🤨
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (18)
sorted by:
Silver is,
and has
always
been the money of
Free People !!!
It would serve all good to learn / review the free silver planks of nationalist movements from the past.
That’s actually very interesting. I like the picture too, it’s a good conversation piece. /saved.
Thanks!
While 5 silver quarters would give you about an ounce of silver. I wouldn’t call it sound money. The value of the quarter remains at $0.25 even if the silver price is higher. It is not sound to have money that has melt value greater than the denomination of the actual currency. No one would spend it, it would be foolish.
No shit, Sherlock
This introduces some unforeseen problems, like R&D would practically grind to a half. Using depreciating debt to fund future profits has created a crazy feedback loop of technology.
Consider the relative cost of an iPhone in 1964, it would be billions upon billions of dollars.
You could make a very strong argument that such growth is neither needed nor wanted and fair enough, but it is still a point that needs to be considered.
I don't understand the connection between normalizing and standardizing the worth of $.25 and your comment. Can you explain? How are you calculating the relative cost, for instance?
The devaluation of currency (inflation) causes debt to depreciate.
Isn't that technically manipuIating doIIar worth? And isn't debt primarily how the U.S. doIIar is trying to stay relevant only after moving away from the goIdstandard? I mean, I do admit I'm not exactly knowledgeable about this kinda thing, but is it possible that this is abandaid soIution that only is necessary because the actual probIem has never been addressed?
Yes, if your goal is inflation, you manipulate the currency to inflate in a stable manner.
I don't understand your question about the gold standard. The US dollar is relevant because you need it, on a state level, to buy and sell oil and on a personally level to buy and sell milk or whatever.
Inflation invites growth. It does so by devaluing debt, allowing for people to pull money from the future at a discount, provided they invest it toward the future.
You can argue that endless growth isn't a great goal and fair enough, but to ignore that growth and think that everything would be the same, only we'd all be richer is foolish. If money didn't inflate, we'd be decades behind where we currently are in technological development.
I mean on an international level. Ever since 1971, the US had to rely on something, and it was my understanding that seIIing debt as an investment was one of two ways the country managed. The other is thepetrodoIIar, of course.
That being said, I think I understand what you're saying. It's an investment. But is it sustainable is my question? It seems defauIting is an inevitability with such a system.
That is the big question, is it sustainable? I don't know.
Like a slower run up to our eventual technological destruction?
Gold destroys the Fed.
Silver destroys the Banks.