| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
One of the many slick tricks of the Obama administration was to insert
a provision in the massive Obamacare legislation regulating people who sell gold. This had nothing to do with medical care but everything to do with sneaking in an extension of the government's power over gold, in a bill too big for most people to read. Gold has long been a source of frustration for politicians who want to extend their power over the economy. First of all, the gold standard cramped their style because there is only so much money you can print when every dollar bill can be turned in to the government, to be exchanged for the equivalent amount of gold. When the amount of money the government can print is limited by how much gold the government has, politicians cannot pay off a massive national debt by just printing more money and repaying the owners of government bonds with dollars that are cheaper than the dollars with which the bonds were bought. In other words, politicians cannot cheat people as easily. That was just one of the ways that the gold standard cramped politicians' style-- and just one of the reasons they got rid of it. One of Franklin D. Roosevelt's first acts as president was to take the United States off the gold standard in 1933. But, even with the gold standard gone, the ability of private individuals to buy gold reduces the ability of the government to steal the value of their money by printing more money. Inflation is a quiet but effective way for the government to transfer resources from the people to itself, without raising taxes. A hundred dollar bill would buy less in 1998 than a $20 bill would buy in the 1960s. This means that anyone who kept his money in a safe over those years would have lost 80 percent of its value, because no safe can keep your money safe from politicians who control the printing presses. That is why some people buy gold when they lose confidence in the government's managing of its money. Usually that is when inflation is either under way or looming on the horizon. When many people start transferring their wealth from dollars into gold, that restricts the ability of politicians to steal from them through inflation. Even though there is currently very little inflation, purchases of gold have nevertheless skyrocketed. Ordinarily, most gold is bought for producing jewelry or for various industrial purposes, more so than as an investment. But, at times within the past two years, most gold has been bought by investors. What that suggests is that increasing numbers of people don't trust this administration's economic policies, especially their huge and growing deficits, which add up to a record-breaking national debt. When a national debt reaches an unsustainable amount, there is always a temptation to pay it off with inflated dollars. There is the same temptation when the Social Security system starts paying out more money to baby boom retirees than it is taking in from current workers. Whether gold is a good investment for individuals, and whether the gold standard is the right system for a country, are much more complicated questions than can be answered here. But what is clear is that the Obama administration sees people's freedom to buy and sell gold as something that can limit what the government can do. Indeed, freedom in general cramps the government's style. Those on the left may not be against freedom in general. But, at every turn, they find the freedoms granted by the Constitution of the United States hampering the left's agenda of imposing their superior wisdom and virtue on the rest of us. The desire to restrain or control the buying and selling of gold is just one of the many signs of the inherent conflict between the freedom of the individual and the left's attempts to control our lives. Sneaking a provision on gold purchases and sales into massive legislation that is supposedly about medical care is just one of the many cynical tricks used to circumvent the public's right to know how they are being governed. The Constitution begins, "We the people" but, to the left, both the people and the Constitution are just things to circumvent in order to carry out their agenda. http://www.tsowell.com/cv.html http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...cs_versus_gold |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On 10/2/2010 12:24 PM, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:
... in a bill too big for most people to read. Excellent point! Why should I have to constantly be demanding my public servants first read what they vote on? I mean a moron usually can figure that out; What is up with them? Gold has long been a source of frustration for politicians who want to extend their power over the economy. First of all, the gold standard cramped their style because there is only so much money you can print when every dollar bill can be turned in to the government, to be exchanged for the equivalent amount of gold. The is one rule, the golden rule ... but then, there is a second rule which deserves honorable mention, "If you want to keep your money though all this, without chance of loss, PUT IT IN GOLD! When the amount of money the government can print is limited by how much gold the government has, politicians cannot pay off a massive national debt by just printing more money and repaying the owners of government bonds with dollars that are cheaper than the dollars with which the bonds were bought. In other words, politicians cannot cheat people as easily. There are problems with the gold standard, but in lieu of the present money system, it would be better ... at least until we get a handle on the crooks, banking into the hands of our government, and the government back in the hands of the people. That was just one of the ways that the gold standard cramped politicians' style-- and just one of the reasons they got rid of it. One of Franklin D. Roosevelt's first acts as president was to take the United States off the gold standard in 1933. Give me a list of the republi-crats demanding to return to the gold standard, I will vote for them ... as far as I can tell, I won't be doing that anytime soon, demo-cans just as bad ... But, even with the gold standard gone, the ability of private individuals to buy gold reduces the ability of the government to steal the value of their money by printing more money. I am not aware of any laws which keep you from trading your good and/or services for gold, silver, platinum, or any precious metal (well, not uranium or plutonium, etc.) Just refuse to take worthless dollars ... Inflation is a quiet but effective way for the government to transfer resources from the people to itself, without raising taxes. A hundred dollar bill would buy less in 1998 than a $20 bill would buy in the 1960s. This means that anyone who kept his money in a safe over those years would have lost 80 percent of its value, because no safe can keep your money safe from politicians who control the printing presses. Inflation is the carrot before the horse ... when you are in danger of achieving the "American Dream", they hit the inflation button and you stay with your nose to the grindstone ... if you are just figuring that out, bud, it is too late for you ... we had price controls which prevented this from happening, indeed, the price controls had been implemented because of the great depression ... regan tore 'em off and it has been downhill ever since. That is why some people buy gold when they lose confidence in the government's managing of its money. Usually that is when inflation is either under way or looming on the horizon. When many people start transferring their wealth from dollars into gold, that restricts the ability of politicians to steal from them through inflation. When idiots will trade goods and services for worthless paper promises, you use those ... when they won't, you are forced to use gold ... don't make it sound complicated ... Even though there is currently very little inflation, purchases of gold have nevertheless skyrocketed. Ordinarily, most gold is bought for producing jewelry or for various industrial purposes, more so than as an investment. But, at times within the past two years, most gold has been bought by investors. There is little inflation because no one is buying the homes, cars, etc. at the current prices ... since wages always trail inflation, it is nonsensical to ever think that inflating those prices will cure the problem which inflated prices caused ... but hey, you are dealing with a government which gave the wealthiest 1% of the people money to bail them out of the "recession" (depression.) With that type of logic, what do you expect? ... The rest is just kinda redundant, repetitive and bitchy--you imply no recourse's, fixes, cures, etc. ... a response is unnecessary ... Regards, JS |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 2, 2:24*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:
it is impossible for liberals to be fascists. fascists hate liberals, trade unionist, socialists, communists, jews(because most of them are liberal), the weak, the disabled, minorities, homosexuals. they are intolerant of other views and religions. they practice bigotry, racism, and homophobia, etc. say, i just described the modern conservative movement:) |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 2, 2:24*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:
The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the Nazis did, All over Germany, thugs in brown shirts took possession of the streets and roughed up Communists, socialists, and Jews; they chased socialist mayors and officials out of government buildings http://www.buy.com/prod/hitler-and-h...q/loc/106/3042... Chapter 1: Financing the 1933 Elections On the cold winter weekend of January 28, 1933, Germany was officially without a government. Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and his cabinet had resigned on Saturday afternoon, and eighty-six-year-old President von Hindenburg had not yet appointed a new chancellor. A nervous tension spread over Berlin. Everyone waited for news; most felt Germany was at an historic turning point. Who would be the next chancellor? Hitler - the leader of the largest party, the Nazis, who pledged to destroy democracy? Papen - the aristocratic horseman who had been chancellor before Schleicher, but who had no popular following? Perhaps Schleicher again, if he could persuade the Social Democrats, the second largest political party in the country, to join him in a coalition? Governing Germany in the middle of an economic depression with nine million unemployed was not an enviable task. The country had just had three different chancellors in rapid succession. By tradition, the leader of the largest party was usually appointed chancellor. But the Nazis had been the largest party for over a year, and so far intrigues and political maneuvering had succeeded in keeping Hitler out of power. Everyone guessed what a Hitler government would mean. He had not kept his militarism, anti- Semitism, and dictatorial ambitions a secret. Political intrigues were so numerous that weekend that no one really knew what was going on. Sensational rumors were being spread throughout the city. Some said an army coup was imminent, that Schleicher and the generals were about to abduct President von Hindenburg and declare martial law. There were also rumors of an armed Nazi uprising and a general strike by the socialist workers. Hitler and Hermann Goering, the second most powerful man in the Nazi party, stayed up all night on Sunday, January 29, trying to figure out what Hindenburg might do. It was not until after 10 A.M. on Monday that Hitler received a summons to the president's office. Even at that point, the Nazis were not certain whether Hitler would be appointed chancellor or Hindenburg would ask him to serve as vice-chancellor. Across the street from the Chancellery, in the Kaiserhof Hotel, Hitler's lieutenants were waiting, unsure of what was going on. Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, said: In the street the crowd stands waiting between the Kaiserhof and the Chancellery. We are torn between doubt, hope, joy and despair. We have been deceived too often to be able, wholeheartedly, to believe in the great miracle. [S.A.] Chief of Staff Roehm stands at the window (with binoculars) watching the door of the Chancellery from which the Fuehrer [the leader, Hitler] must emerge. We shall be able to judge by his face if the interview was a success. Torturing hours of waiting. At last, a car draws up in front of the entrance. The crowd cheers. They seem to feel that a great change is taking place.... A few moments later, he is with us. He says nothing. His eyes are full of tears. It has come! The Fuehrer is appointed Chancellor. He has already been sworn in by the President of the Reich. All of us are dumb with emotion. Everyone clasps the Fuehrer's hand....Outside the Kaiserhof, the masses are in a wild uproar....The thousands soon become tens of thousands. Endless streams of people flood the Wilhelmstrasse. We set to work...at once. Hitler's victory was not a complete one by any means. He had been appointed chancellor in a coalition government. Papen was to be his vice-chancellor, and all the powerful cabinet posts were held by Papen's conservative allies, rather than the Nazis. But at the moment, Hitler's followers weren't worried about the details; for them the only thing that mattered was that Hitler was chancellor. They had come to power! All day, crowds gathered in the square outside the Kaiserhof Hotel and the Chancellery. At dusk Nazi storm troopers in their brown uniforms gathered in the Tiergarten park, along with men of the Stahlhelm, an ultranationalistic veterans' organization, for a torchlight victory parade through the center of Berlin. As soon as it was dark, they came marching by the thousands through the Brandenburg Gate, carrying swastika flags and the black, white, and red flags of the German empire. Bands marched between the units, beating their big drums as the men sang old German military songs. But as each band came to the Pariser Platz, where the French embassy was located, they stopped whatever they were playing and, with an introductory roll of drums, broke into the tune of the challenging war song "Victorious We Will Crush the French." The torches carried by the marchers glowed hypnotically in the darkness. To foreign witnesses, it was a frightening sight. "The river of fire flowed past the French Embassy," Ambassador François-Poncet wrote, "whence, with heavy heart and filled with foreboding, I watched this luminous wake." Liberal Germans found it an "ominous sight." It was, wrote one German reporter, "a night of deadly menace, a nightmare in...blazing torches." As the marchers came by the Chancellery, there were tumultuous cheers for Hitler, who stood in an open window saluting them. He was so excited that night, he could hardly stand still. He was raising his arm up and down heiling, smiling, and laughing so much, his eyes filled with tears. "It was an extraordinary experience," recalled Papen, who was standing behind Hitler. "The endless repetition of the triumphal cry: 'Heil, Heil, Sieg Heil!' rang in my ears like a tocsin." When Hitler turned to speak with Papen, his voice choked with emotion. "What an immense task we have set for ourselves, Herr von Papen - we must never part until our work is accomplished." Hitler and Papen were much closer allies than anyone at the time imagined. It was after midnight when the parade ended. Being too excited to sleep, Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, and a few other Nazis sat up talking for hours. They could hardly believe it had actually happened: they were in the Chancellery at last. That evening, Hitler said to Goebbels, "No one gets me out of here alive." It was one of the few promises he kept. On the morning of January 31, Hitler's storm troopers gave the German people a glimpse of what Nazi rule would be like. All over Germany, thugs in brown shirts took possession of the streets and roughed up Communists, socialists, and Jews; they chased socialist mayors and officials out of government buildings and even broke into the private homes of their political enemies. When people complained to Papen, he laughed. "Let the storm troopers have their fling." Among his friends at the Herrenklub, an exclusive gentlemens club, he boasted: "We've hired Hitler." To a skeptic he replied: "What do you want? I have Hindenburg's confidence. Within two months we will have pushed Hitler so far in the corner that he'll squeak." The facts seemed to support Papen's optimism. Not only did Papen have Hindenburg"s confidence, but in fact the old president had promised never to receive Hitler unless he was accompanied by his vice- chancellor. Papen also held the important post of minister-president of Prussia, Germany's largest and most powerful state. From the composition of the cabinet, it seemed all the real power was in the hands of the conservatives: the aristocratic General von Blomberg was minister of defense, Baron von Neurath, a career diplomat, was foreign minister, and the old archreactionary Hugenberg was both minister of economics and minister of agriculture. The Nazis were outnumbered six to two. The two Nazis in the cabinet, Wilhelm Frick and Goering, held posts that were thought to be insignificant. Frick was minister of the interior, but he did not control the police, which in Germany was under the jurisdiction of the individual state governments. Goering was made minister without portfolio, but with the promise that he would be minister of aviation as soon as Germany had an air force. He was also named minister of the interior of Prussia, an office that did not receive much notice by the public but did control the Prussian police. The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the Nazis did. These men belonged to the old ruling class of the kaiser's Germany. They wanted to regain their old position of supremacy, lost in 1918. They wanted to restore the monarchy, suppress the socialist unions, avenge the loss of World War I, and make Germany the dominant power in Europe. It was obvious why such reactionary nationalists helped put Hitler in power: their goals and his were very similar. Few people knew the full extent of Papen's collaboration with Hitler. Historians have said he "did more than anyone else outside the Nazi party to help Hitler to power." Papen helped Hitler because he was trying to control him and use the Nazis for his own aims. Papen was a handsome aristocratic-looking man with distinguished gray hair and an officer's mustache. From an impoverished family of the Westphalian nobility, he became a General Staff officer, a skillful horseman, and a man of great charm. After a successful marriage to the daughter of a wealthy Saar industrialist, he bought a large block of shares in the Center party's newspaper, Germania. For a short time in 1932, Papen was chancellor, but his government had no popular support. Papen believed it would be rather easy for an aristocratic officer like himself to manipulate a former corporal, like Hitler, and thus be able to use the Nazi's mass following to accomplish the aims of the upper-class conservative nationalists. Hitler immediately began to outmaneuver his conservative colleagues. He reported to the cabinet that the Center party was making impossible demands and could not be counted on to form a coalition with the Nazis and the Nationalists that would have a majority in the Reichstag. Because of this situation, Hitler argued he would have to call for new elections. The only "demand" the Center party made was that Hitler promise to govern constitutionally, but none of the other members of the cabinet bothered to check Hitler's statement. They agreed to new elections on the condition that Hitler promise that the composition of the cabinet would not change regardless of the outcome of the voting. New elections would provide Hitler with a chance to improve on the poor results the Nazis had received at the polls the past November. If the Nazis won a clear majority in the elections, they might be able to get rid of their coalition partners. Hitler had every reason to believe the election campaign would be a big success. The entire machinery of government, including the radio, was now under Nazi control and could be used for campaigning. The party had been flooded with new applicants for membership since he had become chancellor. In the cabinet meeting on February 2, Hitler discussed his preparations for the elections. Wilhelm Frick, the Nazi minister of the interior, proposed that the government set aside a million marks for the election campaign. Count von Schwerin von Krosigk, the minister of finance, rejected this suggestion. Hitler did not force the issue. He would have to get the money elsewhere. The theme of the Nazi election campaign was to be the fight against communism. Hitler opened the attack in a late-night radio broadcast to the nation on February 1. He blamed the hard times Germany had gone through since 1918 on the Social Democrats, which had been the largest party in the Reichstag during most of those years. The Social Democrats, he reminded his listeners, were actually a Marxist party. "Fourteen years of Marxism," he said, "have ruined Germany; one year of bolshevism [communism] would destroy her. The richest and fairest territories of the world would be turned into a smoking heap of ruins. Even the sufferings of the last decade and a half could not be compared to the misery of a Europe in the heart of which the red flag of destruction has been hoisted." He went on to promise to put the unemployed back to work and save the peasants from bankruptcy. On his fourth day in office, just after opening the election campaign, Hitler took time off to attend a very important dinner. He had been invited to the home of General von Hammerstein, chief of staff of the army, to meet the leading officers of the army and navy. In a speech that lasted almost two hours, Hitler explained his plans for rebuilding German military power. The generals were the real power in Germany during the Weimar period. After World War II, many Germans tried to cover up the role certain members of the Officer Corps had played in helping to put Hitler in power. Many historians naively accepted this view, but the real story is quite different. Traditionally, the German Army ruled from behind the scenes and had the final "power to veto" any important issue. After the loss of World War I, the Versailles Treaty severely restricted the size of the German Army. The only way the generals could maintain mass training and develop new weapons was to finance private paramilitary units, like the Free Corps, with secret army funds. Hitler not only began his career as an army agent, but even in the 1930s he was supported by a powerful faction in the army. Over several years, General von Schleicher, who was in charge of a secret informal political department of the army, funneled over ten million marks to Hitler. Why? Many military officers wanted an authoritarian government that could unify the nation. The people needed to be infused with a new spirit of patriotism because powerful interests were planning a war of revenge against the Allies. Naturally there was a division of opinion among the generals as to how much power to give Hitler. Hindenburg originally had strong reservations about appointing a man from a lower-class background, like Hitler, chancellor. However, the aggressive action the Nazis took against Communists was admired by Hindenburg, and his relationship with Hitler rapidly improved. One day, Hindenburg summoned Hitler when Papen was away from Berlin. Hitler informed the president that Papen was out of town and reminded him of the rule he (Hindenburg) had made, that the chancellor could visit him only when accompanied by the vice-chancellor. "The old gentleman [Hindenburg]," said Hitler, "replied that he wished to see me alone, and that in the future the presence of Papen could be regarded as unnecessary. Within three weeks, he had progressed so far that his attitude towards me became affectionate and paternal. Talking of the elections fixed for the 3rd of March, he said, 'What are we going to do if you fail to get a majority? We shall have the same difficulties all over again.'" At the beginning of the election campaign, Hitler and Papen persuaded old President von Hindenburg to sign an emergency decree to protect law and order. The decree gave Nazi officials the right to prohibit public meetings. Newspapers could be suppressed if they "incited" civil disobedience or published "false" reports. |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 2, 2:24*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:
*here are the three 3 phases of conservative decay. 1.conservatism(policies always fail) 2. libertarianism(the drive for purity, the conservative polices and those that implemented them, were not pure enough) 3. fascism(the rise of the strong man to ensure purity), the strongman will drive out the impure, liberals, jews, immigrants, trade unionists, communists, socialists, those with mental and physical defects, gypsies, etc. this to fails on a huge scale. just look what happened to the central european fascists. they collapsed their economies, and came up millions of workers and soldiers short. |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 2, 2:47*pm, John Smith wrote:
there is only one rule that you need to know, and that is those that own the gold, write the rules. cash is king in a deflating economy. oh the irony:gold bugs are getting screwed by the private sector that is selling debased coins:They include false gradings on the quality of the coins, the use of cheaper alloys instead of pure gold and even brazen scams where you don't actually even own the gold that you buy gee, i thought gold based money could not be debased, SNICKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thank god for conservatives/libertarians/fascists, without their stupidity in the market place, the con artists would starve:) http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-bud...d=bb-budgeting Five Hidden Costs of Gold by Jeff Reeves Wednesday, September 29, 2010 Commentary: Investing in gold isn't as easy as it looks There's a lot of talk right now about how gold is booming, and how gold bugs who have been stashing bullion under their mattresses over the last decade or so have made a killing. That may be true if you look at the price of the yellow stuff per ounce. The price of an ounce of gold is up about 30% in the last year, or over 400% in the last 10 years. How does that relate to actual returns for investors? The truth is that gold has steep hidden costs, and that looking at the numbers on paper doesn't tell the whole story. Here are big costs many investors overlook. Higher taxes The affinity for gold investing and a dislike of the government seem to go hand in hand, from predictions that massive government debt will render the dollar worthless to conspiracy theories that there will be another Executive Order 6102 in which Uncle Sam loots your safe deposit box and seizes your gold. But the biggest reason for gold investors to get mad at the feds is their tax bracket. The IRS taxes precious metal investments including gold ETFs like the SPDR Gold Trust (NYSE: GLD - News) and iShares Silver Trust (SLV - News) as collectibles. That means a long- term capital gains tax of 28% compared with 15% for equities (20% if and when the Bush tax cuts expire next year). While you may see your gold as a bunker investment, the IRS will treat you the same as if you were hoarding Hummel figurines. And that means a bigger portion of your gold profits go to the tax man. Zero income Just as the math game on gold price appreciation doesn't tell the whole story, the lack of regular payouts is another reason why the long-term profits quoted in gold are incomplete. Many long-term investors can't afford to stash their savings in the back yard for 20 years. Income is a very valuable feature of many investments and gold simply doesn't provide that. Remember, simply looking at returns in a vacuum can't tell you whether an investment is "good" or "bad." Is it a good idea for a 70-year-old retiree on a fixed income to bet on penny stocks because they could generate huge profits? Even if those trades pay off, 99 out of 100 advisers would say something akin to "You got lucky this time, but don't tempt fate. Quit while you're ahead and don't be so aggressive." Similarly, the volatile and income-starved gold market is not a place for everyone. Just because past returns for gold have been so stellar, that does not mean that gold is low risk or that investors who need a secure source of regular income will be well-served. Gold scams take a toll In a previous article, I detailed gold coin scams in detail. They include false gradings on the quality of the coins, the use of cheaper alloys instead of pure gold and even brazen scams where you don't actually even own the gold that you buy. And that's just on the coins front. Scams abound in pawn shops and "cash for gold" enterprises that refuse to give you a true value for your jewelry or other gold items. You'd think it would be obvious that precious metals should never be purchased from anyone other than a broker or seller of good repute who provides proper documentations. But many investors fail to do their homework, or worse, can't tell forged documents from real ones. Gold is ready-made to be a retail sales item, and with that comes all manner of unscrupulous activity. Vigilant investors can protect themselves, but do not underestimate the very real price of being taken to the cleaners by a gold scam if you don't do your homework. High ownership and storage costs Maybe through some creative accounting or selective amnesia at tax time you can mitigate the tax burden of gold. But one expense you can't as easily avoid is the high ownership cost of gold. After all, it's not like you mined it yourself and all those middlemen between the ore and you want to get paid. The first is that old tightwad Uncle Sam again. Even if you can avoid him going on the capital gains front, he gets you coming into gold via sales tax on most jewelry and coins. And then there are the high transaction costs and commissions that gold can carry. Anyone who has bought jewelry knows significant markups are part of the precious metals trade, and that's the same for investment gold as it is for engagement rings. The bottom line is that some of your initial buy-in goes towards the business of gold and you'll never get it back, not unlike realtor fees or broker fees. And then there's the additional cost of storing your gold. You have to pay a fee for a safe deposit box, and if you have a lot of gold, that can run you a few hundred bucks a year for a good-sized box. Of course if you're afraid of that Order 6102 scam pulled by FDR you likely have your gold at home in a safe so that's a one-shot deal. But are you really foolish enough to distrust the government but trust your gold stash to be safe without insurance? The presumed "safety" of gold is good on paper, but obtaining the actual metal and keeping it safely stored is a costly endeavor. Yes, gold can lose value Proponents of gold love to claim that gold has never been worthless like Lehman Bros. or GM. And while this is true on its face, it is actually a half-truth. While gold may never become worthless, it is foolish to think it will never lose value. Consider that after reaching a record high of $850 per ounce in early 1980, gold plummeted 40% in two months. The average price for gold in 1981 fell to a mere $460 an ounce and continued nearly unabated until bottoming with an average price of around $280 in 2000. For those folks in their 40s and 50s who bought gold at that 1980 high, it took them 28 years to reclaim the $850 level. That's hardly much of a retirement plan, unless they lived to be 80 or 90 and just cashed out recently. Gold is an investment, period. And no matter how gold bugs spin the metal as a hedge against inflation and a sure thing that will only go up, gold can lose its value sometimes in a hurry, as in the early 1980s. Jeff Reeves is the editor of InvestorPlace.com. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/JeffReevesIP ___ |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On 10/2/2010 2:25 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
... You buy gold to protect yourself, it works well. If you are a damned fool which buys a piece of paper that says you own gold, count on it being worth the paper and ink ... and, if you are that stoopid, you ain't fooling me--you won't even have the money to buy gold with! ROFLOL Further, if some sells you a gold plated lead coin, you are a fool in the first place ... indeed, I think you are a fool for buying coins in the first place ... gold has value ... the fact it is in the shape of a coin only has value in someones' mind. My gawd man, if you are really all that stoopid, you should NOT even be in charge of your own finances! Can't the court appoint someone to care for you? Regards, JS |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On 10/2/2010 7:21 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 2, 8:06 pm, John wrote: On 10/2/2010 5:32 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: ... who is ignoring that. wages have risen along with prices. gold goes up in price, gold falls in price. suckers who bought gold in the early 80's, still have not recouped their losses. its a poor investment, pays no dividends, makes no income, and is only valuable for electronics and jewelery. Regards, JS Wrong, again ... up until the 1960's, or around there, it was universally known in America, the rule, "A fair days pay for a fair days work." This is no longer so ... what does that have to do with the price of gold. Minimum wage, still in 1970, would buy you about 10 gallons of gas--it was $1.65 p/hr; Gas is now 10x as much. A fair 1 bedroom apartment would run you ~$80.00 a month--utilities included; Today, it would cost you in excess of 10x as much. A nice new car would run you $1,800-$2,000; Today, a car of "equal" value would be 10x as much. yes wages have fallen, it has nothing to do with fiat currency, or gold. it has to do with a rising economic aristocracy. The point to all the above? For minimum wage to have kept up with inflation, minimum would have to be ~$16.50 p/hr. so. that still does not mean a thing about fiat currencies and gold. Now, I believe minimum wage is less than 1/2 of that ... only a fool would attempt to sell, as fact, that wages have kept any where near the rate of inflation. Sell that chit to some fool ... real wages have even suffered worse! wages are a problem. demand is wage driven, deflation is a lack of demand. as long as wages are not addressed, assets and prices will fall, including gold. gold has nothing to do with wages. i think this stuff is way over your head. no wonder the gold bugs are plundering you. Regards, JS It is thinking like yours that got us here ... you go on ahead. I think enough know what to do now ... Regards, JS |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 2, 5:33*pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
- - On Oct 2, 7:00*pm, John Smith wrote: - - And, for you, I am sure, I will have to point out, - - that IS called inflation! - - *It is a most practical example too. - - Regards, - - JS - the gold standard has never stopped inflation, - nor a currency collapse. But Gold Itself Has NOT Collapsed : Just the worthless paper currency. Something of Value Will Retain It Value and Be Of Value. Currency exists as a medium to easily and readily Acquire Something of Value. Currency is a Means to an End and the End is Always Something of Value. Gold Can Be Something of Value provided that someone has everything they need and wants some Gold in exchange for something they wish to sell for the Gold. Would You Sell : Your Last Bottle of Clean Water for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Loaf of Bread for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Chicken for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Box of Matches for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Package of Vegetable Seeds for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Fishing Hook for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Gallon of Gasoline for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Gun and a Box of Ammo for Gold ? yes there are times when gold has little or no value -wrt- the necessities of day to day survival ~ RHF |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On 10/2/2010 7:17 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:59 pm, John wrote: On 10/2/2010 5:33 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: ... the gold standard has never stopped inflation, nor a currency collapse. A bizarre meaningless comment does you no good ... really. then pray tell why the dollar collapsed in 1930, when it was backed by gold. only a few coutries stayed on the gold standard after 1930. and their economies imploded. you are way out of your league. if you want to hold on to a piece of paper, after noting the importance of gold, even to industry, you must be an idiot ... what circular logic and reasoning ... nothing short of bizarre ... then why will the owners of gold, gladly sell you their valuable gold, for little green pieces of paper. you are driven by fears. those fears are being driven by those who sell gold, for little green pieces of paper. Regards, JS Actually, we would still be on the gold standard if the government had not made it illegal and abolished it ... a clear example of how the people are never wrong, whenever there is a question, "Who is wrong?" It will ALWAYS be the government ... Regards, JS |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 3, 12:20*am, John Smith wrote:
On 10/2/2010 7:17 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: On Oct 2, 7:59 pm, John *wrote: On 10/2/2010 5:33 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: ... * *the gold standard has never stopped inflation, nor a currency collapse. A bizarre meaningless comment does you no good ... * really. then pray tell why the dollar collapsed in 1930, when it was backed by gold. only a few coutries stayed on the gold standard after 1930. and their economies imploded. you are way out of your league. * if you want to hold on to a piece of paper, after noting the importance of gold, even to industry, you must be an idiot ... what circular logic and reasoning .... nothing short of bizarre ... * then why will the owners of gold, gladly sell you their valuable gold, for little green pieces of paper. you are driven by fears. those fears are being driven by those who sell gold, for little green pieces of paper. Regards, JS Actually, we would still be on the gold standard if the government had not made it illegal and abolished it ... a clear example of how the people are never wrong, whenever there is a question, "Who is wrong?" It will ALWAYS be the government ... Regards, JS- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And we can always blame China for inventing paper money. And they are still buying US Treasury bonds- isn't that funny ! |
(OT) : The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" : Is It Impossiblefor Liberals to be Fascists ?
On Oct 2, 2:15*pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 2, 2:24*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote: *it is impossible for liberals to be fascists. fascists hate liberals, trade unionist, socialists, communists, jews(because most of them are liberal), the weak, the disabled, minorities, homosexuals. they are intolerant of other views and religions. they practice bigotry, racism, and homophobia, etc. say, i just described the modern conservative movement:) "NA" -says- "it is impossible for liberals to be fascists" |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On 10/2/2010 9:17 PM, RHF wrote:
... yes there are times when gold has little or no value -wrt- the necessities of day to day survival ~ RHF . . Whenever gold has no value, only food, shelter, water, clothes, etc. will continue to have value. But as soon as their is a desire for money, gold is king. Not only that, but you can bury gold for an eternity and dig it back up and spend it. Paper money will deteriorate rather quickly ... again, gold is king. But, I suspect you waste your time ... this idiot only argues for the sake of "being right" ... it has no bearing on if what he says is even close to correct, or not. Regards, JS |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 2, 11:02*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 10/2/2010 7:23 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: ... * yea, its way over your head. if one day you are forced into selling your way over priced asset(gold), at a reduced price to raise scarce cash someday to pay your bills, remember me:) Regards, JS You are an idiot, choose another like yourself to carry on your BS with ... insane ranting does not interest me. *I suspect you are another "guest" they let use the dayroom computer ... Regards, JS that does not refute one thing i have proven. also,i have been active on alt.politics.economics for well over a decade and a half. |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 2, 11:12*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 10/2/2010 7:21 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: On Oct 2, 8:06 pm, John *wrote: On 10/2/2010 5:32 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: ... * *who is ignoring that. wages have risen along with prices. gold goes up in price, gold falls in price. suckers who bought gold in the early 80's, still have not recouped their losses. its a poor investment, pays no dividends, makes no income, and is only valuable for electronics and jewelery. Regards, JS Wrong, again ... up until the 1960's, or around there, it was universally known in America, the rule, "A fair days pay for a fair days work." *This is no longer so ... * what does that have to do with the price of gold. Minimum wage, still in 1970, would buy you about 10 gallons of gas--it was $1.65 p/hr; *Gas is now 10x as much. *A fair 1 bedroom apartment would run you ~$80.00 a month--utilities included; *Today, it would cost you in excess of 10x as much. *A nice new car would run you $1,800-$2,000; *Today, a car of "equal" value would be 10x as much. * yes wages have fallen, it has nothing to do with fiat currency, or gold. it has to do with a rising economic aristocracy. The point to all the above? *For minimum wage to have kept up with inflation, minimum would have to be ~$16.50 p/hr. * so. that still does not mean a thing about fiat currencies and gold.. Now, I believe minimum wage is less than 1/2 of that ... only a fool would attempt to sell, as fact, that wages have kept any where near the rate of inflation. *Sell that chit to some fool ... real wages have even suffered worse! * wages are a problem. demand is wage driven, deflation is a lack of demand. as long as wages are not addressed, assets and prices will fall, including gold. gold has nothing to do with wages. i think this stuff is way over your head. no wonder the gold bugs are plundering you. Regards, JS It is thinking like yours that got us here ... you go on ahead. *I think enough know what to do now ... Regards, JS still does not refute a thing. and the last 30 years of thinking is what has ruined america. |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 2, 11:17*pm, RHF wrote:
On Oct 2, 5:33*pm, Nickname unavailable wrote: - - On Oct 2, 7:00*pm, John Smith wrote: - - And, for you, I am sure, I will have to point out, - - that IS called inflation! - - *It is a most practical example too. - - Regards, - - JS - the gold standard has never stopped inflation, - nor a currency collapse. But Gold Itself Has NOT Collapsed : Just the worthless paper currency. sure its collapsed. if the paper it backs goes down in value, so does gold. see 1930. it collapsed in the early 1980s also. explain that away:) Something of Value Will Retain It Value and Be Of Value. maybe, maybe not. you have to be able to sell your asset, and a lot of assets are not selling well today. Currency exists as a medium to easily and readily Acquire Something of Value. Currency is a Means to an End and the End is Always Something of Value. and it does not need to be backed by gold to attain this. Gold Can Be Something of Value provided that someone has everything they need and wants some Gold in exchange for something they wish to sell for the Gold. i could say that about baseball cards also. Would You Sell : Your Last Bottle of Clean Water for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Loaf of Bread for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Chicken for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Box of Matches for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Package of Vegetable Seeds for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Fishing Hook for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Gallon of Gasoline for Gold ? Would You Sell : Your Last Gun and a Box of Ammo for Gold ? yes there are times when gold has little or no value -wrt- the necessities of day to day survival ~ RHF *. *. if you believe that the country and currency will collapse, and its possible. gold will do you little good. food and ammo will be better assets. |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 2, 11:20*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 10/2/2010 7:17 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: On Oct 2, 7:59 pm, John *wrote: On 10/2/2010 5:33 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: ... * *the gold standard has never stopped inflation, nor a currency collapse. A bizarre meaningless comment does you no good ... * really. then pray tell why the dollar collapsed in 1930, when it was backed by gold. only a few coutries stayed on the gold standard after 1930. and their economies imploded. you are way out of your league. * if you want to hold on to a piece of paper, after noting the importance of gold, even to industry, you must be an idiot ... what circular logic and reasoning .... nothing short of bizarre ... * then why will the owners of gold, gladly sell you their valuable gold, for little green pieces of paper. you are driven by fears. those fears are being driven by those who sell gold, for little green pieces of paper. Regards, JS Actually, we would still be on the gold standard if the government had not made it illegal and abolished it ... a clear example of how the people are never wrong, whenever there is a question, "Who is wrong?" It will ALWAYS be the government ... Regards, JS explain away the private sector screwing people over gold. gold is a impossible way to back a modern economy. its deflationary in nature. no country is willing to go back to the gold standard and starve. |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 2, 11:33*pm, wrote:
On Oct 3, 12:20*am, John Smith wrote: On 10/2/2010 7:17 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: On Oct 2, 7:59 pm, John *wrote: On 10/2/2010 5:33 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: ... * *the gold standard has never stopped inflation, nor a currency collapse. A bizarre meaningless comment does you no good ... * really. then pray tell why the dollar collapsed in 1930, when it was backed by gold. only a few coutries stayed on the gold standard after 1930. and their economies imploded. you are way out of your league. * if you want to hold on to a piece of paper, after noting the importance of gold, even to industry, you must be an idiot ... what circular logic and reasoning ... nothing short of bizarre ... * then why will the owners of gold, gladly sell you their valuable gold, for little green pieces of paper. you are driven by fears. those fears are being driven by those who sell gold, for little green pieces of paper. Regards, JS Actually, we would still be on the gold standard if the government had not made it illegal and abolished it ... a clear example of how the people are never wrong, whenever there is a question, "Who is wrong?" It will ALWAYS be the government ... Regards, JS- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And we can always blame China for inventing paper money. And they are still buying US Treasury bonds- *isn't that funny ! it sure is. the owners of gold will gladly sell you their gold for little green pieces of paper. now who is the fool:) |
(OT) : The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" : Is ItImpossible for Liberals to be Fascists ?
On Oct 2, 11:38*pm, RHF wrote:
you are simply projecting again. the GOP, its not fascism when we do it:)Back to the ‘30s:how the GOP uses Nazi techniques to rally the*mob:New agencies all the world over are for the most part in the hands of Jews:If you substitute liberal for jew you have the same language http://moronia.us/front/2009/12/back...rally-the-mob/ Back to the ‘30s: how the GOP uses Nazi techniques to rally the*mob December 10, 2009 Posted by Jules Siegel By Hrafnkell Har*alds*son Instead of Der Angriff and the Völkischer Beobachter we have FOX News and World Net Daily. Instead of Joseph Goebbels and Alfred Rosen*berg we have Rupert Mur*doch and Joseph Farah. These media out*lets spout anti- liberalism as vocif*er*ously and viciously as any NSDAP pro*pa* ganda organ. Like the party ide*o*logues noted above, they employ ad hominem attacks in place of cogent analy*sis and pre*fer name- calling to actual news. Mur*doch, Farah and their min*ions take street- fighting tech*niques in front of min*ions through use of glossy mod*ern technology. Wit*ness, for exam*ple, Glenn Beck and Rush Lim*baugh went on the attacked Sen. Mary Lan*drieu (D- LA) for her stance on the health*care debate in the Sen*ate. But they did not cri*tique her posi*tion based on its mer*its, and by offer*ing a cogent counter- argument. Instead, both called a female US sen*a*tor a pros*ti*tute (The Rush Lim*baugh Show Novem*ber 23 2009 and The Glenn Beck Pro*gram Novem*ber 23,2009). This sort of attack is com*mon*place and dif*fers not at all from the tac*tics used by the National Social*ist Press in the 20’s and*30’s. • Glenn Beck listed peo*ple he’d like to “beat to death with a shovel.” In 2001, Beck enu*mer*ated the var*i*ous peo*ple that he “would want to kill with a shovel,” or “line up” and “shoot … in the head,” includ*ing Rep. Charles Rangel (D- NY). (Glenn Beck Pro*gram, 3/ 9/ 01) • The Repub*li*can Tea- Party mobs embrace this prin*ci*ple. Ide*o*log*i*cal rhetoric backs it up: We see for exam*ple from Ann Coul*ter, Vester: You say you’d rather not talk to lib*er*als at all? Coul*ter: I think a base*ball bat is the most effec*tive way these days. (FOX News Chan*nel, Day*Side with Linda Vester, 10/ 6) • “Would you kill some*one for that?…I’m think*ing about killing Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire some*body to do it,… No, I think I could. I think he could be look*ing me in the eye, you know, and I could just be chok*ing the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wear*ing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, ‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,’ and then I’d see the lit* tle band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d real*ize, ‘Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.’ And you know, well, I’m not sure.” (Glenn Beck Pro*gram, 5/ 17/ 05) • Beck, jok*ing about poi*son*ing Nancy Pelosi: “So, Speaker Pelosi, I just wanted to — you gonna drink your wine? Are you blind? Do those eyes not work? There you — I want you to drink it now. Drink it. Drink it. Drink it… By the way, I put poi*son in your —” (Glenn Beck Pro*gram, 8/ 6/ 09) • Bill O’Reilly, of peo*ple who crit*i*cize him, The Radio Fac* tor, Sep*tem*ber 27, 2007: “You know, look, if I could stran*gle these peo*ple and not go to hell and get exe*cuted, I would, but I*can’t.” • Bill O’Reilly — radio show, Sept. 14, 2005: “I just wish Kat* rina had only hit the United Nations build*ing, noth*ing else, just had flooded them out, and I wouldn’t have res*cued*them.” • Rush Lim*baugh Octo*ber 20, 2009, The Rush Lim*baugh Show: “This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that human*ity is destroy*ing the planet, human*ity is destroy*ing the cli*mate, that human beings in their nat*ural exis*tence are going to cause the extinc*tion of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill your*self and help the planet by*dying?” • Right Wing blog*ger Roger Erick*son March 31, 2009: “At what point do the peo*ple tell the politi*cians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him out*side, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an*idiot?” Part 2: Liberal/Jewish Media and Right Wing Propaganda. This is the second installment of a detailed examination of the parallels between the Nazi movement in Germany and the new Republican methodology since the election of Obama. Also see parts 1, 3, 4, and 5. Now that we’ve examined the street-level thuggery in Part One, let’s look at some examples of how the Republican “elite” work. NSDAP and GOP: Two Medias; One Tactic Everyone is familiar by now with the Right-wing rhetoric concerning the “liberal media elite.” Personal responsibility goes right out the window if you can just blame the other guy for lying about you. Again we see a striking similarity between the National Socialists and the Republicans – fix blame, and then accuse them of controlling the media. The two seem to go hand-in-hand. “Barack Obama only won because the media favored him and unfairly denigrated the abilities and accomplishments of John McCain and Sarah Palin.” We’ve heard this before, of course. It probably won’t surprise you to know whe Hitler, July 5, 1942, “New agencies all the world over…are for the most part in the hands of Jews.”1 If you substitute “liberal” for “Jew” you have the same language. Again, the liberals, like the Jews, are guilty of “fabrications”: Sarah Palin, June 3, 2009, Anchorage: Palin spoke of “the entrenched bureaucrats and the elite self-proclaimed intellectuals, and the smug lobbyists who dominate Washington, and the liberal media that is imposing its will on Washington, embracing that status quo, that business as usual…” 2 This is the same language Hitler used of the “Jewish intellectuals” and communists who dominated Weimar government. As an aside, she was displaying typical intellectual dishonesty by lifting much of her speech from “an article written four years ago by Newt Gingrich and Craig Shirley without attribution.”3 The Conservapedia echoes Hitler: “The Liberal media elite is the clique of highly paid, left-leaning executives and journalists who directly control most output of the main newspapers and broadcasting organizations.”4 The media is in the hands of the Jews (communists)! The media is in the hands of the liberals (communists)! I don’t have to make this stuff up. This is like shooting ducks in a pond or fishing with a hand grenade. If that is not enough, surely you remember the Nazi (mis)use of the press. The National Socialist media became an outlet not for news, but for propaganda. There is the most famous newspaper owner of all, Joseph Goebbels and his paper Der Angriff (The Attack – aptly named). Then there is the Völkischer Beobachter (Folkish [Ethnic] Observer) edited first by Dietrich Eckart, an infamous “Jew-baiter”, then by crank-ideologist Alfred Rosenberg. Today, media has moved on to television and the Internet. Instead of Der Angriff and the Völkischer Beobachter we have FOX News and World Net Daily. Instead of Joseph Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg we have Rupert Murdoch and Joseph Farah. These media outlets spout anti- liberalism as vociferously and viciously as any NSDAP propaganda organ. Like the party ideologues noted above, they employ ad hominem attacks in place of cogent analysis and prefer name-calling to actual news. Murdoch, Farah and their minions take street-fighting techniques in front of minions through use of glossy modern technology. Witness, for example, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh went on the attacked Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) for her stance on the healthcare debate in the Senate. But they did not critique her position based on its merits, and by offering a cogent counter-argument. Instead, both called a female US senator a prostitute (The Rush Limbaugh Show November 23 2009 and The Glenn Beck Program November 23,2009). This sort of attack is commonplace and differs not at all from the tactics used by the National Socialist Press in the 20’s and 30’s. Vilification is the order of the day. Analysis of the facts, when it takes place at all, comes in a distant second. As Media Matters for America reports, Under its president, Roger Ailes, Fox News routinely employs racially charged appeals to foment opposition to the Obama administration and other progressive figures, such as Glenn Beck’s comments that President Obama is a “racist” and “has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.” Before launching the Fox News Channel, Ailes worked as a media consultant for several Republican campaigns where evidence shows he similarly appealed to racial fears and biases for political gain, and as executive producer for Rush Limbaugh’s television show, during which Limbaugh made several controversial statements.5 And of course, just as National Socialist ideologues and leaders motivated the mob, so do Republican ideologues. As I noted above, Republican objections are not generally issued as cogent and well- thought-out rebuttals of liberal positions but as ad hominem attacks, character assassinations, and even suggested violence. This is true not only of the rank-and-file but of the leadership, the party ideologues, as can be seen from the examples below. • Glenn Beck listed people he’d like to “beat to death with a shovel.” In 2001, Beck enumerated the various people that he “would want to kill with a shovel,” or “line up” and “shoot … in the head,” including Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). (Glenn Beck Program, 3/9/01) • The Republican Tea-Party mobs embrace this principle. Ideological rhetoric backs it up: We see for example from Ann Coulter, Vester: You say you’d rather not talk to liberals at all? Coulter: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days. (FOX News Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/6) • “Would you kill someone for that?…I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,… No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, ‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,’ and then I’d see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, ‘Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.’ And you know, well, I’m not sure.” (Glenn Beck Program, 5/17/05) • Beck, joking about poisoning Nancy Pelosi: “So, Speaker Pelosi, I just wanted to — you gonna drink your wine? Are you blind? Do those eyes not work? There you — I want you to drink it now. Drink it. Drink it. Drink it… By the way, I put poison in your —” (Glenn Beck Program, 8/6/09) • Bill O’Reilly, of people who criticize him, The Radio Factor, September 27, 2007: “You know, look, if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed, I would, but I can’t.” • Bill O’Reilly - radio show, Sept. 14, 2005: “I just wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just had flooded them out, and I wouldn’t have rescued them.” • Rush Limbaugh October 20, 2009, The Rush Limbaugh Show: “This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?” • Right Wing blogger Roger Erickson March 31, 2009: “At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they*get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?” Sources: 1Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944 tr. By Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens (New York 2000 [1953]), 561. 2The Conservative Book Service even has this offering: Matthew Continetti , The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star (2009) which makes the case that, “Palin was a strong and popular conservative with traditional values-work, family, and religion-and Washington Democrats and their allies in the so-called mainstream media decided she had to be destroyed. These elite liberals attacked everything from Palin’s clothing to her parenting style to her church. They spread one malicious and untrue rumor after another…” 3Huffington Post, June 6, 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffr..._b_212228.html 4Consevapedia, http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_media_elite 5Media Matters for America http://mediamatters.org/research/200910270001 6Fox News, Your World with Neal Cavuto, November 11, 2009. 7The Rush Limbaugh Show, April 1, 2005. 8Glenn Beck Program, April 27, 2006. 9The O’Reilly Factor, May 29, 2007. 10Hitler’s Table Talk, 47. |
(OT) : Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay : Ending in Liberal-Fascism
On Oct 2, 2:23*pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 2, 2:24*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote: - *here are the three 3 phases of conservative decay. - 1.conservatism(policies always fail) - 2. libertarianism(the drive for purity, the conservative polices and - those that implemented them, were not pure enough) - 3. fascism(the rise of the strong man to ensure purity), the - strongman - will drive out the impure, liberals, jews, immigrants, trade - unionists, communists, socialists, those with mental and physical - defects, - gypsies, etc. this to fails on a huge scale. just look what happened - to the central european fascists. they collapsed their economies, and - came up millions of workers and soldiers short. Here are the Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay : 1. Liberalism (Well Meaning, Nice Sounding, "Do-Gooder" Policies Always Doomed to Fail) 2. Liberal-Progressivism (The Drive for Social Improvement through Change and Promising Hope; More Draconian Liberal Polices are Implemented to Transform The People into a New Society that Is Guided by 'The Party') The Party Elite Have Complete Power and Rule Un-Checked. 3. Liberal-Fascism (The Rise of the Party Leader over 'The Party' Ensuring the Unity and Uniformaty of 'The Party' and Enforcing The Will of 'The Party' Over the People.) The Party Leader will Cleanse 'The Party' of All those Who Are NOT of 'The Party'; and 'The Party' Will Cleanse the People of All Those Who Do NOT Support 'The Party' and The Party Leader The Party Leader Now Has Complete and Total Power and Rules by the Force of His Iron Will. Brother/Sister Are You "OF" 'The Party' ? Does The Teaching Of 'The Party' Abide Within You ? Does The Thoughts Of 'The Party' "Leader" Guide Your Thoughts ? Let 'The Party' Change Your Life and Transform You ! Let 'The Party' Give You Hope and Renew You ! |
(OT) : The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" - The LiberalRule - It Is Impossible for Liberals to be Fascists ?
On Oct 2, 10:33*pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 2, 11:54*pm, RHF wrote: *i realize that this is most probably a waste of time. your type, are almost un-educational. as mussolini stated, fascism should be renamed corporatism. http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm What Fascism Is & Isn't No other word causes so much misunderstanding, confusion, and heated debate in politics than fascism. The term has been applied to many individuals such as McCarthy, Hoover, and others. It is frequently used to describe government policies and government themselves, often incorrectly. What then is fascism exactly? Webster's Dictionary defines it as: "A government system marked by a centralized dictatorship, stringent socioeconomic controls and belligerent nationalism." But the author takes exception with that definition. At best, the definition is vague and abstract. Nor does the definition seem capable of taking into all forms of fascism. There is a resurgent, widespread attempt by the far right to label fascism as a form of socialism. Fredrick von Hayek was the first to attempt labeling the Nazis as socialists in his book The Road to Serfdom published in 1944.70 The hard right quickly adopted it, as it allowed the hard right to escape the charges that they had much in common with the Nazis.2 Such endeavors are not only silly, but dishonest as well and represent an attempt by the far right to distance themselves for their earlier support of Hitler. Hayek's book is based on two erroneous assumptions from the very beginning. He first assumes that fascism and communism are one and the same, as they are both totalitarian systems. This makes about as much sense as calling a maple tree a pine tree because both are trees. His second erroneous assumption lays in his belief that only socialism or liberalism leads to totalitarian systems. In fact, all political systems can lead to totalitarian systems and all political systems are inherently unstable, as is any system created by man. From there, Hayek takes severe liberties with history. For instance, he goes on to claim that by deliberate policy the United States by allowed the growth of cartels and syndicates after 1878.71 Indeed this date and time period is significant, but not for a move towards socialism or liberalism. Rather, it's the opposite a move towards fascism and corporate rule. Even a reader with a rudimentary knowledge of American history would recognize this time frame as the beginning of the robber baron era and laissez faire economics, precisely the type of economic policy Hayek holds in utmost esteem. *Hayek offers little proof to support his conclusions; in fact the book is devoid of any proof or even examples to support his findings. The book degenerates into an argument based upon unsubstantiated assertion. He argues against the nation state and proposes a supernational authority or world federation made up of the financial elite. In essence, Hayek proposes a world made up of sovereign corporations accountable to no one. Not only did Hayek take severe liberties with American history, he ignored the very nature of fascism in Germany and Italy. In various speeches made shortly after the March on Rome, Mussolini stated, "We must take from state authority those functions for which it is incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state should renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out through monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such matters... We must put an end to state railways, state postal service and state insurance." The state returned large monopolies to the private sector after returning them to profitability such as the Consortium of Match Manufactures, privatized the insurance system in 1923, the telephone system in 1925, and many of the public works. In Germany the Nazis announced they would end nationalization of private industries when they seized power. In 1932, Hitler returned control of the Gelsenkirhen company to private hands and in 1936 returned the stock of "United Steel" to private hands. Throughout 1933-1936, the Nazi returned to private hands the control of several banks: Dresdner, Danat, Commerz and Privatbank, the Deutsche Bank, and several others. In 1936, the steamship company Deutcher Schiff and Maschinenbau was returned to the private sector. In 1934, Dr. Schacht, the Nazi Minister of Economy, gave instructions to hasten the privatization of municipal enterprises. These enterprises were especially coveted by the rich industrialists, as