Since I got on the north side of 50 I have been immensely interested in world events. About that time my son-in-law, Howard, suggested I write a personal mission statement. It was an interesting challenge. It was a great idea because it caused me to specify what was really important to me. My final draft was:
"To live the highest quality of life possible by understanding myself, understanding my environment, and bringing the two in harmony."
So to understand my environment I have followed world events, especially as they pertain to economies. I have studied different economic theories and have even studied the very nature of money and its history. It is a fascinating subject to me because if you can predict human behavior you can have an edge on the house. And history provides some pretty good tells.
I have been too busy working and playing the last couple of days but I have followed the news of what is happening in Egypt on the radio while driving. There is a lot of tension now because of the Suez Canal being a major passageway for goods and Egypt controls the canal, if I'm not mistaken. Also, we have supported Mubarek with $1 billion per year in military aid for I don't know how long to keep the peace with Israel, which has irritated a lot of the Muslim nations.
So while surfing the net tonight I ran across this article:
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=205931
If you have a couple of minutes you really must read it. I was quite moved by the whole scene and had to read the article twice. The way I look at it, it's their country and their problem so they must think they know what is best for themselves. Let them choose their own path. I do not fear freedom and I don't believe in bribery. If you have honor I would think you would want freedom for yourself and respect that same desire in others, no?
“Those people that say we’re out here because of food or oil prices, that’s not true,” said Osam L. “I have enough to eat, thank God. I’m here for my freedom.”
I say right on! And don't forget to make freedom legal while you're at it! Like always, it will only last for awhile but you will have some good times.
Wow, what an opportunity the US has here to be on the side of real democracy. Do we REALLY support the people's right to choose their own way? I think the Egyptian people are calling our bluff.
This is fascinating stuff.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Sovereign Man
Simon Black is one of my favorite reads. He can be found at sovereignman.com. I subscribed to his page so I can get his articles sent directly to me by email. Always a good read, I found this one quite interesting. Enjoy.
Notes from the Field
Date: January 25, 2011
Reporting From: Santiago, Chile
Reporting From: Santiago, Chile
US General George S. Patton is often credited with saying "No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country." Perhaps Patton was correct. But a lot of poor bastards had a significant impact on security policies by blowing themselves up for their cause.
Yesterday's suicide attack at Domodedovo airport in Moscow was another stark reminder that there are people in this world who have (a) extreme commitment to their cause; (b) the will to die for their beliefs; and (c) the twisted moral compass to justify the deaths of others as necessary and legitimate.
These three ingredients are a dangerous combination, and unfortunately they exist in mass quantities among fanatics who have lost sight of their humanity.
I don't want to get into the chicken or egg argument right now about whether such fanaticism would exist without authoritarian, imperialistic arrogance on the part of major world governments... but suffice it to say that, with each attack on civilian targets, governments step up their military/police efforts in the 'war on terror.'
It's interesting how government defense planners always seem to be training their troops to fight the last war. For example, the WW2-style training in the US that lasted for decades which prepared troops to fight against Soviet forces proved largely irrelevant in the jungle warfare environment of Vietnam, or the desert in Kuwait.
Subsequent jungle warfare and traditional desert warfare training proved largely irrelevant in the 1990s peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, and training for peacekeeping operations proved largely irrelevant for Iraq's counterinsurgency operations.
As the military now focuses its training on preparing troops for yesterday's counterinsurgency operations, I suspect defense planners are largely ignoring tomorrow's threats, like cyber- and economic warfare.
Similarly, every time there is an attack on civilian targets, governments come out in force against the threat. When someone tries to explode his shoe, everyone has to take his/her shoes off. When someone tries to explode his underwear, everyone has to go through a body scanner.
The Russian bombing yesterday proved that these reactive tactics are completely ineffective, akin to training to fight the last war.
Soft targets are everywhere, and if government agencies make it too difficult to blow up a plane, attackers will blow up the airport. If they can't blow up an airport, they'll blow up a bus station... sports stadium... grocery store... you name it.
