
Fiat currencies are based only on faith that the government regulating that currency will honour them (the dollar, and the bond that created it). Nothing else.
Not disagreeing about faith having something to do with it. Faith is a value setting tool.
That faith is carefully regulated confidence in real assets, just as the price of gold is fixed in London.
Speaking of which, we know that it’s a rigged game. They manipulate for inside deals.
Nobody is in love with central banking BS. There’s clearly funny business afoot.
All the same “thin air” is a poor description (to say the least) of what happens when your pen prints your obligation to pay, which is value. That’s where the principal comes from.
anna_grin said:don’t come at me defending racist rhetoric ever again
When I jumped in on the other thread I failed to understand EXACTLY what you were saying. I was like - look - it’s right in the definition! So I underlined it and left it at that... and then.... 💥
And then I was like - who do you think taught him to use the word? Musicians! Most likely black ones ...and he would have no clue as to the origins! So - I actually learned something as I was reading, but it didn’t explain why black music icons owned the word with such confidence and with such common embracing of usage you will see viral spillage into parallel cultures.
Not because he was learning to talk like that from Jim Crow, and to think of it as an insult to black people.
Man, we need more people thinking like our Liberal pundit, Bill Maher. Or else the whole world will get cancelled.
Aren’t you sick of watching the shit show by now?
When will we live and let live again? Inclusive tolerance and diversity was a beautiful thing, right along with free speech. 💔
When I jumped in on the other thread I failed to understand EXACTLY what you were saying. I was like - look - it’s right in the definition! So I underlined it and left it at that... and then.... 💥
And then I was like - who do you think taught him to use the word? Musicians! Most likely black ones ...and he would have no clue as to the origins! So - I actually learned something as I was reading, but it didn’t explain why black music icons owned the word with such confidence and with such common embracing of usage you will see viral spillage into parallel cultures.
Not because he was learning to talk like that from Jim Crow, and to think of it as an insult to black people.
Man, we need more people thinking like our Liberal pundit, Bill Maher. Or else the whole world will get cancelled.
Aren’t you sick of watching the shit show by now?
When will we live and let live again? Inclusive tolerance and diversity was a beautiful thing, right along with free speech. 💔
here’s a couple of things which have been bothering me over the last some pages:
ok, in an a ideal world maybe it would be impossible to string certain words together in a certain way and if spoken would not be spoken in a certain tone. hell, there shouldn’t be the ability for our voice box to produce such a tone for any words, right !?
wouldn’t it be quite something if we could find a way to take the tone out of voice boxes at birth.
(not rhetorical)
In “Jive talkin” as recorded by the beegees in the (I think) 70s the lyrics were nuanced in a derogatory way. the narrator was calling the protagonist a liar among other things
i’m not sure is very rational to demand a person opologize to a race of people for not causing them offence. ....hold up, let me explain my logic:
nobody from the community has indicated in any way shape or form they were offended by it. and to the best of my knowledge there was no riots in Harlem when the beegees released the song in the 70s or when George Michael released in the 80s
I’m also having trouble with the two tiered hate speech system. why is it the four horses of the apocalypse when x Is hateful but a thinks it’s ok when a is being hateful to x for being hateful
that said, I’m not trying to put anyone in their place. just give my cents
ok, in an a ideal world maybe it would be impossible to string certain words together in a certain way and if spoken would not be spoken in a certain tone. hell, there shouldn’t be the ability for our voice box to produce such a tone for any words, right !?
wouldn’t it be quite something if we could find a way to take the tone out of voice boxes at birth.
(not rhetorical)
In “Jive talkin” as recorded by the beegees in the (I think) 70s the lyrics were nuanced in a derogatory way. the narrator was calling the protagonist a liar among other things
i’m not sure is very rational to demand a person opologize to a race of people for not causing them offence. ....hold up, let me explain my logic:
nobody from the community has indicated in any way shape or form they were offended by it. and to the best of my knowledge there was no riots in Harlem when the beegees released the song in the 70s or when George Michael released in the 80s
I’m also having trouble with the two tiered hate speech system. why is it the four horses of the apocalypse when x Is hateful but a thinks it’s ok when a is being hateful to x for being hateful
that said, I’m not trying to put anyone in their place. just give my cents
