Subject: OT: Fiat Money Collpase
Date: 11/12/1999
Author: Paul Milne

Paper is not money, but merely a substitute, and confidence lasts only as long as people's trust in government is maintained. As soon as this trust is lost, either as a result of government's excessive use of the printing presses, or a breakdown in the government controlled banking system, people flee paper and turn to gold as a store of value. For more than 5000 years every government attempt to introduce paper as money has failed.

..... there can be little doubt that the world will once again encounter financial chaos due to the gigantic debt structure weighing upon the international banking system.

....it is likely that this debt will not only collapse the world's banking system, but also result in the demise of the world's monetary system. It is this monetary system that the world's bankers are fighting so hard to preserve.

There can be no doubt that this final battle, which will end the war, will be lost by the central banks when the majority will choose as they have always done, the discipline of gold over the indiscipline of paper, underwritten by debt and produced by government printing presses.

=======================

It is only a matter of time before we collapse. Paper 'fiat' money is not money at all.
Every fiat scheme ever introduced has collapse, barring none.

Only a fiat scheme can allow for the unbelievable levels of debt now present.

If REAL money were ACTUALLY loaned out, there would ONLY be so much to be loaned. Much like I can only loan you a shovel if I HAVE a shovel. Everyone understands that I can not loan out a 'digital' or 'virtual' shovel. But, all 'money' loaned out today is 'virtual' money. It does not exist. Worse, only the principle amount of non-existent money is loaned out. The interest portion of the non-existent money is never created to begin with meaning that, over time, the debts can never be repaid. This must NECESSARILY result in a collapse.

I first became aware of the unthinkable levels of debt in the early 90's. I knew that Peter could be robbed to pay Paul only for a season. And then, the piper must be paid. How long would it take? Two years? Five? Ten? Probably not that long. The levels of debt were rising far too quickly and the standards were being lowered just as fast.

This is the economic context of Y2k. It is why the resultant economic impact of Y2K will be the match to this economic bomb. It is why, once again, as always, paper money will be recognized for the nothingness that it really is.

When the first of the significant objective problems begin to occur, the population will realize that they have been lied to by commercial enterprises, banks and the government. Their confidence will disappear. And 'confidence' is the only glue holding it together. It is precisely why it is a 'con' game , to begin with.

People will panic. They will panic because they have been dissuaded from preparing.

Now, it won't bother me much. I won't need electricity. I have made preparations so that I will not need it. A water tower and mechanical pump for gravity fed supply. A propane hot water heater and stove so that I can cook and still have hot running water. Food for two years, livestock, etc etc. I am easily suplied for about two years.

All the comforts of the 1930's.

The only thing I have to worry about (that I can do anything about) is people who will behave criminally because they did not prepare, people who will figure that they can steal or otherwise ransack the private property of another for their own good, people who think that they can simply attack a man and his family on his own property minding his own business.

If it comes to that, that civil government is incapacitated to the extent that individuals must fend for themselves, God help the man who tries to do my family harm.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_99/gordon111299.html
--
Paul Milne
"If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- Ed (ed@lizzardranch.com), December 16, 1999

Answers

It's such NICE paper though.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), December 16, 1999.

Another true, apt and timely article by Paul Milne. Thank you for posting this so we could all see this, Ed.

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

When the electronic virtual money disappears, paper money and the cupro-nickel clad tokens we call coins will have value for a time (how long?). Get your cash now, in preparation for a banking/money/credit collapse. Then trade in the cash for REAL stuff, before the cattle figure out that those little green slips printed by the government have no more value than used toilet paper.

-- A (A@AisA.com), December 16, 1999.

Thanks for the post Ed. I have an anecdotal story to tell about how ordinary folks paid my grandfather for medical help during the Great Depression.

One of my grandfathers was a doctor in Central Texas, who practiced family medicine throughout the Great Depression. He was a much loved and trusted person who didn't believe in charging high prices or raising prices on office visits. He delivered babies until well after he was sixty, made house calls well into his seventies and visited every hospitalized patient twice a day. His service to his community ended when he died at age eighty, still practicing medicine every day of every week.

He told me about the Great Depression and the hardships it brought to most of his patients. I asked him how they could afford to pay him, if they had no money. He said that many did not pay or they paid very little, but only what they could afford. He let them decide what they could do. Some people barely had enough food to eat or money for necessities. He said luckily, some of his patients owned laying hens and so when they came to his office they paid him with fresh eggs...and he really loved that. Service for someone else doesn't always have to be paid with insurance claims and piles of money...not when the times are hard.

As a country we haven't seen hard times like that, since my grandfather's generation. Maybe a dozen fresh eggs will once again be looked upon as a prized gift.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 16, 1999.

Perhaps they'll find some other currency, but only a very small percentage of the population has laying hens. Back in the depression, it was a MUCH higher percentage.

Got water?

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

Paul missed the answer to the problem. It's not the paper it's the interest charged on debt both public and private. The answer... No Fed,one clearing house..the the treasury. No private bank should be able to create money from thin air (ie. morgage). They should have to be like other business in earning a profit. They would go to the government and borrow then loan for a small profit. we the people would be without debt and infact have a massive credit. This is per the constitution Art.1 sec 8 n5

-- (toddjk@aaa.net), December 16, 1999.

When the stock market crashes, those who think that their greenbacks will have lasting value will be in for a sad surprise. Invest in tangibles.

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), December 16, 1999.

Glad I invested in those 16 (soon to be) laying hens...now if they will just start laying!

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), December 16, 1999.

Paul is a man of *principle*, dammit. He *lives* off this fake money, paid to him (for not working) by an unconstitutional government, even as he attacks both.

And why does he accept handouts he despises others for siphoning off, in a form he despises, from a government he despises? Because it works!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 16, 1999.

Flint, oh my goodness! You're right .... again! Again and again and again and again. How do you do it? I'm begining to see the light about Milne. How could I have been SOOOOO deceived? Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank ....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 16, 1999.

"And why does he accept handouts he despises others for siphoning off, in a form he despises, from a government he despises? Because it works!"

Correction...

.....It works for a time. FACT: Every nation in the history of the world that has embarked on a fiat currency has devalued said currency to zero. Still commenting on that which you know not, eh, Flint? Notice that I've never jumped into a computer debate with you and the big boy? I'd look as foolish to do that as you look when you try to comment on the money issue.

