I was going to remark that perhaps this would serve to provide some perspective to those who try to claim that the US is some authoritarian monster; but I guess I underestimated slashdot.
Gold has industrial use as well, so at this point we're quibbling over "what qualifies as major use", and "how rare is too rare".
Why does paper money fail @ #1, by the way? Its value is related to its rarity, and printing money is an analogue to mining more gold. Also, you did not address the issue with gold @ #0, which is an issue for ANY currency.
It could also be used, in my apocalyptic scenario, to beat would-be robbers over the head with, owing to its high density. In that sense everything has intrinsic value, as in there is some value that you could get from it.
Honestly, my reply was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek troll, intended to get people to stop thinking they have some absolute standard of worth here. There are reasons to back the dollar with gold, but gold is only valuable for the reasons that paper money is valuable. The reasons to back money with it are simply that its relative worth stays more stable over time and between governmental shifts; but its value is in no sense "assured".
0. It cannot be printed by politicians to buy elections.
I may be wrong, but I believe it is in fact possible to make new gold-- that IS what nuclear reactions do, transform elements into other elements. Not sure that its terribly cost effective, of course. Also, gold can be hoarded by the government and released at various times to manipulate the worth of gold; that accomplishes much the same as printing new money.
1. It's rare, but not too rare.
That is incredibly arbitrary. What qualifies as "too rare"? What are the parameters that make "good money"? Also, both paper money and coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).
2. It's easy to test (chemically or with ultrasound for thick bars). 3. It's easily recognizable. 4. It has no major industrial use. 7. It's stable, it does not explode, it's not a poison, not radioactive, not a gas, does not corrode, does not decay radioactively.
So are a lot of things, these arent terribly exclusive. Also, both paper money and coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).
5. It does not change over time, drop it in the ocean, recover it centuries later and it's the same.
6. Easy to work with (easy to split, melt, mint coins, etc.)
Its also very bulky, very heavy, and very soft. Why not use bronze as currency? Also, both paper money and coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).
8. People like it, it looks nice.
I fail to see the relevance. Lots of people like the sight of paper money too. Also, both paper money and coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).
See any patterns there? Possibly you get some credit on #5, but with paper money you can always print replacement money, and I dont believe we have a huge problem with rats eating our paper money or rot setting in-- usually failing bills are replaced at very minor cost.
As to that NPR interview, a few issues. For starters, he mentions that "If you expose lithium to air, it will cause a huge fire that can burn through concrete walls" This is just not true. If lithium is exposed to water, then it will burn with a modest amount of red flame, turning into lithium hydroxide in the process. I do not believe that the flame is particularly hot, either. It possibly could combust in air if it were finely powdered and dispersed into a humid environment, I suppose.
As for the rest of it... "You want the thing you pick to be rare......At the same time, you don't want to pick an element that's too rare. So osmium — which apparently comes to earth via meteorites — gets the axe." Seems pretty arbitrary. For starters, why couldnt pyrite be money? Why does it have to be an element? Why should money even be something that has no use in and of itself-- and if that is a requirement, how does gold possibly fit the bill? That video (assuming this is an accurate transcription) doesnt address why the barter system is insufficient, or how the argument for gold kind of falls apart in societies that are rich in gold and poor in salt, or societies that decided to use other standards.
Plain and simple, using gold as a standard today would be about as arbitrary as anything else; why not osmium (as the article mentioned)? Why is "we dont want it to be too rare" a good argument-- how is that even relative?
History proves me correct, as during any war you could get things for gold, but not for currencies, which immediately became irrelevant.
That is simply because people have historically valued gold and had faith in it. Any "money" that people will trust is a good currency; if people fail to trust it, it is a bad currency.
However gold is actual money - store of value, unit of account, means of trade.
Well, actually I believe it has changed several times in history. Didnt the Chinese start using "flying money" about 1500 years ago? Was it based on any "gold" standard? How does paper money fail to meet your definition of "stored value, unit of account, means of trade"? In fact, gold fails in one important way that paper succeeds-- gold is very heavy and very bulky.
