Warning to Republicans leery of Trump - Calgary Ted is NOT your savior!

[Bo-4]

Two words: Gold Standard
:biglaugh:

Maybe y'all should go with a semi-sane Republican that 98% of Congress doesn't loathe with a passion:

Kasich?
Jeb! ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-gold-standard_5679be10e4b0b958f6586fc7?pjru23xr

[donttread]

Two words: Gold Standard
:biglaugh:

Maybe y'all should go with a semi-sane Republican that 98% of Congress doesn't loathe with a passion:

Kasich?
Jeb! ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-gold-standard_5679be10e4b0b958f6586fc7?pjru23xr

So you prefer a house of cards economy based upon fiat money that doesn't even get printed? Good thinking.

[Subdermal]

I would like to hear your thoughts on how the Gold Standard would 'wreak havoc' - and why it couldn't be crafted to work.

Let me give you some basic views regarding the damage that the opposite system - fiat currency - has wrought.

1. It can be - and has been - manipulated to create desired outcomes (read: winners and losers).

A fiat currency - by its nature - is a debtor's currency. That means that an entity is established out of the blue (central bankers) to be the benefactors of a percentage of our total GDP. In fact, the FED earns approximately 6% of our GDP on margin, simply by being the source of the printing press for paper that isn't supposed to represent them, but - instead - the integrity of the American People themselves. But - worse than that:

2. It automatically institutionalizes inflation to create what they consider 'manageable growth'.

In point of fact, however, this automatically separates the classes, and does so in increasing proportion to the size of the inflation. By ensuring that the money supply is inflated ~4%/annum, it becomes necessary to place already earned wealth (savings and worth) into wealth-creating vehicles: vehicles that project to grow at a rate that exceeds the planned rate of inflation. This creates several problems:

• It necessitates placing wealth at risk, simply to prevent wealth from shrinking in value;
• It guarantees a higher cost of living for those in lower classes, because they have no savings and must use current wage dollars to purchase goods and services which continue to increase in price by design;
• Since the most poor are mathematically represented by 0 (zero net worth, and - in fact - often NEGATIVE net worth), they will always be increasingly distant from the most wealthy, as the money supply expands. The total currency in circulation in 1924 was ~4.3 BILLION. In March of 2015, the amount was near 5 TRILLION. OF COURSE the wealth gap will be massively expanded: an exponential growth curve of available money to accumulate GUARANTEES IT.

3. It removes control of the economy from its participants and puts it in the hands of Bankers.

The Great Depression had many variables, but foremost among them was an intentional constriction of the money supply - by nearly 35% - which DESTROYED the currency velocity in the economy, and brought it to its knees. Yes, The Fed caused the Great Depression with their monetary policy. It was a controlled event, and was done to allow FDR institutionalize Government as Nanny (read: Great Society/New Deal).

There's more - but the fact is that these corruptive factors are nearly entirely eliminated under a Gold Standard.

Do not buy the story from the powers that control you through our currency and taxation that the Gold Standard is dangerous to you. It is only dangerous to THEM - and may in fact explain the assassination of John F. Kennedy, who attempted to establish currency based upon Silver Certificates - for the same reason.

[Bo-4]

So you prefer a house of cards economy based upon fiat money that doesn't even get printed? Good thinking.

I agree with the vast majority of economists who tell us not to go there.

Read the story and get back to us.

[Bo-4]

Aha.. i see that you too need more.

Do enjoy :)

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-mainstream-economists-believe-that-the-gold-standard-was-a-bad-idea

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/business/economy/the-good-old-days-of-the-gold-standard-not-really-historians-say.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/why-the-gold-standard-is-the-worlds-worst-economic-idea-in-2-charts/261552/

[donttread]

I agree with the vast majority of economists who tell us not to go there.

Read the story and get back to us.

Dude the world is running on fucking play money and e-money. Just how can that possibly be good?

[texan]

Two words: Gold Standard
:biglaugh:

Maybe y'all should go with a semi-sane Republican that 98% of Congress doesn't loathe with a passion:

Kasich?
Jeb! ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-gold-standard_5679be10e4b0b958f6586fc7?pjru23xr

And maybe you shouldn't go with someone that looked into the eyes of grieving families and lied about a video causing their loved ones deaths, all the while knowing what happened. There is a reason she is untrustworthy by polling data.

Do you have any dignity supporting her is the question?

[Subdermal]

Aha.. i see that you too need more.

Do enjoy :)

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-mainstream-economists-believe-that-the-gold-standard-was-a-bad-idea

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/business/economy/the-good-old-days-of-the-gold-standard-not-really-historians-say.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/why-the-gold-standard-is-the-worlds-worst-economic-idea-in-2-charts/261552/

I'm intimately familiar with the arguments. Milton Friedman disagrees - along with those who enjoyed the explosive economic growth - best in the world by leaps and bounds - that America experienced between 1776 and 1901.

All while under the Gold Standard.

[Tahuyaman]

The gold standard worked well for the better part of 200 years.

[Mac-7]

Two words: Gold Standard
:biglaugh:

Maybe y'all should go with a semi-sane Republican that 98% of Congress doesn't loathe with a passion:

Kasich?
Jeb! ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-gold-standard_5679be10e4b0b958f6586fc7?pjru23xr

Another republican that is unacceptable to liberals?

I guess the only way to mske them happy is to nominate bernie the communist.

[Tahuyaman]

Cruz is starting to rise in the polls. Of course the partisan Democrats are going to start attacking him.

[Tahuyaman]

The more they think a candidate can beat Hillary Clinton, the more they will go after him or her. One can always tell who the liberals fear the most.

[MisterVeritis]

Two words: Gold Standard
:biglaugh:

Maybe y'all should go with a semi-sane Republican that 98% of Congress doesn't loathe with a passion:

Kasich?
Jeb! ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-gold-standard_5679be10e4b0b958f6586fc7?pjru23xr
You do know you are pissing into the wind, don't you?

The gold standard, or some other standard that ties paper to something of value make sense to me.

[Green Arrow]

Jeb Bush, sane?

LOL.

[Bo-4]

Dude the world is running on fucking play money and e-money. Just how can that possibly be good?

Get back to your Beck TeeVee

I sold my Pop's gold (lots of 1oz Krugs & Maples) at $1800 .. now what?

Talk to those who are close to retirement about the "gold standard" and get back to me.

https://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au3650nyb.gif

[Bo-4]

I'm intimately familiar with the arguments. Milton Friedman disagrees - along with those who enjoyed the explosive economic growth - best in the world by leaps and bounds - that America experienced between 1776 and 1901.

All while under the Gold Standard.

You remind me of the 90% peer reviewed scientists who attribute climate change to freaky weather events killing millions.

Go ahead though and bow to your overlords on a dumfuck return to the gold standard admonished by 90% of peer reviewed economists.

[Bo-4]

Jeb Bush, sane?

LOL.

Excellent point my friend. :D

[Green Arrow]

I'm intimately familiar with the arguments. Milton Friedman disagrees - along with those who enjoyed the explosive economic growth - best in the world by leaps and bounds - that America experienced between 1776 and 1901.

All while under the Gold Standard.

What about 1901-1933, also a period under the gold standard of not-so-great economic activity? Or the fact that after we abandoned the gold standard domestically in the mid-1930s, we found our way out of the Great Depression not too long after and had another huge economic explosion?

The gold standard seemed to work great for a small economy, but after the turn of the 20th century we stopped being a small economy and became a very large one. The contention being that it works great for small economies but not for large economies like ours.

[MisterVeritis]

Cruz is starting to rise in the polls. Of course the partisan Democrats are going to start attacking him.
In national polls:
Trump is in the first position.
Cruz is in the second position with about one-half of Trump's support.

[Tahuyaman]

In national polls:
Trump is in the first position.
Cruz is in the second position with about one-half of Trump's support.

I said "Cruz is rising". That is a fact. nowhere did I say or suggest he has taken the lead. Did I?

[zelmo1234]

What about 1901-1933, also a period under the gold standard of not-so-great economic activity? Or the fact that after we abandoned the gold standard domestically in the mid-1930s, we found our way out of the Great Depression not too long after and had another huge economic explosion?

The gold standard seemed to work great for a small economy, but after the turn of the 20th century we stopped being a small economy and became a very large one. The contention being that it works great for small economies but not for large economies like ours.

I thought that we didn't like wars. because it was WWII that puled the country out of the depression the economic policies of FDR are largely thought to have extended it.

[MisterVeritis]

I said "Cruz is rising". That is a fact. nowhere did I say or suggest he has taken the lead. Did I?
Context is important. I noticed you omitted it.