.....For the record... we have no choice but to live off of this corrupted monetary system. What is it that you have against HONEST money? Why do you defend a fraudulent currency with such vigor? Are you not aware that you are being robbed at the same rate as your countrymen? Answer these simple questions, or don't bother returning an answer to me. I really can't cope with any more mindless drivel today.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 16, 1999.

Patrick:

Money isn't fraudulent because it breaks if it's misused, anymore than a car is fraudulent because it breaks when you drive it into a tree. Even gold won't work if it's misused.

Your inability to comprehend abstractions is your own shortcoming; the problem doesn't lie with the abstraction.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 1999.

Flint...

.....That's the most idiotic statement I believe I'd read from you. I said you failed to understand the issue, and you continue to prove it. Money is not an abstaction per se, and if you allow yourself to be deluded with such things outside the realm of reality, it's no wonder you DGI. I don't have any hope of you understanding this issue in the future, so let's leave well enough alone for now, and you can try to stick to issues of which you have an inkling of knowledge

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 17, 1999.

Patrick -- Now, now, there, there. Someday, you too will come to understand how to think .... like .... Flint. It took me many months, yeah, over a year, but I think .... I'm .... beginning .... to .... understand. It has something to do with abstractions being abstracted as ideas that are abstract. If you abstract the abstractions correctly, you ...... ahhhhhh. I feel sooooooo much better now! You will too, give it a try!

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 17, 1999.

Big Dog...

.....I see; Flint-think...yea...that's the ticket!

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 17, 1999.

(Pssttt, BigDog, stop sucking up to Flint, you're scaring the newbies!...)

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

BigDog,

You're really out of ammo now, aren't you? This mocking tone you've adopted WRT Flint is pretty sad.........

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

Johnny...

.....But it's certainly okay for Flint to do so to everybody else, I take it?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 17, 1999.

Patrick has it exactly right. Flint has written 100s of posts mocking "doomers" over the past four months and what's remarkable is how rarely he gets called on it. One of the big jokes here is that somehow the "pollies" get slammed all the time while the "doomers" go free. Cut me a break. Flint and the pollies mock doomers continually.

Turnabout is only fair play in this case.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 17, 1999.

BigDog -

Point taken. But...the degree to which the pollies were/are mocked and the degree to which the doomers were/are mocked is very different. Flint's "mockery" if you wish to call it that was usually based on a rational and reasonable (IMO) view of the data as it presented itself. (And because the data has undeniably changed in the last 18 months Flint's postion has changed.) Mockery of pollies was generally of the level of "moron" "butthead" "shill" etc.

I suppose we will have to wait for 14 days+ before we can decide who was right to "mock" whom.

Anyway, the weekend and non-Y2K related diversion await. Enjoy it, everyone.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

For the record here...

.....I haven't made it a habit of mocking anyone on this or any other board. I have gone out of my way to be courteous and respectful at all times. At no time have I engaged in a conversation concerning things in which I am not knowledgeable, but folks like Flint will attempt to address an issue where they most obviously have no knowledge or schooling, showing up on a great number of threads of various and sundry topics, (this fact alone makes me wonder if he has a clue on computers, since he has to be so "reaching" just to make an argument in so many cases, to the point of apparent obfuscation). I have had my intelligence insulted several times by several from the polly camp, (and you know who you are), as though ridiculing someone without addressing the argument wins anyone points. This thread is the classic example. Note my post above to Flint... I asked three consecutive questions, and stated plainly that until he could answer them, to not address me on this thread. The results are in plain view, he failed to answer the question, and claimed self-righteously that my understanding of abstact concepts was impaired, so am I the bad guy for calling him on it? I'll bet you got beat up a lot in school, didn't you Flint?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 17, 1999.

Patrick:

OK, I'll answer your questions. They are very easy.

[What is it that you have against HONEST money?]

Nothing. I use it all the time, and I earn it honestly, and it works just fine and always has for me. What has deluded you into thinking it's dishonest?

[Why do you defend a fraudulent currency with such vigor?]

I don't. The currency is not fraudulent. Your maniacal conviction otherwise is another delusion. Get over it.

[Are you not aware that you are being robbed at the same rate as your countrymen?]

I am not, and neither are you. You are suffering yet another delusion. I do fail to understand how these delusions benefit you.

But let me ask you an equally loaded question -- why are you so determinedly ignorant? Your fanaticism is so hopelessly divorced from any concept of reality as to prohibit any prayer of education from penetrating. I don't mean this as an insult, merely as an observation. I encourage you to babble your fantasies as much as you'd like, it's a free country. You are fortunate to live in a world those who *do* understand have made possible.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 1999.

Flint, as is so often the case with you, you are being purposely disingenuous and malicious while "posing" as the soul of reason. Get off it. You're out of your league.

Patrick: OK, I'll answer your questions. They are very easy.

[What is it that you have against HONEST money?]

Nothing. I use it all the time, and I earn it honestly, and it works just fine and always has for me. What has deluded you into thinking it's dishonest?

[YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT 'HONEST' MONEY HERE REFERS TO MONEY THAT HAS SPECIFIC BACKING BEYOND CONFIDENCE. DISAGREE WITH THE NEED FOR THAT, IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT THIS COMMENT IS SNIDE -- UNLESS YOU'RE REALLY AS IGNORANT AS IT MAKES YOU APPEAR]

[Why do you defend a fraudulent currency with such vigor?]

I don't. The currency is not fraudulent. Your maniacal conviction otherwise is another delusion. Get over it.

[MANIACAL. DELUSION. GET OVER IT. OK, NICE TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THOSE 'DOOMERS' WHO IRRATIONALLY ATTACKS PEOPLE WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING ..... 'REASONABLE']

[Are you not aware that you are being robbed at the same rate as your countrymen?]

I am not, and neither are you. You are suffering yet another delusion. I do fail to understand how these delusions benefit you.

But let me ask you an equally loaded question -- why are you so determinedly ignorant? Your fanaticism is so hopelessly divorced from any concept of reality as to prohibit any prayer of education from penetrating. I don't mean this as an insult, merely as an observation.