There are merits to gold, mainly that it is not a human invention and thus remains static from society to society, but it really is no less arbitrary than some piece of paper with drawings on it.
It really sounds as though you dont believe that there is such a thing as morality. That being the case, isnt it rather odd to turn around and deny the immorality of something?
I pasted the wrong quote in. I meant to paste in parents quote, and I missed it on preview.
My entire point was that its not some "government is trying to be bad for bad's sake" thing. People are clamoring for security from a certain form of danger; well, guess what, each bit of security will cost you a bit of freedom.
Right now, someone could walk into the room you are in (or the room you will be when you go out to eat, or get home, etc), and open fire on you, possibly killing you. This happens occasionally, and makes big news when it does, and a lot of times people get a hard dose of reality that yes, we live in a free society where this is possible.
The problem (depending on your point of view) is when people ask for the government to prevent such scenarios at all cost. The media was doing so after 9/11, and so we got all sorts of airport security changes, and the patriot act, and all the rest. Do we have more security? Im sure we do, and Im sure the patriot act has helped in that regard. Was it worth it? Well, I think you would be suprised that the answer will differ between individuals. Im not sure it was, but Im not going to pretend that there wasnt a reason for the Patriot Act to begin with.
To give you another example, just imagine if you really wanted to prevent the possibility of the shooting scenario above. Can you imagine the powers we would have to grant the police, surveilance and otherwise, in order to effectively prevent someone from walking into a bank with a pistol and opening fire?
I should quit my job, uproot my disabled wife from our handicapped-accessible house, and move to another state, just so my kids can go to college there.
Well, that depends. If your kid is about to amass a quarter million in debt, and youre scratching your head about how to pay for it, then yes, I would say moving to cut that debt by $200k would be a really wise investment.
On the other hand, if you intend your kid to pay his debt himself, and he is eager to get off on his own, then perhaps HE could move out to whatever state his college is in, rent an apartment, go to community college for general ed requirements, and then go to University for the last 2 years. It would be a great growing experience (and certainly you would be able to help him learn how to manage utilities, etc before he really gets off on his own), and a heck of a lot cheaper than doing room / board / tuition at out of state rates, and has the extra benefit that he gets to remain settled, if he so desires, at the end of school.
Really, the second scenario is what I was recommending-- not for YOU to move, but for the one doing college to move. After all, moving out IS one of the things kids commonly do during college; why not have it be to an apartment near campus and cut your rates by 75%?
Here [nytimes.com] is a map which shows who voted for the extension "PATRIOT" Act. Count the red dots. Count the blue dots. Compare and contrast.
Be that as it may, one example does not change the way Republicans will tend to vote. There could be many reasons for that vote, and I havent kept up on it enough to know what they might be.
I do know that Republicans are by definition socially conservative, politically conservative, etc, and hence are generally not in favor of zillions of new corporate regulations, or zillions of new social programs.
I honestly cannot fathom what you all are trying to say-- are you honestly asserting that Democrats favor a smaller government than Republicans, because of one vote?
Why is wealth gold? What property does gold possess, in and of itself, that makes it valuable?
Put another way-- WW4 has just happened, all the worlds economies have crashed, the US is in a state of anarchy, and everyone has to fight to survive. Whats more valuable now, a hunk of gold, or a rifle? How bout gold, or a loaf of bread?
Looks like you might as well declare that "french loaves are real money"; its just as arbitrary, and makes a good deal more sense.
Gold's value is also arbitrary, just a little more stable. It has value only because people have historically desired gold; if all of a sudden people were to decide gold looked ugly, I think you would start to see that it doesnt really have "intrinsic value" other than its use in semiconductors and fillings.
State-recognized marriage doesnt really seem like an impressive example of "government getting too big", since its something governments have done for the last thousand or so years, and has been regarded for basically all of them as a good thing. Perhaps you disagree with which unions the state recognizes, but that doesnt mean "government is too big"; they would technically have to be bigger to recognize more unions.
