It turns out that most people for most of history have chosen silver and gold for money because they are extremely suitable for that purpose.

Money develops naturally as a logical outgrowth of the barter system. Without money, the butcher has to have exactly the number of chickens that the cobbler wants in exchange for making a set of shoes. The butcher can only get shoes when the cobbler wants chickens.

This is of course an awful way to conduct the affairs of society, and is a detriment to the effectiveness and growth of human civilization.

Compared to all other things, gold and silver have a few properties that make them excellent as money

• they are highly resistant to corrosion, rot, contamination, spoiling, human touch, etc (as compared to wheat, iron, wood, leather, etc)
• they can be cut and melted and recombined and reformed over and over again with no loss whatsoever in utility or capability (as compared to say, a cow)
• the naturally available quantity of each substance is quite difficult to change rapidly (as opposed to peices of paper, flower petals, etc)
• they have unique physical and chemical properties that make it difficult for others to create convincing frauds

the monetary utility of gold and silver is significantly higher than their industrial or ornamental utility. There simply isn't something that has more desirable properties than silver as day to day money, and gold as a store of wealth. Why? Because most people have decided that's what they want to use as money, primarily for the reasons above.

It doesn't hurt that silver and gold are both very pretty, and are both medically useful chemicals, and do have industrial/technical uses. But the #1 good feature of any commodity money is that it be difficult to inflate the supply rapidly. Copper or other metals would work as well for this, but they have problems with durability, corrosion resistance, etc.

Gold and Silver aren't the only things you should have because they are only useful to you in a proto-functioning society where people are willing to trade items with direct utility value (food, clothing, protection) for things with societal/barter value (money, jewelry, luxuries). Depending on how severe the collapse is, there may be a period where your silver/gold holdings are effectively worthless because nobody wants to give you their food in exchange for your silver. They can just wait until you die and then take it from you

At some point -- perhaps on the way down, and perhaps on the way back up if we sink that low -- a barter economy will re-emerge and commodity money will re-emerge to make ti better. Historically, gold and silver have always been at the center of this.

Trafik Jamz;32647 wrote:
I get frustrated when I think about what and where to cut, which is why I think we should cut everything by at least 1 to 2% every year until we balance the budget and then for a couple of years after. I'm also ok with increasing everyone's taxes by 2% across the board (one time) and making sure that even the poorest wage earners pay at least that 2% income tax.

I think the cuts needs to be more like 5% a year, or more. Politically, it probably needs to be done across the board otherwise people/politicians will be screaming that they are being singled out and nothing will get done. If everyone has to take a hit, it has a lot better chance of getting done. That said, I don't think it will get done. You should probably make plans to take care of yourself and your family when things go into the shitter.

I don't know if increasing the tax rate is the solution, I think much more would be gained by getting the economy going again instead.

We need to be able to distinguish between disabilities from choices and disabilities that are caused by circumstances that aren't in anyone's control (accidents, etc.)

DaveH;326470 wrote:
The author of the article thinks that within the next 3 years the house of cards is going to collapse, leaving us in a world of hurt. Can't say I disagree.

Now, the question is this: What can we do to prevent it? Go back on legal contracts (I'd argue that Medicare and Social Security are both legal obligations that the citizens of this country have paid into....whether the system is right/wrong is irrelevant at this point, the point is that there were promises made that if you paid in x amount you would receive y amount of coverage)? MASSIVE cuts in spending including military, welfare and the like?

The problem is that neither the left or the right in this country are good at not increasing spending. Also, there is virtually no way that Social Security and Medicare will go away entirely. Benefits may be cut and premiums may be raised, but realistically it will be career suicide for any politician who decides to actually vote to kill these two programs. Welfare (especially long term welfare) may well be eliminated or at least dramatically changed. Disability is too easy to receive as are unemployment benefits. I really, truly believe our military could be restructured dramatically w/o affecting our ability to defend ourselves. Fewer ground forces are needed each and every time there is a war. We need special ops, infiltrating agents, technology and supreme firepower. We can't get rid of our ground people entirely, but I think we can get by with less of them.... and we can for damn sure get by with less wars.

We've trained these soldiers in a career field and offered them a GI Bill to continue their education. It's time to transition them back into civilian life.

I get frustrated when I think about what and where to cut, which is why I think we should cut everything by at least 1 to 2% every year until we balance the budget and then for a couple of years after. I'm also ok with increasing everyone's taxes by 2% across the board (one time) and making sure that even the poorest wage earners pay at least that 2% income tax.

thrash;326464 wrote:
If you made the government do its accounting the way we require private businesses to do theirs, that stuff starts to show up.

Here is an explanation that scratches the tip of the iceberg, from the magnificent Khan Academy:

http://www.khanacademy.org/humanities---other/american-civics/v/government-s-financial-condition

Basically, we are completely fucked. Buy gold, silver, and ammunition. The dollar will collapse in our (natural) lifetimes.

Great video.

The thing I've never understood why it is worth anything is gold. Aside from being shiny, extremely malleable and a decent conductor of electricity, I fail to see why it has any real value. In theory, could another country not say "Yes, USA you have piles upon piles of gold but we've decided that gold isn't worth anything to us so you're fucked!" I'm not saying that there is a huge likelihood of this, but theoretically it could happen.

Here is an explanation that scratches the tip of the iceberg, from the magnificent Khan Academy:

http://www.khanacademy.org/humanities---other/american-civics/v/government-s-financial-condition

Basically, we are completely fucked. Buy gold, silver, and ammunition. The dollar will collapse in our (natural) lifetimes.

DaveH;326459 wrote:
<u>The crushing national debt:</u>

I read an interesting article this week. We always hear on the news about the debt being around $15 trillion, which is so stupidly large that it's hard to even grasp. But the article kind of put it in a new light, if you add to that number, the money that the government owes to seniors for social security and medicare, owes the Vets, and owes government worker pensions, the actual national debt is more like $120 trillion.

Insane.

That would be the amount of promised benefits over a number of years without any regard to revenues during that time if I'm understanding that correctly (including gov't workers who are just now entering the workforce and won't retire for 45 years). But yeah, the number is pretty staggering.

I read an interesting article this week. We always hear on the news about the debt being around $15 trillion, which is so stupidly large that it's hard to even grasp. But the article kind of put it in a new light, if you add to that number, the money that the government owes to seniors for social security and medicare, owes the Vets, and owes government worker pensions, the actual national debt is more like $120 trillion.

Insane.

Trafik Jamz;326449 wrote:
I can see your point Dave. My point is that what he said originally is based on a lie (shortened version or not) that Obama said he wants everyone to go to college. I WILL give him credit for taking back the statement once it became apparent to him (via Fox News) that he and Obama were actually on the same page and even saying gasp that he agreed with the President.

A "lie" assigns intent. I don't know if he lied or just made a mistake.

With that, I think we've beat this horse to death. lol

Ron Paul sure is getting his ass kicked in the primaries.

(that ought to stir the pot)

DaveH;326444 wrote:
"Abridged" means shortened with the same meaning. Sorry, but your quote and the actual quote are not even close to the same meaning.

"Santorum said Obama is a snob for wanting all Americans to go to college. Meanwhile Santorum has a B.A. from Pennsylvania State University, a M.B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh and a J.D. from the Dickinson School of Law. "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob," Santorum said."

To me (I could be crazy), this is saying Santorum is a hypocrite because he called Obama a snob and he has a bunch of college degrees.

"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that (tries) to indoctrinate them."

To me (I could be crazy), this is saying that it is a putdown to blue collar workers to say that everyone needs to go to college to do well.

I can see your point Dave. My point is that what he said originally is based on a lie (shortened version or not) that Obama said he wants everyone to go to college. I WILL give him credit for taking back the statement once it became apparent to him (via Fox News) that he and Obama were actually on the same page and even saying gasp that he agreed with the President.

GarageAlchemist;326445 wrote:
so true

And Jeff Healey was rockin the place, double win.

DaveH;326440 wrote:
Yeah, but he made up for it in Roadhouse.

so true

"Santorum said Obama is a snob for wanting all Americans to go to college. Meanwhile Santorum has a B.A. from Pennsylvania State University, a M.B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh and a J.D. from the Dickinson School of Law. "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob," Santorum said."

To me (I could be crazy), this is saying Santorum is a hypocrite because he called Obama a snob and he has a bunch of college degrees.

"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that (tries) to indoctrinate them."

To me (I could be crazy), this is saying that it is a putdown to blue collar workers to say that everyone needs to go to college to do well.

DaveH;326440 wrote:
"falsely quoted statement" = Chucks version

"correctly quoted statement" = the entire quote

My version was abridged, but I (personally) took nothing extra away from the entire quote that I didn't get in the shortened version. I've seen the entire "He's a snob" portion of the video numerous times and my assessment still stands: He was wrong for taking what was said (by Obama), twisting it to make it sound like something entirely different was said and the irony is that both Santorum and Obama effectively want the same thing on this matter.

We've covered this before in this thread, but even Santorum admitted (on Fox News of all places) that he agreed with the President later when he was read what the President actually said.

24valvenotak;326436 wrote:
You did point out that he only posted part of it but you proceeded to give us your biased analysis as to what it meant based on your "research.".

LOL, my biased analysis.... I prefer to call it my opinion, but either way I think my interpretation of his entire quote is accurate. If you think my interpretation of his entire quote is incorrect, please correct me.

24valvenotak;326436 wrote:
Again, fail to see the difference between quoting something incorrectly and trying to explain to everyone what a falsely quoted statement is supposed to mean - they both promote a lie.

Really? I didn't explain what a "falsely quoted statement" is suppose to mean, I explained what a "correctly quoted statement" is suppose to mean.

"falsely quoted statement" = Chucks version

"correctly quoted statement" = the entire quote

24valvenotak;326436 wrote:
Patrick Swayze also fucked a ghost and made g-rated sex to a "baby" on a dance floor. I fail to see how he could further your point of what should be considered socially acceptable.

Yeah, but he made up for it in Roadhouse.

Trafik Jamz;326438 wrote:
Or make them smarter with their spending, but you are right.... neither party will allow their pet pork projects be cut by any meaningful amount.

I think the pork projects are really just a small part of the problem, the main problem is all the entitlements.

24valvenotak;326437 wrote:
A super committee was given a chance to find meaningful savings before cuts such as these take place in 2013.... It has been said over and over that very few of these will come to pass as congress will act before they take place. Built in triggers will only ruin people's chances of re-election.

Or make them smarter with their spending, but you are right.... neither party will allow their pet pork projects be cut by any meaningful amount.

Trafik Jamz;326421 wrote:
Part of the problem (I think) is that spending bills are not passed with built in triggers that say "If deficit > X, then reduction in spending = Y%"

A super committee was given a chance to find meaningful savings before cuts such as these take place in 2013.... It has been said over and over that very few of these will come to pass as congress will act before they take place. Built in triggers will only ruin people's chances of re-election.

DaveH;326419 wrote:
I didn't defend Santorums statement, I pointed out that Chuck only posted part of it.

As Patrick Swayze said, "opinions vary"

You did point out that he only posted part of it but you proceeded to give us your biased analysis as to what it meant based on your "research." Again, fail to see the difference between quoting something incorrectly and trying to explain to everyone what a falsely quoted statement is supposed to mean - they both promote a lie.

Patrick Swayze also fucked a ghost and made g-rated sex to a "baby" on a dance floor. I fail to see how he could further your point of what should be considered socially acceptable.

GarageAlchemist;326433 wrote:
That's not even entirely sure anymore, the Pres can send the marines anywhere he wants for 90 days, and that is more than enough time of them over there to convince anyone that we should be there doing whatever. I'm just saying, congress doesn't need to approve to get the ball rolling on a war.

What he is pointing out, I would assume, is the fact that Paul won't declare war because he "feels" like it. It would take a declaration from Congress(like it should)....

thrash;326428 wrote:
It matters a lot if you're one of the people that gets killed.

That doesn't excuse intentionally being evil. Which is what I think our politicians do a lot of the time.

I can appreciate the role that the military has in being the "Executive branch" of national political willpower. But when you advocate for the same kinds of policies and people that get us IN to undeclared wars where zillions of people on all sides suffer, you can't really play the "I was doing my job" card.

You have two jobs. One is to execute the military ambitions of your country when you deploy. The second is to keep your country from deploying you for stupid reasons by voting for the right people.

The option of war with Iran IS on the table with hypothetical president Paul. If the congress declares it, that is.

That's not even entirely sure anymore, the Pres can send the marines anywhere he wants for 90 days, and that is more than enough time of them over there to convince anyone that we should be there doing whatever. I'm just saying, congress doesn't need to approve to get the ball rolling on a war.