[HEY, PATRICK, NO NEED TO FEEL INSULTED BY BEING CALLED A FANATIC, FLINT IS JUST 'OBSERVING' WITH A 'COOL' AND 'LOGICAL' EYE]

I encourage you to babble your fantasies as much as you'd like, it's a free country. You are fortunate to live in a world those who *do* understand have made possible.

[AND WE OWE ALL THAT TO YOU, FLINT, YOU OF THE 'GREAT UNDERSTANDING' ABOUT EVERYTHING. BY THE WAY, WHEN YOU'RE READY TO ANSWER PATRICK'S QUESTIONS OR INTELLIGENTLY ADDRESS THIS POST, BE SURE AND LET US KNOW.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 17, 1999.

OK, Ill answer your questions. They are very easy. 

Flint...

.....The questions are very easy when you lack the historical knowledge, or pretend to, on this particular issue upon which you believe yourself to be so well versed. Your simplistic approach and haughtiness are laughable at best and sorrowfully ignorant at worst. We do NOT have an honest money system, inspite of the fact that you come by your money by honest means. The means by which money is created out of thin air, loaned into circulation and then systematically devalued through inflation is nothing short of larceny on the grandest of scale. I think Henry Ford said it best when he said, It is just as well the American people dont understand their monetary system, for if they did, there would be a revoultion before morning. Now I suppose he was just another ranting deluded fanatic to you, but this is coming from the man that is responsible for the innovations that made modern transportation what it is today.

.....The fact that you fail to understand this issue while attempting to portray otherwise, makes any and all of your assertions suspect, on other issues as well. How am I to know that you arent just as ignorant on the computer issue, or for that matter the myriad of other topics that you sound off on? But I suppose with you its far easier to assail someone as delusional than do the work required to actually learn something thats currently outside the sphere of your understanding.

.....Crack a book on this subject; might I suggest The Creature from Jekyl Island? by G. Edward Griffin, or The Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins. Perhaps you could go to the Congressional record and search for the speech by Congressman Louis McFadden, (youll certainly find it referenced in both books above). There are volumes of other material on this issue, and the bibliographies of the two books Ive listed would give you a tremendous path to travel should you prove to be even remotely the scholar that you portray yourself to be. In the meantime, you should tread lightly, dear Flint, your imbecility is showing.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 17, 1999.

Big Dog:

Getting a bit excited lately, aren't you? But I'll answer your questions anyway.

[YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT 'HONEST' MONEY HERE REFERS TO MONEY THAT HAS SPECIFIC BACKING BEYOND CONFIDENCE. DISAGREE WITH THE NEED FOR THAT, IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT THIS COMMENT IS SNIDE -- UNLESS YOU'RE REALLY AS IGNORANT AS IT MAKES YOU APPEAR]

I have nothing whatsoever against money that has specific backing of some kind. Patrick seems to assume that anyone who is satisfied with a monetary system he hates must *therefore* hate the monetary system he craves. Typical pigeonhole thinking. I never said I had anything against any other kind of system. Patrick asks what I have against something against which I have no complaints, and never said I did. His entire question is a false assumption based on ZERO information. I'm satisfied with any system that rewards me with valid, usable purchasing power for my labor. And during my lifetime, this is what I have received. It works.

[Why do you defend a fraudulent currency with such vigor?]

I don't. The currency is not fraudulent. Your maniacal conviction otherwise is another delusion. Get over it.

[MANIACAL. DELUSION. GET OVER IT. OK, NICE TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THOSE 'DOOMERS' WHO IRRATIONALLY ATTACKS PEOPLE WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING ..... 'REASONABLE']

Big Dog, READ the %$#&* question, OK? Can you see that Patrick's question *assumes* fraud? He doesn't ask *whether* it's fraudulent, or how, or why. His assumption is wrong. How can anyone honestly answer a question based on a false assumption? And if you've read much of what Patrick has written, you will see that this particular false assumption is an article of his FAITH! It cannot be questioned. Patrick simply assumes that anyone who doesn't buy into his particular fantasy is ignorant! This fantasy fits my definition of a maniacal conviction. Some people really *do* hear voices in the walls telling them to do things. For them, it's as real as can be. And if such a person asks you why you deny these voices exist, what do you say?

But let me ask you an equally loaded question -- why are you so determinedly ignorant? Your fanaticism is so hopelessly divorced from any concept of reality as to prohibit any prayer of education from penetrating. I don't mean this as an insult, merely as an observation.

[HEY, PATRICK, NO NEED TO FEEL INSULTED BY BEING CALLED A FANATIC, FLINT IS JUST 'OBSERVING' WITH A 'COOL' AND 'LOGICAL' EYE]

Ah, so turnabout is only fair play when *you* do it, right? Yes, I genuinely classify Patrick in the same general category as those who hear voices in the walls. Some problems lie beyond anyone's powers of persuasion.

[AND WE OWE ALL THAT TO YOU, FLINT, YOU OF THE 'GREAT UNDERSTANDING' ABOUT EVERYTHING. BY THE WAY, WHEN YOU'RE READY TO ANSWER PATRICK'S QUESTIONS OR INTELLIGENTLY ADDRESS THIS POST, BE SURE AND LET US KNOW.]

You can stop shouting now, BD. I suggest you relax and think some nice, comfortable doomie thoughts. Regain a semblance of control. Your posts lately have been a bit desperate, and reflect poorly on you.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 1999.

.....An assumption is not false simply because the great Flint has declared it so...

.....Again, Flint, crack a book.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 17, 1999.

"I'm satisfied with any system that rewards me with valid, usable purchasing power for my labor. And during my lifetime, this is what I have received. It works."

Flint, you've finally said something sensible that fits your amoral, operational ethic. To you, nothing matters except what "works" at the time ... for you. Aside from evolution, for which you have a bizarre personal passion, you are a pristine example of the modern nihilist.

It is hardly cultish to assert that the world has embarked on a fantastic, never-before attempted effort to create, manage, barter and arbitrage literally thousands of conceptual "currencies" (including celebrity itself, which can now be the subject of an IPO), NONE of which have any backing beyond "confidence".

Not only Paul Milne but Alan Greenspan worry themselves "sick" over this. As do quite a few other economists, political theorists and philosophers.

It is a simple historical fact that such schemes have always collapsed before. No one contests that.

OBVIOUSLY, we don't know it will collapse this time, by definition.