An example of "bigger government" would be "We the Fed think that we should handle your retirement savings", or "we will be taking care of health insurance".
Honestly, trying to paint republicans as favoring large expansive governments is disingenuous. Democrats believe in all sorts of social programs, republicans dont; I didnt think that anyone disputed that.
Or if you're lucky enough to live in a cool country, your college/uni fees could be deferred until you are earning over a certain amount, and then taken from your wage like a tax.
So what happens when a bunch of hotshot lawyer and businessmen wanna-bes all attend some super expensive college like Georgetown, rack up $200k in debt, and then fail to get a job for the next 4 years?
Is the public just giving that student an interest free loan?
Except that you cannot assume that return from the stock market; while the stock market may go south, an education will ALWAYS make you more valuable than the equivalent you sans degree (assuming, of course, you actually LEARNED while at school).
And if a person decides thats worth $100k of debt thats up to them; but that also means that they really dont have any excuse to complain about their debt.
Who says it's out of state? University of California costs roughly $30K per year -- in state -- for non-commuter students.
Then pick another school. Or-- and heres some genius advice-- move to a state with a decent college, establish residence (I think it takes 6 months in virginia), and go to school there. Establishing residence will cost about $5,000 in rent, and after that you get in-state tuition. You have to cover rent, but that money would have gone towards board anyways.
No, it's not. It might be "cheaper", but that is in no way the sole arbiter of what's "Better".
No, the decision of "better" usually falls into the realm of "what does wisdom say", and burning thousands of dollars in a few months on a dorm that you cannot afford, paid for with money you wont have for years, falls distinctly into the realm of "foolish".
You could always...you know... get a JOB and pay the damn thing off. I paid my way through a technical school (a hefty 28k), and am now paying my way again.
Seriously, waitering a few nights a week will land you about 10-15k a year (I know, since I actually did this), and over 4 years that should basically cover your tuition. Possibly not board, but if youre stuck with just 20k in debt at the end of 4 years I think youre doing pretty good.
Many Americans live in conditions that are worse than those of even the shittiest third-world nations.
Well, heres the decision that has to be made-- are you able to live with the fact that, in a free society, someone could decide to end your life and there is little that could be done to prevent it?
If not, then be prepared to give up freedoms for each and every ounce of security and peace of mind that you want.
On the flip side, if you want your freedoms, be prepared to accept that, occasionally, really tragic things can happen to you, or your loved ones, and the most society will be able to do is punish the perpetrators after the fact.
I think if you were to gather opinion from the population at large, you would find them leaning heavily towards the "protect me from all danger" end of the spectrum; hence things like the patriot act (which, truth be told, probably do wonderful things for law enforcement)
The fact that the Republican Party gets any support at all these days is an excellent indicator of just how bad the situation has become.
Good thing we have Europe to bail us out, right? Also, I didnt get the memo about how we lost in Iraq (though Saddam was dead, dontcha kno), or in Afghanistan.
Education is frowned upon in many areas of the United States.
Which areas?
Combined with religion, this becomes a very dangerous mix.
Yes, those terrible Catholic private schools and those awful awful homeschoolers, what with their above average test scores and whatnot...
The fact that the Republican Party gets any support at all these days is an excellent indicator of just how bad the situation has become.
Youd almost think that those retarded Republicans thought the founding principle of the country was a small, limited federal government, or something...
Many Americans live in conditions that are worse than those of even the shittiest third-world nations.
Ah, bless your heart, you werent serious, youre just a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to remark that perhaps this would serve to provide some perspective to those who try to claim that the US is some authoritarian monster; but I guess I underestimated slashdot.
Gold has industrial use as well, so at this point we're quibbling over "what qualifies as major use", and "how rare is too rare".
Why does paper money fail @ #1, by the way? Its value is related to its rarity, and printing money is an analogue to mining more gold. Also, you did not address the issue with gold @ #0, which is an issue for ANY currency.
It could also be used, in my apocalyptic scenario, to beat would-be robbers over the head with, owing to its high density.
In that sense everything has intrinsic value, as in there is some value that you could get from it.
Honestly, my reply was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek troll, intended to get people to stop thinking they have some absolute standard of worth here. There are reasons to back the dollar with gold, but gold is only valuable for the reasons that paper money is valuable. The reasons to back money with it are simply that its relative worth stays more stable over time and between governmental shifts; but its value is in no sense "assured".
0. It cannot be printed by politicians to buy elections.
I may be wrong, but I believe it is in fact possible to make new gold-- that IS what nuclear reactions do, transform elements into other elements. Not sure that its terribly cost effective, of course.
Also, gold can be hoarded by the government and released at various times to manipulate the worth of gold; that accomplishes much the same as printing new money.
1. It's rare, but not too rare.
That is incredibly arbitrary. What qualifies as "too rare"? What are the parameters that make "good money"?
Also, both paper money and coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).
2. It's easy to test (chemically or with ultrasound for thick bars).
3. It's easily recognizable.
4. It has no major industrial use.
7. It's stable, it does not explode, it's not a poison, not radioactive, not a gas, does not corrode, does not decay radioactively.
So are a lot of things, these arent terribly exclusive.
Also, both paper money and coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).
5. It does not change over time, drop it in the ocean, recover it centuries later and it's the same.
Also, coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).
6. Easy to work with (easy to split, melt, mint coins, etc.)
Its also very bulky, very heavy, and very soft. Why not use bronze as currency?
Also, both paper money and coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).
8. People like it, it looks nice.
I fail to see the relevance. Lots of people like the sight of paper money too.
Also, both paper money and coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).
See any patterns there? Possibly you get some credit on #5, but with paper money you can always print replacement money, and I dont believe we have a huge problem with rats eating our paper money or rot setting in-- usually failing bills are replaced at very minor cost.
I mistyped, and meant to ask "why is gold money".
As to that NPR interview, a few issues. For starters, he mentions that "If you expose lithium to air, it will cause a huge fire that can burn through concrete walls"
This is just not true. If lithium is exposed to water, then it will burn with a modest amount of red flame, turning into lithium hydroxide in the process. I do not believe that the flame is particularly hot, either. It possibly could combust in air if it were finely powdered and dispersed into a humid environment, I suppose.
As for the rest of it... "You want the thing you pick to be rare......At the same time, you don't want to pick an element that's too rare. So osmium — which apparently comes to earth via meteorites — gets the axe." Seems pretty arbitrary. For starters, why couldnt pyrite be money? Why does it have to be an element? Why should money even be something that has no use in and of itself-- and if that is a requirement, how does gold possibly fit the bill? That video (assuming this is an accurate transcription) doesnt address why the barter system is insufficient, or how the argument for gold kind of falls apart in societies that are rich in gold and poor in salt, or societies that decided to use other standards.
Plain and simple, using gold as a standard today would be about as arbitrary as anything else; why not osmium (as the article mentioned)? Why is "we dont want it to be too rare" a good argument-- how is that even relative?
History proves me correct, as during any war you could get things for gold, but not for currencies, which immediately became irrelevant.
That is simply because people have historically valued gold and had faith in it. Any "money" that people will trust is a good currency; if people fail to trust it, it is a bad currency.
However gold is actual money - store of value, unit of account, means of trade.
Well, actually I believe it has changed several times in history. Didnt the Chinese start using "flying money" about 1500 years ago? Was it based on any "gold" standard? How does paper money fail to meet your definition of "stored value, unit of account, means of trade"? In fact, gold fails in one important way that paper succeeds-- gold is very heavy and very bulky.
There are merits to gold, mainly that it is not a human invention and thus remains static from society to society, but it really is no less arbitrary than some piece of paper with drawings on it.
Possibly i was reading things into the post that werent there.
It really sounds as though you dont believe that there is such a thing as morality. That being the case, isnt it rather odd to turn around and deny the immorality of something?
