Another debt crisis looms

Trump will fix it. He's created millions of jobs and the guy knows money.
Go back to Reddit faggot.

Not saying he won't - just saying that it's about to be another crisis and the MSM won't help you understand the situation

Listen up little nigger, it is impossible to pay off the debt while the debt-money system is in effect. Debt is really a policy weapon, and the debt-ceiling is a meaningless token that just signals that we will be subject to the debt money system for another year. We need to unwind the Fed and restore currency sovereignty. The debt is an illusion and really signifies ASSETS, on the book of the Fed.

inb4 webm it
It's too large, sorry

Please see

In addition to the embed, the United States is currently only taking care of the INTEREST on debt, not the actual debt itself.
Pic is 2016 budget

Faggot.

WRONG. Gold-backed currency was actually the beginning of the usury. Because of it's limited supply, it is easily hoarded and the price is easily manipulated. It is true it is preferred to the crony false-fiat system we have currently, but that is only because we were responsible about valuation. However look to Rome for the quintessential example on why gold backed currencies are easily manipulated. Commodity (I'll be gracious and include silver) backed currencies are hardier, but still subject to this. The ONLY solution is a pure fiat currency (think Franklin's Continental Money or Lincoln's Greenbacks) with a very strict rules based system determining monetary expansion and retraction policies.

Don't distract from the topic at hand. I am talking monetary policy. Trump actually has zero direct influence on the national debt, as evidenced by monetary policy being relinquished to the Fed, while Congress maintains the treasury. One more week until school starts up nigger

Is there a way to solve this without defaulting?
I know that each dollar print makes (> 1) dollars of debt, so it's unpayable.
Replacing the whole system requires defaulting, right?

This is correct. While the debt ceiling is in place, there is no solution. Even the most extreme proposals, such as a special Congressional event where they print 20 $1T special coins for direct deposit into the treasury would not fix the underlying problems with our monetary system as they relate to the monetary expansion of the past 10 years specifically

Kek you can always see these economy threads popping up as Bitcoin value needs to go up.

Reported. Kill yourself. The debt is meaningless. Trump is compromised if he raises the debt ceiling.

This is not his responsibility. He may be vocal, but I would not be if I was him, at least not directly. I would continue to use Randlet to meme in the Senate.

He'll let the government shut down, he doesn't give a fuck

Now that any hope for a Trump presidency died, we gladly welcome a total economic collapse. Maybe this accelerates the upcoming pogroms.

Up to you usual tricks I see, schlomo

Continuing to sage

crawl back in your hole kike

Filtered

Fucking this. Gold standard is a controlled op meme just like so many others. You know the global financial system that Hitler is so often praised for breaking free of? It was the GOLD STANDARD. Hitler realized that a clique of kikes controlled most of the gold and could basically do as they pleased with it.

there has to be a major collapse in some sector(s) of the economy before you can think of addressing "debt". that and you have to get rid of the federal reserve. so until then its just paper money being printed with essentially no value. anyone smart enough will understand that at the end of the day the dollar is worthless and would be wise to invest in things other than the USD (like a well maintained house, arms, food, gear, or maybe even gold and silver). people seem to forget from history how fast things can spiral out of control. ill use weimar republic as everyone enjoys a good german uprising but essentially overnight people had literal wheelbarrows of cash being used to pay for a fucking loaf of bread. a lot of people scoff at the idea and pretend we are too progressive and advanced for such a thing to happen now but you couldnt be more wrong.

and i say that because if you were old enough or at least have read about the 2008 recession, you remember prices dipped in mere hours sometimes in minutes. every day there was a brand new change where peoples life savings and investments were wiped out. debt in this debt driven world is mostly fake. youll hear people say the world debt is some huge ass number far beyond trillions but at the end of the day it doesnt even exist. and thats what you get when you have an extremely jewish country having control in some many areas of the world. one day you either break free or sit tight and enjoy the wild ride.

As crazy as this guy sounds, it's pretty much the truth. If every country just shuffles their "debt" around to other countries, and it never actually gets called, then does it even really exist as what we know as debt? I'll believe a country's debt exists when some modern country goes bankrupt over it.. oh wait, they can just print more pieces of paper, nevermind.
Paper only has value because we assign it such, what really has value are resources; natural, industrial, and human.

Hey, retard. the USD is literally a debt-backed currency. Their is no "debt crisis" and there never will be. The very basis of the Federal Reserve is creating a debt to buy treasury bonds.

Should've said 'budget crisis'

No you fucking imbecile. The gold price of today is controlled through the paper market (better yet, electronic digits), so you have it all backwards… Why do you think were (((they))) able to amass huge amounts of gold? Because they were groundbreaking entrepreneurs who deserved it? Fucking no! They got all the gold because they bought it with worthless paper money through stupid nationwide policies that put an inherently valuable metal on the same level as paper plus ink. Gold is not the problem per se. The problem is that we let (((them))) take it for free, essentially. A pure fiat currency is not the solution. The solution is what Hitler did. And because most people are retards, they don't even bother to research what Hitler actually implemented through law. And it is NOT included in books like "Web of Debt"… He did the reverse of what led to the fall of Rome. Research the Denarius. I won't hold you hand, why should I bother when I know that 99% here won't appreciate it anyways.

tbh whilst there is going to be an international debt crisis and the usa (and pretty much every other country in the world) is going to be buttraped by it it's much more likely to be set off by japan or china. it's absolute fucking insanity what's going on in those countries.

Bump this post. One Goy's debt is an another Jew's Asset. Ignore all Jewish economics (aka Libertarians, free market).

Debt acquired without the consent of the people is odious and doesn't need to be repaid.
Warning: This is probably the best way to get suicided (besides denouncing usury).

Or you know, do what Germany did, but keep pushing for shit that will result in manipulation.

Give me your (1)'s niggers. You are either ignorant, or purposefully misrepresenting history. The origins of the debt money system started with merchant-banking houses that offered deposit services and issued IOU's. They then began to fractionally lend the deposits many times over, increasing the money supply, and subsequently, inflation. This would result in what happens every time a currency becomes oversupplied, a rise in prices, and eventually a run on the banks. When they poor merchants got ran out of town or hung from the gates, it was a big 'oy vey' and on to the next one. Your ignorance is astounding, and made even more laughable by the glaring Dunning–Kruger and nonsensical explanation. What do you think a promissory note is?
Please don't nigger, read a real book, and you would learn that Germany began issuing a parallel currency that was a solely balance sheet entity, a purely fiat currency, free from manipulation from outside forces, or the international banking system, it was the equivalent of a corporation issuing scrip for its company store in the mining town that were then exchangeable for RM.

It will never be repaid

Also over half the debt is owed to US citizens/organizations. We owe China and other countries very little. Usually in the form of bonds(which they bought because they believe it is a solid investment, cause the US is awesome)

this is an important distinction that i didn't see mentioned. the difference here is the the US controls it's own money supply. economies without their own "printing" mechanism do not have the luxury of deflating or reflating their currencies based on prevailing econ. conditions.

this inflexibility is a significant factor in the most recent Greek debt crises. without the ability to locally devalue the euro, the greek economy is unable to compete with it's more productive neighbors. The obvious answer is to remove grek, but you can imagine how that'll go.

What are the 284 trillion unfunded liabilities OP? For example Illionios owes over 250 billion in unfunded liabilities. The debt ceiling you like to talk about is supposedly at 20 trillion, while it's actually at over 62 trillion.

A crisis will never happen, the US government will simply print more money and thus devalue their currency. Even when BrazilRussiaIndiaChina retract their support and go to their own gold standard, this is the Keynesian modus operandi and you can see the end result in Zimbabwe, where a loaf of bread costs 5 trillion Zimbabwean dollars.

Mo money for dem programz!

Why are most of you economically and financially retarded?
The problem with our money/currency is that it is backed by nothing and therefore is created from nothing by a monopolizing central bank. If you want a fair monetary system, you have to back it with something of value and scarcity, and in order for it to function as money it has to be portable and divisible. Surprise surprise, precious metals fit the bill. You then have to deal with the financial system, which means getting rid of banks as we know them today and replacing them with a more responsible system.

Well fuck. I posted too fast.
ALSO: the debt is much worse than you realize because it is a global problem of bad credit and misallocated capital. Basically the whole developed world is fucked and pretending it isn't.

it's backed by the "full faith and credit" of the US Gov. It's simply a promissory note. now, we can argue how much this faith and credit is worth.

But they don't fit the bill in terms of portability and ease of exchange. We simply don't have enough gold available to return to a standard, and using additional precious metals creates more counterparty and exchange risk. USD-CAN is a simple digital exchange that is very liquid. but going from palladium to USD to CAN requires a physical exchange (at some point) of a quantity of palladium for USD. The transport, exchange and repricing of the physical metal is the rub.
More likely solution is to mirror commodity trades where your're exchanging deliverable contracts, but not actually taking delivery until you've cleared the middlemen and have a final point of delivery.

No, you are the one who is retarded. A nationalized central bank (properly, mind you) is the only basis for a sound money system. Look up tally sticks and their efficacy for hundreds of years despite being a fucking piece of wood. Commodity backed currencies are a meme because of their liquidity. Liquidity can be manipulated very easily in today's global economy. Gold prices have been squashed for years because there are dozens of outstanding paper contracts for each physical ounce. This doesn't mean gold is sound. Gold was convenient because it didn't corrode and was used in adornments. All money is fiat, even those backed by commodities.

It doesn't have to be backed by gold. Fiat money can work just fine but not with a debt based system like we have today.

This is the way it was in the earliest days of the US because the US had no gold and it worked very well.

Obviously the ZOG will not allow such a system and instead all money created today is debt.

The meme that colonists went to war over points of a percent tax on goods as a primary cause of revolt is laughable. Franklin's Continental Money fucked them so hard, the British actually began to counterfeit Continental currency as a form of economic warfare. Sovereign, fiat currency, properly implemented, destroys inflationary debt-based monetary systems.

We need to have a global debt reset where all Private and publicly held debt is rested.

Your thinking of the greenback.