Each reactive policy measure only serves to solidify the attackers' convictions, erode the freedoms of the innocents, and divide the nation into to distinct sides-- those who would rather have their freedom and take a chance on safety, and those who are willing to relinquish their freedom in exchange for the illusion of security.
Politicians will always side with the latter, expanding their domain and redefining 'security' so that it encompasses the widest possible range of human activities.
Going to a ball game? Security. A nightclub? Security. No more financial privacy? It's for your security. Listening to your phone calls? Also for your security. Protesting against the politicians? You're a security risk. 90-year old woman in a wheelchair? Frisk her, she's a security risk. "Attention WalMart shoppers: rat out your neighbor." - Homeland Security.
These measures are all readily accepted by society because voters will ask for, and allow, these types of politicians and policies.
After the 2004 Beslan hostage crisis in Russia in which hundreds of hostages and children were killed, the Russian government vastly expanded the powers of its law enforcement agencies, asserted its control over the media, and even unilaterally replaced certain elected federal positions with executive appointees.
Russian society digested these measures in stride, still shocked from the massacre in Beslan.
In response to Monday's bombing, officials in Russia are already talking about enhancing their security procedures, which will certainly include new government powers. I also doubt that the effects will stop with Russia's security posture.
The Chinese government already reacted by beefing up security at Beijing's airport, deploying more police dogs throughout the terminals. I wouldn't be surprised if governments in North America and Europe used this event as an excuse to initiate their own measures, going further down the slippery slope.
None of these steps really matter in the big picture; loosely organized suicide bombers cannot be subdued with conventional forces or security measures... and for the regular folks who just want to go on living their lives, it's like being caught in the middle of a battlefield without a weapon.
I'm reminded of Herbert Hoover's 1928 winning presidential campaign slogan, "A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage." Perhaps the modern analogy is "a government agent on every corner, a wiretap on every phone." It is, after all, for our security.
Until tomorrow,
Simon Black
Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Finally, A Serious Budget Cut Proposal
Rand Paul and Michelle Bachmann have submitted suggestions for budget cuts of $500 and $400 billion respectively. Of course, I think the cuts are conservative in nature since we will have at least a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, but Paul and Bachmann get labeled as "wacko." What is not wacko in our country is to assume we can continue to run deficits with 12 zeros indefinitely with no consequenses.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/What-a-Tea-Party-budget-looks-cnnm-804053456.html?x=0
Propose a $2 trillion dollar deficit and you will get assigned as an assistant at the US Treasury or Federal Reserve. Isn't paper money a miracle? I'm sure this will end well.
Here is a list of 599 failed paper currencies in history. Don't worry though. I'm sure this time it will be different.
http://dollardaze.org/blog/?post_id=00405
"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."---John Adams
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/What-a-Tea-Party-budget-looks-cnnm-804053456.html?x=0
Propose a $2 trillion dollar deficit and you will get assigned as an assistant at the US Treasury or Federal Reserve. Isn't paper money a miracle? I'm sure this will end well.
Here is a list of 599 failed paper currencies in history. Don't worry though. I'm sure this time it will be different.
http://dollardaze.org/blog/?post_id=00405
"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."---John Adams
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tell Me I'm Wrong
OK, I admit I only watched 10% of the State of the Union address last night. Well make that maybe 5%. I got a phone call from a friend which was much more important than listening to politicians. I listened to some of the rebuttal and read a couple of articles, but with a $1.5 trillion annual deficit and all the talk of raising the debt limit, I have not heard of how much dough anybody wants to cut from the budget nor from where. Have you?
Our federal budget expired on September 30, 2010, and since then we've been running on bandaids to pay bills. We have not had a budget for four months. This has been accepted without complaint. Our representatives went home and into the election without even providing a budget. And now that they sit together and hold hands everything will be alright? We allow a reckless, wild-spending government to operate without a budget without as much as even a whimper.
The thing that I have not heard anybody on the planet mention is how much spending has gone up. As recently as 2005 our federal budget was $2.4 trillion. The budget Obama has recommended is $3.8 trillion for 2011. That is a 58% increase in six years, yet we talk about taxes. How can we raise spending by $1.4 trillion and nobody can find anything to cut? Obviously, we do not have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.
Here is a comparison of the two years, in billions: (from www.usgovernmentdebt.us)
2005: pensions, 584; healthcare, 549; education, 106; defense, 600; welfare, 245; protection, 40; transportation, 68; general government, 20; other spending, 94; interest, 184.
2011: pensions, 787; healthcare, 898; education, 141; defense, 928; welfare, 464 ; protection, 57; transportation, 104; general government, 29; other spending, 151; interest, 250.
So what do you cut? While most everything was up 50%, the big winners were pensions, healthcare, defense, and welfare, since they are the big ticket items.
As far as revenue goes, in 2005 we took in $2.153 trillion, and in 2010 we took in $2.165 trillion. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200) So we are spending massively more while taking in the same amount. This is why all talk of raising taxes is a distraction and has nothing to do with the real problem. If you think raising taxes will fix this mess, you must believe that congress would then be responsible. If you think that, then all I can say is you need to start sharing. I want some of that.
So if the new batch of public servants are serious about cutting, these are the numbers. We are looking at a $1.7 trillion deficit. The only arguments for not cutting are that deficits don't matter, or that tax increases and/or a massive surge in economic growth will bring in more revenue. I would like to hear your reasoning for those arguments.
If we must cut, these are the areas. If it were up to me, I could easily cut half of the federal budget. Looking at the list above, I get little to nothing in benefits from the federal budget. I get zero handouts from the government. I am one of the tax PAYERS. If it were really up to me, I would go back to 1900 levels of the federal government being 1.3% of GDP instead of the current 25%. But then again entitlement RECEIVERS are a large number, and they vote. That is why I think anybody who gets a check from the government shouldn't be allowed to vote. Of 43 million Americans who get food stamps, how many do you think would prefer spending cuts? Those people vote. What a scam that is.
As long as people get unemployment and food stamps, why should anyone care? The coming show in the next couple of months will be posturing about raising the debt limit and "cuts." I have yet to hear a serious proposal. I expect the majority of R's to roll over and raise the debt limit. "Put us in charge in two years and we will make everything right." All talks of cuts so far have been a joke. Can you just imagine the crying that would ensue if the public were pulled away from the government tit for only a minute? Just look at what is happening in Europe.
We have turned into a nation of Wal-Mart employees and sign throwers who think the Federal Reserve, welfare, food stamps, regulations, eternal foreign wars, and government run health care are a good thing. Don't eat a steady diet of junk food and expect vibrant health.
Our federal budget expired on September 30, 2010, and since then we've been running on bandaids to pay bills. We have not had a budget for four months. This has been accepted without complaint. Our representatives went home and into the election without even providing a budget. And now that they sit together and hold hands everything will be alright? We allow a reckless, wild-spending government to operate without a budget without as much as even a whimper.
The thing that I have not heard anybody on the planet mention is how much spending has gone up. As recently as 2005 our federal budget was $2.4 trillion. The budget Obama has recommended is $3.8 trillion for 2011. That is a 58% increase in six years, yet we talk about taxes. How can we raise spending by $1.4 trillion and nobody can find anything to cut? Obviously, we do not have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.
Here is a comparison of the two years, in billions: (from www.usgovernmentdebt.us)
2005: pensions, 584; healthcare, 549; education, 106; defense, 600; welfare, 245; protection, 40; transportation, 68; general government, 20; other spending, 94; interest, 184.
2011: pensions, 787; healthcare, 898; education, 141; defense, 928; welfare, 464 ; protection, 57; transportation, 104; general government, 29; other spending, 151; interest, 250.
So what do you cut? While most everything was up 50%, the big winners were pensions, healthcare, defense, and welfare, since they are the big ticket items.
As far as revenue goes, in 2005 we took in $2.153 trillion, and in 2010 we took in $2.165 trillion. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200) So we are spending massively more while taking in the same amount. This is why all talk of raising taxes is a distraction and has nothing to do with the real problem. If you think raising taxes will fix this mess, you must believe that congress would then be responsible. If you think that, then all I can say is you need to start sharing. I want some of that.
