Slashdot Mirror

Also don't forget to look at the monetary base: http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/04.11/images/stl-monetary-base.jpg

SHARE IT !!
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/09.10/forgottenman.html

We're stuck in a positive feedback loop now. The more the government over-reaches in the interests of security, the more pissed off the populace gets, which leads to more civil disobedience and activism, which leads to more over-reaches in the interests of security, which leads to a more pissed off populace, and so on...

The Occupy protests are just the beginning. Things are going to get much worse before they get any better. It doesn't really matter much at all who is sitting in Washington, D.C., Demican or Republicrat, the bullshit has already reached critical mass, now it's just time to wait for the meltdown.

People call me crazy, but I'm taking steps to prepare myself and my family. A few years ago I read these eye-opening blog posts about the effects of the Argentinian Economic Crisis of 1999-2002 from the point of view of a regular, college-educated, city dweller. It's scary shit. I know that if similar things were to happen to the U.S. a lot of people would be in very poor shape to deal with it. I'm not going to allow myself or my family to be victimized due to being unprepared.

Growing up I never thought things would get to even this point in this country.

begin* in 1933,

- was confiscation of private property (gold) part of the 'beginning of recovery'?

You probably think that Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), Civil Works Administration (CWA) was recovery? That started in 33.

You probably think that FHA, FSA, HOLC, NRA (National Recovery Act,) PWA, SSA, TVA and WPA were recovery?

You think public projects are equivalent of an actual economy? If so, how come the USSR was bankrupt even it was all only public projects?

This recovery was eventually completed by the forced employment (aka the wartime draft)

- aha, that and the fact that women had to go to work to the weapons factories is wonderful, 100% employment. Just like USSR had - 100% employment.

Too bad that government 100% employment produces nothing that economy actually needs. No, don't get me wrong, it surely is one way to fight a war and must be done somehow, but to say that war time draft and weapons manufacturing causing 100% (well, probably a bit below that, but not much) employment is actually a real economic activity that helped to alleviate the ills of Depression?

That's just silly. What is the use of those resources - that's the question. Of-course the Krugmans of the world will tell you that it is irrelevant what the employment that gov't provides is, as long as people are employed. That's of-course horse crap. Anybody would do anything rather than having to go to war and work building bombs that are immediately destroyed and don't do anything for the market except killing potential customers and producers.

Again, during an even such as war, normal economy stops, but that does not mean that war helps the normal economy to get better. The only way in which war helps is that it allows some to steal a bunch of stuff from some others, but again, that's not a sustainable economic model.

Deflation is great for the creditor.

- that's not the point. The point for the consumers is that deflation is great for them.

Government on the other hand, they have a huge problem with deflation, as they get fewer tax dollars, though the dollars they get buy more, but they get fewer of them, so they see it as a problem. Their other and more important problem is that government owes money.

If government lived within its means deflation wouldn't have hurt it, but government does not want to do that. Who wants to do that? Why would you go to government to live within your means, isn't that's just silly?

The FDIC was created to fight crises of confidence---just like the one that took out Lehman Brothers and started the broader financial crisis

- no, FDIC was created to fight an imaginary problem because the problem it was created to fight only hit 2% of deposits. If you create an agency, which introduces systematic moral hazard into an existing market structure, then you are fighting an imaginary problem by doing the worst thing possible.

It was an imaginary problem, because while 2% of deposits were lost, the rest of the deposits (98%, just to make sure you understand that little mathematical point) were not lost, in deflationary environment those 98% of deposits gained much more value than the 2% of the lost deposits wiped out.

Assuming that the US *government* owned the British debt during the 1920s (I'll need a source)

- who's "I"? You don't even exist, AC.

Friedman's video or something to
read.

First, that doesn't fit the definition of counterfeiting. They aren't trying to pass them as anything else.

- let's look at that claim, shall we?

here you can see prices for cotton, you can zoom out to 10 years time-line Note how it used to be around $50 in 2003.

So in 2003, it was possible to get a pound of cotton for 50 USD. OK. So if I am expecting AT MINIMUM to have dollars in my possession today, that are still printed by the Fed, shouldn't I expect those dollars to buy roughly the same amount of cotton as they bought in 2003?

But today the prices for cotton are over 200 USD / pound.

So from 2003 50 to 2011 200. Feels like counterfeit 'money' to me.

However let's now see what that means translated to what I call money.

In 2003 gold was roughly 350/ounce

For an ounce of gold you could buy 7 pounds of cotton in 2003.

Let's see, today gold is around 1430-1440. For an ounce of gold it is possible to buy... wait for it ..... 7 pounds of cotton.

--
I can do the same thing with coffee, sugar, copper, grains, etc.etc.etc.

Whatever you think the definition of 'counterfeit' is or should be, it clearly does not protect the value of the fiat against the hands on the printing presses.

This is the reflection of actual inflation. Not the BS that the gov't is feeding you with, this is real inflation, real money expansion. They also have redefined inflation to mean something else, not money expansion but end consumer prices rising.

However they are not being honest their either. They are measuring 'core inflation rate', which excludes things that really matter: food, energy, clothing, housing.

So aside from food, energy, clothing and housing, it's all peachy, their inflation levels are under 2% they say.

OK. What they do not tell you though is this: a country that does not produce much of anything, but lives off credit of producer nations does not need to buy much of raw materials.

Instead it prints dollars (which I call counterfeiting), which are backed by nothing, and then it pays with this fiat for the goods that are coming into the country from productive nations.

Productive nations OTOH have to take in those dollars, exchange them for their own currency, buy raw materials (commodities), add value (production) and then send the made goods to USA.

The real question of course is this: when are they going to come to their senses and stop this madness? When are they going to start enjoying fruits of their labor themselves and realize they do not need to destroy their own purchasing power so that US consumer does not see the levels of inflation his gov't causes around the world.

I think the time is very near now when the world wakes up from this nightmare.

Also Liberty Dollars are very different from US coins:
Gold with Ron Paul on it

Silver face

Silver back

First, that doesn't fit the definition of counterfeiting. They aren't trying to pass them as anything else.

- let's look at that claim, shall we?

here you can see prices for cotton, you can zoom out to 10 years time-line Note how it used to be around $50 in 2003.

So in 2003, it was possible to get a pound of cotton for 50 USD. OK. So if I am expecting AT MINIMUM to have dollars in my possession today, that are still printed by the Fed, shouldn't I expect those dollars to buy roughly the same amount of cotton as they bought in 2003?

But today the prices for cotton are over 200 USD / pound.

So from 2003 50 to 2011 200. Feels like counterfeit 'money' to me.

However let's now see what that means translated to what I call money.

In 2003 gold was roughly 350/ounce

For an ounce of gold you could buy 7 pounds of cotton in 2003.

Let's see, today gold is around 1430-1440. For an ounce of gold it is possible to buy... wait for it ..... 7 pounds of cotton.

--
I can do the same thing with coffee, sugar, copper, grains, etc.etc.etc.

Whatever you think the definition of 'counterfeit' is or should be, it clearly does not protect the value of the fiat against the hands on the printing presses.

This is the reflection of actual inflation. Not the BS that the gov't is feeding you with, this is real inflation, real money expansion. They also have redefined inflation to mean something else, not money expansion but end consumer prices rising.

However they are not being honest their either. They are measuring 'core inflation rate', which excludes things that really matter: food, energy, clothing, housing.

So aside from food, energy, clothing and housing, it's all peachy, their inflation levels are under 2% they say.

OK. What they do not tell you though is this: a country that does not produce much of anything, but lives off credit of producer nations does not need to buy much of raw materials.

Instead it prints dollars (which I call counterfeiting), which are backed by nothing, and then it pays with this fiat for the goods that are coming into the country from productive nations.

Productive nations OTOH have to take in those dollars, exchange them for their own currency, buy raw materials (commodities), add value (production) and then send the made goods to USA.

The real question of course is this: when are they going to come to their senses and stop this madness? When are they going to start enjoying fruits of their labor themselves and realize they do not need to destroy their own purchasing power so that US consumer does not see the levels of inflation his gov't causes around the world.

I think the time is very near now when the world wakes up from this nightmare.

Also Liberty Dollars are very different from US coins:
Gold with Ron Paul on it

Silver face

Silver back

You are full of shit.

Gold Liberty Dollar - it has RON PAUL on it. Which POTUS are you going to confuse that with?

And that's GOLD.

And it says: "RON PAUL for President 2008" and it says "GOLD STANDARD IN LEADERSHIP"

WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?

Let's do silver - What? Do you normally see silver coins in your wallet that say: "LIBERTY, Trust in god, USA" with Lady Liberty on the face and this picture on the back?

There are plenty of different things that can remotely resemble US coins. Some of them are coins of other countries and some are from other times.

The guy in the story is facing 15 years in jail, 250K in fines and confiscation of $7,000,000 worth of silver/gold and finished coins.

He was selling them ABOVE the face value, obviously, it's called seigniorage.

You can say whatever you like, but his coins are nothing like US dollars in circulation, they are much more valuable than any other normal coin and they are not sold at face value. The guy went quite far out of his way to make sure they are not mistaken for US Mint coins.

Also 'DOLLAR' is not unique to USA.

You are full of shit.

Gold Liberty Dollar - it has RON PAUL on it. Which POTUS are you going to confuse that with?

And that's GOLD.

And it says: "RON PAUL for President 2008" and it says "GOLD STANDARD IN LEADERSHIP"

WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?

Let's do silver - What? Do you normally see silver coins in your wallet that say: "LIBERTY, Trust in god, USA" with Lady Liberty on the face and this picture on the back?

There are plenty of different things that can remotely resemble US coins. Some of them are coins of other countries and some are from other times.

The guy in the story is facing 15 years in jail, 250K in fines and confiscation of $7,000,000 worth of silver/gold and finished coins.

He was selling them ABOVE the face value, obviously, it's called seigniorage.

You can say whatever you like, but his coins are nothing like US dollars in circulation, they are much more valuable than any other normal coin and they are not sold at face value. The guy went quite far out of his way to make sure they are not mistaken for US Mint coins.

Also 'DOLLAR' is not unique to USA.

Counterfeiting is an attack on the state. Why do you think Newton had counterfeiters executed?

So which president are you going to confuse for the likeness of Ron Paul on this gold coin, precisely?

Or maybe you are too daft to realize you are holding a piece of silver that has likeness of 'Lady Liberty' on the face, with a $20 face value on the back, and that you are asked to pay more than $20 to buy one from the guy, because he was making pretty good seigniorage?

Oh, you're one of /those/. Okay.

- I am happy that you and I are in different camps.

Counterfeiting is an attack on the state. Why do you think Newton had counterfeiters executed?

So which president are you going to confuse for the likeness of Ron Paul on this gold coin, precisely?

Or maybe you are too daft to realize you are holding a piece of silver that has likeness of 'Lady Liberty' on the face, with a $20 face value on the back, and that you are asked to pay more than $20 to buy one from the guy, because he was making pretty good seigniorage?

Oh, you're one of /those/. Okay.

- I am happy that you and I are in different camps.

Just one question to ask, and I ask this of any individual perceiving himself or herself as anything more than just a production node / serf for a "greater society" or "greater purpose".

"Since when does a free man require someone else to recognize his rights or grant them unto him. An enemy is always one who infringes upon your rights. When they intrude on your mind or body, and all your efforts to keep them out are not recognized, there is ONE more way to keep them out. Unfortunately the question is, are you willing to destroy any and all who would infringe upon you at the time of their attempted infringement? Are you willing to NOT engage in said infringement yourself?"

The question more aptly asked is "Are you willing to own yourself and let others own themselves?" It all comes down to ownership, self ownership that is. Which is why governments and their schools stress 'sharing all things' so much. Of course they want sharing, the involuntary kind. Because the moment you are "shared" by them, you are owned by them. That's why "property" has become such a dirty word among so many. Because they hate all property (thanks to their schooling) but are unable to see that they themselves are property (and willingly so, as long as they participate in oppression) and thus hate themselves.

I would strongly recommend this... http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/7.08/hymntomoney.html

It should be quite eye opening. Read it with an open mind... I believe that's what used to describe geeks... "open minds"... let us see if geeks still have that, or if it is merely a pretense when their favorite not so popular topics are broached.