a-train Posted January 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Gold is not the saviour and those advocating the Gold Standard aren't saying that it is. The point is not any fascination with the element. The issue is DEBT. DEBT is the problem. Fiat currency is debt. That is the problem. It doesn't matter what we use as a medium of exchange so long as it is honest. Fiat currency is not honest and that is the issue. The love of money is what makes people live beyond their means. This is what brings about the slavery of debt. This is why we have a fiat currency. That is the issue. Let us not confuse it. I frankly don't know why you are so opposed to the Gold Standard. Are you saying that we as a people should print fiat money and live it up until the world realizes that our currency is worthless and then never have to actually offer anything of real value to pay for our lifestyle? Are we to dive into debt and stick our kids or grandkids with the bill? What are you saying? -a-train Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKairos Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 You know what I'm saying.Our paper money is backed by the assets of the FED and U.S. government (which I've already listed earlier and which are more than sufficient to pay off the projected national debt).Gold is not the only asset that can effectively back paper money.America has done a stellar job of growing and prospering in the nearly 100 years that we've had the FED. The track record is conclusive. Those are my chief points. I don't worry about the economy.And I've never encouraged anyone to get into debt. But fiat currency is not based on debt. The FED and government can liquidate real assets at any time should the world lose confidence in our currency. That's what Treasury securities and government bonds are: Promises for the government to cover any losses that banks and individuals may experience should FRN's suddenly lose all value overnight.We are not a nation operating on debt. We are a nation operating on promises to pay by the most powerful and prosperous government on earth. I can live with that.Personally, I hate getting into debt. But when I use my credit card, I don't necessarily always have assets I can liquidate if I fail to pay back the credit I borrowed. The FED and the government, conversely, do have the assets to cover any credit they take out. Apples and oranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjme Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Wow. It's lose/lose for us then isn't it.No matter what, even with the words of the prophets, it's still not good enough. well nuff said. If that can't get an LDS to think twice then what can.Is the counsel of prophets 'false panic'? Is it all just a bunch of crazies with tinfoil hats sitting around a computer in a dark room making up stories? When did Ezra Taft Benson 'grow up' and stop believing in those crazy conspiracy theories and did he wear a tinfoil hat? anyways no matter what's quoted, no matter what information people are shown, If they don't want to believe and work to spread the message they aren't going to.And I've never encouraged anyone to get into debt. But fiat currency is not based on debt. The FED and government can liquidate real assets at any time should the world lose confidence in our currency. That's what Treasury securities and government bonds are: Promises for the government to cover any losses that banks and individuals may experience should FRN's suddenly lose all value overnight.We are not a nation operating on debt. We are a nation operating on promises to pay by the most powerful and prosperous government on earth. I can live with that.But that is the issue. It is a promise to pay by a govt already in huge debt, by a country that consumes vastly more than it produces, whose economy is going into the red. It IS operating on debt. The FED is NOT a government institution. It is a PRIVATE bank devoted to the interest of it's shareholders. The FRN is an issuance of debt, it cannot be a 'dollar' because it is not backed by anything! It is defined in the constitution is it not? No statute defines - or ever has defined - the ‘one dollar’ Federal Reserve Note ‘FRN’ as the ‘dollar,’ or even as a species of ‘dollar.’Meaning the FRN it is not backed by anything or required to be. Answer to pay debts? print more FRN/debt. etc etc. and when other nations come for their debt because the dollar ain't worth nothing? (44% of US debt is owned by foreign nations).Well who knows what can happen, but you can search LDS leaders prophecies for that too...Countries around the world are changing their base currencies from the FRN to other 'safer' options. check it out (research is required, Don't rely on Faux news). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKairos Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Run around hysterically if you wish. I don't much enjoy that. I enjoy living in America. I enjoy worshipping God. I enjoy serving my fellow men. In case you haven't read the scriptures lately, all the panic and worry in the world won't change the horrible things that will come upon the earth in the last days. We simply have to keep our covenants, keep our chins up and brace for the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-train Posted January 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 The FED makes 'money' out of thin air and uses it to buy government bonds. Regardless of how you spin it, the 'money' is valueless. Now, whether we are those who benefit from this or who are hurt by this, neither situation is desirable. An honest system is desirable.We have the power to get an honest system if we will campaign for it. But we are not going to get it when so many of us won't even acknowledge the situation we are in.I want to be honest in my dealings with my fellow men. I also don't want to be paid in phony 'money' that loses value over time. Is this too much to ask? Is it too much to ask that we follow the Consitution?-a-train Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKairos Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Why follow the Constitution when you can amend it to work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjme Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Why follow the Constitution when you can amend it to work?D&C 98: 5-7 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; 7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.D&C 101: 77, 80 77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; • • • 80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.It's scripture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-train Posted January 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Our enemies don't even feel the need to amend it. They just ignore it. -a-train Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKairos Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 drjme, I've been aware of D&C 98 for a very, very long time. What I wasn't aware of until you replied, was that you personally cannot discern the point in a discussion where one party withdraws by sarcastically espousing the opposite position of the one he holds, thereby signaling his disinterest in further debate. a-train, I don't necessarily disagree with your last post. Sometimes a thesis is good, but synthesis might be better, and for synthesis to coalesce, antithesis must be applied. You're welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjme Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 What I wasn't aware of until you replied, was that you personally cannot discern the point in a discussion where one party withdraws by sarcastically espousing the opposite position of the one he holds, thereby signaling his disinterest in further debate.One cannot discern the sarcasm when most of your other posts on this thread have in one way or another agreed with the statement you just made.No need to start belittling now is there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKairos Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 I hardly meant to belittle you. Thus again we see the difficulty of carrying on a meaningful discussion without the ability to inflect and intone as we do in face-to-face conversations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WANDERER Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 *** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjme Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 I hardly meant to belittle you.Thus again we see the difficulty of carrying on a meaningful discussion without the ability to inflect and intone as we do in face-to-face conversations.Agreed. apologies for misinterpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.