https://sdbullion.com/silver/silver-rounds/1-oz-silver-rounds?p=1&product_list_order=price <------ fake coins. They sell hundreds of millions of them. And even with that demand the price still is not even close to what people claim it should be at.
If silver really had a value of $1000 like some people try to claim, there would be nothing that would keep it in the low double digits range.
The only way that silver gains a valuation of $1000 is if governments fiat it as valued at $1000. Then we are only marginally better than the current fiat currencies we have.
Well, that kind of ruins it for me. There was a post before showing the military not saluting him and so forth arguing the military does not consider him as CiC, but here he was getting a clear salute and is using the President's aircraft...
Most states already allowed citizens to elect their senators at the point this was put in place.
Do not get rid of the 17th Amendment, they can continue to allow elections. Make a new one that FORCES the state congresses to APPOINT their senators.
Sorry, but there is no reason at this point in time to turn silver into a currency except to cause disorder in the economy. It is an industrial material used almost everywhere, including medicine.
As such, it's value is determined directly by supply and demand, and much of the demand is already in the form of fake coins sold by the hundreds of millions if not billions.
If silver were turned into a form of true currency, this would create a fake valuing system on it by creating a false demand on a limited supply product. Because of its widespread heavy use in industry it would cause a significant upheaval of industry across the board.
Gold is a much more useful form of currency, as its use in industry is quite limited with respect to its supply. It is used primarily in jewelry. Taking gold out of the system to turn it into currency would not significantly upend the industrial base. The amount of gold used in industry is very limited and any cost increase could be much more easily absorbed since many items are high value items that can absorb the fraction cost increase.
She was absolutely correct. It was exactly what democracy is like. Which is why our founding fathers discarded the concept of making America a democratic nation and instead chose to make it a Constitutional Republic with limited Democratic Process.
Democracy is mob rule.
It does not stop the corruption any at all. Instead of every 48 years making maybe 1600 multimillionaires we will be making 4800 multimillionaires.
Instead of having 4 total years of lame duck sessions we will have 48 years of lame duck sessions where enough of those in office are no longer accountable to voters.
It is pretty stupid to think that the politicians take time to become corrupt. It is pretty stupid to think that voters who would vote for a known corrupt politician will not vote for a new corrupt politician.
Really, explain how you get rid of the corruption through term limits? Good luck explaining it.
Term limits just makes politicians unaccountable to the people for their entire last term in office.
Have you ever seen the legislation that gets passed during the lame duck sessions between the election in November and the new congress in January? Imagine that going on indefinitely as politicians no longer able to run for office start their lame duck 2 years or 6 years in advance of the end.
Term limits is an idiots form of reform.
Let me put it this way, the other post is long.
The United States of America government by 1860 had become the equivalent of twitter, face book, google and all the other big tech companies. They favored the North exclusively and they attacked the South exclusively.
Lincoln did the equivalent of jailing the South for the audacity of wanting to be free citizens fairly treated by those they put into power.
On this page and other conservative pages we discuss Texas seceding. Or better yet, Texas and many other red states seceding because our government does not represent us. But we are going to bitch and moan that the south should have been forced to remain part of a government that did not and would not represent them?
I am sorry, but if we believe in our founding fathers wisdom, what Lincoln did was a travesty to their views of the world. Washington would have been first in line if he were alive and living in the south to lead the creation of a Declaration of Independence from the United States of America which he significantly contributed towards creating. The secession might have actually happened far sooner if our founding fathers were alive at that time.
It would have been easy to limit the power of parties. If they would have divided the nation's power into more assemblies and granted the states a greater power to curtail the usurpation of their sovereign powers or those of their citizens, the parties could be more limited.
But when all the power rests in 2 general assemblies of representatives which work together to pass laws, then it is perfectly normal to maximize your power by having only 2 parties.
If for instance the power to tax was its own 2 sets of assemblies. The power to spend was its own 2 sets of assemblies. And we had other sets of assemblies for other areas such as judicial oversight, military oversight. Maybe have a singular assembly for the purpose of impeachments of government officials. Something like this would split the groups into enough areas that parties would be meaningless.
The government would not be controlling abortion for example, which is a massive reason for democrat party to exist as it does. The states would have impeached the Supreme Court Justices who said it was legal and force fed down their throats.
He set the stage for it. He broke the constitution. We used to be a nation made of sovereign states. Now we are a nation of forced association of slave states. That is his legacy.
Yes, the constitutional amendments that destroyed the republic did come after Lincoln, but they only became possible because of the way in which he re-assembled the nation. Once the states were no longer considered sovereigns the theft of the power was absolutely certain.
The reason the south seceded, and I am a northerner, so I have no built in bias favorable towards the south, is because the north was abusing them. They unfairly taxed them by population and followed that up with unequal, unconstitutional spending projects heavily favoring the north.
Slavery would have ended without the war, it was never the cause of the south seceding from the nation. The south seceded because they were not treated as equals.
Technology would have eventually made slavery uneconomical. But the north forced tariffs that made it too expensive for the south import the machines required to accomplish that mission of making slaves uneconomical and thus freely done away with. The tariffs were designed specifically to force the south into supporting the northern states economies at the expense of the southern states economies.
If the northern states really wanted to get rid of slavery, they could have made slavery uneconomical by allowing the south to industrialize. So, who really started the war that cost so many American lives? Should citizens of a nation be forced to live under two sets of rules? The foundation of this nation starts with "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." and then told this "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." EQUAL. "SECTION 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." But the uniformity of that was no longer happening. Heavy taxes on exports, forced participation in commerce through usury tariffs caused the south to be far more heavily taxed and burdened than the north.
Instead of fixing those problems, Lincoln came into power with a desire to further abuse the south. They had reached that point where the association with the other states had to be dissolved. As is the right of all peoples. The north are the ones that decided that they would rather be conquerors.
It is a huge sink of demand for a product is the important part of what I am claiming. People just simply buying it for its pure intrinsic value of scarcity, hiding it away, increasing its scarcity. And even doing this does not increase its value.
How do you keep the price of sliver down to only a supposed value of 2% of what a person claims it should be ($1000) while having such huge demand placed on the silver?
They make real coins out of it too and sell to collectors. There is a massive jewelry demand on silver. There is a huge industrial demand on silver.
But with all these demands on a product that is slow to produce more and more of, people are screaming, enough so to downvote me massively, that it is under valued by 50 times.
Where is the depressed demand for silver to cause this difference? It does not exist, which is what my point is. There is lots of demand for silver, but the price is what the price is. How is its value being spiked down? What pressure? Can anyone explain that?
The only way silver could possibly end up with a value of $1000 is if there is a fake demand for it. The government would have to deem its value at $1000. It would have to FORCE people to demand it.
Gold on the other hand is a far superior form of money. Which is evidenced by the fact that almost none of the mined gold throughout history has ever been lost. When you look at silver, nearly 1/2 of all mined silver has been lost. Not valued enough to recover.
Anyways, I have read about 20 reports over 35 years arguing that silver is going to go BOOM, and the one thing missing from every single last one of them is the process by which silver demand spikes at such a rate that the value becomes some mythical multiple of what it was at the time of writing.