So if the new batch of public servants are serious about cutting, these are the numbers. We are looking at a $1.7 trillion deficit. The only arguments for not cutting are that deficits don't matter, or that tax increases and/or a massive surge in economic growth will bring in more revenue. I would like to hear your reasoning for those arguments.
If we must cut, these are the areas. If it were up to me, I could easily cut half of the federal budget. Looking at the list above, I get little to nothing in benefits from the federal budget. I get zero handouts from the government. I am one of the tax PAYERS. If it were really up to me, I would go back to 1900 levels of the federal government being 1.3% of GDP instead of the current 25%. But then again entitlement RECEIVERS are a large number, and they vote. That is why I think anybody who gets a check from the government shouldn't be allowed to vote. Of 43 million Americans who get food stamps, how many do you think would prefer spending cuts? Those people vote. What a scam that is.
As long as people get unemployment and food stamps, why should anyone care? The coming show in the next couple of months will be posturing about raising the debt limit and "cuts." I have yet to hear a serious proposal. I expect the majority of R's to roll over and raise the debt limit. "Put us in charge in two years and we will make everything right." All talks of cuts so far have been a joke. Can you just imagine the crying that would ensue if the public were pulled away from the government tit for only a minute? Just look at what is happening in Europe.
We have turned into a nation of Wal-Mart employees and sign throwers who think the Federal Reserve, welfare, food stamps, regulations, eternal foreign wars, and government run health care are a good thing. Don't eat a steady diet of junk food and expect vibrant health.
Monday, January 24, 2011
My Very First Cartoon
I joined the cartoon crazed and created my first one. For my friends who don't like to read, here is the first article I wrote for this blog....in cartoon form. I am here to please.
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8287982/
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8287982/
Jobs, Jobs, Where Are The Jobs?
My guess going forward is the politicians are going to placate the masses by talking about creating jobs. I will be shocked if it isn't a major message in Obama's speech tomorrow. But what can the government really do about the job situation? Let's take a look.
How are jobs really created? Oh sure, the feds could create ten million jobs today with a stroke of the pen, but at what cost? Government jobs are non-producing jobs, unless you include the hideous creature resulting with the demise of GM and what has risen from the morass.
To create a job, first someone has to create a business. This happens when somebody gets an idea that fills a need and is willing to risk capital, time, and effort to fill that need. If that person doesn't have the capital, it can be raised from others who have saved that money and is willing to save it in a bank that can lend it to you, or that person is willing to invest in your plan. In any case, in theory, somebody needed to deny current desires and save money.
Yet what is the current environment? For years, savers have been vigorously punished. If you put your dough in a bank savings account, maybe you get 1% interest, then the feds tax you on that. And that doesn't even take inflation into account. (I know, the fed has said there has been no inflation for two years. If you believe any numbers from the government then you haven't been paying attention). If you save money in a savings account, you haven't given things much thought. The feds want you spending, not saving. You see, the feds think the only thing needed to build the economy is more spending, but they have the cart before the horse. If people don't have savings to spend, the only spending that can occur is the result of borrowing. And who wins if you borrow? The banksters.
So the only real significant thing the politicians could do to "create jobs" would be to lower regulations and business taxes, in other words, make the environment more palatable for businesses to grow. Also, if the free market set interest rates to historical standards instead being manipulated by the fed, people would be more inclined to save. But what are the odds of these things happening? If you think they will, place your bets in the comments section and I will take them.
What we are seeing is a meltdown of Keynesian central planning which is being blamed as a failure of capitalism. Capitalism would have let the banksters fail. Too Big To Fail is NOT an element of capitalism.
So what can you do about it? That is a good question, especially if you work at a job or need a job. The environment is not conducive in the United States to creating jobs right now. If you have any suggestions feel free to add them. Also, when there is a negative savings rate, (interest rate minus inflation rate), you get punished when saving cash in a bank. But commodities rise in price in a negative rate environment. Did you know silver was up 82% last year? Virtually all of the food commodities have been going gangbusters. People still need to eat. You can save, just don't save paper dollars. Save silver or gold. Gold has risen ten years in a row. Even in the meltdown of 2008 it was up.
