Gaddafi’s Plan to Introduce Gold Dinar

I see little value in a currency backed by debt.

The amount of gold the U.S. supposedly has, is irrelevant. Backing out of the he Bretton-Woods system, referred to as the "Nixon shock" in 1971, put an end to to the U.S dollar being backed by anything other than a promise. This is when the U.S. dollar became a fiat currency and the freedom to print endless amounts of paper money started. I could be wrong, but if I remember correctly, it had something to do with financing the war in Vietnam and Nixon not wanting the gold reserves to deplete further.
As for the comments about whether or not the war was constitutional, it simply looked bad when viewed by the rest of the world, as another intervention to gain control of the more oil. Just because something may or may be constitutional does not make right to use it as guide to live by in the rest of the world.
Boots on the ground meant being first to cut deals with this group of rebels that no one knew. Well, we know who they are now, a bunch of extremists with ties to the ones we are now fighting and dieing for to rid the planet of them.
As I said before, Mrs. Clinton appearance in Lybia before the Dictator was assasinated, looked really bad. This man posed no threat what so-ever to the rest of the world. I understand Gadaffi was on his way out of the country after cutting a deal. If it was about protecting civilians, then the madman in Syria should have been first to experience a drones missle.

About the Vietnam war, I do admire the effort put forth and have the upmost respect for all the guys who went over there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The War Powers Resolution isn't a part of the Constitution. If Congress ever decides to enforce it, the President would be fully justified in declaring the resolution unconsitutional. The Constitution didn't give Congress the power to right laws which circumvent executive authority. Use of military force is clearly granted to the executive branch.

Also, as a footnote, the two most recent Presidents to ignore the War Powers Resolution were both Democrats during periods of Republican control of the House. Of course, the War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 with the Democrats controlling Congress under a Republican President. So, it seems, the Resolution only matters when there's a Republican President.

Rush, I'm only responding to the first sentence, since the rest of your issue was commentary on wars and the object of fiat money in the US. If you see little value in a currency backed by debt, you should seriously position 100% of your assets into PMs. Just don't complain when banks/stores refuse to offer spot price at par in exchange for goods and services rendered. A currency backed by debt, which is backed, in turn, by collateral in the form of everything listed that goes into "full faith and confidence of" whatever government, holds value until everyone decides it doesn't. In the case of the USA, FRNs are accepted as a form of payment for all debts owed to the US gov't. So long as a gov't exists in a stable form, it's debt has value. In order for FRNs and Treasuries to significantly lose value, the US gov't needs to see its currency fail while others thrive.

I still find it hilarious that "BitCoins" are worth more than actual currencies. This makes no sense. They're generated by someone's algorithm randomly awarding them. They have value because druggies think they're safer than wire transfers (they're not). In theory, the BitCoin concept converts local currency into virtual currency by wasting the processing power/energy paid for in local currency to the ISP and energy utility companies. By definition, first generation users would be multi-billionaires merely because of the log scaling of distribution. Supply released cuts by 50% every five years. It shouldn't have value, but it does.

I'd rather have US FDNs that inflate based upon the decisions of the Fed than BitCoins which inflate according to a log algorithm. Why? Well, it's simple. If BitCoins are successful at establishing a currency, what's to stop the originator (or someone else) from doing the same thing?

 

BitCoins are programmed for deflation, not inflation, so as to reward those who hold them, but I think that's what you described. Although obviously the easy rewards have already been reaped in that market based on the price action. Eventually there won't be any new supply available. I agree that the next incarnation of digital currency will probably cause a rush out of BitCoins by people who want to get in early, but there will always be a place for digital currency that doesn't come with a middle man taking their cut via fees, that has no central bank authority to coerce the predictable algorithm, and that can be used to exchange goods and services instantaneously across the globe.

P.S. I don't have a link for the $1 trillion in student loans. I saw it on TV, but I believe it was referring to total outstanding student debt, not debt owned by the government.

 

Yes, the figure of 1 trillion in outstanding student loans was in the news 2 weeks ago as the figure we will hit this year. I believe this years student loans will hit 100 billion as well.

Just verifying that bit of data for everyone.

 

Indeed, but it really isn't germane to the point I made except that Congress isn't even following it's own rules that it set. The US Military has been turned into an enforcer for globalised corporate interests. I can't see any other reason for attacking Libya beyond that. Like Iraq it's a horrible example of what this nation has turned into. It's the reason that our government refuses to cut any money at all from the military just like it refuses to prosecute any bankster for breaking the law. The notion that that Libya was attacked because of some gold coins IMO, was probably started by people who wish to distract from this reality.

 

Actually, I'm fairly certain it's programmed for disinflation, and not deflation. Deflation would imply shrinking the money supply. The idea is merely to slow it's growth (which is still infinite in terms of time), capping the total circulation at 2x the initial five-year tranche.

As for middle men, there ARE middle men... they are the ones running the mining pools.

Also, I am curious about where the $1T student loan number comes from. I still believe that must include private sector (non-subsidized) student loans.

 

I wouldn't be too cocky Rush. You country is in better shape because there are no people and lots of natural resources, its not a positive indictment on your government structure. Last I saw Ontario has the highest level of non-soveriegn debt in the world. Also, you do not know your history very well if you only go back to when the dollar was worth $1.50 canadian, (or you do and simply choose to not report it to make your point), Before that the Canadian dollar historically much closer to the US dollar, as it should be since your country simply mirrored our currency to make cross border exchanges easiest.

Chris

 

You make the mistake of thinking the relative values of fiat currencies means something about the country issuing it. It doesn't.

In the 1990s a lot of work from the USA was shifted towards Canada by American firms because the Canadian currency make it less expensive. The danger that Canada has now with an appreciating currency is the multinationals will move all your jobs to S. America, India, & China. In fact, it's already started. I know of a very large IT firm that recently shifted a great deal of work from Canada to Argentina & India and is continuing to do so. Job losses will accelerate if your currency remains high vs. the $. Canada isn't big enough to be on most people's radar, but given that you are on fiat money it's no different there, than anywhere else. At some point the government will be forced to tip their hand or see the industrial part of the economy moved elsewhere.

 

Lots to read on this thread.. just wanted to point out that if Congress needs special authority to correct unconstitutional laws (which circumventing executive authority is certainly an example of, by evading the system of checks and balances [one of countless examples such as the super congress]) then the whole republic is in question.

The Constitution is clear that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the states. So Congress shouldn't even need this ability (they are also part of the federal government and are therefore under the same jurisdiction in this regard as the executive branch), because the federal government never had authority to enact anything in the first place that wasn't specifically outlined.

 

After reading Inflexion's last comment, I just realized I made a HUGE typo. I meant "write" not "right." Though, in the context of what was written, I can see that "right" would mean something, thereby changing the entire point of what I was saying.

 

Ahhh the inherent difficulties in non-face to face communication ;D Well it's still good and well for folks to understand state's rights.