Only on slashdot will someone state their flamebait opinion, and others will walk past, nod their heads, and go "interesting".
I pasted the wrong quote in. I meant to paste in parents quote, and I missed it on preview.
My entire point was that its not some "government is trying to be bad for bad's sake" thing. People are clamoring for security from a certain form of danger; well, guess what, each bit of security will cost you a bit of freedom.
Right now, someone could walk into the room you are in (or the room you will be when you go out to eat, or get home, etc), and open fire on you, possibly killing you. This happens occasionally, and makes big news when it does, and a lot of times people get a hard dose of reality that yes, we live in a free society where this is possible.
The problem (depending on your point of view) is when people ask for the government to prevent such scenarios at all cost. The media was doing so after 9/11, and so we got all sorts of airport security changes, and the patriot act, and all the rest. Do we have more security? Im sure we do, and Im sure the patriot act has helped in that regard. Was it worth it? Well, I think you would be suprised that the answer will differ between individuals. Im not sure it was, but Im not going to pretend that there wasnt a reason for the Patriot Act to begin with.
To give you another example, just imagine if you really wanted to prevent the possibility of the shooting scenario above. Can you imagine the powers we would have to grant the police, surveilance and otherwise, in order to effectively prevent someone from walking into a bank with a pistol and opening fire?
I should quit my job, uproot my disabled wife from our handicapped-accessible house, and move to another state, just so my kids can go to college there.
Well, that depends. If your kid is about to amass a quarter million in debt, and youre scratching your head about how to pay for it, then yes, I would say moving to cut that debt by $200k would be a really wise investment.
On the other hand, if you intend your kid to pay his debt himself, and he is eager to get off on his own, then perhaps HE could move out to whatever state his college is in, rent an apartment, go to community college for general ed requirements, and then go to University for the last 2 years. It would be a great growing experience (and certainly you would be able to help him learn how to manage utilities, etc before he really gets off on his own), and a heck of a lot cheaper than doing room / board / tuition at out of state rates, and has the extra benefit that he gets to remain settled, if he so desires, at the end of school.
Really, the second scenario is what I was recommending-- not for YOU to move, but for the one doing college to move. After all, moving out IS one of the things kids commonly do during college; why not have it be to an apartment near campus and cut your rates by 75%?
So it is your position, then, that Democrats favor a smaller government than republicans?
Why, then I will pull out my own anecdote-- why did more Republicans vote no to the healthcare bill than democrats?
Is it possible that in each scenario (patriot vote, and healthcare vote) there are multiple reasons affecting each vote?
Here [nytimes.com] is a map which shows who voted for the extension "PATRIOT" Act. Count the red dots. Count the blue dots. Compare and contrast.
Be that as it may, one example does not change the way Republicans will tend to vote. There could be many reasons for that vote, and I havent kept up on it enough to know what they might be.
I do know that Republicans are by definition socially conservative, politically conservative, etc, and hence are generally not in favor of zillions of new corporate regulations, or zillions of new social programs.
I honestly cannot fathom what you all are trying to say-- are you honestly asserting that Democrats favor a smaller government than Republicans, because of one vote?
Why is wealth gold? What property does gold possess, in and of itself, that makes it valuable?
Put another way-- WW4 has just happened, all the worlds economies have crashed, the US is in a state of anarchy, and everyone has to fight to survive. Whats more valuable now, a hunk of gold, or a rifle? How bout gold, or a loaf of bread?
Looks like you might as well declare that "french loaves are real money"; its just as arbitrary, and makes a good deal more sense.
Gold's value is also arbitrary, just a little more stable. It has value only because people have historically desired gold; if all of a sudden people were to decide gold looked ugly, I think you would start to see that it doesnt really have "intrinsic value" other than its use in semiconductors and fillings.
State-recognized marriage doesnt really seem like an impressive example of "government getting too big", since its something governments have done for the last thousand or so years, and has been regarded for basically all of them as a good thing. Perhaps you disagree with which unions the state recognizes, but that doesnt mean "government is too big"; they would technically have to be bigger to recognize more unions.
An example of "bigger government" would be "We the Fed think that we should handle your retirement savings", or "we will be taking care of health insurance".
Honestly, trying to paint republicans as favoring large expansive governments is disingenuous. Democrats believe in all sorts of social programs, republicans dont; I didnt think that anyone disputed that.
Im sorry, its almost like youre trying to blame me for what other people have done, or infer what I believe from what others have done.
That aside, Republicans believe in a smaller government than the Democrats, and thats a good first step in my eyes.
Or if you're lucky enough to live in a cool country, your college/uni fees could be deferred until you are earning over a certain amount, and then taken from your wage like a tax.
So what happens when a bunch of hotshot lawyer and businessmen wanna-bes all attend some super expensive college like Georgetown, rack up $200k in debt, and then fail to get a job for the next 4 years?
Is the public just giving that student an interest free loan?
Except that you cannot assume that return from the stock market; while the stock market may go south, an education will ALWAYS make you more valuable than the equivalent you sans degree (assuming, of course, you actually LEARNED while at school).
And if a person decides thats worth $100k of debt thats up to them; but that also means that they really dont have any excuse to complain about their debt.
Who says it's out of state? University of California costs roughly $30K per year -- in state -- for non-commuter students.
Then pick another school. Or-- and heres some genius advice-- move to a state with a decent college, establish residence (I think it takes 6 months in virginia), and go to school there. Establishing residence will cost about $5,000 in rent, and after that you get in-state tuition. You have to cover rent, but that money would have gone towards board anyways.
Wow, did I just remove any possible objection?
No, it's not. It might be "cheaper", but that is in no way the sole arbiter of what's "Better".
No, the decision of "better" usually falls into the realm of "what does wisdom say", and burning thousands of dollars in a few months on a dorm that you cannot afford, paid for with money you wont have for years, falls distinctly into the realm of "foolish".
That was roughly my point. I could attend VaTech or UVa for about $500/credit hour, and someone told me that those universities arent half bad.
You still have substantial debt,
You could always...you know... get a JOB and pay the damn thing off. I paid my way through a technical school (a hefty 28k), and am now paying my way again.
Seriously, waitering a few nights a week will land you about 10-15k a year (I know, since I actually did this), and over 4 years that should basically cover your tuition. Possibly not board, but if youre stuck with just 20k in debt at the end of 4 years I think youre doing pretty good.
Many Americans live in conditions that are worse than those of even the shittiest third-world nations.
Well, heres the decision that has to be made-- are you able to live with the fact that, in a free society, someone could decide to end your life and there is little that could be done to prevent it?
If not, then be prepared to give up freedoms for each and every ounce of security and peace of mind that you want.
On the flip side, if you want your freedoms, be prepared to accept that, occasionally, really tragic things can happen to you, or your loved ones, and the most society will be able to do is punish the perpetrators after the fact.
I think if you were to gather opinion from the population at large, you would find them leaning heavily towards the "protect me from all danger" end of the spectrum; hence things like the patriot act (which, truth be told, probably do wonderful things for law enforcement)
The fact that the Republican Party gets any support at all these days is an excellent indicator of just how bad the situation has become.
Good thing we have Europe to bail us out, right? Also, I didnt get the memo about how we lost in Iraq (though Saddam was dead, dontcha kno), or in Afghanistan.
Education is frowned upon in many areas of the United States.
Which areas?
Combined with religion, this becomes a very dangerous mix.
Yes, those terrible Catholic private schools and those awful awful homeschoolers, what with their above average test scores and whatnot...
The fact that the Republican Party gets any support at all these days is an excellent indicator of just how bad the situation has become.
Youd almost think that those retarded Republicans thought the founding principle of the country was a small, limited federal government, or something...
Many Americans live in conditions that are worse than those of even the shittiest third-world nations.
Ah, bless your heart, you werent serious, youre just a troll.