Liberal Forum

tharock220 » 18 Oct 2014 11:40 pm » wrote:
That was part of the deflationary argument for the Great Depression. The money supply was constricting too fast because gold was leaving the country.

Yeah - part of the argument that the friends of the federal reserve put out. They own economists - the entire field. No one dares speak the truth.

Couldn't POSSIBLY be that all the money was sucked out of the economy by mentally diseased parasites who do not understand that money - even gold - is not worth holding onto in such quantities. It's nothing until it's spent, and the potential it represents does not exist until the moment that potential is actualized by acquisition. At rest, gold means nothing. So,m yeah. The money supply "contracted." Same thing just happened for the same reasons, and the fed is SHOVELING credit into the fray, because whereas gold was money, fed notes are not. They're just credit, conjured, borrowed LITERALLY from the borrower in the moment they are lent. ANd how THAT prestidigitation proceeds is not something any economist of any stripe with be explicating any time soon.

In the mean time, there's a pretty good bit of correlation between fiat and ****. I lived then, and whereas anecdotes are not the strongest evidence, I can tell you these objectively verifiable facts, which you can google at bing.com:

1. Prices doubled immediately on just about everything. Cokes went from a nickel to a dime to 15 cents to a quarter in two, maybe three years. Candy, ice cream - all of your basic staples (when you're a kid) went the same route. Milk, cigarettes, bread - same story. Mary Shannon over on Strickland - doubled the price for a peek or a feel. But that COULD be because she started getting hair down there. I DO respect the functions of the free market.

2. Mom had to go to work because wages did not keep pace. By mom, I'm not just talking about my own. Like I said - that's why she stopped taking any **** off daddy. What makes HIM the authority? Being wrong on everything, or being incapable of supporting the family? Would you call that man Cassius Clay to his face? You know you wouldn't. So call him Mohammed Ali. It's his name - he has the right to say. And while you pack that bag, just know this: Bobby Joe Riggs is going down.

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 12:15 am » wrote:
Yeah - part of the argument that the friends of the federal reserve put out. They own economists - the entire field. No one dares speak the truth.

Couldn't POSSIBLY be that all the money was sucked out of the economy by mentally diseased parasites who do not understand that money - even gold - is not worth holding onto in such quantities. It's nothing until it's spent, and the potential it represents does not exist until the moment that potential is actualized by acquisition. At rest, gold means nothing. So,m yeah. The money supply "contracted." Same thing just happened for the same reasons, and the fed is SHOVELING credit into the fray, because whereas gold was money, fed notes are not. They're just credit, conjured, borrowed LITERALLY from the borrower in the moment they are lent. ANd how THAT prestidigitation proceeds is not something any economist of any stripe with be explicating any time soon.

In the mean time, there's a pretty good bit of correlation between fiat and ****. I lived then, and whereas anecdotes are not the strongest evidence, I can tell you these objectively verifiable facts, which you can google at bing.com:

1. Prices doubled immediately on just about everything. Cokes went from a nickel to a dime to 15 cents to a quarter in two, maybe three years. Candy, ice cream - all of your basic staples (when you're a kid) went the same route. Milk, cigarettes, bread - same story. Mary Shannon over on Strickland - doubled the price for a peek or a feel. But that COULD be because she started getting hair down there. I DO respect the functions of the free market.

2. Mom had to go to work because wages did not keep pace. By mom, I'm not just talking about my own. Like I said - that's why she stopped taking any **** off daddy. What makes HIM the authority? Being wrong on everything, or being incapable of supporting the family? Would you call that man Cassius Clay to his face? You know you wouldn't. So call him Mohammed Ali. It's his name - he has the right to say. And while you pack that bag, just know this: Bobby Joe Riggs is going down.

If you want a true gold standard the issuer of the currency must be able to back all circulating money at the value they give it. Money is like everything else. It's subject to supply and demand.

This was FDR's brainchild. Your love of his policies is well known.

tharock220 » 19 Oct 2014 3:15 am » wrote: If you want a true gold standard the issuer of the currency must be able to back all circulating money at the value they give it. Money is like everything else. It's subject to supply and demand.

This was FDR's brainchild. Your love of his policies is well known.