The modern dollar is an i o u to the fed which is a private company with shareholders.

It's not backed by nothing, it's backed by whatever you can buy with it. ie. the products of the area where it is legal tender, and of wherever believe the promise implied in the currency will be honored in the future.

It's a promise. The power of a promise is the belief people have in its future. To get a realistic view, look at the value of US products in the future.

it's really a public private blend. the member banks (shareholders) don't hold voting power. That said, USD is absolutely an"IOU" or a promissory note.

you're spot on about the greenback, i should have written "fed. reserve." my fault.

that's pretty fucking dumb.

You're proving my point you moron. How were they able to increase the money supply when traditional money was always silver? Were they able to turn lead into silver? I don't think so, you fantast. Get a grip on medieval history. Paper money is the first thing that gets implemented after (((they))) take over finance.

Can you provide me with a non-kiked source for your fairy tale? I can't understand how you can believe this "balance sheet" nonsense. It looks like it came right out of the mind of a kike. The Nuremberg Trials and the website jewishvirtuallibrary are not genuine sources, mate.

What the fuck are you on about? Traditional money was not always silver. Money is useful as a medium of exchange and value store. Any commodity backed currency will have liquidity issues. Precious metals specifically are easily manipulated by first extending the lever ratio, then constricting the supply. Do you have any conception of what I'm speaking about?

Why don't you look up resources on Hjalmar Schacht, wherever you want to find them. If you don't trust transcript of his testimony, he did a lot of work in developing nations post WWII. Additionally read "A History of the Federal Reserve, Volume 1: 1913-1951" by Allan Melzter to learn about the Federal Reserve's role in the international financial markets post Depression. Seriously, read to develop a thorough understanding of how practical markets work, and how bad actors disrupt utopian free market ideals.

It did, but that is the practical reality of the situation. We are so far gone, monetarily, that we don't even fractional reserve lend anymore. There is a new method of "stimulus" called credit easement, whereby debt is bought by a central bank, using credit created using the authority vested in them by Congress. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in the practical reality of this system. The USD's reserve status exports the lion's share of consequences onto the rest of the world, and although I believe this system is satanic, it is recognized as legal. As such, the labor of all the citizens of the world is held as collateral to the debt created by this system through their tax dollars.

I had a vision last night
Maybe Schemitah not happening in 2015 gave enough social lee-way for Trump to happen?
Kikes got scared after we busted them with their economy control plans which controls peoples minds in a way to make them more subordinate to dominant culture (survival instinct in time of needs, eg economy crisis).

Schemitah not happening allowed Trump to happen. Now they are trying to reverse the effect by pushing through with more cultural influence (media and online control) and more economic pressure.

What part of the free market is Jewish? Are you just pretending to be retarded, or do you honestly not understand what you're saying? The free market is the base concept of Capitalism, which is the thing the communists, and thus the Jews, hate more than anything else.
Maybe I was baited, but I'm fucking baffled someone would claim the free market is a Jewish trick.

And just to be clear. Hjalmar Schacht was a mason, and tied to the Bank of England. So although his 4% notes were an improvement over the international money market, they were still usurious, and not a good permanent solution. Gottfried Feder was a lot closer to a monetary solution with interest-free notes, but given the economic situation at the time, incentive was needed to spur adoption and prevent hoarding. Ideally, no interest systems would exist at all, but that is not the current world we live in.

In the United States runaway inflation coincides with the abolition of the gold standard, but this does not mean that the gold standard was ideal. It just means there was a strong, rules-based system in place to prevent arbitrary revaluation. England and Spanish banking crises of history are a good example of how it is the policies of the money that matter, not medium itself.

The free market is ultimately utopian. We do not have a free market anywhere in the world, and even the Republic of Venice wasn't a perfect free market. The free market is the simple "answer" to this problem, but when disparate groups join in the wider "free market", their constituent local markets' policies matter too, and as such, there are problems that arise such as subsidized labor, capital supply manipulation, that should be dealt with using long-run strategies that might violate a naive understanding of the free market system. Reminder: Wealth of Nations was a blueprint for mercantilism, not the free market.

But why?
Why can't we just say "fuck you, not paying" to (((whoever))) we owe money to?
Isn't that exactly what Hitler did allowing Germany to boom?

Can I buy the debts and sell it?

isn't that what treasury bonds are for?

try to into science fgt

see reactionary hippie on soundcloud. his debt podcast is really good

God damn you fucking T_D cucks. ==GET THE FUCK OFF THIS WEBSITE==

NOBODY can fix the fucking debt without causing The Happening™, and the fucking faggots in gov will never allow that to happen. As long as they have the means to keep the status quo, even if balanced on a knife-edge, they will continue to do so. They will only act when shit spirals out of control —- Because it will allow them to do things they always want to do but never could because people would be pissed. Just like they did in 2008, 2001, and other times when the Overton window shifted.

They will continue to raise the ceiling until the whole goddamn thing falls apart and the DOTR is upon us. The only thing that matters is what you do when it happens. They have a plan. Do you?

The problem with this idea is that our currency is valued on faith (nothing). Breaking faith breaks the currency.

Oh, and to the 24 chromosome genius who complains about the portability and lack of supply of precious metals: You do realize that we have giant vaults like Ft Knox to keep it all in, right? Also, if gold is exchanged at say, $1k per ounce, but that only gives us 1/10th of the monetary supply that we currently have, that's only going to result in prices and wages adjusting naturally downwards to reflect that. Relative value still remains constant for work and products. The only thing that happens is a shit ton of bankruptcies as debts become unreasonable. (which is great, because it shocks the entire credit market and screws the entire banking system)

Go away. The problem is debt and interest and always has been. Problems don't come when people "discover" that currency "isn't 'worth' anything"; it comes when the debts that demand more than any wealth actually in existence (let alone available to pay it) are called due and sparks a panic. Speculation and various financial schemes are related and also problems.

This.

It wasn't just a single factor. I'm tired of Holla Forumslacks trying to oversimplify history. As far as I'm concerned, the three primary causes of the war were:

Gee, user, good question. Why can't we just say we're not paying? For that matter, why can't we just say "We're not letting anymore people into the country"? Or "All nonwhites get out"? Why can't we just say we're not letting women vote?

Really pinches my peanuts, it does.

The stupidest part about goldbug theories is that since no one is going to want to carry around gold they all end up carrying paper promissory notes anyway, and then the game just boils down to pretending that gold is a mechanism for sound monetary policy ("They can't have more money than gold just like they can't violate the constitution! That would be illegal!") and betting that these promissory notes won't just be manipulated the same way our money already is.

"Commodity-currencies" are a shitty meme that effectively just adds an extra, unnecessary step in the monetary process while allowing goldbugs to rationalize their way into thinking they've magically solved problems (because "real value" and "store of energy" and "backed by nothing" and a thousand other memes that make no actual sense) when in truth all they wanted was to say "Don't have more than $X pls."

It's probably worse because it fools them into thinking they've solved the problem (because obviously gold-backing "forces" the government/whoever to have a sound monetary policy) when the actual solution of eternal vigilance against corruption and tyranny is the answer. No different from retards who think banning guns stop murders or that adding another amendment to the Constitution will prevent bad things from happening.

It doesn't really matter if the currency is gold or something else. The point is that you're retaining value. I don't want to barter away my labor or goods to you for something that is worthless(Fed note), and then hope that when I take that worthless thing somewhere, I will be able to exchange it for something that has real worth.
What happens when the jig is up? The goyim all lose in jewsical chairs. (Which, coincidentally, has happened more and more every time the progressive central bankers have snatched a little more power)

Still a shitty meme. The only things that "retain value" (nothing does, since it's all probabilities, but that's besides the point) are real items, which defy the point of a currency. A currency is meant to represent value in order to facilitate trade more advanced than barter.

You're arguing illogically and synchronically. A Fed note is 100% not worthless right now, as evidenced by the fact that I can exchange it for real goods. However, its value may change over time and may even drop to nothing. Trying to reduce this diachronic view to something frozen in time is stupid.

As opposed to hoping that the people you want to trade with will want to trade with you and want what you want to trade? It's really no different. You're always relying on a bet at the end of the day, so focusing on one (that your note will be valued) is pointless.

By the same logic government is impossible since any government is bound to collapse eventually. What's the point in writing laws when the jig will go up at some point? This is the problem of goldbugs and most economists: you can only think synchronically. Here's another example a little closer to home: computers must have no value because my computer today will eventually have no worth, just as no one wants a 1970 IBM mainframe. See the problem?

At any rate, none of this goldbug boilerplate disproves my point. Anything you seek to prevent with "commodity currencies" will happen anyway, up to and including the actual problems of debt and interest. Fun fact: under actual systems like what you propose, namely the ancient civilizations such as Babylon (which as you preach used only weighted silver, being before the invention of money), there not only was still debt and interest but also vast financial crashes. "Commodity currencies" do not fix anything and have never fixed anything. Add onto that the inherent downsides such as deflation and it's a shitty meme.

That's because only the principal is loaned out and put into circulation, there is no money created to pay the interest with. It is designed for collapse.

No he's right. Look up what the kikes did to Rome; they hoarded so much of the gold that the Empire had to start lengthening their gold coins with copper (mixing gold and copper together) because they were simply running out of gold as the kikes were sitting on nearly all of it.

Not the same user but i think he was arguing about intrinsic value.

This is not true though. There do exist commodities that are always in demand, such as gold. It has been extremely useful throughout time for all kinds of different purposes, and if we look back at financial crashes throughout the entire history of mankind we always see societies returning back to gold when whatever fiat currency at the time fails. You can observe it on macro scale too when the gold price soars during credit crunches, or even the market just reacting to new policies that might lead to credit crunches.

Ok. Let's start at the beginning. Yes, certain things retain value, and certain things depreciate. "Real Items" as you say, "defy the point of a currency." False. A currency can be (or can be directly exchanged for) a thing that is widely recognized as valuable. Because you keep focusing on gold, we'll use that: it is scarce and has widely recognized properties that people value (beauty, malleability, conductivity, complete corrosion resistance). The current federal reserve note is backed by the federal reserves ownership of US Treasury Bonds, which are in turn backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government. Please inform me how I can quantify this faith and credit, and what precisely I can do with it.

The federal reserve note is worth whatever it is worth based on how much "people believe in it" and how many are printed or electronically created. (No one is really certain how much that is.) Gold has relative value based on its (fairly stable) known utility and (also fairly stable) supply.

Yes, it is different. The only reason people don't barter is because the market is too large to go find everyone who needs what you have and to complete intermediate bartering steps to get what you want. That is impractical. That is why money was invented, and originally, why it was always a physical item of commonly understood value.

Ok, seriously, I'm not sure if you'll understand this, but debt and interest, i.e. the investment of capital with the promise of return on that investment is when someone stores up their hard work and expertise and physical value and says "I'm not going to use this to benefit myself right now. Hey, guy trying to build something, I'll let you borrow my resources if you promise to give me them back and a little more for the time I didn't have them to use." Sometimes the guy trying to build something fails, and you lose your investment. Sometimes a shit ton of people let crappy people borrow their resources like idiots, and then a crash happens. People deserve to suffer when they make bad choices and misallocate resources. It's part of being an adult and taking responsibility for your choices. No one should have to save you when you fuck up, you should have a backup plan to stay afloat when you take risks and lose.

Trump has a long list of bad deals, defaults, bankruptcy and business failures both small and large. This one time he defaulted on a huge construction loan, and when the biggest lender (Deutsche Bank) sued him they engaged in IRL shitposting in court, Trump wanted to sue the bank for 'damaging his reputation' but the bank BTFO'd Trump when they said 'he's no stranger to overdue debt'. Meaning he's really not that great of a bigshot.

I know the guy's a billionaire in net assets, but he's definitely not that great of a business man when you look at his record. Look up his failed hotel project in Baku. The only way that could've been profitable is if Trump engaged in corruption. It's definitely worth a read and it's definitely worth it to check out Trump's business record.

BULLSHIT.
Definition of a DOLLAR from the US Coinage Act of 1792:
Thus the Spanish Dollar was also Silver. From now on when you see the terms "pound," "weight" or "round", it's about silver coins, sometimes gold coins… What is etymology of the term Dollar?
Lets take the Mark now…
What is a ruble?
Peso:
Lira:
c. 1300, "silver penny," perhaps from Middle English sterre (see star (n.)), according to OED "presumably" from the stars that appeared in the design of certain Norman coins
Franc:
I can go on and on and on…

(((They))) let Schacht free because he agreed to talk about a lot of BS to hide as much about the German economic system as possibe. And they came up with the most kiked system in existance to "explain" Germany's economic miracle. Coincidentally there is no evidence because sly Hitler implemented this complex financial scheme in secret like some kike. You should instinctively KNOW that it's a lie. It reeks like a lie, it's jewish in its essence.

No, the Denarius was out of silver. And jews didn't have a monopoly on this because they hoarded gold. Rome decreased the purity of their silver coins over time because they were stupid morons and needed more wars and fancy stuff like palaces. But the biggest fuckup was their giant bureaucratic and logistical systen, it was pure decadence. At the end the soldiers didn't give a fuck because their wages went down.

care to elaborate?

It's not just too much "national" (government) debt, but too much debt in general. The sick part is each Dollar bill, bearing the green stamp on the right side and the words FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE across the top, is actually principal to a debt to the Federal Reserve which bears interest. If we pretend the Kennedy-authorized red stamped UNITED STATES NOTES don't exist for the moment, the only 'money' in circulation is there because it was borrowed at some point. The entire money supply is debt to the Fed, and there is more principal + interest owed than exists money supply to pay it. You might think it just got bad now, but that's exactly how the system starts. Under a debt-money system inflation, which is an effect of borrowing more money into the supply than is exiting in coupon payments, must continue indefinitely or else the whole system will enter default and all asset prices collapse with the money supply. Well, that's the case until even lowering borrowing standards doesn't spur enough borrowing; what the FED has to do to spur inflation when it can no longer drum up loans with teaser interest rates is to start buying things outright with its credit (the USDollar currency itself since it's the FED's credit unit), or start giving credit away with negative interest rates (giving with no expectation/requirement of repayment would be negative infinity interest rate). Guess what the FED had been doing since 2008? DING DING DING, buying mortgage backed securities, stocks, bonds (other than national), and more. Recently Yellen became hawkish and spoke of beginning unwinding of the FED "balance sheet" (a.k.a. all that extra shit they bought since 2008 to flood money into the system).
There's something ironic here, though. Inflation has not reached FED targets, which explains the hawkish-turned-dovish about face the FED did recently. Even though the monetary base has expanded dramatically, much of the expansion has been retained in interest-bearing savings accounts at the FED which only its member institutions can hold (which pays some 6% yield, in effect a negative interest rate scheme). If this supply were to hit the market as money backing new loans, inflation would begin to skyrocket. I'm pretty sure the FED will not allow another deflationary collapse, but they're also fighting like mad to walk a very narrow path between a deflationary abyss and an inflationary abyss, and the path keeps narrowing. Having a large in-flow of circulating currency without a corresponding increase in goods production will cause prices to rise faster for those who tend to get printed money later in the chain (the average Joes and the geriatrics).

Wonderful job finding examples of commodity backed currency, that doesn't prove they were sound money (they weren't). Gold is a meme, the value is completely arbitrary, hence my first point: ALL MONEY IS FIAT MONEY. Commodity-backing is an unnecessary layer that is helpful when there is a weak or corrupt (parallel) central authority. Commodity backing may increase adoption and good faith use of the currency, but it is not necessary, and is ultimately not a good permanent solution. Despite your autistic ramblings you haven't addressed why, inherently, it is a) more efficient or b) more sound, to use a commodity backed currency. My argument has been commodity-backed currency is less efficient, and that it provides a detrimental feedback loop that opens an avenue to devaluation. You haven't addressed that point you mongo.

Substantiate that please. No one can deny that QE and Credit Easement and other kike memes don't work in the short term. The problem is it does not build a sustainable system in the context of a healthy economy and will ultimately lead to total ruin.

This is factually incorrect. They used all manner of precious metal in their coinage across values.
Get the fuck off this board you low-IQ piece of shit. Their problems ultimately were the same as ours, demographics, and a bloated bureaucracy contributed, but only through mismanagement which has been the whole point of this thread. Would you argue that Diocletian and Constantine's reforms were "the biggest fuckup" as you eloquently put it? Go watch more HBO

It's unbelievably

I am so heated. It's unbelievable that this gold bug meme is still around with the wealth of resources made available by the internet. I would never blame a boomer for their ignorance. But the fact people unironically advocate for unsound money is a hard black pill to swallow. Money is a medium of exchange, and should be high trust, easy to transport, and durable. That's it.

...

FYI, memes are cultural ideas/expressions. Gold is an element/metal. It physically exists. It is scarce (because it's in the ground and has to be mined) It is valued for its in jewelry and decoration, as a sign of status, and (for a non-culturally assignable value, even though the previous 2 are largely universal among humans) its use a non corrosive plating surface in complex electronics where contact needs to be made to complete a circuit and the longevity of that contact is valued and needs to be protected from corrosion.
People have thus historically seen gold as money. They still do.
You say it needs to be a medium of exchange that is high in trust, easy to transport, and durable. Half a pound of gold coins, which are pretty small and can fit in your pocket, are worth about $10,000, and people trust it because its supply and demand are relatively stable. (It takes a lot of effort to pull gold out of the ground, and jewelry/electronic/investment demand does not tend to fluctuate wildly)
I really want to know how exactly precious metals based money is UNSOUND.

*its use
(mea culpa)

because memes are memes
half shitpost

Public debt almost never causes crisis, when it does, it is always a political crisis not an economic one.

Private debt is what you really have to worry about.

…you derailing son of a bitch.

Engage in discourse nigger.

I know what memes are. The implication being that the memes are schemes by which to extend the money supply to dilute the value of existing money in circulation, being the cultural expression of the Jewish people. People have used shells, dried shit, and precious metals for all time. That doesn't change the fact that they all represent the future value of labor stored in a physical medium that is only worth what another party will surrender. Your favorite shiny commodity can outperform debt notes and still NOT be an ideal medium of exchange.

Gold's industrial applications are overplayed to a huge degree. Gold's true value is probably somewhere north of 10,000 usd/oz, but because institutions use paper contracts in their complicated strategies, they only care about relative movement and total volume. When a .03/share movement on a gold ETF @ 10M outstanding shares represents a significant portion of the smelt value of the physical supply, the market is being manipulated. Silver is used in far more industrial applications. I recognize why people covet gold, that doesn't mean that a nation state should use it as their currency.

In order to address commodity backed currency feasibility, how do you expand and contract the money supply? By what abstract measures do you decide to revalue your currency? How are they calculated? Who calculates them? All currencies will be attacked by counterfeiters and those who would manipulate the supply. Commodity-backed currency doesn't make these problems go away. Eternal vigilance is the only answer.

excuse me, gold is a meme, being that "gold as the ideal commodity to back a currency" should be in the dictionary sidebar under "hegelian dialectic". It's decent, it worked for a long time, but it is not ideal, and given the circumstances of the age, it would corrupt faster than at any point in history.

Not all money is fiat money. Precious metals have long been used as a currency between states, long distance merchants, and credit has also been a form of money that didn't require the fiat of a central state. In regards to gold, this wasn't because it had any inherent value, it just made for a very good unit of account foremost, and secondarily as a good medium of exchange.

(checked)
I suppose. push comes to shove it's not like they can really make us pay and we can pretty much take anything if we want/need it badly enough. nobody else can project force like America

It should also be noted that barley and other grains also served the same role as gold in other societies.

There is no discourse to be engaged in. You've said something so incredibly stupid, something no sane man would ever actually hold to be a truth, that it's clear discourse is not a sane course of action to take since it would do little more than trying to explain thermodynamics to a cockroach.
You don't know what the word "fiat" means: You throw it out to sound smart and try to diminish the potential of currency actually backed by physical commodity since you try to apply them under your shitty economic framework, and are surprised when good currency can't exist in a shitty system. Newsflash, endless growth is what necessitated fiat currency in the first place, since it's a retarded economic idea that necessitates equally retarded currency.