But the only "fanatic" here is yourself and your pitifully narrow- minded and amoral life philosophy. Consideration of the ethical basis of "economy" is as old as man and vital if free markets are going to serve us, rather than us serve them. It is a canard reserved for people under 20 and those like yourself to decide that what "works" is, ipso facto, not "fraudelent" (Pat, Flint really is totally ignorant of anything in the ethical sphere).

As I said before, and Pat echoed, you are out of your league in every way. Head over to some other thread where you can take someone else's posts and contradict/deconstruct them to bits. It isn't going to work here.

As for yelling, I had to use CAPS. But you knew that. You just wanted to "get at me". Typical.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 17, 1999.

Patrick:

Your reading list is enlightening. You seem to have suffered the misfortune of *starting* your study with the crackpots, and swallowed it hook and all. By now, I get the strong suspicion you'd consider any college economics textbook to be a Tool of the Devil, written by members of the conspiracy. And, of course, not worth your time to read, since you are so firmly convinced otherwise.

So please understand that I suffer from the same problem you have. When I read diatribes by nutballs, I howl with laughter. Just as you would if you read a standard textbook. Meanwhile, I perform honest labor, and purchase honest products with the fruits of that labor. Just as you do. If merchants stop accepting what I'm paid for my efforts, I'll work for something they will accept.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 1999.

Big Dog:

Interesting comment here:

[Flint, you've finally said something sensible that fits your amoral, operational ethic. To you, nothing matters except what "works" at the time ... for you.]

OK, I ask you: What do YOU work for, if not money? Do you *turn it down* because it's not "ethical" to accept it? Or do you take it and spend it, but feel suitably guilty for doing so? If you swallow the guilt, do you enjoy what you purchase, or is it somehow dirty?

I suppose you cleanse yourself by railing against the potential instabilities of our monetary system? Yes, I see the instabilities. They worry me. The time may come when the system collapses. But it sounds like you feel the need to bang on your money with a Bible to purify it against the evil powers that created and manipulate it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 1999.

Interesting comment here:

[Flint, you've finally said something sensible that fits your amoral, operational ethic. To you, nothing matters except what "works" at the time ... for you.]

OK, I ask you: What do YOU work for, if not money? Do you *turn it down* because it's not "ethical" to accept it? Or do you take it and spend it, but feel suitably guilty for doing so? If you swallow the guilt, do you enjoy what you purchase, or is it somehow dirty?

"I suppose you cleanse yourself by railing against the potential instabilities of our monetary system? Yes, I see the instabilities. They worry me. The time may come when the system collapses. But it sounds like you feel the need to bang on your money with a Bible to purify it against the evil powers that created and manipulate it."

"The time may come when the system collapses." RIGHT, FLINT. That's what THIS THREAD is about. Welcome! And thanks for mocking my religious faith! What a man.

Bang. Bible. Purify it. Evil powers. You're so ... very ... reasonable.

Here is another little tidbit for you, Flint. The flows of "money" and all the pseudo-money are so colossal that not even the Fed (WHATEVER one thinks of it) can control it. The Fed itself (read: Alan Greenspan) is a giant confidence game. At the moment, the entire world system rests on "confidence" IN a man, Alan Greenspan himself.

This has nothing per se to do with good or evil but is a simple fact.

I happen to find that "fact" to be rather terrifying. Now, where the "ethics" come in, oh nihilist, is with the way in which "money", which has for millenia been attached to "honest" (that is to say, "hard" tradeable value, formerly gold) exchange is now something which is "produced" in the same way the TVs, computers or Coca-Cola are produced.

Get it, Flint?

This is "new" and (gosh, I'm SO old-fashioned) dishonest, at least in the way that economists USED to define honest money. Heck, even for FIAT money, it's dishonest.

But then, Flint, as you yourself argue, governments need to "deliberately mislead", don't they? You'll be pleased to know they are working overtime to "deliberately mislead" you about your money. Good work if you can get, eh?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 17, 1999.

FLINT

-- number six (iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

"Patrick's question *assumes* fraud? He doesn't ask *whether* it's fraudulent, or how, or why-"

.....The question assumes fraud because the fraud is documented and real... unlike the theoretics you choose to wallow in. They dazzle you with brilliantly contrived confusion, and you become pleased with yourself at your wonderful ability to understand such "complexities", and fancy yourself "educated", never realizing you're been wholly deceived.

"you will see that this particular false assumption is an article of his FAITH! It cannot be questioned. Patrick simply assumes that anyone who doesn't buy into his particular fantasy is ignorant-"

.....This assumption has zero to do with faith, Flint. Your lack of perception is incredible. The reason I've listed the books that I have is because they are comprehensive and completely referenced so as to validate the authors' conclusions and/or assertions. How many college textbooks have you delved into the bibliographies of? Or do you believe they were just there for the legal ramifications of authorship?

.....I find you quite demeaning to try to hold a conversation with, as you stoop to the lowest forms of intellectual dishonesty. The name- calling you so casually castigate people for is your stock-in-trade, and you're just arrogant enough to believe that nobody notices.

"Some people really *do* hear voices in the walls telling them to do things. For them, it's as real as can be.

.....This assertion on your part, in this particular discussion, reveals character traits that I feel beneath comment. You have a marvelous gift of inspiring contempt; I hope you're pleased with yourself.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 17, 1999.

Big Dog:

Indirectly, I am trading my labor for my lifestyle. So are you. Yes, it's a confidence game. The value gold has always had, is that people have always been confident that *other* people would be confident about it. The key difference is that gold is pretty, and appeals to human nature as a result. The "hardness" of gold is nothing more than confidence that people won't change their minds about what they think is pretty, because they never have in the past. OK, good enough.

But even when you could nominally trade a dollar for some gold, nobody did so. The promise that you could if you wanted was nothing more than a confidence trick, to make people more likely to use dollars as a medium of exchange. Eventually, it became clear that this wasn't necessary and presented obstacles. And you can trade dollars for gold today, if you wish.

As I understand it, the original idea was to prevent governments from creating money faster than the economy created real value. And this happened from time to time, and was a real danger. However, tying dollars to a fixed amount of gold to prevent this *also* prevented governments from creating money *as fast* as the economy could create real value (there just isn't enough gold to mine that fast). And that stifled the economy, since it pinned economic activity arbitrarily to the gold supply.

So the "solution" was to cut the dollar loose from any fixed backing, and "promise" to keep the dollar supply closely tied to the real value the economy creates. No, government promises have never been worth very much, and governments have always opted for short term benefits and long term costs -- what someone called "burning renaissance masterpieces to cook tonight's meal." I think a bit more than Alan Greenspan stands in the way of losing this self-control, but probably not much more. The temptation is always there.

But I (naturally) don't regard this as an ethical issue, merely a tradeoff. So long as we keep the money/economy ratio fairly constant, it's a great tradeoff. If we succumb to temptation, then it's a terrible tradeoff.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 1999.

And of course Johnny Cannuck NEVER mocks the people on this board, omy heavens to Betsy No!

From Debunking Y2k

Re: Doomer declares war, Friday, 07-May-1999 16:04:58

209.20.2.56 writes:

Why can't I stay away from that loonie bin?

I ask myself the same question [g].

For us non-Americans we just find it a spectacle that is just so ...well.... American. Other countries couldn't summon up the broad range of charcters who populate the Yourdon board.

Sometimes I feel like a voyeur - watching the couple across the street have a knock-down drag-em-out fight at 1 am with the lights on and the windows open.

Say what you want about the Yourdon board, but it is never dull.

(And, trust me, if Canadians are experts in anything, we know dull.)

Johnny Canuck

Just can't stay away, can you Johnny? Go back to dull - it suits you much better.

-- balance (the@record.out), December 17, 1999.

Hey, great picture, Flint! Looks like they got your good side.

LOL

-- a (a@a.a), December 17, 1999.

Oooohh, my very own Outings R Us. I'm flattered.

I made about a dozen posts to the previous version of Debunky over 4- 5 months and "balance" has managed to find one of them. Guess you don't have much else to do beside trawl through months and months of postings on Debunky, eh?

I stand by what I wrote. Any place that attracts people who believe

- their government is spraying the populace with some sort of flu- inducing chemical (contrails etc.)

- in the analytical abilities of David Icke

- a NWO is secretly planning a takeover of the US, while at the same time manipulating the price of gold and the level of the stock markets

- corporate and political leaders are completely clueless about fixing Y2K and yet at the same time are masterminding a vast conspiracy of silence

- it may be necessary to kill their neighbours if TSHTF

qualifies as a loonie bin. (Note, I'm not saying everyone here believes all or some of the above, just a significant enough minority.)

Most of the discussions here are speculative. Some of the speculation is entertaining. That's one of the reasons I come here. It really is like being Ned Flanders living next door to the Simpsons. You just never know what Bart and Homer are going to do next. You see, we don't have exciting people like that up here. When I'm having my double-double and maple glazed at the local Tim Horton's the guys at the next table are not talking about which kind of ammo goes through flak jackets or how Klinton has secretly planned for Martial Law and a 3rd term. No, they are talking about hockey or the weather. Boring stuff.

So, to answer your question "balance", no, I just can't stay away. Oh, and I'll try and be boring. Just for you.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), December 18, 1999.

Flint said (I reply)

Indirectly, I am trading my labor for my lifestyle. So are you. Yes, it's a confidence game. The value gold has always had, is that people have always been confident that *other* people would be confident about it. The key difference is that gold is pretty, and appeals to human nature as a result. The "hardness" of gold is nothing more than confidence that people won't change their minds about what they think is pretty, because they never have in the past. OK, good enough.

(You're getting warmer but you're far from hot. Gold has intrinsic properties that have made it useful for mediating and backing up economic trade for millenia, ESPECIALLY during catastrophic periods. It is possible that these properties are no longer necessary: we're currently running the experiment. But you are trivializing its function and its historic use, as well as speaking mockingly of other ("pretty"). Nothing new there.)

But even when you could nominally trade a dollar for some gold, nobody did so.

(Wrong)

The promise that you could if you wanted was nothing more than a confidence trick, to make people more likely to use dollars as a medium of exchange.

(It wasn't a confidence "trick" (more patronizing) but a rational connection grounded in millenia of experience with gold and paper).

Eventually, it became clear that this wasn't necessary and presented obstacles.

(Whether it is "necessary" is precisely the point under discussion. Historically, it is too soon to know but we probably will within the next twenty to thirty years).

And you can trade dollars for gold today, if you wish.

(Irrelevant to this thread)

As I understand it, the original idea was to prevent governments from creating money faster than the economy created real value. And this happened from time to time, and was a real danger.

(More than a "real danger". Detachment from "hard money" has always failed, with catastrophic effects.)

However, tying dollars to a fixed amount of gold to prevent this *also* prevented governments from creating money *as fast* as the economy could create real value (there just isn't enough gold to mine that fast). And that stifled the economy, since it pinned economic activity arbitrarily to the gold supply.

(This is the first thing you've said on this entire thread that has merit, ie, is debatable by reasonable people. Too bad we had to work through your contempt of Milne, McHenry and myself to get here.

Nothing prevents the price of gold from rising in a gold-backed economy (more dollars created for an ounce of gold, tracking the growth of real economic value). This isn't as great a barrier as you imply.

But you put your finger on the real issue. Gold-backed economies tend to frustrate the arbitrary MANUFACTURE of money. Understanding that money is a product just like Coca-Cola is key. That is the "nasty little secret" of the 20th century or, if you're a banker and trader, its genius.)

So the "solution" was to cut the dollar loose from any fixed backing, and "promise" to keep the dollar supply closely tied to the real value the economy creates. No, government promises have never been worth very much, and governments have always opted for short term benefits and long term costs -- what someone called "burning renaissance masterpieces to cook tonight's meal." I think a bit more than Alan Greenspan stands in the way of losing this self-control, but probably not much more. The temptation is always there.

(Yes, but gold thwarted that temptation. The near logarithmic explosion of "currencies" and "debt" is the sign of gluttony run amok. One doesn't have to be "religious" to decide that the system is highly "unethical" and/or "rigged". Was it always? Unless this is about splitting hairs, the answer is, "no - because when they rigged it, economies collapsed." Pat's position and mine is that this new experiment will have a similar result. That is hardly "fanatic", just something that may be "right" or "wrong". I hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime and worry for my children.)

But I (naturally) don't regard this as an ethical issue, merely a tradeoff. So long as we keep the money/economy ratio fairly constant, it's a great tradeoff. If we succumb to temptation, then it's a terrible tradeoff.

(Greed and deceit are ethical issues, Flint. Even today's relativistic government educational system knows that. But, again, I have come to understand that you are a profoundly amoral person - by cool, analytical, philosophical choice, and proud of it.)

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 18, 1999.

Big Dog:

[Gold has intrinsic properties that have made it useful for mediating and backing up economic trade for millenia, ESPECIALLY during catastrophic periods.]

But you don't mention what these "intrinsic" properties might be. All I can see is appearance and rarity, and doesn't corrode. But on another thread, someone asked why platinum wouldn't work as well, since it's just as rare and also doesn't corrode. And for that matter, why is silver considered appropriate, since it's much less rare and *does* corrode. I think the answer is that silver is also attractive. I didn't intend to speak mockingly by calling gold (or silver) "pretty". It is, and that appearance lies at the heart of what makes these metals acceptable to people in trade. If there are other intrinsic features that gold has, what are they?

[Nothing prevents the price of gold from rising in a gold-backed economy (more dollars created for an ounce of gold, tracking the growth of real economic value). This isn't as great a barrier as you imply.]

OK, here I admit confusion. If one can create an arbitrary number of dollars per fixed unit of gold, then where is the necessary throttle on this process? If this is true, then again there is no limit on the number of dollars that can be created. Unless maybe you're referring to the political friction of periodically passing a law redefining the amount of gold a dollar can buy? But as we've seen with the national debt, the legal ceiling is raised yearly by rubber stamp vote. If there is no fixed relationship between dollars and gold and the ratio can be changed at will, then what role does gold really play at all?

[Gold-backed economies tend to frustrate the arbitrary MANUFACTURE of money.]

How? I'm not saying this frustration doesn't happen, but I don't see the mechanism. I think you just said that we get around the barrier by changing the ratio.

[The near logarithmic explosion of "currencies" and "debt" is the sign of gluttony run amok.]

Then why haven't we seen runaway inflation in the US? Are you saying that all this extra money has been directed into bidding up equity values?

[Greed and deceit are ethical issues, Flint.]

Yes, I agree. But I don't regard the current monetary system as deceitful. Perhaps you're right that the current system is a bit more easily corrupted (though I'm not convinced of it), but I don't see anyone deceitfully representing it as other than it is. As for greed, people always want to improve their circumstances. This is greed? The desire for a robust and healthy economy is greed? Is it greedy to try to keep both unemployment and inflation low?

I grant that it's hard to see the economic contribution made by those who do nothing more than have the good fortune to buy low and sell high, and get rich in the process. But others aren't so lucky and lose. And I try to be careful with my resentments. I know the janitorial staff where I work resents the money paid to engineers, since they work hard all day and engineers just sit around (from their perspective). So I believe in letting market mechanisms work as freely as practical, and accept the result that some people take more remunerative advantage of it than I do. But I wouldn't trade places with them, because I get more personal reward from my own work, which I enjoy tremendously.

And surely you understand that just as I appear amoral from your perspective, you appear to be imposing ethical judgments onto ethically neutral processes from my perspective.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 18, 1999.

[Gold has intrinsic properties that have made it useful for mediating and backing up economic trade for millenia, ESPECIALLY during catastrophic periods.]

But you don't mention what these "intrinsic" properties might be. All I can see is appearance and rarity, and doesn't corrode. But on another thread, someone asked why platinum wouldn't work as well, since it's just as rare and also doesn't corrode. And for that matter, why is silver considered appropriate, since it's much less rare and *does* corrode. I think the answer is that silver is also attractive. I didn't intend to speak mockingly by calling gold (or silver) "pretty". It is, and that appearance lies at the heart of what makes these metals acceptable to people in trade. If there are other intrinsic features that gold has, what are they?

.....You may wish to ask some of the millionaires that got rich by salvaging furnaces from the industries that utilize gold and silver in industrial processes. For someone that tries to appear so very intelligent, this was a pretty revealing question to the contrary.

OK, here I admit confusion. If one can create an arbitrary number of dollars per fixed unit of gold, then where is the necessary throttle on this process? If this is true, then again there is no limit on the number of dollars that can be created. Unless maybe you're referring to the political friction of periodically passing a law redefining the amount of gold a dollar can buy? But as we've seen with the national debt, the legal ceiling is raised yearly by rubber stamp vote. If there is no fixed relationship between dollars and gold and the ratio can be changed at will, then what role does gold really play at all?

.....One cannot create an arbitrary number of dollars per fixed unit of gold! They are only by law alloweed to use gold and silver as dollars. The paper money served as receipts, that were to match "dollar for dollar" if you will, the amount of gold on hand at any given time. THIS IS THE VERY ESSENCE OF THIS ISSUE, AND THE ONE THAT IS HAVING SUCH A HARD TIME PERMEATING YOUR SKULL! The dollar to gold and silver ratio is fixed at "x" number grains of gold and "x" number of grains of silver and should NEVER fluctuate. It's the whores in congress and now the federal reserve that have bastardized the standards while a complacent idiotic populace were busy collecting batting averages. There is nowhere near enough platinum available to utilize as "currency."

[Gold-backed economies tend to frustrate the arbitrary MANUFACTURE of money.]

How? I'm not saying this frustration doesn't happen, but I don't see the mechanism. I think you just said that we get around the barrier by changing the ratio.

.....By printing more notes than there is gold to back them, simple really. I would have thought a great intellect such as yours would have caught that within the first dozen or so times that it was mentioned during our exchanges, Flint.

[The near logarithmic explosion of "currencies" and "debt" is the sign of gluttony run amok.]

Then why haven't we seen runaway inflation in the US? Are you saying that all this extra money has been directed into bidding up equity values?

.....Just because inflation has been obscured from view doesn't mean that it's non-existent. I imagine the fedgov removing food and energy from the equation would have quite a bit to do with that, Flint. Of course, should that fail to achieve the desired results, there are certainly a wide variety of other mechanisms that could be employed to attain their goal of showing low inflation, it's called "cooking the books." This is exactly the point that you refuse to believe. If we were on a solid gold standard, then inflation would not exist and this inflation is the hidden tax that we all fall prey to, for the simple fact that there are idiots out there that will argue about what the inflation rate should or should not be, as opposed to speaking about it being the "silent thief" that the banksters have created to benefit only themselves as they debauch the currency. It's not about how you come by your "money" but about how much you get to exercise control of. First you work five months of the year to pay unlawful taxes, then out of your remaining balance, the inflation robs you of your purchasing power. You probably still don't get it, do you?

