Speaking of control.
You know darned well gas should be not just at least $5 but well above that at $90+ a barrel.
Why are they holding back?
You know why, because they control every single aspect of the economy including the price fixing of gas.
The Fed, The President and the Corporations all in 110% control of all of it.
The Earthquakes. They are occuring as I said after the west side of the plate flaired up.
Chile getting rocked to the south and Alaska to the north.
Don't worry Californians will be surfing to land waves soon enough.
"Bots" eh?
I've abandoned my Oil, Economy and Internet threads et al.
Now you can stare at Ron Paul and Anti-Hillary Threads till your hearts content.
Enjoy
Delita
Senior member
- Jan 12, 2006
- 931
- 0
- 76
PDF LINK
Macroeconomic Effects of Oil Price Shocks
Im sure <1% of you will even read any of this because you think you already know everything about economics (especially Dave), let alone understand it (save legendkiller).
Since you seem to pretend you are so smart, why do you tell US why the Fed is bad. Or do you not do that because you don't really understand, but you saw a Youtube video that did all the thinking for you.
Also, a cursory glance at those forums shows that you are in trouble of being debated in any reasonable form Legendkiller.
Let's put the war and it's cost in perspective. With the system we have now, Congress will approve funding and spend money they don't have; the military gets that money for which we and our progeny will get the bill somewhere down the road. But if you do it Ron's way, you raise taxes right now to pay for the war, in which case it lasts for 30 days because fiscal responsibility is required when you cannot create dollars ex-nihilo. Congress would get an earful from us.
It would give us a chance to reduce a $9 trillion debt and $60 trillion in future obligations
C'mon legend, go over there. This is an important issue to resolve and I'd like to see the discussion.
Ron Paul wins SC straw poll
I hereby declare Ron Paul top tier !
It would give us a chance to reduce a $9 trillion debt and $60 trillion in future obligations
C'mon legend, go over there. This is an important issue to resolve and I'd like to see the discussion.
Ron Paul wins SC straw poll
I hereby declare Ron Paul top tier !
Every time I start to get excited about Ron Paul (like when I found out how great his position was on homeschooling), I see the 9/11 trilateral commission world government Amero asshats trot out another stupid thread, I remember his positions on this stuff, and I get alienated again.
Bahahahaha an old British report with ties to the Bush/Blair joined at the hip boys.
Come on. Who are you Cheney?
Delita
Senior member
- Jan 12, 2006
- 931
- 0
- 76
Olivier Blanchard is acutally a pretty prestigious economist. But I guess you already knew that being the brilliant mind you are. And yeah, August 2007 is way too old. Reports that aren't published with in the last week are totally wrong. And yes this is Cheney. You've become such a threat to my administration that I felt the need to jump on these forums and bash you. Good thing you never thought it might be a good idea to run for president...then I might really have gotten worried.
Like you have any idea about monetary policy lol
Wanna explain what happens when 70% of your GDP is from consumer spending? What effect does that have on our future? How does that effect import/export? What happens after more and more countries stop using our currency as the basis for trade and our consumerism is at that level? Can we sustain 2/3 of our GDP in consumerism when our dollar is falling like it is? Can you answer those questions? Or will you wait for legendkiller to come in and save your ass?
I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why it should be illegal to have a competing private currency.
It would be inconvenient, annoying, etc, etc, those are not valid arguments for why it should be *illegal* but are certainly valid reasons for not wanting to use it for yourself or your businesses.
The interstate commerce clause has been used as a blank check so to speak by the government to regulate everything for far too long.
The Fed yes they are good and bad.
It would be inconvenient, annoying, etc, etc, those are not valid arguments for why it should be *illegal* but are certainly valid reasons for not wanting to use it for yourself or your businesses.
The interstate commerce clause has been used as a blank check so to speak by the government to regulate everything for far too long.
The Fed yes they are good and bad.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
And just when I thought it was safe to post in a RP thread, it zooms off topic
Anyway, while I disagree with many of the Fed's choices, I have to admit it's one of the best systems out there, and I'd hate like hell to see congress in charge.
What other country in the modern world has two currencies? It's mainly because it adds complexity. Complexity adds cost. Cost adds friction into transactions. Friction adds confusion, time, money, and lack of transparency. Lack of transparency, ease of use, short transactions, and cheap transactions reduces investments, spending, and other transactions.
Sure, 100 years ago, or longer, it would be "ok" to have a country have several currencies. That's because everything was delinked and we didn't have as huge of an economy. Now, if we had a major competing currency, this country would instantly, overnight, lose it's position in the world.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter