Text 4269, 191 rader
Skriven 2012-09-28 18:34:00 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
   Kommentar till text 4264 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Love those USAians
==========================
12 May 07 15:09, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RB> Roy Witt wrote to Robert Bashe on Thursday September 27 2012 at
 RB> 22:31:

 RB>>> Sure, paper's cheap.

 RW>> Not in Zimbabwe...

 RB> They bought their paper from England, as long as the English would
 RB> supply them. They stopped when the Zimbabweans started printing bills
 RB> for "one hundred trillion dollars". Yep, you're reading correctly.
 RB> 100 TRILLION. In July 2008, one $US was worth Z$ 758,530,000,000. At
 RB> that point, the paper used to print the bills was actually worth more
 RB> than the "values" printed on them.

At least one could be warmed by their burning, for an instant, anyway,

 RB>>> Just run the printing presses a little longer.

 RW>> That's what the Obama admin has been doing for the last -4 years.

 RB> That's what every government with a fiat currency does. They call it
 RB> "inflation".

Or a "Weimar Scenario"...

 RB>>> The Germans did that in 1923, the Hungarians in 1945-46 and Robert
 RB>>> Mugabe in the years until around 2009. Reduces your debt
 RB>>> enormously.

 RW>> Does it? Our debt has grown enormously in the past -4 years.

 RB> Calculate it in terms of 1950 dollars, and it's nothing.

A lot of inflation has gone under the bridge since 1950, leaving the $
worthless today.

 RB> And probably not anywhere near what you're thinking even when
 RB> calculated in terms of dollars at the beginning of Obama's
 RB> administration.

Actually, I can't spend 1950 dollars as much as I can spend 2012 dollars.
Granted, they're inflated even beyond 2008 dollars, but then I never did
quibble over paying off loans and such with inflated dollars. As time goes
by and for instance, a mortgage obtained 10 or 15 years ago, will be paid
for in inflated dollars.

 RB> I'm not talking about numbers - the term is misleading and useless
 RB> when referring to fiat money. Only the inflation-adjusted figures are
 RB> of any importance.

Understood.

 RW>> If it weren't for the conservatives holding them back, we could have
 RW>> tripled our debt since 2009.

 RB> Considering the expenses of Afghanistan and Iraq, not surprising.

I'm not including those two wars, since that spending is inevitable. It's
the spending we do in support of companies that go belly up, in spite of
the handouts this admin has given them. Only GM survives, but they were
never in a financial fix that they couldn't have pulled themselves out of.

The Obama needed to get a fix in on the unions, who would have gone the
way of the dodoe bird, had they not been supported by government. To the
detriment of the general population. The stock holders are pushed aside
and aren't even getting paid for GM's comeback, because Obama needs that
money to support the unions.

 RB>>> At the expense of the population.

 RW>> The taxpaying population, yeah. We have 47% of our population on the
 RW>> dole.

 RB> No, not just the taxpaying population. Everyone who has money (or
 RB> gets it without inflation adjustment) and spends it is negatively
 RB> affected.

I understand that, but those who're paying taxes are getting screwed even
worse.

 RB> The only ones who benefit are debtors without an inflation adjustment
 RB> clause in their debts.

I don't recall ever seeing anything like that here. AFAIK, debts are paid
with currency that is worth so much when you buy something and worth a
whole lot less when you eventually pay off that debt.

 RW>> I suspect that this the same scenario in Europe. Maybe more.

 RB> Of course, except that welfare is the big item here rather than
 RB> Afghanistan and Iraq. The USA has always borne the financial brunt of
 RB> those two.

Iraq is over, so there's no spending there, except perhaps in the shape of
money to support their regime. Afghanistan will be over sooner than
antisipated, if the voters here decide there's been enough. Talk about the
billions being sent to the UN, Egypt and Libya are on the chopping block
as well.

 RB>>> In Zimbabwe, they ended up not even being able to pay for the paper
 RB>>> (too expensive).

 RW>> And no trees to make more!

 RB> ;-) They never made their own paper. Need a special grade for
 RB> currency.

Really? If your 'paper' isn't worth anything face value, you can use
cheap paper (recycled even) and it'll mean the same thing. Why waste money
on the good stuff when your currency isn't worth the cost of the paper
it's printed on?

 RB>>> How I long for the return of the gold standard... ;-(

 RW>> I'm not. The more the dollar gets inflated, the more gold is worth;
 RW>> to a paper holder buying gold.

 RB> How true, but that would be the purpose of a gold standard: no
 RB> government could inflate it's currency without end. That's the
 RB> difference between a paper (fiat) currency and one based on a limited
 RB> resource. "Real" money vs. the funny money most governments have used
 RB> since 1933.

8^)

 RW>> My $600 1oz gold dubloons have escalated in worth to near $1800
 RW>> each.

 RB> In paper. Big deal.

You can buy gold with gold, if you have any...paper is irrelevant.

 RW>> What good is it, unless the dollar goes belly up?

 RB> If you used those in daily transactions, a great deal of good because
 RB> prices would be stable.

One could use copper-jacketed lead as a threat to get the same results.
Everything would then be free.

 RB> And even so, be happy you have at least some _real_ money in addition
 RB> to all that worthless paper.

We haven't sunken to the paycheck in the wheelbarrow yet...

 RB> Remember Gresham's law? Save that gold and spend that paper as fast
 RB> as you can, before it devalues even more.

When the time and place comes, that's what I'll do. A problem presents
itself in carrying all of that gold vs all of that worthlesss paper
though.

The older I get, the less I'm inclined to carry. Especially in a situation
that calls for more copper-jacketed lead than gold. OTH, worthless paper
can be used as a fire starter, gold can't. Big dilemma there.

 RB>>> P.S. This is NOT anti-USA. The EU does the same thing, as do far
 RB>>> too many other countries throughout this heavy-hearted world. A
 RB>>> stable fiat (paper-based) currency is a myth.

 RW>> Yeah but who is it over there, the Rubinsteins, that control the
 RW>> currency in the EU?

 RB> No idea what you're talking about.

Rubin, Roth - some *.Steins...

One of your behind the scenes bankers has control over the money in
Europe...don't recall the name, exactly, but they're instrumental in doing
just that.

 RB> Fiat currency and inflation are global problems, and have increased
 RB> since Bretton Woods disappeared. Nowadays, paper is pegged to paper
 RB> and devil take the hindmost.

Yeah right: As Papandreou put it -  "Democratic governments worldwide must
establish a new global financial architecture, as bold in its own way as
Bretton Woods, - meanwhile Greece has going belly up...

                R\%/itt


... Mark Owen: "Hey, did you ever hear anything about that beer?
... Fellow SEAL: "You believed that shit, I bet you voted for change too,
... SUCKER."


--- GoldED+/W32 with D'Bridge 3.82
 * Origin: Texas Lone-Star - Texan, American, USAian  (1:387/22)