[Greed and deceit are ethical issues, Flint.]

Yes, I agree. But I don't regard the current monetary system as deceitful. Perhaps you're right that the current system is a bit more easily corrupted (though I'm not convinced of it), but I don't see anyone deceitfully representing it as other than it is. As for greed, people always want to improve their circumstances. This is greed? The desire for a robust and healthy economy is greed? Is it greedy to try to keep both unemployment and inflation low?

.....That's because you're too obstinate to read anything more than your indoctrinating college textbooks that serve only to indoctrinate the baser "intellect" among us. The fact that you don't see the deceit is due to the "howling laughter" you said that you impart in the face of true scholarship, (that has a bibliography, remember?), rather than investigate whether or not what has been said to be true.

I grant that it's hard to see the economic contribution made by those who do nothing more than have the good fortune to buy low and sell high, and get rich in the process. But others aren't so lucky and lose. And I try to be careful with my resentments. I know the janitorial staff where I work resents the money paid to engineers, since they work hard all day and engineers just sit around (from their perspective). So I believe in letting market mechanisms work as freely as practical, and accept the result that some people take more remunerative advantage of it than I do. But I wouldn't trade places with them, because I get more personal reward from my own work, which I enjoy tremendously.

.....The above paragraph doesn't even fit into this argument, and serves only to illustrate that either you truly don't "get it" on this particular issue, or that you are intentionally trying to obfuscate and confuse the reader. Nobody can be so stupid as to think that this is what the fraudulent money issue refers to.

And surely you understand that just as I appear amoral from your perspective, you appear to be imposing ethical judgments onto ethically neutral processes from my perspective

.....There is NOTHING "ethically neutral" about this issue. Can't you understand, Flint, or won't you? It is not OK to have to buy four houses in order to own one. When a Friend of mine, took out a mortgage for $82,000.00 and has to return $325,000.00 to the bank, that's almost a quarter million dollars of their life's earnings to get it paid for. In my mind, that is criminal, as it was in the minds of our founding fathers. Am I to understand that you have more on the ball than they? A true service to the people would provide those dollars without interest, and be a government entity, not a private concern that cares only about profits.

.....You've tried to lower this discussion to the lowest common denominator, but that's probably par for the course; face it, we're in a race to the bottom! Read the thread below, and try to understand what knowledge is being put forth, and I assure that it's true, because my research has turned up the exact same factual information. If you wish to do this again, try to educate yourself beforehand so that you don't show up, yet again, embarrassingly shy of the tools required.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0022rC

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 22, 1999.

.....Still waiting...

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 22, 1999.

.....And still waiting...

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 22, 1999.

.....Sill am waiting...

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 23, 1999.

Waiting for what???

-- (waiting@for.what), December 23, 1999.

Patrick:

OK, let's keep going over this. I asked "If there are other intrinsic features that gold has, what are they?"

Your "answer" was that someone got rich "mining" furnaces continaing precious metals. OK, HOW did they get rich? By *selling* the gold and silver? OK, fine, it has a market value, which is NOT an intrinsic value. Or did they *use* it for something other than trade? Intrinsic value is USE value, NOT market value. To put it bluntly, you dodged a question you couldn't answer. Par for the course. The fact remains that gold and silver have little intrinsic value -- gold mostly for jewelry, silver mostly in photographic emulsions. All else is trade value.

And in passing, I should mention that you dodged this question mostly by calling me names. A good indication of desperation.

Moving right along, I asked Big Dog whether pinning a dollar to a fixed amount of gold might stifle economic growth by pinning that growth to the rate of gold mining. Big Dog answered that we get around this problem by essentially "floating" the dollar with respect to gold. In response, you said "One cannot create an arbitrary number of dollars per fixed unit of gold!"

That was MY understanding as well, Patrick. The resulting requirement that the size of an economy be glued to the rate of gold mining is one of the key absurdities of your fantasy. But your argument here is with Big Dog, who actually attempted to address a real problem. You are merely chanting dogma. Perhaps YOU might like to address the issue of how an economy can grow (more people, more productivity per person) if the value of that economy MUST be pinned to an arbitrary amount of gold. The only alternative I can see is rampant deflation. THINK about it. Twice as much to buy, NO more dollars (because gold supply is fixed), so therefore each dollar must purchase twice as much. That's deflation.

OK, next point. Big Dog and I were discussing the mechanism by which a gold standard would frustrate the arbitrary creation of too much money. YOUR answer was that the LACK of a gold standard PERMITTED arbitrary creation of money. Very good answer to a question nobody was asking. Do you actually read before responding, or is your animosity more important to you than your reading comprehension?

Then, you go on to claim that we really *do* have rampant inflation, but nobody notices because the goverment cooks the books. HAW haw haw! Riiiight. So I go to the store and buy the same items for nearly the same price year after year because the government is playing accounting games?

What I think is happening here is, by your argument we MUST have runaway inflation, yet prices have been holding nearly dead steady for some time. Here we have a basic sanity test. When your theory is flat contradicted by reality, do you change your theory or do you deny reality? And for you, there's no doubt what to do. You claim we're really suffering from "secret" runaway inflation, and nobody else notices because they lack your "scholarship"! Reality is wrong, your theory is right! And when we get to the bottom of all this, we find that those studying reality are being "indoctrinated", while those with their heads stuck up the nutballs' asses have a hotline to the truth. Aye, 'twas ever thus.

As for your complete inability to understand compound interest and the role TIME plays, I've long since given up. Your friend COULD have purchased that house for $82,000 in cash, and not spent a penny in interest, right? So why didn't he? Probably because he didn't HAVE $82,000, but wanted to live in that house anyway, right?

So are you really claiming your friend should have the "right" to spend years living in a house he hasn't paid for, that belongs to someone else, just because he WANTS to? Yes, even I can see this has ethical implications. Usually, this is called theft. In order not to be a thief, your friend might agree to PAY for the privilege of living in someone else's house. This is called interest. Alternatively, you friend might save up the $82,000 and pay it all at once. That's called delayed gratification, and sometimes it's a long delay.

Anyway, it's the holiday season. Have a nice worldwide collapse. Of course, the government is going to keep the collapse a secret just like they're keeping inflation a secret. But of course you know better. They're out to get you, but you're too smart for them. Oh yes!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 23, 1999.

"Patrick: OK, let's keep going over this. I asked "If there are other intrinsic features that gold has, what are they?"

Your "answer" was that someone got rich "mining" furnaces continaing precious metals. OK, HOW did they get rich? By *selling* the gold and silver? OK, fine, it has a market value, which is NOT an intrinsic value. Or did they *use* it for something other than trade? Intrinsic value is USE value, NOT market value. To put it bluntly, you dodged a question you couldn't answer. Par for the course. The fact remains that gold and silver have little intrinsic value -- gold mostly for jewelry, silver mostly in photographic emulsions. All else is trade value."

.....If your deductive reasoning is impaired, allow me to show you the OBVIOUS conclusion that you fail to grasp. If some could get rich salvaging a furnace, then there is an obvious industrial need for the metal, as they got rich just on the residue.

And in passing, I should mention that you dodged this question mostly by calling me names. A good indication of desperation.

.....You're the only one calling anyone names here.

Moving right along, I asked Big Dog whether pinning a dollar to a fixed amount of gold might stifle economic growth by pinning that growth to the rate of gold mining. Big Dog answered that we get around this problem by essentially "floating" the dollar with respect to gold. In response, you said "One cannot create an arbitrary number of dollars per fixed unit of gold!"

That was MY understanding as well, Patrick. The resulting requirement that the size of an economy be glued to the rate of gold mining is one of the key absurdities of your fantasy. But your argument here is with Big Dog, who actually attempted to address a real problem. You are merely chanting dogma. Perhaps YOU might like to address the issue of how an economy can grow (more people, more productivity per person) if the value of that economy MUST be pinned to an arbitrary amount of gold. The only alternative I can see is rampant deflation. THINK about it. Twice as much to buy, NO more dollars (because gold supply is fixed), so therefore each dollar must purchase twice as much. That's deflation.

.....I've never asserted that the size of the economy should be anything. I simply want a "dollar" to be a "dollar." The dollar is not a federal reserve note. A true dollar is described as an amount of gold or silver, (see above), the fed is unlawfully making it take many times the actual *one dollar* to purchase said dollar, which is the very definition of "debauched currency." This is what you fail to understand, but I'm becoming more conviced that you only pretend to misunderstand. Nobody could possibly be as thick as you expecting me to believe that you are, or is it the readers besides ourselves that you play to? After decades of inflation, which is an unlawful theft of mass sums of the people's wealth, I would think that a great deal of deflation would be welcome, but if the monetary system were honest from the beginning there never would have been a need for deflation as inflation would have been nonexistent.

OK, next point. Big Dog and I were discussing the mechanism by which a gold standard would frustrate the arbitrary creation of too much money. YOUR answer was that the LACK of a gold standard PERMITTED arbitrary creation of money. Very good answer to a question nobody was asking. Do you actually read before responding, or is your animosity more important to you than your reading comprehension?

.....We were well on our way to a debauched currency by the time the gold "window" was slammed shut. Are you afraid to address the ROOT of the problem, or is it that you find more pleasure in dissecting the sypmtoms that the problem produces? You really don't seem able to comprehend what I'm saying, Flint, which would lead you, I guess, to complain about my supposed reading comprehension problems. I believe you're the one that fails to read the pertinent data. Did you read the thread I provided? Obviously not, or if you did you were probably too busy howling with your insippent laughter.

Then, you go on to claim that we really *do* have rampant inflation, but nobody notices because the goverment cooks the books. HAW haw haw! Riiiight. So I go to the store and buy the same items for nearly the same price year after year because the government is playing accounting games?

.....It is a documented fact that food and energy have been removed from the equation of the inflation index. Don't expect me to provide you with where this is found, do your own legwork. I'm awfully tired of your intellectual laziness, and by including the word "intellectual," I believe I'm being quite kind.

What I think is happening here is, by your argument we MUST have runaway inflation, yet prices have been holding nearly dead steady for some time. Here we have a basic sanity test. When your theory is flat contradicted by reality, do you change your theory or do you deny reality? And for you, there's no doubt what to do. You claim we're really suffering from "secret" runaway inflation, and nobody else notices because they lack your "scholarship"! Reality is wrong, your theory is right! And when we get to the bottom of all this, we find that those studying reality are being "indoctrinated", while those with their heads stuck up the nutballs' asses have a hotline to the truth. Aye, 'twas ever thus.

.....Inflation can manifest itself without the numbers changing all that much, it's the purchasing power that is affected. Your dollars are worth less than they were through inflation, thereby purchasing far less. The portions also become smaller, as the candy industry can so well illustrate, i.e. smaller candy bars for higher prices equals a double whammy.

As for your complete inability to understand compound interest and the role TIME plays, I've long since given up. Your friend COULD have purchased that house for $82,000 in cash, and not spent a penny in interest, right? So why didn't he? Probably because he didn't HAVE $82,000, but wanted to live in that house anyway, right?

.....Government banks with non-interest bearing notes used to be the norm. The treasury worked for the people, not the private interests. Ever heard of history as a concept?

So are you really claiming your friend should have the "right" to spend years living in a house he hasn't paid for, that belongs to someone else, just because he WANTS to? Yes, even I can see this has ethical implications. Usually, this is called theft. In order not to be a thief, your friend might agree to PAY for the privilege of living in someone else's house. This is called interest. Alternatively, you friend might save up the $82,000 and pay it all at once. That's called delayed gratification, and sometimes it's a long delay.

.....Same answer.

Anyway, it's the holiday season. Have a nice worldwide collapse. Of course, the government is going to keep the collapse a secret just like they're keeping inflation a secret. But of course you know better. They're out to get you, but you're too smart for them. Oh yes!

.....Again, Flint, you are an affront to polite conversation. Have it your way, and let's let this go. You'll never understand the depth of the conversation, but you sure do play hell with the superficial.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 27, 1999.