I was there and not a child sucking on a penny candy. Nixon pulled the US off the Bretton Woods system, but not in a vacuum. He also froze wages and prices for 3 months and instituted a 10% import surcharge as measures to counter the dollar he was devaluing. Now I understand you were not there with an adult's head on your shoulders but I assure you, a devalued dollar abroad and a hefty surcharge on imports was barely consequential to a US economy stabilized by its own consumers, consuming American made goods. Successful, yes, until the import surcharge was dispensed with and a floating exchange rate was instituted. The US government was no longer the master of its own monetary policies.

Now, it's all water under the bridge, fiat currency system but no incentives to produce in the US and no barriers against foreign imports. Nixon can be blamed for pulling the US off of gold, but the tsunami was already in progress and he took what measures he could to protect the US economy and its citizens in ways that are also now, water under the bridge.

Moving to a fiat currency may have been inevitable (opinions abound) but there was/is nothing de facto about the situation we're in now.

Brattle Street » 18 Oct 2014 4:53 pm » wrote: nothing new here

YOU have THAT?
The stupidest **** here that has "more troll crap" tattooed on her big fat dumb head 20 posts in a row, day in day out?!

You don't know what "new" is, you ignorant paid troll.
A living breathing actual douche bag. A membrane filled with waste.
'Nothing new here....' That IS your absolutely most moronic post.

I win, I guess.
YOU HAVE NOTHING. You are the shallowest **** here. Good job with the *** kicking.

Dumb ****
RIP 2014

She gave her all: 0




You get last word, stupid. Then go blow your hubby.
Get head ****, you ugly piece of ****.

History. Gotta keep it.

This one was a keeper...

Cannonpointer » 08 Jul 2022, 5:41 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2022, 5:41 pm

This one was a keeper...

As long as we're dumping today...


https://media.gab.com/system/media_atta ... 0ed54a.mp4

Regarding the OP. Basically saying we need conservatism . . .
I feel the same can be said about liberalism.

There needs to be the tension and one "watching" the other.
We have virtually NO honesty in so many American institutions and so on.

Tiny majorities braying so loudly it has become the norm for everyone to try outshout each other.
So, nobody is heard anymore. Nobody can understand a screaming crowd.

We are a Social Tower of Babel. Traditions and norms are passé.

Cannonpointer » 13 Oct 2014, 1:02 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2014, 1:02 am

Conservatism lost it's party in Watergate. Nixon was the last American president that conservatives voted into office. Conservatism had already taken some hard blows. There was Vietnam, an unfortunate tendency toward jingo-patriotism, civil rights, rock music and an energetic counter culture which gave two **** about the Conservatives' moral high ground - which ten years earlier had made conservatives unassailable: masters of the social killing fields.

not cognizant of all the good stuff that was leaving with him, which WASN'T in those bags. The loss is everywhere observed, now - everywhere felt. The thing about conservatism was that it was where we kept our manhood - something you cannot put into bags - but that you cannot have without a certain pair of bags.

The on/off switch that would have prevented the shameful atrocities of abu ghraib was not in conservatism's bag - but I believe that switch hopped the same train that conservatism hopped when we stopped talking to it and stopped listening to it and started sneering at it, and defying it - and failing to imagine a single good thing to say about it. When we told conservatism to take a hike, there were no winners, and the biggest loser was anyone on this planet whose interests are served by America being a just and lawful nation.

I am not suggesting that conseervatism can be expected, if it ever comes home, to restore those things single-handedly. But I CAN promise this: We won't restore this land to justice, to lawfuness or to prosperity WITHOUT conservatism in the partnership that does the heavy lifting.

Daddy, we miss you. Please come home.

conservatives were the pioneers of environmentalism., they sought to conserve the environment.  A Republican president took the first big steps to do this https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/historyc ... vation.htm

Eisenhower was a great conservative, he led the building of the highway interstates and he warned us about the MIC.

conservatives lost their way, along with the whole country after 1969 because of civil rights, integration, etc.. the end of white supremacy in this country and the inception of true modern diversity.  No purist of any ideology can survive in diversity, everyone becomes a back stabbing self centered ****.. that’s diversity