Back to the gold standard

Ok? So what does that mean? I don't think the former's of this nation said hey this will work for about two hundred years then their on their own. This Country is nothing like anything before it, so to say that it's normal evolution of a country IDK how you can validate that. For argument sake let's say that's the case, so what's next Socialism, then Communism, then I suppose Imperialism, is that our fate?
 
This is basically Communism, right?

Here's my theory and why I worry about the security and the future of America.

I believe economic status is going to be the apparatus that shapes the future of our civilizations. Conquests on the battlefield is a thing of the past, while small skirmishes will still occur, wars between world powers is inconceivable. What is conceivable is that economic supremacy will transform the world country by country and hostile takeovers will take place not in the boardrooms but in the global community. Economic power is now the prevailing force of the world. Countries accumulating large debts are sacrificing their security and risking their freedom to choose how they live. If you doubt that just ask any Greek citizen they've already lost their country, figuratively speaking.
 
The same could be said of quite a few presidents. It's funny though that when Bush was in office, liberals said he was going to destroy the US. We're still around. Now conservatives are saying the same about Obama.
 
Then I suggest you get yourself to an optician.

But there is no evidence of that. The health reform bill isn't all that controversial and the bits that are, were Republican policies right up to the day that Obama adopted them.

Most of the domestic policies Republicans criticise Obama for are either blatant misrepresentations of the truth (or 'lies', if you prefer), policies that Republicans supported before Obama adopted them, or things that have come out of Congress, not the White House. Can you give any examples of these evil policies that don't fall into one of the above categories?
 
Nuclear Fission - non-renewable
Nuclear fusion - renewable
(Remember this is a practical philosophy. The idea is to push to complete sustainablility. We all know that isn't immediately achievable which is why core economy includes that flexibility)

Theoretically companies could be given a licence to manage resources. There would be no stock market as this would be effectively meaningless. Once you separate value from underlying resources then you are back on the finance game.

Government won't exist as we currently have. People will be elected by peer to roles that they have responsibility for. i.e. you aren't elected leader, you are elected to manage education, military, oil, food. Managers in these roles are overseen directly by the population in a form of direct government.

Military is part of the core economy of any society. Those soldiers will be required to give part of their time to the core economy and then elect to use the rest of their time for defense. This ensures that at every level of society everyone contributes and you get no parasite classes.

Oh and no this isn't communism because the excess economy is privately owned an operated. The only regulation is that it conforms to the sustainability law.

The Bear.
 
Thanks for the reply couple more.

You say its private but it can't be floated on a stock exchange, how do these private business raise money to expand their business and grow?

Are these private business in the excess, tightly regulated and if so , to what extent, like price capping etc?
 
Also..how do you go from what we have to this system, in loose terms anyway, I don't mean about dismantling the current one though this would have to happen.
But who has the authority in this system it seems your saying everyone has
but this leads to leaderless government.

How often would "terms" be in these offices at the head of each department.
Finally, how will education work, is this a private area, government run or a mix of both?
 
I agree excessive government growth has been the mantra for decades within both parties. That has hurt the economy, policies creating financial bubbles, the picking of winners and losers not by market demands, but by political cronyism. If you look at the landscape of the Republican Party lately there is a focus on the government stepping back.



Wiseguy eh!



Where I'm sitting the healthcare bill is not only controversial it is the most job killing bill that I've ever seen in my lifetime, it is also the biggest Tax increase as well. I understand something needed to be done about healthcare, however this bill was just ill conceived.

I must give credit where credit is due HH. We've had this discussion before and you told me the individual mandate penalty was a tax and I argued it was a penalty. You were right and I was wrong. You are a smart cookie, no denying that.

Politicians are famous for half truths and taking things out of context, no arguing from me on that. The point is that the economy is suffering, spending is out of control and has been for a long time, however Mr "Hope and Change" has looked more like Mr hopeless to change. We need policies that encourage business's to expand and bring back manufacturing jobs.
 
You can't save manufacturing because you can't match China on price or output. It's wasted effort.

The President is only one branch of the Government. When one of the other branches has made making the President look bad its sole mission, is it really surprising that things haven't been progressing. Obama can't control government spending. He doesn't have that power. It is up to Congress to give the President a budget to sign. Whenever he does do something on his own authority, Republicans go crazy about 'over reach' and 'tyranny'.

The man hasn't been given an honest chance to do the job.
 
So now what? This stalemate is hurting the economy, just like you and me the two parties can't come to an agreement.

I've been doing some reading on American history and and how we have developed policies and what has been positive and negative results in the political decisions. It's kind of an eye opener to see the struggles of the past are not that much different than the present. One thing you may find humorous is what I discovered about the great depression and how the country got back on track. The thing that brought us out of the depression is the very thing that I would argue against. That being massive government spending. Why didn't it happen this time?
 
If you work out the answer to that, feel free to let 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue know.


They didn't spend enough. Congress refused to pass the kind of infrastructure bills that would have added enough jobs to get the economy moving and they refused to pass such a bill because they knew it would get Obama re-elected. You could argue that he should have passed that when the Democrats had control of Congress (and you'd be right to argue it) but he chose to spend his attentions and his capital on Wall St. Reform and student loans reform and health reform instead.

He probably assumed that Congress would work with him after the mid-terms to fix the economy. Whoops.
 
Didn't spend enough?? You are saying that the greatest debtor nation in the history of the earth should go further into debt to get itself out of debt??
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
 
The national debt was $269,422,099,173.26 in 1946 today's dollars (actually 2010) it would equal $2,975,497,973,390.94. That was pretty massive debt as well.
 
Yes. Absolutely.

If you can get 10 million people back into work on the back of major infrastructure improvement projects, then those people stop receiving welfare and start paying taxes. That kind of boost can lift the economy as a whole, leading to increased revenue and decreased spending, which will pay back the initial investment and more.

It is a strategy that has worked time and again over the last hundred years. The stimulus worked. It just didn't go far enough.
 
It was actually a lot more as a percentage of GDP. The panic about debt is 99% political. The economics of it aren't actually much of a problem at the moment. The US debt rating didn't get downgraded because of the debt, it got downgraded because the US was flirting with the idea of needlessly defaulting on the debt.
 
Their wages are still really welfare, they do nothing to add to the economy. This is the problem with Keynesian economics, they seek to prop things up, such as failing banks rather than let the market find fair value.Creating more government jobs means the raising of more taxes to pay for them, therefore creating more debt and with no solution after that.
You only have to look at the bailout measures imposed by Europe and the US.look especially at Europe and Greece, I admit that the money has gone to the wrong people, but that is an inevitable consequence, you create bubbles, like the housing market, rather than letting the market find it's own fair value.
 
Back
Top