[Tahuyaman]

Context is important. I noticed you omitted it.

No. You just made an assumption and added your spin to my comment.

[Tahuyaman]

This isn't exclusive to Trump supporters, but many people think if you recognize one candidate, that means you are denegrating or criticizing another.

It's the mentality which has created this idea that everyone must be rewarded equally and individualism is not to be recognized.

[birddog]

One should not be critical of Cruz or any other of the Republican candidates if they voted for or support the total failure Obama!

[Tahuyaman]

One should not be critical of Cruz or any other of the Republican candidates if they voted for or support the total failure Obama!


I'm not sure I'm reading that right. You say Republican candidates should not be criticized for abandoning the conservative principles they ran on by voting for policies they disagree with?

[donttread]

What about 1901-1933, also a period under the gold standard of not-so-great economic activity? Or the fact that after we abandoned the gold standard domestically in the mid-1930s, we found our way out of the Great Depression not too long after and had another huge economic explosion?

The gold standard seemed to work great for a small economy, but after the turn of the 20th century we stopped being a small economy and became a very large one. The contention being that it works great for small economies but not for large economies like ours.

Money needs to represent something tangible or we get in the mess we're in today. Otherwise it's like cyber play money and people, especially politicians will and are treating it as such. We don't even bother with the expense of printing most of our "money " anymore and yet we are 18 trillion in debt.

[donttread]

I thought that we didn't like wars. because it was WWII that puled the country out of the depression the economic policies of FDR are largely thought to have extended it.

And after WW 2 we refused to let the economy go back to normal. We turned war factories into chemical factories to produce toxins grow our food with and launched the global military industrial complex

[donttread]

What about 1901-1933, also a period under the gold standard of not-so-great economic activity? Or the fact that after we abandoned the gold standard domestically in the mid-1930s, we found our way out of the Great Depression not too long after and had another huge economic explosion? <br>
<br>
The gold standard seemed to work great for a small economy, but after the turn of the 20th century we stopped being a small economy and became a very large one. The contention being that it works great for small economies but not for large economies like ours.<br>
<br>Money needs to represent some something tangible or we get in the mess we're in today. Otherwise it's like cyber play money and people, especially politicians will and are treating it as such. We don't even bother with the expense of printing most of our "money " anymore and yet we are 18 trillion in debt.<br>
<br>

[MisterVeritis]

No. You just made an assumption and added your spin to my comment.
I see. So supplying context and facts equals spin?

You should quit while you are only slightly behind.

[MisterVeritis]

This isn't exclusive to Trump supporters, but many people think if you recognize one candidate, that means you are denegrating or criticizing another.

It's the mentality which has created this idea that everyone must be rewarded equally and individualism is not to be recognized.
This explains why you must tell us that Trump cannot win in nearly every one of your posts.

It looks like it is going to be Trump or Cruz. But politics is a dangerous game. Who knows what is yet to come?

[Bo-4]

And maybe you shouldn't go with someone that looked into the eyes of grieving families and lied about a video causing their loved ones deaths, all the while knowing what happened. There is a reason she is untrustworthy by polling data.

Do you have any dignity supporting her is the question?

I'm a Bernie guy tex. Only way i vote for Hilly is if you choose a nut like Trump or Cruz.

Nice deflection from the topic though i guess .. BENGHAZI Bay-Bee!! :rolleyes:

PSSST - It's dead, you can stop now.

:deadhorse:

[suds00]

the republic will survive.

[Truth Detector]

Two words: Gold Standard
:biglaugh:

Maybe y'all should go with a semi-sane Republican that 98% of Congress doesn't loathe with a passion:

Kasich?
Jeb! ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-gold-standard_5679be10e4b0b958f6586fc7?pjru23xr

Do you actually believe that Clinton or Sanders are popular with Congress???

But dumber still; the Presidency isn't about a popularity contest to appeal to the political class in Washinton DC or a media devoted to Democratic policies, but rather, appeal to the citizens who will be choosing them.

[Truth Detector]

So you prefer a house of cards economy based upon fiat money that doesn't even get printed? Good thinking.

I am amused that you think a modern economy can operate within the limitations of a gold standard.

More proof how our liberal educational establishment have failed the public.

[Bo-4]

Do you actually believe that Clinton or Sanders are popular with Congress.

Compared to Ted -- THE most hated person in congress?

