Whenever I drink or eat anything with aspartame in it, I get a massive headache. Over 75% of all FDA complaints involve aspartame. Of course, that's anecdotal evidence. However, it doesn't need to convince anyone besides me, for which purpose it works fine. You don't have to believe anything you don't want to believe.
In other words, you have no problem jumping to unwarranted conclusions just because it's an artificial sweetener.
No, no need for 'other words'. The words I used worked just fine. I do not have to explain my beliefs, especially when I put a disclaimer in the very sentence you quoted. I did not state that 'sucralose is bad for you because it's an artificial sweetner', which is what you said. I said that, in my belief, which is not yet backed up by data, it is probably bad for you. Do you have citable statistical data for every single belief you hold? Well, obviously not, because your belief about what I said is provably wrong. Oh, but it's YOUR belief, so it can be based on whatever you want. It's only the beliefs of OTHERS that must be backed by statistical data, right? (note that while I believe that to be your viewpoint, it's based solely upon what you wrote and is not backed by a clinical, double-blind test.)
If you can provide some honest, objective evidence that these things are unhealthy, then I'm sure people would come around.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHahahahahAHAhaHAhAhAhAhAhAhAHAHAHHA hahAH. Oh my God you just gave me the best laugh I've had in years. Like there's no objective evidence that it isn't the best idea in the world to coat your lungs in radioactive tar. Like there's no objective evidence that drinking to excess is a bad idea. Oh, but no one does either of those things, because they know they're unhealthy, right? You really are a funny one.
Believe it or not, people do care about what they eat, for the most part--
Really? I don't believe it. You haven't provided any statistical data for your assertion...yet again your hypocrisy manifests itself.
but most people have enough sense listen to the doctors and scientists who have studied these additives and found them to be safe.
Really? What studies found aspartame to be safe? The ones conducted by the manufacturers of aspartame or the one presided over by the head of the FDA who later went to work for the manufacturers of aspartame? The ones where humans were given aspartame in slow-dissolving caplets? The ones where the aspartame wasn't allowed to be cooked, although it's approved for baking and cooking use? Can you cite your sources, please? (of course not)
The headlines are not screaming "Aspartame shown to cause xyz syndrome." Medical researchers are not infallible, of course, but I have more reason to believe them than to believe you.
Yes, because medical researchers didn't tell us saccharine was safe. They didn't tell us fenphen was safe. They didn't tell us that the IUD was safe. They didn't tell us that trichloroethylene was safe. They didn't tell us that thalidomide was safe. Oh, wait...
The difference is that I don't actually care if you believe me. I hope that you don't. I hope that you enjoy a huge amount of aspartame every day, and that it actually is safe for you. I don't hold my beliefs because I want others to blindly follow them. If your research (er I mean "research") leads you to a conclusion, great! But don't expect me to change my beliefs simply because some random internet guy doesn't agree with them...especially when you are so obviously clueless. I'm not saying that you're clueless because of your assertions, but because of the manner in which they were presented. Again, this belief that I hold isn't based on any clinical data. Sorry.
Dude, come on. They'll fix it easy: They'll pass a law making it illegal to use police wiretapping spyware except for legal purposes. Problem solved! You can solve anything with laws, which is why we have over 2million pages of them in this country! Laws are wonderful and solve any problem with ease. The only solution to any problem is obviously to pass many, many more laws.
Well, they'd better find an alternative source of plastic for those things first. Otherwise we'd actually HAVE an oil crisis. There're a lot of people in this country...
While HFCS is sweeter, compared to refined cane sure or raw sugar it has a nasty taste and an even worse aftertaste. If you can't taste the nastiness, then you're probably just used to it. Lay off of HFCS drinkgs/foods for a few weeks and then try switching back.
No way. I stopped consuming HFCS a while back, and I wouldn't go back if you paid me. (well, ok, it would depend on how much.)
Aspartame is bad for you, as bad or worse than HFCS. I believe sucralose is, too, but there isn't enough data yet. I would urge people to avoid artificial sweeteners as fervently as maltodextrin/HFCS.
My only comment on this is the government should stop subsidizing unhealthy food (ie, corn derivatives). If the people want it, that's fine. Just don't make junk artificially cheaper. Likewise, don't make it artificially more expensive (ie, cane sugar). The market should set the prices, not the government.
We are in perfect agreement about this. My whole point was not that *I* want to eat HFCS but that the majority of people don't care and wouldn't even if you sat everyone down for a mandatory nation-wide training class. It's obvious that the people who work at Coca Cola, Pepsico, etc don't give a shit about their customers' health. It's obvious their customers don't either. Why should I?
You didn't specify. You said stock would be worth more in 20 years than gold. I merely pointed out that you can't take any random stock and expect that. You still do, though.
You have said that your gold is in an electronic cloud as well.
No, I never said that. You have a large misunderstanding of what digital gold is. I suspect it to be intentional, and if that's how you want to be, fine. Not only did I SPECIFICALLY mention that i only use digital gold as a PART of my total wealth, and despite the fact that digital gold is backed by REAL, ACTUAL gold and does not exist in the digital cloud (yes, it has digital in the name. So does 'digital watch' and yet it exists in real life, too.)
I agree. And by that definition, your gold coin is not fiat currency. The "value" is not that which the government assigned. It's not currency at all. It's a rock. If you claim that it is currency, then you are asserting that it is worth its face-value in USD. That makes it fiat currency. So, your gold coin is either fiat currency, or not currency at all. Which is it?
OK, that's it. I'm done. I will explain one more time, but I'm through trying to reason with someone who has no reasoning ability.
My gold coin is currency. Here is the definition of currency: 1. something that is used as a medium of exchange; money. So, my gold coin perfectly fits this definition. It *is* currency. It is NOT fiat currency. Fiat currency is a subset of currency, not something which is mutually exclusinve with currency. Here is the definition of fiat currency: In economics, fiat currency or fiat money is money backed by government demand for it as legal tender in payment of legal liabilities, such as taxes. It is often associated with paper money because legal liabilities are created and settled by documents which are usually paper.
I really don't understand how you told me my coin wasn't fiat currency...that's what I was saying. It *is* currency, but it is not *fiat* currency. So what is your point?
If you claim that it is currency, then you are asserting that it is worth its face-value in USD.
No, this completely and totally ignorant. That's like claiming that a rectangle is necessarily a square. No, a square is necessarily a rectangle, because square is a subset of rectangle. What that means is that all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Do you see how that works? ALL fiat currency is currency (up until it stops being backed by the government that printed it) but not all currency is fiat currency.