Good point. My implication is that it is always the receiver of the money that pegs the value. As such, it is locally fiat, in that the one who accepts the money who sets the value.

National debt is just a part of the overall picture. The (((central banks))) are losing their ability to keep the "markets" inflated and convince the investors to play the game. The crash of 2007/2008 was never fixed and now the garbage is spilling from under the carpet.

Did The Economy Just Stumble Off A Cliff?
zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-24/did-economy-just-stumble-cliff

No dumbfuck. Their currency was gold/silver until they abandoned it through dilution. Go read a book before posting here.

That's revaluation policy, not the backing

Why is US devalued so much?

That's a different sort of fiat than state fiat.

When we talk about fiat money we should keep in mind its origins and relations to the first markets. Early Kingdoms would often pay their soldiers in coin when their armies were on the march (coin was rarely used in everyday transactions) and ordered local producers to accept that coin in exchange for goods and services, as this was far easier than keeping a constant supply chain traveling with the army. Similarly, in ancient Mesopotamia, rates of exchange between goods were kept by centralized temple complexes with money being the unit of account they used. Modern fiat money is based around this centralization and state power, with more recent developments concerning methods of making state debt liquid. The big difference between what we call commodity money and fiat money is that one is backed by debt and the other is backed by a commodity. There are benefits to both kinds, as well as drawbacks. If a gold based currency was the basis for the global economy today, we might see constant liquidity crunches or crises of faith depending on the larger system around it.

Trump needs to push for a global debt reset because it's impossible to pay it off and we're paying trillions of dollars in interest.

I don't understand why you advocate for fiat currency. Fiat currency requires the central banks to have total control over the currency. The problem is that they can print infinite money and so they can buy whatever they want whenever they want. The reason gold backed currency fails is because more dollars eventually end up being printed than there is gold to support it. Gold and silver cannot be printed and have a fixed quantity and so they retains their value. I don't understand your reasoning in supporting fiat currency. I can guarantee that a fish will feed me but I can't guarantee that a dollar will.

It wasn't backed which makes his post even more retarded but I'd rather call it "dilution into nothingness" than revaluation… into nothingness.

Poor monetary policy. The wild extension of credit following the US financial crisis is the easiest example of poor monetary policy. High monetary supply results in lower purchasing power per discrete unit. They use shaky methods of calculating economic indicators to justify monetary expansion, and the worst of all, they believe that the extension of credit will spur spending, which it will, but it's usually a wash because of the resulting devaluation.

I think we're in agreement. Ultimately, the compulsion by coercion to accept the money at a given value is how a state facilitates use and pegs value. Fiat money does not necessarily have to be backed by debt to a private institution. It almost exclusively, and perhaps it is technically correct to think of state extension of credit in relation to double entry accounting practices, but any sovereign state could issue credit and the equivalent entry could be thought as a debit, but to who? The state then needs to, at an appropriate time, retract the money supply to keep inflation in check.

Central banks don't have to be private. What's the difference between a national bank, and a mint?

There were hundreds of variants of Roman currency of all manner of compositions and equivalencies, that were all pegged in relation to each other, presumably at one point, there was a pure coin, but their money was debased and recalled, and reissued so many times, it may as well have been chunks of pyrolized bread for the purposes of practicality.

Get a brain, moron. The Denarius was a silver coin with a purity of over 90%. It fell to 60 and then even to 5. Why do you think I posted the definition of a US Dollar here
Why do you think that it was defined as
and not simply DOLLARS, comparable to gold coins which were called EAGLES. It's because it acts as the basis. Every other coin is measured against it. There were coins out of copper and so on but the economic system could only function with silver as its basis. Why do you think Hitler increased the purity of Silver Reichsmark right in 1933 when he got into power?

That's why a wrote the following you shithead.

This is where other countries start demanding gold as payment or converting the backed currency into gold at a fixed rate. This is how "Nixon Shock" happened and the US abandoned gold backing.

The Original Dollar Crisis And How It Led To Today's Crisis - Part 1
zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-original-dollar-crisis-and-how-it-led-todays-crisis-part-1

…It's like trying to explain to a kid with Down's that certain people are dangerous as he runs off and tries to hug all the strangers.

He's going to keep advocating for fiat, the need to expand and contract the money supply, saying that physical items are of arbitrary, not market established relative value… He's a Keynesian.
Oh, but excuse me, I can only think "Synchronically"

Roman coin from the Republic and beyond was never bullion.

With regards to your ramblings about pegging value. Here's an easier way to think about it, increasing purity = monetary retraction, decreasing purity = monetary expansion, but it doesn't matter if the coin isn't bullion, it has an equivalency, so it's just a confidence signal.

I'm not a Keynsian, but like it or not, a Keynsian market has been constructed for you to participate in. This doesn't mean true market principles don't shine through, just that if responding to signals, it's useful to know that others will be operating according to a known set of rules.

You're very simple-minded and our current Jewish system is deeply ingrained into your consciousness. Before Jewish subversion, money acted as a measure of weight. Yes, you heard it right, a WEIGHT. Our current system functions in a completely different way. I can't argue with you because I won't use your Keynesian terms.

Sorry but you obviously don't know what bullion means. The Krugerrand is minted as a copper-gold alloy for durability but the gold content is strictly set. The fact that the Roman Empire increasingly cheated doesn't change that.

The problem is that this requires full faith in the government. If the government is put under significant monetary pressure, they will print more money. I believe in Mike Maloney's series Hidden Secrets of Money, he detailed this. If i remember correctly, Athens used gold coins at first but once it entered the Peloponnesian war, it started mixing in copper into the coins. People ended up saving the rarer gold coins first and using the copper coins which led to inflation and it collapsed.

It's precisely because it's a Keynesian system that it is going to fail. The entire point is that it's going to fail and we need something that won't

That's true but I'd rather have my own elected people fuck it up down the line that leaving it in the hands of unelected kikes. This is where we stand now. The (((central bank))) independency myth was always designed to put the kike overlords beyond the reach of the goyim influence.

I agree with you. We just need to find someone trustworthy and not economically retarded.

Well, it's either that or we leave it to the Tribe to decide for us. Quite frankly, their expert, independent, guidance is not impressing me so far.

Iceland defaulted only a few years ago. But their recovery has been amazing. Very little media focus on that though

One good thing about getting redpilled is I can go back through the laundry list of people I didn't like and notice they were all filthy kikes.

This is first done with taxes btw.

In the 2008 crisis this was accomplished through the fed buying up treasuries and mortgage backed securities (which were also ultimately backed by the state's credit)

Give me a break. It wouldn't matter if you killed every single Jew on the face of the earth, the interests of the commercial banking industry will always be the most powerful force over any central bank. Just look at how Congress holds hearings on this matter, it's always b-but muh community bankers. The real Jews were always in the investment banking industry and they were opposed to the end of glass-stegall since it meant more competition.

Fun fact: Kill every jew and you won’t have to deal with private banks. How about that, fuckface?

Lmao, the first commercial bankers were Catholics. And in medival history, when Jews were involved in loans and collections, it was always under the control of a Lord or king, (who referred to them as "our jews"). You will never get rid of this problem unless you get rid of for profit banking, unless you get rid of capitalism and constantly confront those actually in power.

Happened to me with RL acquaintances. When I was younger I couldn't even recognise the kike physiognomy. Later, when I got red-pilled, I've examined the old photos/videos and realised that the kike behaviour was almost exclusively coming from the kikes. A lot of them are trained to think differently and try to take advantage of us from an early age.

Mostly true. The banking sector would have been infinitely better with no jews infesting the planet.

I wouldn't be so sure. For profit industry always encourages the greediest mofos to rise to the top. But even if we are still talking race, I would hardly trust Aryans, Anglos or Italians anymore than I could throw them around a bank.

Nice dubs, Shlomo. It means we'll make a nice, Hitler-themed lampshade out of your worthless hide.

Lmao, never stop larping m8. Come back when you've got a single argument

I found a nice introductory video that helps explain the monetary system in the United States. I can't vouch for it's correctness, although it seems correct, but it's been a while since I last studied economics. It was simple enough for me to understand and would give someone who knows nothing about the US's monetary system a good starting point for their own research. I'll see if I can make it into a nice webm if anyone is interested.

I'll say this simply so I don't have a ridiculously long post:
You goldbugs have not only a flawed understanding of economics that rests on magical thinking like these, but also no knowledge of economic history. You pretend that the imaginary fictions of economists who say what "must" have happened is actually a reflection of the real world. It isn't. Primitive barter never existed. Currency was not invented to replace barter. Societies have not moved to gold when their currency collapses (they have moved to barter, the only place where it exists). Gold currencies have collapsed (post-NW Spain, eleventh century North Africa, etc.).

The funniest thing of all is that this still doesn't address any of my points. "Precious metals" still don't solve any of the issues you talk about (and in cases even defend); they are a shitty meme and you can't even prove otherwise without resorting to unfounded bullshit like "intrinsic value."

You are not only Jewish, you are stupid. The debt and interest system has been causing crashes for five thousand years. That's a bigger failure rate than communism. It is a failed system, even moreso than your precious metals. Stop defending it.

It's really simple: debts grow without regard to reality, ergo they eventually end up demanding more than reality. Since reality can't deliver, the system crashes when people panic and start recalling debts. It's that simple.

Figures that you divert attention from one of the primary methods of Jewish control to focus on "precious metals" instead, and then defend a broken, Jewish system.

Technically speaking, primitive barter did exist, but it was far from the predominant mode of economic distribution, it only occurred between complete strangers, which there were far fewer of in those times.

But you are fundamentally correct. Debt has been causing crisis ever since it could be quantified with money, this has been true whether gold was used as money or whether credit itself was used as money.

The question then becomes, how do we get rid of debt?

Debt is merely a quantifiable favor. The only way to eliminate it is to destroy the quantification, that is money itself, both as a medium of exchange and as a universal unit of account.

If with currency you mean silver coins, then yes, you are right, it was not invented to replace barter, because it IS barter. Furthermore, of course it has intrinsic value, it's a noble metal with special chemical properties that is being used in advanced technology. It's usage will only become larger with future nano technologies. Speaking of nano technologies, this will solve all your perceived "inconveniences". You're so lazy, you think we won't include technological advances into the concept of metals as money? Paper money is per definition debt. You do work for a piece of paper that promises you something, i.e. it's a measure of debt that is owed to you. This is a Jewish concept and can't become part of an Aryan system.

Jews don't control silver because they don't have as much as they make you believe. In fact they owe massive amounts of silver. They lose shekels every day by shorting their own assets to simply maintain the illusion that silver is cheap.

Agreed-mostly.
While, if money was denominated into weights of precious metals, there would less need for paper money, storing the metals and issuing notes and coinage for redemption serves 2 purposes; 1: it physically protects metals from the environment and from wear, and 2: it allows them to be divided and used in smaller units without physically having to cut up metals.
Personally, I think a blockchain based accounting system could be used by large metal repositories (Cayman Islands, Singapore, Switzerland locations, possibly?) and would allow for quick global payments while still offering redemption services.
Debt and investment will exist as long as people get big ideas. 1 man is not going to amass the resources in his lifetime to say, form the first asteroid mining company. He's going to need the resources of other people, who will not, for the most part, give them away freely unless he inherited it from them. (Why should they? Many of them worked hard for what they have.)

What the fuck are any of you talking about and why do I get the feeling that none of you know? Isn't not being able to decide whether 2+2=4 or 5 because you can't figure out which school of math is more jewish exactly what they want?

The entire history of mankind says you're wrong. You're absolutely fucking retarded.

About the only evidence of primitive barter is the savage trading rituals of the Abbos when they meet up with other tribes from far away. Even then I'm not sure it totally counts. At any rate, it certainly cannot be said to be the basis of any economy as economists claim.

Well, primitive debt (i.e. pre-money debt) is no problem because, as you said, it isn't quantified. Non-increasing debt isn't a problem either. The problem is that we treat promises as reality when we shouldn't; the fundamental problem of debt is that it is treated as if that value actually exists and is fundamentally owed. It is a distortion of what is happening. You can't lend what is consumed, and the only purpose of money is to be consumed. It all depends on what we want to be happening. Luckily, most lending occurs for things we don't need (primarily wealth extraction), rather than anything productive. Lending for, say, R&D or for selling an innovative new product is essentially nonexistent and always has been. A debt model isn't necessary for this either; if one gives money to an enterprise in order for that enterprise to create more wealth than a return based on that created wealth is the sensible option.

No, I don't mean that, you duplicitous Jew, because that's not what currency is. Primitive barter does not exist; currency was not invented to replace it.

At least you admit that. Now add on the fact that barter is shit and you can see why "precious metal" barter is shit. Furthermore, if it can be bartered it isn't currency. That would mean there is no difference between a lump of silver and a lump of silver in a coin shape, effectively meaning that all silver everywhere is currency, which is nonsense and false.

A) Intrinsic value doesn't exist.
B) "Of course shit has intrinsic value; it's organic material with special biological properties that is being used in vital agricultural technology." Listing something's properties doesn't prove that it has value. The absurd notion of "intrinsic value" implies that it has value outside of human valuation (which is a nonsensical contradiction) and that it is not possible for people to not value it, which is false.

"Promises are Jewish." Yeah, okay. Go be stupid somewhere else. Credit arrangements are the most primitive economic arrangement in existence. It's you owing a favor to your friend because he gave you his sandwich for nothing when you were hungry. If you think that's Jewish I can't help you.

Explain to me the difference between a note promising gold and a note promising goods and services. Pro-tip: you can't. Please also explain to me how once you have these promissory notes you're going to stop, say, the issuing of more promissory notes than gold. Also explain how the debt and interest system that you love is supposed to work when it is exponentially infinite while gold is not.

There is no point to a gold-backed system if you have promissory notes, and it will be less efficient (barter) if you don't. Ergo, gold (and all "commodity currencies") are pointless.

With the gold standard, the value is set by something tangible and well defined. With fiat, the value is set by this fluid metric of "goods and services." The value of each good/service within the system is always in constant flux even between states, towns, cities and even neighboring storefronts. Simply put: the gold standard has debatable functional difference but has the pragmatic benefit of a static reference frame from which you can determine value in an objective manner.

That didn't answer my question.

Yes, that's called "prices."

The only functional difference is that with commodity currencies you flirt with deflation unless you fraudulently issue promissory notes, which is a disadvantage.

A) "Objective value" is a contradiction in terms.
B) Gold is not a "static reference frame." The price of gold, like the price of everything else, can and will fluctuate as people value it differently.

Fed Notes don't promise goods and services. They are literally created from nothing for the sole purpose of purchasing Treasury Bonds. They are not fixed to the redemption of anything, but they are EXCHANGEABLE in the economy as CURRENCY because the United States Congress pissed its monetary responsibility away. When we had Treasury Notes they were essentially redemption tickets whereby every $20 would get you an ounce of gold if you wanted it. Id est, $1 would exchange for goods and services worth 1/20 ounce of gold, or $64 in today's prices.

Also: debt and interest systems are infinite when they are used to CREATE currency. I never advocated for that. Debt is taken on by someone who needs more resources than they have, and they get it from an investor. They do it to accomplish something beyond their personal means: e.g. building a business, buying a home to raise a family in, or buying a vehicle. These things are generally intended to improve their immediate situation, or to allow them to build something that will result in more future production for them or their family. Realizing that they are likely to be more productive in the future and that their investor is incurring an opportunity cost by allowing them to use resources they did not earn is justification for the repayment of debt with interest.
The same idea can be done with a barter system. Say I am a lumberjack, and you are a carpenter. You don't have enough wood for a big idea of yours, or anything to trade for that wood. You come to me. I agree to give you wood once we establish a contract, whereby you will replace the wood I gave you, and build me a nice rocking chair for my trouble. If your big idea is unsuccessful, you will be unable to repay me, but if it is, you should be able to.

Inflation and deflation are the natural result of variance in supply and demand. Neither is actually bad, they're just the result of market valuations. The only time they're bad is when banks take advantage of them to fleece everyone and steal away wealth, something that is exponentially easier to do when the banker class has total control over currency and interest rates.

Answer how redeeming a note for gold is different from redeeming it for any other good or service.

Nope. They are always infinite. That's part of the problem. If every dollar demanded was created then we would have rampant inflation instead of crashes, but we have crashes because those dollars are not created. It's shit either way, but the point is that debt and interest are always infinite. That's the point.

A) The system is observably shit and has been literally since the beginning of civilization, so arguing about the morals of the thing like a Jew is irrelevant.
B) Like a Jew you've skipped a step in logic. Lending justifies repayment else it is not incentivized. Assuming this repayment must be interest is fucking Jewish.

Because as well all know everyone, especially Jews, are so amenable to not being repaid. It isn't used as an excuse to, say, siphon off as much of the person's income as you want or seize their property. No, that would never happen.

Supply and demand are bunk, but that's a separate argument. At any rate, if you're talking about price fluctuations then yes, those are natural. Inflation and deflation? No, not natural. That means either money is being created too fast or too slow. Both are bad because they distort things and push the market away from its optimum operating point.

You don't understand the difference between redemption and exchange.
You don't understand the concept of loan term, principal, interest, and default. My guess is that you haven't earned enough or done enough in your life to have ever gotten a loan or to realize how it works.
Feel free to have a shitty reputation so that you will be limited to utilizing only what you can manage to save immediately. Repay your principal, and then interest is the incentive for a lender/investor to incur opportunity cost of not having his currency available.
Fail, and the lender will lose money, and recoup whatever he can via collateral supporting the loan, within the limits of the law.

…You're really claiming that supply and demand are bullshit? They're really simple concepts. Inflation and deflation ARE price fluctuations. What the hell do you think the CPI is?

I'm am ignorant, but what would happen if countries were to make their own completely digital money, bitcoin like?
For once companies would be happy to hear that (since giving money off your hand is harder than giving away money on your credit card), and if it's made by a country itselt the doubt will sort itself out.

lol There is no functional difference between trusting that your paper can be redeemed for gold which you can then exchange for other items and just trusting that your paper can be exchanged for other items, except the gold version is more convoluted and has downsides. You have yet to prove this isn't so.

Why are you so deadset on defending Jewish economics and a Jewish system? "Oy vey, it's the law so it must be fair." You still haven't provided a single argument about why interest is the system we should be going with other than baselessly claiming that interest and debt is the only way for financing to occur.

They are, but as I said that's a separate debate. They're oversimplified concepts from illogical economics with no actual connection to the real world. They only make sense if you don't give them more than a moment's fleeting thought. As a quick primer, though (besides the fact that beyond general maxims most economics doesn't hold up in the real world), S&D are flawed concepts because they take into account neither time nor space. They're oversimplifications, at best. Again, though, that's a whole new issue.

That's like claiming gravity is an acceleration. The effect of inflation and deflation are price fluctuations; that does not define what they are.

They get attacked by ZOG and destroyed.

…it's currency, not money. Right now cryptocurrency is not backed by anything and its value is powered by rampant speculation… so… I don't trust it. I don't think it is something that ought to be trusted. I wish I had gambled on it 4 years ago, then gotten out now.

Can you name a better way to incentivize lending money?

Got any alternative sources for S&D?

There is not an IMMEDIATE functional difference, but there is protection from inflation, wealth preservation, and more common trust in a currency that can be redeemed for real money.

Interest is the price of the investor's opportunity cost. It's not a concept invented by Jews, but apparently it was made by smarter people than you.

Let me break it down for you. It ain't rocket surgery.
Inflation scenarios (increase in prices): Money Supply up=less value of money. Supply down=harder to compete for good/service. Demand up=harder to compete for good/service.
Deflation scenarios (decrease in prices): Money Supply down=more value of money. Supply up=easier competition for good/service. Demand down=easier competition for good/service.
…maybe you're too dumb to understand this, but gravity is a force that causes acceleration, just like the aforementioned things are essentially forces that cause changes in prices.
Cause/effect.

It is Jewish because your friend would be expected to believe that if you didn't repay him with an equal sandwich in a specific time table, that you would want nothing to do with him and he can fuck off. That's not how friendships or tribal communities work (especially in the north) you kike.

Just found this
globalresearch.ca/the-flaw-of-supply-and-demand/13081

Currency cannot exist without the military force of governments in the current nation state system. The only way to eliminate currency is to do things yourself and eliminate the need. There will still be taxes which you will not be able to resist because you cannot compete technologically with the states military or production.

The only way out of the mess is to become adults, take responsibility for ourselves and face to bloodshed.

Well, first off: lend money for what? If you thinking lending is used productively you are gravely mistaken. Most lending (as in the vast majority) is used nonproductively to extract wealth, say by enabling stock buy-backs or purchasing the numerous and insane "financial instruments" Jews keep cooking up. Industry and productive activities have never really been funded by lending, and all experiments in that direction were either crushed or failed.

Second-off, yes: if you are giving money in order to facilitate wealth creation the obvious return on this is some portion of the wealth created by the production you facilitated. This is infinitely more sensible than debt and interest as there is no exponential growth and no decoupling from real wealth (that is, there is no demand for wealth that does not exist).

? If you look at any economic source you can clearly see their concepts of supply and demand are oversimplified and don't apply to the real world.

No, because there is no functional difference between "force the government to not inflate the currency" and "force the government to use gold." You've just pushed things back a step again and then closed your eyes. Worse still is that unlike every other form of money "commodity currencies" flirt with deflation inherently. And goldbugs try to sell it as a good thing because they're scared of government spending.

If you're trying to preserve your wealth in money you are a retard and we shouldn't enable retards. Besides which, "preserving wealth" is not the point of money.

So what you're saying is that the dollar isn't widely accepted enough. Can you prove this to be true? Because that's just nonsense.

This posits that the investor could have gotten an exponential return somewhere else. This is nonsense.

No, it's just one of their primary tools. You still haven't addressed the fact that it's a flawed system with no reason for adoption. You're arguing on morals as if morals justify a nonfunctional system, no different from communists.

Well, clearly you're too dumb to read, considering that was precisely my point. Gravity causes acceleration, but it is not an acceleration. Inflation and deflation cause price changes, but they are not price changes.

Does being a goldbug require a mandatory lobotomy or something?

This is an English speaking board. Learn it.

My favorite part, after you make a bunch of shit up because what I'm saying is flying over your head like a 747, is that you call someone else out for making things up. If you want to actually discuss anything, you need to address:
the difference between currency and money
the purpose of money
how you equate opportunity costs to exponential returns…what kind of fucking loans have you signed where you're paying multiples of your principal?
how you will incentivize lending without ROI
…and finally, some reading comprehension because I explained what cause inflation and deflation, you just have to admit that you have defined them incorrectly.

There is no current difference between "currency" and "money." I know you goldbugs like to pretend "money" means only "metal currency" but this isn't the eighteenth century anymore and "money" is perfectly acceptable synonym for "currency." Autistically focusing on this is also not a rebuttal of anything I've said.

I'll just put things simply since apparently you're too autistic for anything else:
>eventual repayment doesn't somehow mean that interest isn't exponentially growing or (this is the important bit) that it is not entirely possible to demand more than actually exists (that is, in fact, the entire point of the exploiting system)
>your inability to comprehend returns outside of interest is not proof that such a thing does not exist or that interest is an acceptable system

It's funny that you talk about points going over people's heads…

The TL;DR is that you have neither proved why a gold-standard is desirable nor why interest is desirable. All you can do, apparently, is call people stupid and repeat the same thing over and over.

This is the last time I'm going to respond to you.
A gold standard is more desirable than fiat because it constrains the government's ability to devalue currency by printing more, binding the currency to real money, which makes people trust it.
Interest is payment for someone else's labor or property that you are using when you get them to loan it to you. It is a different mechanism than profit sharing that you would give them if they bought ownership of a part of your venture, essentially a compacted, time limited version of allowing them to buy part of your venture, then buying back the portion that they own, while paying them for the use of their resources.
If you can't understand what I'm talking about, I can't help you.

Prove there is a functional difference between forcing the government to use a gold standard and simply forcing it not to devalue the currency.

Unsubstantiated meme. A gold-standard is no more "real money" than anything else this. You haven't proved this or even attempted to.

Not an argument. There is no reason to think a gold-standard would be anymore trusted than any other currency.

What was I saying before about merely being able to repeat yourself? You've already said all that about interest and I've already responded to it. "It's repayment" is not an argument about why we need to have interest over any other system of repayment. You also haven't responded to the fact it's an objectively and observably flawed system.

Why bother posting if you aren't even going to post arguments?

It is not currency, it is money. You as an independent and free Aryan have the right to take your silver to a mint and let it be assayed, i.e. weighting and fineness determination. If you need a state as a caretaker because you're a baby, go and live on in your jewtopia.

Fuck off with your relativity, Einstein.

>"subjectivity doesn't exist, you fucking Jews! this gold is objectively, intrinsically valuable! just look how shiny it is and it doesn't rust!"

I never said that. As long as humans are involved, precious metals will always be valuable. Except if you're African. If you don't need any silver, good, the neighboring country will use it in the development of rockets and gain some more Lebensraum. Good luck throwing your bananas against them. Maybe I'll sell you some mirrors, which were build using silver, so you can see your stupid face.

Way to completely miss the point again. But please, continue to be retarded.

Wait, so the argument is that savages who can barely feed, clothe, and shelter themselves don't want gold, so it's worthless as money? I would assume they would find paper money even more worthless. You argue like a Marxist, you fucking Bolshevik Jew.

I'm not convinced this is really possible. So long as there is great wealth, people will want to loan it out to make more of it (as they are not using most of it at once). The abolition of money is the only permanent solution.

...

No, the point, you ignoramus, is that "objective value" (assuming, for the moment, that it isn't simply a contradiction in terms) is economically irrelevant because no one's going to pay for more or less than what they value something at. You can kvetch about how all subjectivity is wrong but the fact of the matter is that it's the only form of value that counts economically. Furthermore, it's not even a point in the favor of gold considering that one can argue for the "objective value" of everything in existence, so yet again "precious metals" are cucked out of the magic, special status you seek to bestow on them.

Was your mother a fucking bird or something? Because the way shiny metal seems to shut down your brain makes me think so.

The objection isn't to people allowing others to utilize their resources for compensation. It's to contracts and paradigms that break economies because of their nonsense.

How do you plan to abolish money? Because honestly I can't think of any way to do that unless we're thinking of entirely different definitions of money.

You use different systems of accounting for production and distribution.

It won't matter if the government prints more or not so long as the banks make more money through loans.

So… units of accounting? As soon as those start being issued and traded — and that will happen — it's just money again. Just so things are clear, what are your objections to money? What problems, specifically, are you trying to solve?

Well that's just it, you make it impossible to reuse. It's already possible with blockchain ect, or you could just burn the physical versions after use.

My objections to money is that it turns people into commodities to be bought and sold. It's a tale as old as time. Patriarchy was first created because of people's indignity of having their women being bought with money.

The other problem is debt crises, as has been brought up multiple times, so long as promises that can't be met are quantified, and thus made transferable, they will cause problems. End money, you end the transfer of debt, and it returns to being simple favors among men, or simple books to be settled among firms.

If every dollar that was loaned into existence was paid back, you would still have all the dollars that were "created" because of interest. Its impossible to pay back the debt.

Frankly it just sounds like you want to roll back to European steppe hunter-gatherer tribes, Uncle Ted style.

From my point of view, money is merely a way to quantify trades and natural credit arrangements and doesn't really have any problems besides fraud and malissuance (neither of which are problems unique to money). I don't really see how money specifically turns people into commodities, nor do I see how it forces a literal sexual market. Interest-debt does that by grinding people into poverty, but money? I don't see it.

That's the point of the debt. It doesn't exist so that every dollar of wealth demanded is repaid; it exists so that kikes can claim to be owed everything. Take a step back from the situation and realize that it is simply a way for kikes to gain more power by claiming they rightfully own everything.

I think I remember who you are. You're the shithead (from a couple weeks ago) who argued that jewish modern art is valuable because people are buying it for millions. I responded to you that it OBJECTIVELY is nothing more than trash and you sperged out similar to now. If our population wouldn't be so full of imbeciles like you, maybe nobody would care about worthless shit that some (((marketers))) implanted into their empty heads. Go fuck yourself with your "subjectivity" and merchant mentality.

you're speaking jazz, man. How you talk of the debt as "assets" is intriguing, is there any reading material on this concept?

Derrrrr… you CAN'T pay it off without paying all the money supply back. Where do you think the money supply comes from? THAT'S INTEREST-BEARING DEBT YOU'RE TRADING IN YOUR WALLET!

Pick a country in the world which makes charging interest illegal, and I'll show you a 3rd world dirtpile full of poor people still farming animals just to eat.

Sure, bud. You keep going around trying to sell your gold at its "objective" price and see how far it gets you when people don't want to buy it at that price. Nice job being not merely an economic illiterate but going so far as to not even be relevant to economics.

Amusing that you even still couldn't actually argue for a "precious metal" standard.

All I'm getting from this is that the Chinese will be our new masters but we better gas the kikes fast before it's too late .

...

metal-based money is unsound because due to scarcity it can be easily manipulated and horded. you can artificially reduce the supply by hording just like any other fucking finite resource. this will drive value of the commodity up and contract the money supply. this will allow you to create booms and busts on demand. just like how they do now with inflation rates and deflation rates. same concept, different medium. fiat money is unsound as long as you can manipulate it. thats why fiat money based off labor instead of a commodity would be more economically sound. this is exactly what the economic policies of the third reich tried to do. even though it was half-assed it still turned germany into a booming economy again after getting assfucked by the treaty of versailles. this is the magic of releasing yourself from fiat manipulated by the global banking system.

please tell me there aren't people this retarded.

Any merchant who loaned anything at all was the first concept of banking. banking has existed for thousands of years – since before writing existed for fucks sake.

Due to the fact that commodity currencies expand (at best) with the expansion of the commodity in question rather than the economy itself it is unsound. Inflation can be controlled, but you completely give up the power to control deflation, which is far more deadly.

The only thing that guarantees a sound currency is when new money is spent on productive things (ideally public utilities and the like, or the military) and when the money supply is not increased faster than the wealth creation rate of the economy itself (i.e. you have neither inflation nor deflation and therefore prices not in flux).

It's becoming embarrasing. I am arguing AGAINST Gold…

I don't want to sell any gold at any "objective" price. And I don't want people to buy gold at that price. What price are you even talking about? A price established by the paper market? I don't want a paper market.

Oh for fuck's sake. Are you literally the most autistic person on this board? The point isn't gold itself. Substitute whatever the fuck commodity or "precious metal" you want in there. The point is that this "objective value" shit you keep preaching if not outright nonsense is irrelevant because people do not buy at anything other than subjective price. It doesn't matter if your silver or your gold or your cow shit is "objectively valuable" because that has nothing to do with how it functions in an economy (and therefore nothing to do with currencies).

I'll repeat what I said before: Amusing that you even still couldn't actually argue for a "precious metal" standard.

I don't want people to buy anything.

Plausible Doomsday Scenarios:

Clathrate Gun.
Kessler Syndrome.
End of Antibiotics.
Putin says "fuck it, enough is a enough" and drops a SATAN-2 on DC.

The Fed raises interest rates back to the "historical norm" from 1997-2007.

"If" interest rates hit 3%, suddenly the US (YOU the Plebs under ZOG) will be paying more shekels to WallSt and Rootless Cosmopolitan Intl Financiers than you will pay to the Pentagon and to "non-discretionary spending" COMBINED.

If you really believe Trump can fill the -$20 TRILLION hole before the end of his second term, you're a bigger dummy (((puppet))) than any Boomer Neocon shitlib.

DOTR isn't a hypothetical, it's an inevitable.

Either you're literally saying trade shouldn't happen or you're still missing my point that "objective value" is irrelevant at best. Either way, no point me arguing further.

after 50% of your Cuckbux go to paying off the fiat debt, suddenly ISIS' idea won't seem like a dumb idea now will it?

I highly recommend watching The Return of the Gold Dinar to see what a world without fiat and without panoptic bugdoored-by-NSA NWOOWGcoin… if you can find the video since it has been hellbanned off the entire Internet because of the sheer power of the anti-fiat Memes that it contains. I have a copy, but I won't share it for obvious drone strike followed by JTTF rendition reasons.

You can twist my arguments as much as you like. I'm not talking about what you're trying to argue against. You have an inherent need to place everything what I say in you neat little boxes with cute labels right out of Ziopedia.

"Gold currency" is either no different from any other currency apart from its deflationary properties or it is barter and just as inefficient.

US was a sovereign country, China is buying up a sizable portion of the debt and aipac runs congress.

So… to boil your stance down, nothing has any objective value, you don't like the historical status of precious metals as money because it's all a "meme", supply and demand are bogus, and there should be no cost to borrow resources that other people have worked for. On top of that, people should trust currency despite inflation and depreciation, but only if "the government is constrained" by an unknown mechanism to not fuck with the money supply.
All this because "gold will be hoarded" or "the traditional and historical demand for gold will somehow collapse" and "deflation is bad, but is not collapsing prices"

You should probably put forth a coherent theory that your advocating for, because your shit is ALL OVER THE PLACE.

No, I have stated facts.
My point, based on these, is not that a gold-standard is bad it is that it is no different from our current system (apart from being deflationary, which would make it worse) and is therefore pointless… at best. Most of what I'm doing is pointing out the bullshit precious metal zealots spew to sell their shitty meme, the same way I would react to water filters being shilled. It's not that water filters are bad; posting BS to shill them is. "Precious metals" are the same.

I'm not saying they should; I'm saying they do.

As opposed to the government being constrained by an unknown mechanism to use "precious metals"? I'm not advocating for anything; I'm pointing out that the arguments in favor of "precious metals" are incoherent and illogical.

Maybe you're confusing me with other posters. Yet again, I'm just pointing out that either a pro-"precious metal" argument is full of shit ("hurr, guaranteed demand because I don't know what the difference between "guaranteed" and "probable" is!") or that a "precious metal" standard is shit. And deflation is shit. Or do you want to tell us about the wonders of deflation?

More evidence for your Jewishness that you think me posting objective facts are just my opinion and get offended about it. Weren't you the one saying subjectivity was Jewish?

What objective facts have you stated?
Everything you've said is a derivative conclusion with minimal supporting evidence or logic.
Why is deflation bad? Why does the finite amount of gold vs the infinite amount of fiat mean that the currencies are no different from each other? Why do characteristics of items that can be used for various purposes not represent objective value, even though their relative value changes in comparison to the varying needs and situations of societies? What is broken about the concept of debt and interest?

More evidence that metal zealots are willfully blind. Did you even read the top four I just posted?

Gee, I don't know, why are deflationary spirals that crash economies bad? Let's really think about that. How about this instead? You tell me why prices shouldn't be stable. You tell me why if a loaf of bread is worth $3 it shouldn't be worth $3 tomorrow and $3 in a century.

Because it is no different from just simply capping the amount of "fiat" currency. Point of fact, this is exactly how most cryptocurrencies function. If Bitcoin was government issued it would function exactly the same as a gold-standard. The only difference involved here is whether the currency supply can grow or not, nothing inherently to do with gold but simply the fact it is a commodity. You'd achieve the same result by having a currency backed by classical statuary.

It doesn't matter if they represent "objective value." If nobody wants it nobody will buy it. Do you dispute that?

Let's have a long think about that…

Wtf ended up happening in Greece? Last I remember, they defaulted on their IMF loan and their currency was worthless. It was the #1 story in the news in mid-2015, then the US election started and I haven't seen a major headline about it since.

The monetary system is fucked.

Trips of truth.

They use the Euro…

Ok, I'll bite. Yes, I read your posts. You haven't really backed anything up, but you have made a lot of assumptions.
I would agree that price stability is desirable, but that it is impossible. Even without monetary instability, the amount of bread baked (for instance) and the amount of people who buy bread, and the amount of ingredients available to make bread with are all variable, and prices will change. Inflation, on the other hand, has caused US currency to be worth significantly less (by multiples) after it ceased to be constrained by anything. Deflation, in the sense that prices fall when conditions on both the supply and demand side push them downwards, is not necessarily bad, although it may result in pain for some people, notably bakers in the case of bread.
So…in my experience, the government tends to expand its power whenever possible, and doesn't really let itself get constrained easily. What stops a government from making "exceptions" and printing more money? What stops it from changing the mechanism of cryptology to expand a cryptocurrency? As far as I know, alchemic transmutation doesn't exist, so gold can't be arbitrarily created (only dug out of the ground). Scientific law prevents it. There's your difference.
I'm not certain why you would argue in terms of nobody wanting/buying gold. It is currently desired and has historically been desired. What set of conditions do you think has changed to make this a worthwhile argument? Obviously people don't buy what they don't want.
You've answered my questions with questions, rabbi. Collapse is based off default. Default is the result of people being unable pay their debts. People should not take on loans they cannot handle, or give loans to people they cannot trust. Defaults should punish people for their stupidity. The problems arise when the costs of stupidity get transferred to people that are not responsible. (usually by the government onto the taxpayer)
I would posit that the problem is not with the concept of debt and interest, but with people not having to take responsibility for their failures.

You're welcome.

And that means guaranteed price instability is preferable?

You're being duplicitous again. I'm not talking about a general and natural price fall. I'm talking about the value of the currency necessarily going up. That's bad. Deflationary spirals are bad.

Irrelevant.

What stops a government making "exceptions" and ignoring the gold-standard? The answer is the same.

And it doesn't matter since, as far as I know, God doesn't intervene to enforce laws.

Scientific law prevents the government breaking the law?

Because it proves that gold doesn't have a guaranteed value. I'm not arguing for something, I'm proving that any notions of magic gold with a magic price are false.

Another oversimplification. Collapse happens when the eternally unpayable debt is called in; sometimes this involves actual default but it does not encapsulate the entirety of the situation.

"A system that has failed over and over again for five thousand years is not to blame." This is just a variation of "not true socialism." The system itself is clearly deeply plagued with problems. My question is why you are so staunchly against alternatives to the point of outright misrepresenting what I'm saying by pretending I'm advocating for people to just give out free money.

So do we know when this happening yet?

Round two.
Price will always change in a free market. Your other choice is government mandated prices, which have always failed.
My guess is that you're worried that if population increases and the money supply does not, monetary deflation will occur, and people will "save too much" decreasing monetary velocity and crushing both prices and incomes. The hole in the theory is that while it can happen, what it fails to mention is that as incomes fall, they draw out savings, which increases monetary velocity again.
A constitutional amendment might be a step in the right direction to keep the government in line, and mandating precious metal as money would mean pretty uncomplicated verbiage. Ultimately, society is responsible for keeping its government in line, but at least we could make it harder to weasel out from under their constraints in a "legally admissible" way.
It's also a little bit hypocritical to call somebody duplicitous and then say that science and God don't enforce laws, when you simply can't bring yourself to admit that while there are accessible mechanisms to arbitrarily expand paper and digital monetary bases, there is no way to create gold from nothing.
See point 1. Nothing has guaranteed value (represented by price) in a free market. Gold has maintained a high relative value by mass throughout history, which is part of the reason people like the idea of using it for money. Arguing against something without advocating a solution is very similar to the tactics employed by the Frankfurt School of Social Marxism.
Your last two points are not worth responding to because they outright avoid addressing anything with reason.

Social Marxism should read Cultural Marxism

Now you're conflating a gold-standard with the free market.

No. The economy creates wealth at some fluctuating rate. This is unlikely to be the rate at which gold is mined/acquired. Ergo, deflation will occur as fewer dollars are forced to represent more wealth. This flirts with a deflationary spiral when there is no reason to.

Literally what I said many posts before. Magical thinking that another law will help. Things have just been pushed back a step further. The only thing that ever stops the government is threat of armed rebellion. This would be the same whether you are forcing the government to use a gold-standard or whether you are forcing them not to inflate the currency.

You understand what words mean, yes? You understand that it's not about creating gold but the fact that neither God nor science stop the government saying "Fuck it, no more gold-standard" right? You understand that's not how the universe works?

Maybe you should stop doing it with debt and interest then.

I'll just ask a simple question: are you opposed entirely to any possible alternative to an interest system?

No, I'm saying that prices will always change, regardless of what currency you use, in a free market. I didn't think the statement was THAT tough a read where it needed extra words like "gold standard" inserted into it.
Whoa. Hold up there, Sandusky. Wealth=property. While people do in fact try to build an ever more valuable collection of property (i.e. increase their wealth), they don't hold most of it as money. You only need as much available money as is required to buy or sell. That's why I assumed you meant population, because I didn't think you were dumb enough to write what you just did.
The next two statements don't disagree with what I've said, but you're being ornery/pissy, so go fuck yourself.
Debt and interest. I think the concept is sound, and you're blaming the gun instead of the shooter. There is nothing wrong with debt and interest. It is a very simple concept, it makes sense, and if two parties come to an agreement, interest is fair payment for the use of resources that are borrowed.

What alternatives exist in a free market, except for debt and interest?

Which is irrelevant to the value of a currency going up or down. Since you seem to be using this to "prove" deflation isn't a problem though you should realize it applies just as much to inflation, meaning -1 points to gold-standards.

Yeah, okay, so money never changes value. Right. At any rate, what you just said supports my point anyway, since the amount being bought or sold is likely to increase faster than the money supply.

Okay, so you agree that a gold-standard is pointless then since it doesn't "force" the government to do anything that the government couldn't be forced to do anyway.

When the same thing keeps happening in literally every place its implemented over so many varied "shooters" and eras you're really stretching logic to keep insisting the system is fine. Again, kin to "not true socialism." Maybe if we have the right people communism will work!

"Fair" in your opinion. It's not a good system and is really just a case of you being unimaginative. The funny thing is that it functions entirely differently from every other form of resource use. How about you borrow a shovel from me but the rent payments keep increasing and even if you return the shovel any overdue rent payments keep increasing? That's what renting a shovel would be like if it functioned the same way as debt and interest.

How about the way literally every other form of renting works (not that money can be rented anyway…)? That would be a better system for a start, but it's far from the only option.

Your argument for price stability is what doesn't work. The currency piece is separate, but tied in. Devaluation by "quantitative easing" or revaluation by "quantitative tightening" is dangerous game to play, and has done a couple things for us so far in the United States. 1: It has made our dollar worth a lot less over the past century, discouraging savings among common people, and assisting wealth transfer to the exceedingly wealthy. 2: It has increased the rate of VIOLENT market corrections by keeping smaller market corrections at bay. 3: It has enable the development and growth of an entire financial sector of our economy that does not actually produce anything tangible.
What is leading you to assume that the monetary value of each individual transaction is going to have a higher average? I doubt many people are going to try and transact their entire store of wealth at once. I'm not really sure what your reasoning is here, or what you're trying to get at. Please re-explain.
I would never argue that it's not worth it to make an effort because that effort might not work.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is not the idea of debt and interest that fail (coincidentally, interest IS essentially rent on a loan…so I don't see that as any different) but instead, the ability of our leaders to protect themselves and their powerful supporters from bad decisions and to instead force the consequences onto us. Also, you seem to be confusing the idea of revolving credit with loans, which are non-revolving and on a fixed schedule. Revolving credit can only do what you describe if 1: the person owing it is stupid and 2: the minimum required debt service is less than the applied cyclical interest. Otherwise you're complaining about penalties for breaching an agreement that are applied exactly as the creditor and debtor agreed upon at the beginning of their contract. Which brings us back to point number 1, which is stupidity.

You don't have to go on about why inflation is bad; that doesn't prove deflation is good. Thought I did like this part:
That's exactly what deflation does. Not only does it make currency holders richer without work, it also hurts debtors by making their debts worth more.

So the solution is to make those smaller corrections even less doable?

No, that's the debt-and-interest system you keep defending. The financial sector makes its money off debt and interest, not inflation.

There is simply more stuff. This is obvious, unless you want to argue that we are not materially wealthier than we were before.

Stuff being traded increases faster than the money supply, ergo there is proportionally less money to go around and trade, ergo the money becomes worth more. Or, in measurable terms, prices decreases as a dollar becomes "weightier." This isn't new stuff.

You entire argument for a gold-standard is predicated on this though. You keep arguing that the government is entirely unable of keeping the money supply sound and not inflating or deflating it and that we shouldn't even bother trying.

It isn't. The closest thing that interest comes to rent is simple interest, but no one uses that, so it's moot. Rent doesn't grow exponentially; it doesn't work based off of previous rent. I don't have to keep paying rent on a house I've vacated based on previous outstanding rent payments. Moreover, money has a key difference from any other resource rented in that its only use is to be spent.

Well, given that debt-and-interest is primarily a wealth extraction tool enabling the powerful to protect themselves I'd say that's an inherent flaw of debt-and-interest.

At the end of the day, and I know I'm repeating myself here, debt-and-interest is a clearly flawed system. It causes economic crashes. This is fact. It is also not used productively (say, for funding innovation). Also fact. It is used to extract wealth by demanding all it can from debtors. Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that you believe it should be legal for a man to sell himself into slavery simply because "if both parties agree it must be fair." At worst there's some shallow cynicism that only the stupid would do it anyway and they deserve what they get. There is no recognition of the possibility of legislating based on something other than two-party contracts. Just because a man can promise the Moon doesn't mean the legal system should accommodate it.

Without a doubt, monetary deflation does in fact make savings worth more, and also debt more costly. It also means that wages go further until they track downwards. It also counteracts inflationary pressure over the long term, leading to better average stability.
…reread the statement I made about keeping smaller market corrections at bay. The market hasn't been allowed to correct in small ways when people do dumb shit, so we get bubbles. Big fucking financial bubbles. The more people have invested into these big bubbles, the more it hurts when they pop. MBS, ABS, CDO should never have been allowed to happen, and wouldn't have, had the market been able to operate as intended, and not been screwed with…probably starting with Greenspan's dive into artificially rockbottom interest rates which are still causing a problem. Realistically, if we're stuck with fiat, it would be much smarter for the fed to set fund rates in a way that tracks the natural progression of the market, rather than chase an arbitrary inflation target. By supplying what amounts to a virtually interest free loan to the banks, it encourages them to make credit accessible to debtors who have at best very questionable prospects at repaying that credit, particularly if they agreed to adjustable rates. Anyway, long story short, if the market isn't goaded into doing unnatural shit, it makes a bunch of minor corrections along the way, instead of the bigass ones we've seen.
I'm going to use a metaphor here. I don't understand how having a larger bowl of icecream necessitates larger/more frequent bites. I can understand that more people having bowls of icecream does in fact necessitate more frequent bites.
I already explained what I thought about slowing monetary velocity driving money back out of savings, thus increasing monetary velocity again.
My argument is that we should try to constrain the government from exacerbating economic problems, up to and beyond adding a Constitutional Amendment. But please, tell me what I'm trying to say some more, you arrogant twat.
People use simple interest all the fucking time. Your standard car payment or mortgage is a perfect example. You pay a set rate of interest on each installment of principal you pay back over a given amount of time. MOREOVER, if you have outstanding rent payments on a house you have vacated, you should probably open up your leasing contract and pay whatever you've missed, because you have used something you didn't pay for, and that means the account is going to collections and then possibly court because you're welching on your obligations and you are a freeloader. Unfortunately, when you try to be a freeloader with people that aren't your family, they don't give a fuck, and will do what it takes to get what is owed them. For some reason, I find myself hoping you try this shit with a bookie in NYC.
Debt and interest is not a wealth extraction tool. Revolving credit…closer, but realistically, still not. If two parties agree to do something for each other voluntarily, that is completely fair. I'm not sure how you equate taking out a loan or using a revolving line of credit to slavery, especially when you have the ability to go to bankruptcy court.

Deflation can't "counteract inflationary pressure" because you can't have both at the same time. Either the currency is getting more valuable or it is getting less valuable. Prices might naturally be going up, but if it is natural there is no need to counteract it. Either way, guaranteed deflation is still not desirable. It fucks with the market for no reason.

The "big corrections" you talk about are nothing to do with the money supply but the inevitable result of an unchained financial sector. Rampant speculation and bubbles is what happens. This happened in 2008 and it has been happening for centuries, "even" under a gold-standard, because the money isn't the problem. The only difference was in 2008 the ones who stood to lose managed to convince people if they went down the rest of the economy would to and so they had to have their uninsured gamblings backed up down to the last penny. Of course, this left all the preexisting debt in place, siphoning off all the surplus wealth it can that could be used for productive things like, say, growing the actual economy instead of magic kike claims on everything.

So it's not for a gold-standard, then? Because, as I keep saying ad nauseum, there is no difference between saying "Congress must have sound monetary policy" and "Congress must use a gold-standard so it has sound monetary policy."

Exactly as I thought. This is the crux of your entire position on debt and interest, so there's no use in talking about it further. As I said, what you're talking about boils down to effectively believing a man should be able to sell himself into slavery. Your conception of "fair" rests purely on "consent." >>>/liberty/

Also, what is it with goldbugs and being unable to distinguish examples from accusations? You completely missed my point on rent to instead take renting a house as a literal scenario and then did the same with slavery. Here are my points, since you can't seem to divine them out of common English:

Isn't most of the debt from borrowing from ourselves(Social security and other systems coffers were raided for this)?