Yes

[Tahuyaman]

I see. So supplying context and facts equals spin?

You should quit while you are only slightly behind.


You addded your own spin which was not relevant to the subject. I don't see why you are so spun up about this.

[Tahuyaman]

This explains why you must tell us that Trump cannot win in nearly every one of your posts.

It looks like it is going to be Trump or Cruz. But politics is a dangerous game. Who knows what is yet to come?


Do I need to include the names of all the candidates I will not vote for when I criticize Trump? When Trump is the subject of the thread, I talk about Trump. Why do you have such a problem with that?

[Truth Detector]

I'm intimately familiar with the arguments. Milton Friedman disagrees - along with those who enjoyed the explosive economic growth - best in the world by leaps and bounds - that America experienced between 1776 and 1901.

All while under the Gold Standard.

The economy of those eras was much different. I'm doubdtful that hoarding gold would benefit the modern economies of today and find anti-banking rhetoric fascinating and delusional.

The current standard of living even by today's poverty standards super exceeds anything our founders could have imagined or the families of 1901; that is a simple fact.

Fiat currencies do have their risks associated with them, but it is NOTHING compared to the risk of nations attempting to hoard limited gold reserves to prop up false economies.

Savings are at an all time low, not due to a lack of a gold standard, but because of a crappy economy being managed from Washington DC through an abomination called the Tax Code and massive regulations that only stifle investment and growth.

[Truth Detector]

This explains why you must tell us that Trump cannot win in nearly every one of your posts.

It looks like it is going to be Trump or Cruz. But politics is a dangerous game. Who knows what is yet to come?

I'm betting on Rubio.

[Truth Detector]

Compared to Ted -- THE most hated person in congress?

Yes

It's not about Congress; how many times do you need to be told this. Most Americans think Congress is the problem, rightly or wrongly.

[donttread]

the republic will survive.

Calling us "The Republic" is pushing it. A lot!

[Bo-4]

It's not about Congress; how many times do you need to be told this. Most Americans think Congress is the problem, rightly or wrongly.

70% of America hates Ted Cruz after his lame-brained 24 billion dollar gub-ment shutdown.

Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) favorability rating has collapsed as the public has become more familiar with him, according to a Gallup survey released on Thursday. The survey found that 26 percent have a favorable view of the Texas Republican, against 36 percent unfavorable.

[decedent]

Now that Ted Cruz has embraced same-sex marriage, I hope he'll compensate by getting tougher on immigrants -- which means he may be sent back to Canada.

[Professor Peabody]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLQai9Q0p2s

The author of the OP article is all of 32 years old and had no idea Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998.

[Bo-4]

Now that Ted Cruz has embraced same-sex marriage, I hope he'll compensate by getting tougher on immigrants -- which means he may be sent back to Canada.

Just one problem:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8d/62/d1/8d62d12d1319b470b351112ce69e0e6d.jpg

[MisterVeritis]

You addded your own spin which was not relevant to the subject. I don't see why you are so spun up about this.
What did you believe was spin?

[MisterVeritis]

Do I need to include the names of all the candidates I will not vote for when I criticize Trump? When Trump is the subject of the thread, I talk about Trump. Why do you have such a problem with that?
You get the last word. Trump 2016.

[MisterVeritis]

I'm betting on Rubio.
That would be a shame.

He is an open borders guy. I would not vote for him.

[Mac-7]

That would be a shame.

He is an open borders guy. I would not vote for him.

Open borders and amnesty though rubio is working day and night to wiggle out of those positions during the primary

[Truth Detector]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLQai9Q0p2s

The author of the OP article is all of 32 years old and had no idea Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998.

^Damn funny stuff.

[Truth Detector]

That would be a shame.

He is an open borders guy. I would not vote for him.

He's not an open borders guy. Can you provide something specific that supports this claim?

[MisterVeritis]

He's not an open borders guy. Can you provide something specific that supports this claim?
Yes. He is. No. I am not going to play your game. You can find it if you choose to. Since I doubt he will be the nominee I see no reason to chase down facts that should be known to anyone over 30.

[Professor Peabody]

^Damn funny stuff.

I don't think it was part of the video, but Hugh asked him if he knew who Alger Hiss was. He said no. He was born in 1984, crapping in diapers while Reagan was President and were supposed to listen to his brilliance on economics? He told Hugh he didn't need to go the journalism school.....:rolleyes20: