Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/17/08 12:19 AM, dooseyboy wrote: yes you're right the money is all spent on MILITAIRY.
ha

Yes, and it's paid off. The dominance of our military can be compared to France at the height of it's power, Mongolia at both heights of it's power, or any of the other superpowers in history.

It's rather hard to beat us.

the people would be so poor they need to sell there houses and people from arounds the world will buy those houses.

Which would mean those people from around the world would have to come to America to live in their homes. Meaning that the homes would still be in the hands of Americans.

Oh shit, basic economic concepts 1, fifteen year old Australian kid 0.

I feel as if the whole point of this discussion is completely irrelevant. The percentages and numbers being thrown out, while factually correct, are completely superfluous.
The fact is, the global economy is in an uproar, fueled by the sub-prime mortgage crisis and ensuing credit crush here in the states.
The fact is, the US government has allowed deficit spending to get out of control to the point where the only temporary solution is, you guessed it, more deficit spending.
The fact is, we as a nation have been setting up this whole debacle for the past decade.
The fact is, we got here for two reasons, extremely low interest rates (1), and slack regulations on loans.
The fact is, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EQ1sg6Gh ZE&NR=1 this man has it right on the money, so to speak.

At 9/17/08 08:56 PM, Goptop wrote: The fact is, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EQ1sg6Gh ZE&NR=1 this man has it right on the money, so to speak.

Hate to break it to you, but Ron Paul's knowledge of the economy is almost nonexistent and some of his policies are just plain loony.

The man proposed going back to a gold standard, never minding the fact that there simply isn't enough gold in circulation the world today to back up the US economy. His credibility with regards to the economy is nil.

Under what pretense do you nullify his credibility? Because you refuse to understand the greater concept of his positions? You make assumptions because you do not understand. He serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee; the Joint Economic Committee; and the Committee on Financial Services (as Ranking Member of the Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology subcommittee, and Vice-Chair of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee). To say this man has no credibility on economic policy is like saying, Michael Phelps isn't a talented swimmer; he is, and his record shows it.

As for the gold standard; his position is to emphasize the fact that gold is an infallible commodity. Its always been there, and had we not fazed it out of use these financial problems wouldn't be occurring. Never-mind the fact there isn't enough gold to go around, that's as obvious as day. To tie the value of the dollar to the value of gold in some form or another would greatly stabilize the economy; ambiguous private corporations would then not have a hold over the value of our currency, and bring back some transparency that has been missing from our monetary system since the Fed's institution.

Now, obviously these actions are a long way from happening, or ever happening. However, there is an impending financial crisis looming; we're at the first stages of it. And a lot CAN be blamed on the chaotic fluctuations of the American dollar.

At 9/17/08 07:12 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Long before America "fully crashed" the entire world economy would have collapsed, including that of your own country.

The world economy directly depends on the well being of the US.

You are contradicting yourself as usual. In 1 sentence you say a US collapse will collapse the global economy, and in the next sentence you say the world economy will collapse before America does.

Which is it?

At 9/17/08 10:21 PM, Goptop wrote: Under what pretense do you nullify his credibility?

Under the pretense that a gold standard is impossible to implement in this day and age.

Because you refuse to understand the greater concept of his positions?

No, because I actually understand economics to the point that I can determine the applicability of his economic proposals.

You make assumptions because you do not understand.

Rather, I make factual claims because I DO understand exactly what his policies would imply.

He serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee; the Joint Economic Committee; and the Committee on Financial Services (as Ranking Member of the Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology subcommittee, and Vice-Chair of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee). To say this man has no credibility on economic policy is like saying, Michael Phelps isn't a talented swimmer; he is, and his record shows it.

Um, you do realize that there are plenty of members of congress that take the exact opposite positions that he has, that he blames for the economic problems in the US has, that are in those same committees? Being in a committee doesn't mean their policies are credible.

As for the gold standard; his position is to emphasize the fact that gold is an infallible commodity.

His position is that the US should return to a gold standard.

Now, let's take a look at the facts.

- At Fort Knox there are 5000 TONS, or 147.3 million ounces of gold.

- Gold is currently worth $855.7 per ounce.

- That means the reserves at Fort Knox, several thousand tons of gold, are only worth about $130 Billion at current rates.

-----

Consider that.

Then think about how someone could actually believe we could support an economy with a GDP of $14.3 trillion and services each year on gold as the main reserve!

Is there is even enough gold in circulation in the entire world right now to support the US economy?

NOPE

In fact, all the gold ever mined by man is thought to be 158,000 tons. We have 5000 tons of it at Fort Knox, about 1/30th, worth $130 billion. Multiply $130 billion times 30 and that means there's only about $3.9 trillion worth of gold ever mined by man. This is less than 1/3rd of our GDP (the combined yearly value of our goods and services).

Now, the counter-argument given by the somewhat-intelligent Ron Paul's supporters is that if we started purchasing gold as reserves for our currency, the value of gold will skyrocket due to the high demand, and that this would make a gold-backed currency feasible today because much less gold would be needed. This would only last a while, but it would have to cause gold to increase in value several, several times over. Then, once our demand stabilized, gold would drop again and instead of a free-floating dollar based on our actual economic performance, we'd be bound to gold... and our dollar would drop even further than is currently conceivable on a free float.

I.e. Ron Paul does not have credibility in economic matters, due to such an absurdly illogical position. It's simple math, the gold standard currency, which he proposes, cannot be implemented. It may have worked 230 years ago but it can't work today.

Its always been there, and had we not fazed it out of use these financial problems wouldn't be occurring.

Um, had we not fazed it out, we never would have industrialized and our economy would be a fraction of the size it is today.

At 9/18/08 12:32 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 9/17/08 07:12 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Long before America "fully crashed" the entire world economy would have collapsed, including that of your own country.

The world economy directly depends on the well being of the US.

You are contradicting yourself as usual.

I didn't contradict myself at all, you're just incapable of simple reading comprehension.

In 1 sentence you say a US collapse will collapse the global economy

That's because I was responding to a hypothetical, a premise that the other person had. The person was suggesting that the US economy would "fully collapse", alluding that other economies, including his, would not collapse. I was saying that IF the US economy collapsed in that context in which other countries didn't, it would caused a global economic collapse.

That was a logical conclusion based on a hypothetical.

I was basically saying: "If what you say happened, this would happen. "

I was not saying: "All of this WILL happen".

and in the next sentence you say the world economy will collapse before America does.

Because my premise in that regard, which I actually believe, is that an economic downturn (even if it originated in the US) would end up hurting other economies more than the US. And I have plenty of evidence (1, 2) to suggest this is true.

Since the US economy is resilient, in the event that there is a global economic breakdown, even if it was triggered by problems in the US (not necessarily a US collapse), other economies would hit the breaking point before the US. They would collapse before the US. Just like other countries have had recessions before the US has (if the US will even have one).

At 9/18/08 01:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/18/08 12:32 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: You are contradicting yourself as usual.

I didn't contradict myself at all, you're just incapable of simple reading comprehension.

your stuff doesn't make sense, and your reply proves it.

At 9/18/08 01:23 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 9/18/08 01:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/18/08 12:32 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: You are contradicting yourself as usual.

I didn't contradict myself at all, you're just incapable of simple reading comprehension.

your stuff doesn't make sense, and your reply proves it.

Ahaha.

Hate to break it to you, but you're either not very bright or not very honest. I didn't contradict myself, it's pretty obvious.

Either you can't decipher simple English, or you can but you're too bitter to admit that you misread what I said initially. I'm guessing that you barely grazed over my post, totally confused yourself, and then jumped at the opportunity to start talking shit without first taking the effort to understand the context of the conversation.

Either way, thanks for the show.

Quick Judge, damage control. Think of some snide remarks to divert attention away from your little mistake.

At 9/18/08 01:38 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/18/08 01:23 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

...

Quick Judge, damage control. Think of some snide remarks to divert attention away from your little mistake.

ok, i'll bite; define "fully crashed".

At 9/18/08 01:57 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 9/18/08 01:38 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/18/08 01:23 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

...

Quick Judge, damage control. Think of some snide remarks to divert attention away from your little mistake.

ok, i'll bite; define "fully crashed".

Ok.

An economic collapse is a devastating breakdown of a national, regional, or territorial economy. It is essentially a severe economic depression.

(This may or may not involve a political collapse.)

----

There you go, baby bird.

What else are you confused about?

dredd, just stop before you get your ass kicked any harder.

At 9/18/08 02:12 AM, homor wrote: dredd, just stop before you get your ass kicked any harder.

You are now officially my alt.

Prepare to be harassed (and possibly banned) in T-minus 3...2...1...

lol

At 9/18/08 02:21 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/18/08 02:12 AM, homor wrote: dredd, just stop before you get your ass kicked any harder.

You are now officially my alt.

i just don't how i'll break the news to bigbluedumbass.

At 9/18/08 05:05 AM, homor wrote:

At 9/18/08 02:21 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: You are now officially my alt.

i just don't how i'll break the news to bigbluedumbass.

YOU ASSFACEFACED HOMEWREACKING HUSSY.

At 9/18/08 01:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

:Um, you do realize that there are plenty of members of congress that take the exact opposite positions that he has, that he blames for the economic problems in the US has, that are in those same committees? Being in a committee doesn't mean their policies are credible.

Since when does having opposition to your positions immediately discredit them? Just because a particular position is unpopular doesn't mean its necessarily wrong. The logic that his policies are false because there is much disagreement is just ignorant. History proves that even unpopular beliefs or positions aren't incorrect just because they're unpopular. Galileo, Copernicus and Newton were still be considered dissenters, but their unpopular views has helped us to understand science as we do today. It took years for their work to be considered credible, and the same applies here. It will take years from now to see who, or what, was correct in discerning correct economic policy.

Being on those committees means he has much more exposure to relevant facts and data. It means he is actively partaking in the understanding of the mechanisms of the economic process. Anyone of those committee members has a significantly more creditable stance, than pieces of shit like us talking on an internet blog, will ever have. And if he had no credibility why does he frequently introduce bills mirroring his positions with numerous co-sponsors? Why is it when he speaks of the Fed's role in debasing our currency do people in the stock exchange cheer? He has a lot of support, many of them very prominent economists, and people who's lives revolve around the ebb and flow of the market. Now is this to say what he speaks is correct? No. Only time will tell.

His position is that the US should return to a gold standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_p ositions_of_Ron_Paul#Inflation_and_the_F ederal_Reserve
Here is a more revealing description of what he supports.

- At Fort Knox there are 5000 TONS, or 147.3 million ounces of gold.

- Gold is currently worth $855.7 per ounce.

- That means the reserves at Fort Knox, several thousand tons of gold, are only worth about $130 Billion at current rates.

-----

Consider that.

Then think about how someone could actually believe we could support an economy with a GDP of $14.3 trillion and services each year on gold as the main reserve!

Is there is even enough gold in circulation in the entire world right now to support the US economy?

NOPE

In fact, all the gold ever mined by man is thought to be 158,000 tons. We have 5000 tons of it at Fort Knox, about 1/30th, worth $130 billion. Multiply $130 billion times 30 and that means there's only about $3.9 trillion worth of gold ever mined by man. This is less than 1/3rd of our GDP (the combined yearly value of our goods and services).

You go on and on talking about the actual supply of gold. Yes, by your math there isn't enough gold, but you neglected to notice that I agreed in this regard in my previous post. There ISN'T enough gold in terms of US GDP. However, this is not the right way to look at. As Ron Paul says, "I find it amazing that economists can make statements like this, for it is an elementary principal of economics that if one raises the price of a commodity, one will always have enough of that commodity. What we saw in the run up of gold prices is in fact the raising of the price of gold to match the depreciation of the dollar that has occurred, and still is occurring." He continues, "If we were to establish a gold standard by the procedure I have outlined in my bill H.R. 7874, then the world would be fully informed of the gold holdings of the United States Government and the price of gold could adjust accordingly, so that when redemption of our greenbacks - our Federal Reserve notes - began, the price would be the market-clearing price. Quite simply, the statement that there is not enough gold is false." Here's the site: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.p hp?id=841

Now, the counter-argument given by the somewhat-intelligent Ron Paul's supporters is that if we started purchasing gold as reserves for our currency, the value of gold will skyrocket due to the high demand, and that this would make a gold-backed currency feasible today because much less gold would be needed. This would only last a while, but it would have to cause gold to increase in value several, several times over. Then, once our demand stabilized, gold would drop again and instead of a free-floating dollar based on our actual economic performance, we'd be bound to gold... and our dollar would drop even further than is currently conceivable on a free float.

What do base this broken logic on? Your own professional opinion? Gold is the universal standard, it always has been. But you are wrong when you state, "free-floating dollar based on our actual economic performance". Today's dollar is based a 'fiat' system of money; a faith-based currency, if you will. The value behind the dollar is solely determined by who issues it, the government. All the downfalls of this type of monetary system are being seen today; inflation on the verge of hyper-inflation, the government's excessive deficit spending, and the waning confidence in the dollar. Hell, even Alan Greenspan, a former Fed praises the gold standard: "under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth... The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."

I.e. Ron Paul does not have credibility in economic matters, due to such an absurdly illogical position. It's simple math, the gold standard currency, which he proposes, cannot be implemented. It may have worked 230 years ago but it can't work today.

i.e. Ron Paul DOES have credibility in economic matters, due to such a logical position. It's simple math, the standard currency, which he proposes, CAN be implemented. It worked 100 years ago, and it can work today.

Um, had we not fazed it out, we never would have industrialized and our economy would be a fraction of the size it is today.

The industrialization of the nation began in the middle 1800s up to and passed world war I. The gold standard began slowly fazing out in 1913, with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Up until 1933 one could exchange $20 for an ounce of gold, until that was stopped by the US Gov, and American holdings of gold were confiscated. The gold standard was finally COMPLETELY fazed out in 1971 under president Nixon. Until that point, foreign central banks could redeem $35 for an ounce of gold.

At 9/17/08 08:27 PM, homor wrote: too bad we still have all the nukes, and our economy is the center of the world's, so yours sucks if ours suck, so go eat a dick you retard.

Ah yes, the old "We have the nukes" counter-attack. Lol yeah, we have the nukes, but we don't dare use them.

The USA is a consumer nation. We buy the stuff all of the other countries make. As much as I wish our country grew the balls and the brains to invent stuff other countries demanded, that doesn't seem to be in our future. That being said, it's pretty obvious that the rest of the worlds economies will slow along with ours. If the US falls, so will the rest of the world. If you've been keeping track of the world exchange you'd see evidence of this already.

At 9/18/08 02:09 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

define "fully crashed".

It is essentially a severe economic depression.

ahh.. like a storm huh?

This is how i interpret "fully crashed".. i read it crashed like a computer..

"once the financial system is re-booted in this fashion, the government would be able to sell off the assets for enough money to recover the taxpayers' money and perhaps even turn a profit"

The Fed are trying to "re-boot" the economy before the economy has "fully crashed". They are pre-empting this "War on Cash". That could be a flaw in itself.

If they get it wrong they crash harder. Car "fully crashed" then comes to mind..

well i think this is a fair argument we have here.
on one hand America has a large militairy force and if any country tryed to make a move they would attack much like a snake caught in a corner. U.S +1
BUT
the U.S government is in such debt with other countries that i dont think they could pay for soldiers and staff without losing all their money and being jailed for not paying debts. everyone else +1
BUT
the U.S is like the "center" of the stock and banking etc markets and stuff so if america crashed so would everyone else. U.S+1
BUT i dont think it could be that hard for it all to change to another major country like England or russia or even Australia maybe?

im trying not to be biased but it doesnt help when others are

so no points for anyone with that. i dont think because i have no idea
ummmmi think that paying for soldiers and staff is a pretty good point.
i mean whats the point of having such a large army force if you can't afford to run it.
and if they do plan an attack and need to borrow money i think its unlikely any country within the commonwealth, ussr ad asia etc would lend them any money.
so yeah.
think about that before sticking the armies in my face

also i heard / read somewhere that america makes enough arms (that arent used) for another world war which i think is expensive and innapropriate.

im happy with this thread :)

i just found some "debt clocks"
and well the numbers are high negatives
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

read some of the comments down the page a little bit

and im pretty sure thats all the debt they have with everything (the government
heres a diagram i loled at from a different website.
heres a good vid its an american bloke talking about American spending. note this video was submitted in 2006 its now 2008 take a look at the electronic counter thingy in the video.
i QUOTE

in 2006 jack cafferty says to pete peterson
talk to me about china, for a few minutes, they own us , they got their hands around our throat when you talk about debt and and and the amount of uh investment instruments..... blah blah blah.