If there is one thing we can count on, it is the government will without a doubt do the wrong thing. Raising the deficit and spending more money will continue to destroy more jobs, not create them like Obama will tell you. But they all want to get reelected. Borrowing and spending more will make billions more for the banksters. How long does this have to go on before the people understand? As long as people get unemployment and food stamps, I don't think they care. With a two-year plus vacation and free food, they aren't complaining. We now have 43 million Americans getting food stamps. I believe the sole purpose of food stamps is to quell a revolution, but then what do I know?
How are jobs really created? Oh sure, the feds could create ten million jobs today with a stroke of the pen, but at what cost? Government jobs are non-producing jobs, unless you include the hideous creature resulting with the demise of GM and what has risen from the morass.
To create a job, first someone has to create a business. This happens when somebody gets an idea that fills a need and is willing to risk capital, time, and effort to fill that need. If that person doesn't have the capital, it can be raised from others who have saved that money and is willing to save it in a bank that can lend it to you, or that person is willing to invest in your plan. In any case, in theory, somebody needed to deny current desires and save money.
Yet what is the current environment? For years, savers have been vigorously punished. If you put your dough in a bank savings account, maybe you get 1% interest, then the feds tax you on that. And that doesn't even take inflation into account. (I know, the fed has said there has been no inflation for two years. If you believe any numbers from the government then you haven't been paying attention). If you save money in a savings account, you haven't given things much thought. The feds want you spending, not saving. You see, the feds think the only thing needed to build the economy is more spending, but they have the cart before the horse. If people don't have savings to spend, the only spending that can occur is the result of borrowing. And who wins if you borrow? The banksters.
So the only real significant thing the politicians could do to "create jobs" would be to lower regulations and business taxes, in other words, make the environment more palatable for businesses to grow. Also, if the free market set interest rates to historical standards instead being manipulated by the fed, people would be more inclined to save. But what are the odds of these things happening? If you think they will, place your bets in the comments section and I will take them.
What we are seeing is a meltdown of Keynesian central planning which is being blamed as a failure of capitalism. Capitalism would have let the banksters fail. Too Big To Fail is NOT an element of capitalism.
So what can you do about it? That is a good question, especially if you work at a job or need a job. The environment is not conducive in the United States to creating jobs right now. If you have any suggestions feel free to add them. Also, when there is a negative savings rate, (interest rate minus inflation rate), you get punished when saving cash in a bank. But commodities rise in price in a negative rate environment. Did you know silver was up 82% last year? Virtually all of the food commodities have been going gangbusters. People still need to eat. You can save, just don't save paper dollars. Save silver or gold. Gold has risen ten years in a row. Even in the meltdown of 2008 it was up.
If there is one thing we can count on, it is the government will without a doubt do the wrong thing. Raising the deficit and spending more money will continue to destroy more jobs, not create them like Obama will tell you. But they all want to get reelected. Borrowing and spending more will make billions more for the banksters. How long does this have to go on before the people understand? As long as people get unemployment and food stamps, I don't think they care. With a two-year plus vacation and free food, they aren't complaining. We now have 43 million Americans getting food stamps. I believe the sole purpose of food stamps is to quell a revolution, but then what do I know?
Sunday, January 23, 2011
I now see the logic of fiat paper money
I used to be a big time gold bug but I have now seen the light.
I have to say I have changed my mind after reading this wikipedia article. I can now see the superiority of fiat money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money
"Historically, money originated as commodity money, based on physical commodities such as cowrie shells, copper, gold, or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith in the government issuing the money."
Faith in the government issuing the money has to be the best system, without a doubt.
"The term fiat money has been defined variously as:
Money that is declared legal by a government, which is non-convertible nor fixed to any objective standard, and which has no intrinsic value, is unquestionably the best system.
Fiat paper money was first tried in China. it was such a success that "By 1455, in an effort to rein in economic expansion and end hyperinflation, the new Ming Dynasty ended the use of paper money." How could they screw up such a good system?
"An early form of fiat currency were "bills of credit."
Of course, Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution said that no state shall "emit bills of credit, or make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment or debts." "Such bills of credit are declared to mean promissory notes or bills issued exclusively on the credit of the state, and for the payment of which the faith of the state only is pledged." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bill+of+credit
How silly of the writers of the Constitution. No bills of credit for creating debt and only using gold and silver? How antiquarian is THAT idea? No faith in the state? Preposterous!
In the 18th and 19th centuries: "The repeated cycle of deflationary hard money, followed by inflationary paper money continued through much of the 18th and 19th centuries."
What system could be better than deflationary cycles followed by inflationary cycles?
"The Bretton Woods system pegged the value of the United States dollar to 1/35th of a troy ounce of gold. Other currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar at fixed rates. The U.S. promised to redeem dollars in gold to other central banks. Trade imbalances were corrected by gold reserve exchanges or by loans from the International Monetary Fund. This system collapsed when the United States government ended the convertibility of the US dollar for gold in 1971, in what became known as the Nixon Shock."
Backing paper money with gold or silver always results in printing too much paper, causing the "responsible" government to default on their promises to redeem the paper. This has happened EVERY SINGLE TIME in the history of fiat paper money. What system could possibly be better than this? A collapsed system is the best kind of system, unquestionably. Not fulfilling promises is the main attribute of government, so fiat paper money is a perfect fit. How foolish to back paper money with something of value!
"In monetary economics, fiat money is an intrinsically useless good used as a means of payment."
An outstanding, logical system that has no flaws. I am now a believer. I don't know what took me so long to see the logic of fiat paper money. Nobody could come up with a more perfect system. I now see that faith in the government is the most important thing I can possess. I'm there, dude.
I have to say I have changed my mind after reading this wikipedia article. I can now see the superiority of fiat money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money
"Historically, money originated as commodity money, based on physical commodities such as cowrie shells, copper, gold, or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith in the government issuing the money."
Faith in the government issuing the money has to be the best system, without a doubt.
"The term fiat money has been defined variously as:
- any money declared by a government to be legal tender.[1]
- state-issued money which is neither legally convertible to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.[2]
- money without intrinsic value.[3]"
Money that is declared legal by a government, which is non-convertible nor fixed to any objective standard, and which has no intrinsic value, is unquestionably the best system.
Fiat paper money was first tried in China. it was such a success that "By 1455, in an effort to rein in economic expansion and end hyperinflation, the new Ming Dynasty ended the use of paper money." How could they screw up such a good system?
"An early form of fiat currency were "bills of credit."
Of course, Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution said that no state shall "emit bills of credit, or make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment or debts." "Such bills of credit are declared to mean promissory notes or bills issued exclusively on the credit of the state, and for the payment of which the faith of the state only is pledged." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bill+of+credit
How silly of the writers of the Constitution. No bills of credit for creating debt and only using gold and silver? How antiquarian is THAT idea? No faith in the state? Preposterous!
In the 18th and 19th centuries: "The repeated cycle of deflationary hard money, followed by inflationary paper money continued through much of the 18th and 19th centuries."
What system could be better than deflationary cycles followed by inflationary cycles?
"The Bretton Woods system pegged the value of the United States dollar to 1/35th of a troy ounce of gold. Other currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar at fixed rates. The U.S. promised to redeem dollars in gold to other central banks. Trade imbalances were corrected by gold reserve exchanges or by loans from the International Monetary Fund. This system collapsed when the United States government ended the convertibility of the US dollar for gold in 1971, in what became known as the Nixon Shock."
Backing paper money with gold or silver always results in printing too much paper, causing the "responsible" government to default on their promises to redeem the paper. This has happened EVERY SINGLE TIME in the history of fiat paper money. What system could possibly be better than this? A collapsed system is the best kind of system, unquestionably. Not fulfilling promises is the main attribute of government, so fiat paper money is a perfect fit. How foolish to back paper money with something of value!
"In monetary economics, fiat money is an intrinsically useless good used as a means of payment."
An outstanding, logical system that has no flaws. I am now a believer. I don't know what took me so long to see the logic of fiat paper money. Nobody could come up with a more perfect system. I now see that faith in the government is the most important thing I can possess. I'm there, dude.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)