You are also clearly deluded as to the difference between average and individual performance. You keep talking about how stocks always outperform gold. Well, I'm sure I can find individual baseball cards that have far outperformed gold, too. That doesn't mean that MY baseball card collection contains those cards, however. Even if baseball cards as a whole outperform gold, that doesn't give any guarantee that MY baseball cards will outperform gold. Yet any ounce of gold is identical to any other. No matter what you say I doubt you would take 100 shares of a completely random stock over 10 ounces of gold, and if you would you should be 'investing' in the lottery...because it ALWAYS outperforms the stock market...by a LARGE margin.
Public roads, parks, nationalised pension plans are provided for everyone, not just those who maintain a healthy lifestyle.
That was my point. If something is public, then it's open to the public...not just the healthy public.
Transportation is not necessarily a health issue, nor are parks. My nationalised pension plan was contributory - I have paid for the pension that I am now receiving, thank you.
I don't know how it works where you are, but our nationalized pension plan is contributory too - about 11 of us are contributing to pay 1 retired person's benefits (mind you they paid into the system as well). This is why I'm against pretty much all nationalized services. They end up costing the people who plan and save and care more than those who go through life expecting someone else to take care of them.
I am not arguing for the right to be able to buy fatty things for myself but not allow anyone else the right to do the same.
No, you are arguing that other people shouldn't be allowed to spend their money in a way you do not spend your money. What I was pointing out is that you want the freedom to spend your money the way you want, but you wish to deny that for others. Just because you don't want to spend your money a certain way does not give you the right to tell others they cannot.
But when I am taxed at source to fund a spiralling health bill which, in part, pays for the cost of smokers and obese people, then I DO object to having my money spent for me.
Well, here again we are at the root of the problem. You cannot control where the government spends your money. That is why pet projects, waste, fraud, and graft are endemic to politics. The only solution to this problem is to reduce the amount of money that the government gets to spend. You cannot stop the government wasting your money, so it seems odd to think you'll be able to tell them how to spend it in this case.
As I have said, for genuine medical problems I have no complaint.
Well, then you either have to be medically competent to diagnose such problems, so you can tell the difference, and politically active enough to have oversight...or you have to trust the government to do a good job of making that determination for you. Neither option sounds realistic to me.
People should be taxed according to their income for the good of all.
You make a few assumptions here: 1. that people are being taxed according to their income and 2. that this money is used for the good of all. I would be fatally shocked to hear the either is true on a macro level.
But the system is, in effect, being abused by those who do not look after their health but expect me to pay for their treatment.
As all such systems are abused. Welfare, health care, free lunch, foster care, name a government program and change the words 'health' and 'treatment' to whatever words fit that program and you've described every government program ever.
The outright removal of taxes is unrealistic.
Why? I'm not talking about user fees or import/export levies. I'm referring specifically to income, sales, and VAT. You make such a sweeping statement, but you have provided no evidence. I do not accept this assertion.
My wife has a serious medical problem. It is not caused by any fault of her own nor is it curable. In the worst cases it can be fatal. I expect medical support for her (having paid my taxes for over 40 years) and I do not begrudge others from receiving medical treatment when it is required.
Well, I am sorry to hear about your wife. What I don't understand is why her care should be the burden of other taxpayers. It isn't their fault, either. I understand that you've paid your taxes and want to get something in return for them, which makes perfect sense. But that doesn't explain the system to begin with. Would you not have had more money for your wife's treatment if you had never had taxes to pay?
Who is paying for the lost man hours due to ill-health caused by obesity?
Who would pay for the enforcement/subsidies/whatever your plan calls for? I'll let you answer: "the people who run the business, that's who, and they pass it on to every customer. So, guess what, YOU are paying for it."
Who is paying for the extra burden on the medical support?
Now you're getting into a whole other issue. No, I do NOT support national health care. No, I do NOT support distributing the medical bills of some to all.
Is it all paid by the obese people themselves? Is every hospital, every medical facility paid for by private money and health insurance?
It should be. It's not, but since that's a problem, we should fix that, too.
My healthy lifestyle does not cost anyone else anything to support it.
How can you say that? Do you use public roads? Do you pay into some sort of nationalized retirement plan? Do you use public parks? Do you use any government services? The answer better be 'no' to all the above, or you just lied to me!
I suspect that their unhealthy lifestyle DOES cost someone other than themselves which is why you not only have a right to have a say in the matter but you should also be actively encouraging them to enjoy a more healthy diet.
Well, you started out strong, but then you faltered. I'll re-write your sentence to be correct:
I suspect that their unhealthy lifestyle DOES cost someone other than themselves which is why we should put an end to the practice of charging everyone else for some people's decisions, not limited to unhealthy eating habits.
There, that's much better.
Freedom for everyone to do as they wish is OK providing that it does not affect my freedom to spend my money as I wish, nor wastes valuable medical resources treating a condition that is of their own making.
So if you wish to spend your money buying fatty foods, that's ok, but it isn't ok for others to do it? Is it only other people who should change their behavior? You want to be able to affect the freedom of others to spend their money as THEY wish, but you want the freedom to spend YOUR money the way YOU wish? That doesn't sound very fair. As far as the medical point, so people should not get medical treatment for broken bones if they willingly engaged in the activity which broke their bones? Or is it only fat people that shouldn't get medical treatment for 'conditions of their own making'?
In general terms, when it has to go in taxes to support those who cannot or will not look after themselves then I want a say in what they do and what they eat.
Again, you're coming at this the wrong way. Why not instead remove the taxes which pay for such things? Then you have more freedom to spend your money the way you want while also affording others the same, instead of restricting them to free yourself. Should I be able to tell you who you can or cannot sleep with because you might contract a disease which you might then get treatment for in a public hospital? How far does it go, and who gets to control whom?
Accidents happen, but obesity in many cases is self inflicted.
Most geneticists would disagree with you, but that's another argument. Some is, sure...but not nearly as much as the media and diet industry would have you belive (and which you obviously do believe)
Those that have a genuine medical condition which results in obesity will get my support, those that are gluttons or simply can't be bothered to look after themselves will not.
And are you qualified to be able to tell the difference? If not, then why does your opinion matter?
No, because you are taking things to an illogical extreme in my opinion.
Well, that was kind of the point. But thank you.
Is there any sound reason for having such high levels of fructose in soft drinks, other than to get rid of the fructose that you have too much off?
Yes, it's called 'Natural Selection'. We need *more* of it, not *less*.
Is there any sound reason for having such high levels of fructose in soft drinks, other than to get rid of the fructose that you have too much off?
I think you meant 'of', not 'off'. Assuming that, sure, of course there is. It's far, far cheaper than pure cane sugar, and not only that it's much sweeter, and people like their sweet stuff.
If the farmers grew oranges, for example, you could simply serve fresh orange juice which is a far healthier alternative to sodas.
Are you suggesting that farmers don't grow oranges? Look, if people wanted to drink orange juice in the quantity that they want to drink soda, then there would be a lot more oranges grown and a lot less soda produced. No one is holding a gun to the public's head and pouring the poison down their throat.
But if people are too stupid not to stop eating the wrong things when they are becoming patently obese what is your better suggestion?
Let them? Then let them deal with the consequences of their actions? Why is this such an unpalatable course of action?
all your government has to do is reduce or remove the subsidies for farmers, they will produce something else, and you will have less fructose to get rid of.
This is nonsensical. It isn't the government which is paying the farmers to grow fructose. It's the food manufacturers. Government subsidies are paid to farmers when they *aren't* growing something for the most part. You don't need to pay people to grow what they are going to sell anyway.
You can therefore reduce its use in foodstuffs.
The only reliable way to do this is to reduce demand for it. However, that doesn't appear likely.
You don't have to put people in a bubble, just stop making it so attractive to produce something you do not need and encourage everyone can eat far more healthily.
People do not WANT to eat healthily. They LOVE things that they don't need. They LOVE things that are bad for them. Why should you care if someone else is making poor decisions about their health? Just make better ones and you'll live longer and better than they do. They obviously don't care about making themselves healthier, why should you?
Look at it this way: would you appreciate a law forcing you to eat unhealthily? Of course not. Why not? Because you don't want someone else telling you what you have to eat. Yet that's exactly what YOU want to do to everyone else. Where do you get off making decisions for everyone else?
Why not just move on to the logical conclusion? Let's put everyone into a bubble as soon as they're born, and then never let them out until the day they die. That way we can ensure that they never have to take any of that nasty 'personal responsibility' for any of their actions, and they'll be COMPLETELY SAFE and NEVER GET SICK and NEVER GET HURT and won't that be wonderful?
I notice you skipped the part where you told me that banking crises never happened and I proved you wrong. Also, if a company goes out of business (as happened to many during the Depression), its stock becomes worthless. It is ridiculous to say that stock in a busted company will be worth more 20 years in the future than gold. I'm sure you won't admit you're wrong, even if your 'wealth' vanishes into the electric cloud from which it was spawned. You didn't see gold dealers jumping out of windows in '29. If something has the value it has because a government says it does, and that item is considered legal tender by that government, it is fiat currency. That is the definition. I'm sorry if you want it to mean something else, so that it will support your ideas, but it doesn't. It means what it means, not what you wish it meant. Just as with everything else in life, your wishes have no effect upon reality.
You load the questions with the answer you are expecting already telegraphed in the question.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Yes, stocks are more risky. I've made that clear. However, if you take $1000 and put it in a stock picked with a dart and $1000 into some random bit of gold, 10 years later the stock is more likely to be worth more than the gold.
These two statements are incompatible. Not to mention that you've provided NO evidence for your assertion that a random stock is likely to be worth anything in 10 years, much less more than gold. Why haven't you? Because it doesn't exist.
That's obvious, so why are you asking a question you know the answer to?
Because you were attempting to pretend that it wasn't obvious and that in fact stocks aren't risky/time intensive.
You answered "none" but in a manner to make it appear that you do use some. You exclusively use fiat currency, but carry around some gold and silver stamped into a fiat currency to make you feel better about it.
Now you are straight up lying. You even QUOTED ME later in your post directly contradicting what you just said. What, like I wouldn't notice?
Then it is fiat currency.
No it is not. You seem to be unclear as to what fiat currency is. If something has intrinsic value it CANNOT be fiat currency. Fiat cuurency only has what value a government assigns to it. Seriously, you claim to be competent enough to speak on financial matters and you can't even get this tiny obvious thing right? Come on.
If you expect that when you use them you will get more than the face value of them, then you are not carrying them as currency, but as a commodity (or as a numismatist).
Duh. As previously noted, YOU ASKED me "What do you have in your pocket?" I answered that question. Then you made a bunch of unwarranted assumptions such as that I carry everything that I carry in my pocket for the express purpose of using it as currency. That isn't true of my keys, it isn't true of my cigs, it isn't true of my prox badge, and it isn't true of my coins. However, I do carry them in my pocket and they are currency.
I'd lose a few thousand in my checking account and I'd have a few thousand owed to banks on cars disappear, so it would be a wash.
Right. I'm *sure* they'd just forget about the money you owed them. That's assuming that you are actually financing through a bank and not through the dealer or another finance company. Anyway, for what would you exchange your stock if no banks were open? Could you trade them for food? Not likely. Also, it is highly unlikely that companies would be unaffected by such an event. Remeber the S&L scandal of the 80s? I don't remember reading about all the people that lost their life savings in gold during that event, that according to you never happens. To your point that monetary systems don't collapse, every monetary system collapses eventually. Now, you're saying that it won't happen during your lifetime. I'm inclined to agree with you. However, to claim that it isn't a possibility is sticking your head in the sand. You're free to do that, but in the unlikely event that our economy crashes, you will not be able to give your stock away while I will be able to trade my metal for goods and services. That isn't the only reason for investing in metal, however. Silver has numerous industrial uses, with more being developed every day. If you don't believe me, perhaps you'd believe Warren Buffett? He bought something on the order of 1.5 million ounces of silver recently. I think he knows a little bit about investing....but not according to you.
that is, they owe you the gold you "own" but it isn't gold that is sitting somewhere with your name stamped on it.
Well, actually, that is exactly how it works. I am not talking about 'shares' of warehouse gold. Digital gold is fully backed by real actual metal.
The point is, if they go under, it is quite possible that
Now, let's ignore the fact that you've failed to answer my questions re: random stock vs. random ounce of gold many, many, many, many times now. Now you're trying to change your question to me, which was answered. I carry at all times at least one gold coin, one silver coin, and a few 'silver dollars'. Now, the currency I carry is US gold and silver coin. It is not fiat currency (excepting the 'silver dollars' because they aren't actually silver). Just because it can be exchanged for fiat currency does not make it fiat currency. Houses, cars, cows, and many other things can be exchanged for fiat currency. That doesn't make them fiat currency. When they were minted, they were US legal tender, with a value approximating face value. Just because they're now worth much more as metal doesn't mean that they aren't coins anymore. If you were trying to find out what I actually exchange for goods and services, you should have asked that instead of what I carry in my pocket. I use digital gold as much as possible, and I use (again, i USE, not LIKE) fiat currency for whatever else I need. However, I do not keep large holdings of fiat currency, even though I do USE, not LIKE, it. I go through the hassle of converting real/digital gold to fiat currency when I must. I get paid in numbers on a screen, which I convert most of to digital gold or precious metals. If every bank in America shut down tomorrow, I'd lose a few hundred bucks. How about you?
I have a mixture of currencies in my pocket right now. Gold, silver, and fiat. I said I do not LIKE fiat currency. I never said that I do not USE it. You have serious reading comprehension problems, and you assume far too much.
Actually, no. I just post to./ from work, and I switched schedules this week. Your problem is that you assume too much. I notice you still haven't mentioned the amount of research it takes to make money in the stock world...while some of us make more money working our regular jobs. I prefer to buy something inherently valuable, not spend all day poring over the WSJ/online sites/etc. Would you invest in random stocks? I'd invest in random ounces of gold. You, sir, are teh idiot.
Then I wasn't clear. Name a specific currency (not a type of currency) that you do not have a problem with. US dollars, Canadian Dollars, Mexican Pesos, the Euro, etc. Some country's specific currency that you would be happy with.
Any currency based off gold, silver, or platinum. What do you not understand about that? I do not like any fiat currency, so I will not bother to name every fiat currency in existence when I can just say, "I do not like any fiat currency." Same with backed currencies. I like any backed currency as well as any other backed currency, and dislike any fiat currency. I can not make it any simpler nor clearer than that. I will not respond in any other manner, so please stop repeating yourself. If you want a list of currencies that I do or do not like, get yourself a nice list of world currencies, and ask the same question about each of them: is this currency a fiat currency or is it backed by real property? If the answer is 'it is a fiat currency' then I do not like it. If it is backed by real property, I like it. Do you understand now? I really didn't think it would be this difficult...but then again, you prefer paper to gold.
The value may drop, but one of the largest companies in the world will not be valuless just because of currency failures. If that were to happen, then your gold would be valuless as well (as society would pretty much have collapsed).
Simply not true. Look at the South after the War of Northern Aggression, Germany after WWII, Argentina in the '90s, etc. The currency completely failed, along with many, many businesses....but the value of gold went WAY up. That's because people will trade goods and services for gold even when paper money is worthless. This has happened in every hyperinflation cycle ever, and hyperinflation is one problem that all fiat currencies face sooner or later. This goes all the way back to the first recorded fiat currency, Chinese mullberry bark money. But you knew that, and just chose to lie about it, right?
Was the link not clear enough? I posted a link to a document with a nice graph for you. Oh, by the way, why are you bothering to price your gold against the dollar? You admit that it is a worthless currency, so any comparison to it would seem to be worthless as well.
You posted a random hyperlink. Perhaps, if I were like you, I'd believe everything I read on the Web, but I'm not. Oh, by the way...straw man arguments make you look stupid. I never once said that the dollar is a worthless currency. I used the dollar because you did, and I wanted to prove that it's extremely easy to manipulate statistics to get the results you want. That's why I asked for your NUMBERS and not your LINK. I notice you have completely avoided answering the 'random stock vs random ounce of gold' argument. Why? (Note: that was rhetorical. Of course you're going to avoid such a damning point.)
Well, name a currency that you don't have a problem with.
sure, any gold/silver/platinum-based currency. That would be a non-fiat currency. I thought that would be painfully apparent.
Investing in Microsoft with USD is not related to the dollar. Sure, the value of the shares is tied to the dollar, but if the dollar were to cease to exist tomorrow, I'd still own a percentage of Microsoft.
That is assuming that Microsoft can exist without the dollar. That's a mighty big assumption, there, pardner. You think things would just smoothly switch to the Euro or something if the dollar fell through the floor? I'm not saying things wouldn't eventually stabilize, because of course they would, but it would take some time...during which your stocks wouldn't be worth anything. How well do stocks survive the folding of the company? How much would you pay for some standard oil stock from 1900? Yet gold from that time period still has value. Its value is also not predicated upon the success or failure of any one business, industry, or currency. You cannot say the same about stocks.
The rest of your argument misses one important point: it doesn't matter which particular ounce of gold you have. It matters VERY much which particular stock you have. EVERY ounce of gold, even if using your numbers, performs the same. Not every stock does. That's why stocks are gambles and gold is a sure thing. Plus, I'd like to see the numbers you're using.
avg gold price per ounce in USD 2000 - 279.11 avg gold price per ounce in USD 2007 - 657.98
?What did I say that depended on the value of the dollar? In fact, I gave specific advice if you don't like the dollar.
Your advice was to invest in a different fiat currency. That doesn't avoid the problems with the dollar, since they are problems common to all fiat currencies (although it's true that the degree of problem varies with the particular fiat currency).
What, about stocks appreciating better than gold? I certainly do believe that.
My condolences.
Gold is not an "investment" any more than buying canned foods is an investment.
Gold isn't consumed the way canned food is. If you bought canned food not to eat, but to sell after a disaster, then it would be an investment. It might not pan out, but that's what it would be. Gold is something you buy with the intention of either reselling at a profit later or selling at need in an emergency. That makes it an investment.
Yes, it's a commodity with a fluctuating value, but that doesn't make it an investment any more than a pile of fiat currency shoved under the mattress.
Actually, gold has gained quite a bit of value relative to fiat currency in recent years. If you purchased gold in the 1980s, for example, you would be able to resell it for quite a few more dollar bills than you plunked down to purchase it. Had you shoved dollar bills under your mattress, they would actually be worth *less* now than they were when you put them under your bed. Not the same thing at all.
You may have made a purchase, but you didn't make an investment.
You are wrong. No wonder you think stocks are better than gold.
Well, you're right, of course, but that removes the irony:) I urge everyone to do what Brewster did (in the remake starring richard pryor): vote None of the Above! I always said richard pryor was a man ahead of his time.
Wait a minute...you mean choosing between two already-vetted big-business-friendly political insiders isn't really choosing? B-b-but voting is for the people!
I would consider it an improvement as well, but with a government that hides taxes under 'safety' laws like requiring certain types of insurance, wearing of safety belts, speeding tickets, etc, I wouldn't count on it.
I was not referring to the unbelief in a deity. I was referring to things like faith in big bang theory, the existence of quarks, string theory, theory of life evolving from primordial soup, things like that. I'm not saying that all atheists share the same leaps of faith, of course, and I hardly gave an exhaustive list just then. You get the idea, though, I hope.
certainly true, but of course you have no recourse should they decide to revoke such a policy, nor do you have actionable cause against them should they not follow their own 'free speech' policy.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, there is no objective evidence that HFCS or Aspartame are bad for you.p
A hahAH. Oh my God you just gave me the best laugh I've had in years. Like there's no objective evidence that it isn't the best idea in the world to coat your lungs in radioactive tar. Like there's no objective evidence that drinking to excess is a bad idea. Oh, but no one does either of those things, because they know they're unhealthy, right? You really are a funny one.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.as
Whenever I drink or eat anything with aspartame in it, I get a massive headache. Over 75% of all FDA complaints involve aspartame. Of course, that's anecdotal evidence. However, it doesn't need to convince anyone besides me, for which purpose it works fine. You don't have to believe anything you don't want to believe.
In other words, you have no problem jumping to unwarranted conclusions just because it's an artificial sweetener.
No, no need for 'other words'. The words I used worked just fine. I do not have to explain my beliefs, especially when I put a disclaimer in the very sentence you quoted. I did not state that 'sucralose is bad for you because it's an artificial sweetner', which is what you said. I said that, in my belief, which is not yet backed up by data, it is probably bad for you. Do you have citable statistical data for every single belief you hold? Well, obviously not, because your belief about what I said is provably wrong. Oh, but it's YOUR belief, so it can be based on whatever you want. It's only the beliefs of OTHERS that must be backed by statistical data, right? (note that while I believe that to be your viewpoint, it's based solely upon what you wrote and is not backed by a clinical, double-blind test.)
If you can provide some honest, objective evidence that these things are unhealthy, then I'm sure people would come around.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHahahahahAHAhaHAhAhAhAhAhAhAHAHAHH
Believe it or not, people do care about what they eat, for the most part--
Really? I don't believe it. You haven't provided any statistical data for your assertion...yet again your hypocrisy manifests itself.
but most people have enough sense listen to the doctors and scientists who have studied these additives and found them to be safe.
Really? What studies found aspartame to be safe? The ones conducted by the manufacturers of aspartame or the one presided over by the head of the FDA who later went to work for the manufacturers of aspartame? The ones where humans were given aspartame in slow-dissolving caplets? The ones where the aspartame wasn't allowed to be cooked, although it's approved for baking and cooking use? Can you cite your sources, please? (of course not)
The headlines are not screaming "Aspartame shown to cause xyz syndrome." Medical researchers are not infallible, of course, but I have more reason to believe them than to believe you.
Yes, because medical researchers didn't tell us saccharine was safe. They didn't tell us fenphen was safe. They didn't tell us that the IUD was safe. They didn't tell us that trichloroethylene was safe. They didn't tell us that thalidomide was safe. Oh, wait...
The difference is that I don't actually care if you believe me. I hope that you don't. I hope that you enjoy a huge amount of aspartame every day, and that it actually is safe for you. I don't hold my beliefs because I want others to blindly follow them. If your research (er I mean "research") leads you to a conclusion, great! But don't expect me to change my beliefs simply because some random internet guy doesn't agree with them...especially when you are so obviously clueless.
I'm not saying that you're clueless because of your assertions, but because of the manner in which they were presented. Again, this belief that I hold isn't based on any clinical data. Sorry.
Dude, come on. They'll fix it easy: They'll pass a law making it illegal to use police wiretapping spyware except for legal purposes. Problem solved! You can solve anything with laws, which is why we have over 2million pages of them in this country! Laws are wonderful and solve any problem with ease. The only solution to any problem is obviously to pass many, many more laws.
Well, they'd better find an alternative source of plastic for those things first. Otherwise we'd actually HAVE an oil crisis. There're a lot of people in this country...
While HFCS is sweeter, compared to refined cane sure or raw sugar it has a nasty taste and an even worse aftertaste. If you can't taste the nastiness, then you're probably just used to it. Lay off of HFCS drinkgs/foods for a few weeks and then try switching back.
No way. I stopped consuming HFCS a while back, and I wouldn't go back if you paid me. (well, ok, it would depend on how much.)
Aspartame is bad for you, as bad or worse than HFCS. I believe sucralose is, too, but there isn't enough data yet. I would urge people to avoid artificial sweeteners as fervently as maltodextrin/HFCS.
My only comment on this is the government should stop subsidizing unhealthy food (ie, corn derivatives). If the people want it, that's fine. Just don't make junk artificially cheaper. Likewise, don't make it artificially more expensive (ie, cane sugar). The market should set the prices, not the government.
We are in perfect agreement about this. My whole point was not that *I* want to eat HFCS but that the majority of people don't care and wouldn't even if you sat everyone down for a mandatory nation-wide training class. It's obvious that the people who work at Coca Cola, Pepsico, etc don't give a shit about their customers' health. It's obvious their customers don't either. Why should I?
That's why I didn't say that.
You didn't specify. You said stock would be worth more in 20 years than gold. I merely pointed out that you can't take any random stock and expect that. You still do, though.
You have said that your gold is in an electronic cloud as well.
No, I never said that. You have a large misunderstanding of what digital gold is. I suspect it to be intentional, and if that's how you want to be, fine. Not only did I SPECIFICALLY mention that i only use digital gold as a PART of my total wealth, and despite the fact that digital gold is backed by REAL, ACTUAL gold and does not exist in the digital cloud (yes, it has digital in the name. So does 'digital watch' and yet it exists in real life, too.)
I agree. And by that definition, your gold coin is not fiat currency. The "value" is not that which the government assigned. It's not currency at all. It's a rock. If you claim that it is currency, then you are asserting that it is worth its face-value in USD. That makes it fiat currency. So, your gold coin is either fiat currency, or not currency at all. Which is it?
OK, that's it. I'm done. I will explain one more time, but I'm through trying to reason with someone who has no reasoning ability.
My gold coin is currency.
Here is the definition of currency: 1. something that is used as a medium of exchange; money.
So, my gold coin perfectly fits this definition. It *is* currency.
It is NOT fiat currency. Fiat currency is a subset of currency, not something which is mutually exclusinve with currency.
Here is the definition of fiat currency: In economics, fiat currency or fiat money is money backed by government demand for it as legal tender in payment of legal liabilities, such as taxes. It is often associated with paper money because legal liabilities are created and settled by documents which are usually paper.
I really don't understand how you told me my coin wasn't fiat currency...that's what I was saying. It *is* currency, but it is not *fiat* currency. So what is your point?
If you claim that it is currency, then you are asserting that it is worth its face-value in USD.
No, this completely and totally ignorant. That's like claiming that a rectangle is necessarily a square. No, a square is necessarily a rectangle, because square is a subset of rectangle. What that means is that all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Do you see how that works? ALL fiat currency is currency (up until it stops being backed by the government that printed it) but not all currency is fiat currency.
You are also clearly deluded as to the difference between average and individual performance. You keep talking about how stocks always outperform gold. Well, I'm sure I can find individual baseball cards that have far outperformed gold, too. That doesn't mean that MY baseball card collection contains those cards, however. Even if baseball cards as a whole outperform gold, that doesn't give any guarantee that MY baseball cards will outperform gold. Yet any ounce of gold is identical to any other. No matter what you say I doubt you would take 100 shares of a completely random stock over 10 ounces of gold, and if you would you should be 'investing' in the lottery...because it ALWAYS outperforms the stock market...by a LARGE margin.
Public roads, parks, nationalised pension plans are provided for everyone, not just those who maintain a healthy lifestyle.
That was my point. If something is public, then it's open to the public...not just the healthy public.
Transportation is not necessarily a health issue, nor are parks. My nationalised pension plan was contributory - I have paid for the pension that I am now receiving, thank you.
I don't know how it works where you are, but our nationalized pension plan is contributory too - about 11 of us are contributing to pay 1 retired person's benefits (mind you they paid into the system as well). This is why I'm against pretty much all nationalized services. They end up costing the people who plan and save and care more than those who go through life expecting someone else to take care of them.
I am not arguing for the right to be able to buy fatty things for myself but not allow anyone else the right to do the same.
No, you are arguing that other people shouldn't be allowed to spend their money in a way you do not spend your money. What I was pointing out is that you want the freedom to spend your money the way you want, but you wish to deny that for others. Just because you don't want to spend your money a certain way does not give you the right to tell others they cannot.
But when I am taxed at source to fund a spiralling health bill which, in part, pays for the cost of smokers and obese people, then I DO object to having my money spent for me.
Well, here again we are at the root of the problem. You cannot control where the government spends your money. That is why pet projects, waste, fraud, and graft are endemic to politics. The only solution to this problem is to reduce the amount of money that the government gets to spend. You cannot stop the government wasting your money, so it seems odd to think you'll be able to tell them how to spend it in this case.
As I have said, for genuine medical problems I have no complaint.
Well, then you either have to be medically competent to diagnose such problems, so you can tell the difference, and politically active enough to have oversight...or you have to trust the government to do a good job of making that determination for you. Neither option sounds realistic to me.
People should be taxed according to their income for the good of all.
You make a few assumptions here: 1. that people are being taxed according to their income and 2. that this money is used for the good of all. I would be fatally shocked to hear the either is true on a macro level.
But the system is, in effect, being abused by those who do not look after their health but expect me to pay for their treatment.
As all such systems are abused. Welfare, health care, free lunch, foster care, name a government program and change the words 'health' and 'treatment' to whatever words fit that program and you've described every government program ever.
The outright removal of taxes is unrealistic.
Why? I'm not talking about user fees or import/export levies. I'm referring specifically to income, sales, and VAT. You make such a sweeping statement, but you have provided no evidence. I do not accept this assertion.
My wife has a serious medical problem. It is not caused by any fault of her own nor is it curable. In the worst cases it can be fatal. I expect medical support for her (having paid my taxes for over 40 years) and I do not begrudge others from receiving medical treatment when it is required.
Well, I am sorry to hear about your wife. What I don't understand is why her care should be the burden of other taxpayers. It isn't their fault, either. I understand that you've paid your taxes and want to get something in return for them, which makes perfect sense. But that doesn't explain the system to begin with. Would you not have had more money for your wife's treatment if you had never had taxes to pay?
I contend that
Who is paying for the lost man hours due to ill-health caused by obesity?
Who would pay for the enforcement/subsidies/whatever your plan calls for? I'll let you answer: "the people who run the business, that's who, and they pass it on to every customer. So, guess what, YOU are paying for it."
Who is paying for the extra burden on the medical support?
Now you're getting into a whole other issue. No, I do NOT support national health care. No, I do NOT support distributing the medical bills of some to all.
Is it all paid by the obese people themselves? Is every hospital, every medical facility paid for by private money and health insurance?
It should be. It's not, but since that's a problem, we should fix that, too.
My healthy lifestyle does not cost anyone else anything to support it.
How can you say that? Do you use public roads? Do you pay into some sort of nationalized retirement plan? Do you use public parks?
Do you use any government services? The answer better be 'no' to all the above, or you just lied to me!
I suspect that their unhealthy lifestyle DOES cost someone other than themselves which is why you not only have a right to have a say in the matter but you should also be actively encouraging them to enjoy a more healthy diet.
Well, you started out strong, but then you faltered. I'll re-write your sentence to be correct:
I suspect that their unhealthy lifestyle DOES cost someone other than themselves which is why we should put an end to the practice of charging everyone else for some people's decisions, not limited to unhealthy eating habits.
There, that's much better.
Freedom for everyone to do as they wish is OK providing that it does not affect my freedom to spend my money as I wish, nor wastes valuable medical resources treating a condition that is of their own making.
So if you wish to spend your money buying fatty foods, that's ok, but it isn't ok for others to do it? Is it only other people who should change their behavior? You want to be able to affect the freedom of others to spend their money as THEY wish, but you want the freedom to spend YOUR money the way YOU wish? That doesn't sound very fair. As far as the medical point, so people should not get medical treatment for broken bones if they willingly engaged in the activity which broke their bones? Or is it only fat people that shouldn't get medical treatment for 'conditions of their own making'?
In general terms, when it has to go in taxes to support those who cannot or will not look after themselves then I want a say in what they do and what they eat.
Again, you're coming at this the wrong way. Why not instead remove the taxes which pay for such things? Then you have more freedom to spend your money the way you want while also affording others the same, instead of restricting them to free yourself. Should I be able to tell you who you can or cannot sleep with because you might contract a disease which you might then get treatment for in a public hospital? How far does it go, and who gets to control whom?
Accidents happen, but obesity in many cases is self inflicted.
Most geneticists would disagree with you, but that's another argument. Some is, sure...but not nearly as much as the media and diet industry would have you belive (and which you obviously do believe)
Those that have a genuine medical condition which results in obesity will get my support, those that are gluttons or simply can't be bothered to look after themselves will not.
And are you qualified to be able to tell the difference? If not, then why does your opinion matter?
No, because you are taking things to an illogical extreme in my opinion.
Well, that was kind of the point. But thank you.
Is there any sound reason for having such high levels of fructose in soft drinks, other than to get rid of the fructose that you have too much off?
Yes, it's called 'Natural Selection'. We need *more* of it, not *less*.
Is there any sound reason for having such high levels of fructose in soft drinks, other than to get rid of the fructose that you have too much off?
I think you meant 'of', not 'off'. Assuming that, sure, of course there is. It's far, far cheaper than pure cane sugar, and not only that it's much sweeter, and people like their sweet stuff.
If the farmers grew oranges, for example, you could simply serve fresh orange juice which is a far healthier alternative to sodas.
Are you suggesting that farmers don't grow oranges? Look, if people wanted to drink orange juice in the quantity that they want to drink soda, then there would be a lot more oranges grown and a lot less soda produced. No one is holding a gun to the public's head and pouring the poison down their throat.
But if people are too stupid not to stop eating the wrong things when they are becoming patently obese what is your better suggestion?
Let them? Then let them deal with the consequences of their actions? Why is this such an unpalatable course of action?
all your government has to do is reduce or remove the subsidies for farmers, they will produce something else, and you will have less fructose to get rid of.
This is nonsensical. It isn't the government which is paying the farmers to grow fructose. It's the food manufacturers. Government subsidies are paid to farmers when they *aren't* growing something for the most part. You don't need to pay people to grow what they are going to sell anyway.
You can therefore reduce its use in foodstuffs.
The only reliable way to do this is to reduce demand for it. However, that doesn't appear likely.
You don't have to put people in a bubble, just stop making it so attractive to produce something you do not need and encourage everyone can eat far more healthily.
People do not WANT to eat healthily. They LOVE things that they don't need. They LOVE things that are bad for them. Why should you care if someone else is making poor decisions about their health? Just make better ones and you'll live longer and better than they do. They obviously don't care about making themselves healthier, why should you?
Look at it this way: would you appreciate a law forcing you to eat unhealthily? Of course not. Why not? Because you don't want someone else telling you what you have to eat. Yet that's exactly what YOU want to do to everyone else. Where do you get off making decisions for everyone else?
Why not just move on to the logical conclusion? Let's put everyone into a bubble as soon as they're born, and then never let them out until the day they die. That way we can ensure that they never have to take any of that nasty 'personal responsibility' for any of their actions, and they'll be COMPLETELY SAFE and NEVER GET SICK and NEVER GET HURT and won't that be wonderful?
If you can't get your theory to fit the facts, then you look for the facts that fit your theory?
I notice you skipped the part where you told me that banking crises never happened and I proved you wrong. Also, if a company goes out of business (as happened to many during the Depression), its stock becomes worthless. It is ridiculous to say that stock in a busted company will be worth more 20 years in the future than gold. I'm sure you won't admit you're wrong, even if your 'wealth' vanishes into the electric cloud from which it was spawned. You didn't see gold dealers jumping out of windows in '29. If something has the value it has because a government says it does, and that item is considered legal tender by that government, it is fiat currency. That is the definition. I'm sorry if you want it to mean something else, so that it will support your ideas, but it doesn't. It means what it means, not what you wish it meant. Just as with everything else in life, your wishes have no effect upon reality.
Yes, but on the bright side, so will all of the dishonest people in that new business.
You load the questions with the answer you are expecting already telegraphed in the question.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Yes, stocks are more risky. I've made that clear.
However, if you take $1000 and put it in a stock picked with a dart and $1000 into some random bit of gold, 10 years later the stock is more likely to be worth more than the gold.
These two statements are incompatible. Not to mention that you've provided NO evidence for your assertion that a random stock is likely to be worth anything in 10 years, much less more than gold. Why haven't you? Because it doesn't exist.
That's obvious, so why are you asking a question you know the answer to?
Because you were attempting to pretend that it wasn't obvious and that in fact stocks aren't risky/time intensive.
You answered "none" but in a manner to make it appear that you do use some. You exclusively use fiat currency, but carry around some gold and silver stamped into a fiat currency to make you feel better about it.
Now you are straight up lying. You even QUOTED ME later in your post directly contradicting what you just said. What, like I wouldn't notice?
Then it is fiat currency.
No it is not. You seem to be unclear as to what fiat currency is. If something has intrinsic value it CANNOT be fiat currency. Fiat cuurency only has what value a government assigns to it. Seriously, you claim to be competent enough to speak on financial matters and you can't even get this tiny obvious thing right? Come on.
If you expect that when you use them you will get more than the face value of them, then you are not carrying them as currency, but as a commodity (or as a numismatist).
Duh. As previously noted, YOU ASKED me "What do you have in your pocket?" I answered that question. Then you made a bunch of unwarranted assumptions such as that I carry everything that I carry in my pocket for the express purpose of using it as currency. That isn't true of my keys, it isn't true of my cigs, it isn't true of my prox badge, and it isn't true of my coins. However, I do carry them in my pocket and they are currency.
I'd lose a few thousand in my checking account and I'd have a few thousand owed to banks on cars disappear, so it would be a wash.
Right. I'm *sure* they'd just forget about the money you owed them. That's assuming that you are actually financing through a bank and not through the dealer or another finance company. Anyway, for what would you exchange your stock if no banks were open? Could you trade them for food? Not likely. Also, it is highly unlikely that companies would be unaffected by such an event. Remeber the S&L scandal of the 80s? I don't remember reading about all the people that lost their life savings in gold during that event, that according to you never happens. To your point that monetary systems don't collapse, every monetary system collapses eventually. Now, you're saying that it won't happen during your lifetime. I'm inclined to agree with you. However, to claim that it isn't a possibility is sticking your head in the sand. You're free to do that, but in the unlikely event that our economy crashes, you will not be able to give your stock away while I will be able to trade my metal for goods and services. That isn't the only reason for investing in metal, however. Silver has numerous industrial uses, with more being developed every day. If you don't believe me, perhaps you'd believe Warren Buffett? He bought something on the order of 1.5 million ounces of silver recently. I think he knows a little bit about investing....but not according to you.
that is, they owe you the gold you "own" but it isn't gold that is sitting somewhere with your name stamped on it.
Well, actually, that is exactly how it works. I am not talking about 'shares' of warehouse gold. Digital gold is fully backed by real actual metal.
The point is, if they go under, it is quite possible that
Now, let's ignore the fact that you've failed to answer my questions re: random stock vs. random ounce of gold many, many, many, many times now. Now you're trying to change your question to me, which was answered. I carry at all times at least one gold coin, one silver coin, and a few 'silver dollars'. Now, the currency I carry is US gold and silver coin. It is not fiat currency (excepting the 'silver dollars' because they aren't actually silver). Just because it can be exchanged for fiat currency does not make it fiat currency. Houses, cars, cows, and many other things can be exchanged for fiat currency. That doesn't make them fiat currency. When they were minted, they were US legal tender, with a value approximating face value. Just because they're now worth much more as metal doesn't mean that they aren't coins anymore. If you were trying to find out what I actually exchange for goods and services, you should have asked that instead of what I carry in my pocket. I use digital gold as much as possible, and I use (again, i USE, not LIKE) fiat currency for whatever else I need. However, I do not keep large holdings of fiat currency, even though I do USE, not LIKE, it. I go through the hassle of converting real/digital gold to fiat currency when I must. I get paid in numbers on a screen, which I convert most of to digital gold or precious metals. If every bank in America shut down tomorrow, I'd lose a few hundred bucks. How about you?
I have a mixture of currencies in my pocket right now. Gold, silver, and fiat. I said I do not LIKE fiat currency. I never said that I do not USE it. You have serious reading comprehension problems, and you assume far too much.
Here, if you have a brain, use it: Link.
Actually, no. I just post to ./ from work, and I switched schedules this week. Your problem is that you assume too much. I notice you still haven't mentioned the amount of research it takes to make money in the stock world...while some of us make more money working our regular jobs. I prefer to buy something inherently valuable, not spend all day poring over the WSJ/online sites/etc. Would you invest in random stocks? I'd invest in random ounces of gold. You, sir, are teh idiot.
Then I wasn't clear. Name a specific currency (not a type of currency) that you do not have a problem with. US dollars, Canadian Dollars, Mexican Pesos, the Euro, etc. Some country's specific currency that you would be happy with.
Any currency based off gold, silver, or platinum. What do you not understand about that? I do not like any fiat currency, so I will not bother to name every fiat currency in existence when I can just say, "I do not like any fiat currency." Same with backed currencies. I like any backed currency as well as any other backed currency, and dislike any fiat currency. I can not make it any simpler nor clearer than that. I will not respond in any other manner, so please stop repeating yourself. If you want a list of currencies that I do or do not like, get yourself a nice list of world currencies, and ask the same question about each of them: is this currency a fiat currency or is it backed by real property? If the answer is 'it is a fiat currency' then I do not like it. If it is backed by real property, I like it. Do you understand now? I really didn't think it would be this difficult...but then again, you prefer paper to gold.
The value may drop, but one of the largest companies in the world will not be valuless just because of currency failures. If that were to happen, then your gold would be valuless as well (as society would pretty much have collapsed).
Simply not true. Look at the South after the War of Northern Aggression, Germany after WWII, Argentina in the '90s, etc. The currency completely failed, along with many, many businesses....but the value of gold went WAY up. That's because people will trade goods and services for gold even when paper money is worthless. This has happened in every hyperinflation cycle ever, and hyperinflation is one problem that all fiat currencies face sooner or later. This goes all the way back to the first recorded fiat currency, Chinese mullberry bark money. But you knew that, and just chose to lie about it, right?
Was the link not clear enough? I posted a link to a document with a nice graph for you. Oh, by the way, why are you bothering to price your gold against the dollar? You admit that it is a worthless currency, so any comparison to it would seem to be worthless as well.
You posted a random hyperlink. Perhaps, if I were like you, I'd believe everything I read on the Web, but I'm not.
Oh, by the way...straw man arguments make you look stupid. I never once said that the dollar is a worthless currency. I used the dollar because you did, and I wanted to prove that it's extremely easy to manipulate statistics to get the results you want. That's why I asked for your NUMBERS and not your LINK. I notice you have completely avoided answering the 'random stock vs random ounce of gold' argument. Why? (Note: that was rhetorical. Of course you're going to avoid such a damning point.)
Well, name a currency that you don't have a problem with.
sure, any gold/silver/platinum-based currency. That would be a non-fiat currency. I thought that would be painfully apparent.
Investing in Microsoft with USD is not related to the dollar. Sure, the value of the shares is tied to the dollar, but if the dollar were to cease to exist tomorrow, I'd still own a percentage of Microsoft.
That is assuming that Microsoft can exist without the dollar. That's a mighty big assumption, there, pardner. You think things would just smoothly switch to the Euro or something if the dollar fell through the floor? I'm not saying things wouldn't eventually stabilize, because of course they would, but it would take some time...during which your stocks wouldn't be worth anything. How well do stocks survive the folding of the company? How much would you pay for some standard oil stock from 1900? Yet gold from that time period still has value. Its value is also not predicated upon the success or failure of any one business, industry, or currency. You cannot say the same about stocks.
The rest of your argument misses one important point: it doesn't matter which particular ounce of gold you have. It matters VERY much which particular stock you have. EVERY ounce of gold, even if using your numbers, performs the same. Not every stock does. That's why stocks are gambles and gold is a sure thing. Plus, I'd like to see the numbers you're using.
avg gold price per ounce in USD 2000 - 279.11
avg gold price per ounce in USD 2007 - 657.98
See? I can manipulate data, too.
?What did I say that depended on the value of the dollar? In fact, I gave specific advice if you don't like the dollar.
Your advice was to invest in a different fiat currency. That doesn't avoid the problems with the dollar, since they are problems common to all fiat currencies (although it's true that the degree of problem varies with the particular fiat currency).
What, about stocks appreciating better than gold? I certainly do believe that.
My condolences.
Gold is not an "investment" any more than buying canned foods is an investment.
Gold isn't consumed the way canned food is. If you bought canned food not to eat, but to sell after a disaster, then it would be an investment. It might not pan out, but that's what it would be. Gold is something you buy with the intention of either reselling at a profit later or selling at need in an emergency. That makes it an investment.
Yes, it's a commodity with a fluctuating value, but that doesn't make it an investment any more than a pile of fiat currency shoved under the mattress.
Actually, gold has gained quite a bit of value relative to fiat currency in recent years. If you purchased gold in the 1980s, for example, you would be able to resell it for quite a few more dollar bills than you plunked down to purchase it. Had you shoved dollar bills under your mattress, they would actually be worth *less* now than they were when you put them under your bed. Not the same thing at all.
You may have made a purchase, but you didn't make an investment.
You are wrong. No wonder you think stocks are better than gold.
Well, you're right, of course, but that removes the irony :)
I urge everyone to do what Brewster did (in the remake starring richard pryor): vote None of the Above!
I always said richard pryor was a man ahead of his time.
Wait a minute...you mean choosing between two already-vetted big-business-friendly political insiders isn't really choosing? B-b-but voting is for the people!
I would consider it an improvement as well, but with a government that hides taxes under 'safety' laws like requiring certain types of insurance, wearing of safety belts, speeding tickets, etc, I wouldn't count on it.
*smacks forehead* of course!
I just love the word 'passport'!
I was not referring to the unbelief in a deity. I was referring to things like faith in big bang theory, the existence of quarks, string theory, theory of life evolving from primordial soup, things like that. I'm not saying that all atheists share the same leaps of faith, of course, and I hardly gave an exhaustive list just then. You get the idea, though, I hope.
certainly true, but of course you have no recourse should they decide to revoke such a policy, nor do you have actionable cause against them should they not follow their own 'free speech' policy.