HA!
BTW: all the money i talk about is in US dollars

stfu

At 9/18/08 10:49 PM, RadioactiveRabbit wrote: some shit about me supporting china.

i NEVER said ANYTHING about supporting china im just using it as an example.
they have several millions and trillions owed to othe european countries.
trust me if china was to start taking over Australia would stop selling them iron ore.
i also assume you think that america is one of our biggest trading partners.
well yeah maybe for unnecessary things like music and crap. asian countries would sell us that anyway.
listen to this its a chat with barack and after that diagram i posted it sounds very good.
read the first quote after watching / listening.
be back tomorrow maybe ( i'm going camping on sunday XD)

WAIT WAIT WAIT
wait

catches breathe

watch this
im not supporting that "ron paul" guy but it made me lulz

At 9/16/08 11:15 PM, Rideo wrote: As long as America stays on top as a military superpower it doesn't have to worry about it's debt.

Russia has almost as many nuclear weapons as the US. That's just not going to work. America will have to pay off its debt eventually.

At 9/16/08 11:11 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 9/16/08 10:58 PM, dooseyboy wrote: what has americas government been investing in?

The world's most powerful military. That way, we don't need to worry about other countries taking our land like you seem to think they will.

That's the stupidest thing I have heard in ages, as if anyone's Ever going to invade the US. That's just totally reticules! The US has its military so it can bully people, Its got nothing to do with defense. The US has got to spend money on something, why not population control through war?

At 9/19/08 01:06 PM, Alphabit wrote:

At 9/16/08 11:15 PM, Rideo wrote: As long as America stays on top as a military superpower it doesn't have to worry about it's debt.

Russia has almost as many nuclear weapons as the US. That's just not going to work. America will have to pay off its debt eventually.

So does everyone else.

At 9/19/08 01:26 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 9/19/08 01:06 PM, Alphabit wrote:

At 9/16/08 11:15 PM, Rideo wrote: As long as America stays on top as a military superpower it doesn't have to worry about it's debt.

Russia has almost as many nuclear weapons as the US. That's just not going to work. America will have to pay off its debt eventually.

So does everyone else.

lol, maek Arfica paed ther bilz.

Or like threaten them with slavery or something..

...who's going to "make the US pay it's debts"? The same people who will make America's debtors belly up? Doubt. It.

I will now summarise the premises of this thread.........

I heard Russia has a lot of fuels and electricity being powered over he world and seen as im hearing "a new cold war" that may suck.

and America dosent own the world or anything neither dose any other country . god made the world and so it is his but people who roam it take control of land by killing people who says its there land because they live there.

At 9/19/08 02:12 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: lol, maek Arfica paed ther bilz.

Except that Africa didn't espouse dodgy money markets as being a system the whole world should bet the farm on. ; )

...who's going to "make the US pay it's debts"

Hmm...

People are perhaps starting to see possible parallels to Argentina's crisis of 2001.

"At first the cacerolazos were simply noisy demonstrations, but soon they included property destruction, often directed at banks, foreign privatized companies, and especially big American and European companies."

.."[By] 2003 an estimation of 30,000 to 40,000 people scavenged the streets for cardboard to eke out a living by selling it to recycling plants. This method accounts for only one of many ways of coping in a country that at the time suffered from an unemployment rate soaring at nearly 25%".

This is what happens when banks essentially close up shop. The Fed is at least stacking cash in the windows of the banks to make it appear everything is business as usual.

Will it work is the 6.4 Trillion dollar question.

At 9/19/08 10:33 PM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 9/19/08 02:12 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: lol, maek Arfica paed ther bilz.

Except that Africa didn't espouse dodgy money markets as being a system the whole world should bet the farm on. ; )

No, they espoused inhuman slave trades that left them in a state where money markets don't exist because internal turmoil shatters any notion of globalization.

Do you compare Twinkies to 7-Up?

...who's going to "make the US pay it's debts"

Hmm...

People are perhaps starting to see possible parallels to Argentina's crisis of 2001.

And if we flood the food market to compensate for our newfound devaluation? Conjecture your way down that path and then draw parallels to Argentinian civil war.

This is what happens when banks essentially close up shop. The Fed is at least stacking cash in the windows of the banks to make it appear everything is business as usual.

Buying on margin was a good idea, too. Theoretically it could work. Realistically though, buying up major investment firm with government funds is begging for trouble... if you ask me.

Will it work is the 6.4 Trillion dollar question.

Probably.

If not we've got aces just waiting to slip a sleeve.

Like what, you ask? If I only knew..