they had been prosperous even during the depression. Both in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the tax system was changed to one favoring business and the wealthy. The Nazis allowed industries to deduct from their taxable income all sums used to purchase new equipment. Rich families employing a maid were allowed to count the maid as a dependent child and reap the tax benefit. In Italy, the Minister of Finance stated: "We have broken with the practice of persecuting capital."73 *Such programs, catering to big business and the rich elite, are more akin to the policies of the Reagan Administration than it is to any liberal administration including FDR's. Likewise, it was the rich industrialists that were behind the fascist movement in the United States during the 1930s. Thus it is no surprise that the right wing attempts to try and label fascism as socialism in trying to distance themselves from their previous support of fascism. Perhaps the only redeeming feature in Hayek's book is his acknowledgement of environmental problems.72 Indeed this is significant, considering the book was first published in the 1940s, long before the birth of the environmental movement. Hayek readily acknowledges the problem of industrial pollution and the harmful effects of deforestation, yet he stops short of any meaningful solution. Instead of offering a viable solution Hayek condemns government regulation and would allow market forces to provide the solution. However, it was these same market forces that produced the problem. We have plenty of proof of such a fool hearty approach both here and globally. As late as the 1970s rivers caught fire in the United States, cities were smog stricken and harmful pollutants were damaging the environment world wide. Today we face the problems of global warming and ozone depletion, and the problem of environmental estrogens, which has the potential of being even more threatening than both global warming and ozone depletion. But perhaps the most damning of all evidence that Hayek was dead wrong comes from the implementation of an economic system based on his beliefs. Hayek later taught at the University of Chicago, the same university that trained the "Boys from Chicago" who were the economic brains behind the fascist regime of Pinochet in Chile. There is no question in the matter that under Pinochet, Chile was indeed fascist. More alarming, Hayek is an idol to several top-level officials in the George W. Bush administration. They are dangerous close to imposing a fascist style economy on the United States. In order to dispel the myth of the Nazis being socialists we need to first define socialism. Socialism is rigidly defined as an economic system in which the workers own the means of production and distribution of goods. A more relaxed definition would be simply that the workers maintain political control over the production and distribution of goods. Even using the more relaxed definition of socialism, the Nazis can not be labeled as socialists as there simply was no worker control over the production or distribution of goods in Nazi Germany. In fact, the Nazis outlawed legitimate labor unions. In place of the original unions, the Nazis implemented quasi-like unions that were controlled by the industrialists. In a dj vu manner, the Republican Party has recently tried to enact a similar measure, conferring legal status on worker groups controlled by corporations. Some writers and historians have argued that you cannot have fascism without corporatism, as the corporate power structure has much in common with fascism. During the period preceding the outbreak of WWII it was common to refer to fascism as corporatism in polite English society. More recently others have tried to define fascism as the "Third Way", in the sense that it borrowed ideas from both capitalism and socialism. The basic philosophy behind the "Third Way" incorrectly labels any regulations or government controls over businesses as socialism; essentially it's just a restatement of syndicalism. Such nonsense should be rejected whole heartily. It again represents an attempt to distance the right from their support of Hitler in the 1930s and ignores that the basis of the German economy under Hitler was a capitalist system where the means of production remained in private hands. Further, following the logic of the "Third Way," one would have to label all capitalistic systems as "Third Way," for throughout history there has never been a pure capitalistic system. A pure capitalist economy is so inherently and fatally flawed that it's never even been tried. But that is to be expected for any system that awards the winner with all the eggs. Nor has there been a pure socialistic system. Human greed simply prevents it. The dangers of such nonsense can be illustrated with the following quote taken from a Baptists fundamentalist's web page in their labeling of the Japanese economy as fascist: However, Fascism is an economic term, denoting the type of economy where the Means of Production [factories, companies] and the ownership of raw materials [mines, oil wells] remains in the hands of private individuals, but where the government intervenes to determine how many competitors will be allowed to produce the same thing, how much is produced, and what prices may be charged.1 Here it can be seen that the term fascism has been clearly misapplied. This description could past for the economic ... read more |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 2, 11:54*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 10/2/2010 9:17 PM, RHF wrote: ... yes there are times when gold has little or no value -wrt- the necessities of day to day survival ~ RHF * . * . Whenever gold has no value, only food, shelter, water, clothes, etc. will continue to have value. *But as soon as their is a desire for money, gold is king. cash is king today. its in shortage. people want it. if gold was so desirable, all extra stocks would be exhausted by now. *Not only that, but you can bury gold for an eternity and dig it back up and spend it. *Paper money will deteriorate rather quickly ... again, gold is king. how many people are willing to bury their gold for decades:) cash is king in a deflating economy. But, I suspect you waste your time ... this idiot only argues for the sake of "being right" ... it has no bearing on if what he says is even close to correct, or not. that still does not refute what i have been saying. gold is deflationary in nature, gold has never stopped a currency from being debased, gold has never stopped inflation, gold and silver have caused inflation, gold can make a recession, into a depression. cash is in shortage right now, cash is king, the owners of gold, will gladly sell you their gold, for your worthless little pieces of green paper, in a deflating economy, you might be forced into selling your over priced assets(gold), at a reduced price to raise scarce cash to pay your bills. refute them. Regards, JS |
(OT) : The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" - A 'Teachable Moment'
On Oct 2, 10:33*pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
- i realize that this is most probably a waste of time. - your type, are almost un-educational. - as mussolini stated, fascism should be renamed - corporatism. - = NnUa = - "your {my} type" & "un-educational" You Have Entered the "Arguing with Idiots" Zone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguing_with_Idiots There is a sign post up ahead . . . -and-it-reads- "You Are An Idiot !" -for- Arguing with someone that you reasonably believe to be a Total and Complete I D I O T [.] |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 08:03:10 -0700 (PDT), "Chas. Chan"
wrote: Fascism is a form of government which centers all power [House, Senate and Judiciary] in a single party [Liberal Fascist Democrats] headed by an absolute dictater HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 3, 9:15*am, John Smith wrote:
On 10/2/2010 10:28 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: ... * it sure is. the owners of gold will gladly sell you their gold for little green pieces of paper. now who is the fool:) That is probably how children see things, I will give you that. are you saying that children can identify a scam quicker than a adult can:) *But no, the owners of gold, which want to buy something, will trade you a portion of their gold for dollars so they can go get a home, a car, a yacht, an island, an airplane, etc. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! gold is not money. you figured it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now what happens when money is in short supply? why, the owners of assets sell said assets, to raise scarce cash to pay bills. and they snicker at those who over pay for a asset in deflationary times. like gold bugs, who are being goosed into over paying for a commodity used in electronics and jewelery. The gold mines will gladly sell you gold, it is their business. then little green pieces of paper, mean more to them than gold:) *Gold, for the most part, stays in places such as fort knox (yeah, I know, it is empty, or else someone elses gold is stored there) or the large holdings in china, middle east, etc. in large storage areas. *Just like people with money, people with gold have to trade part of their wealth for things they purchase. *People also go broke on large gambles, and supplies of gold come onto the market. you are making my arguments, thank you so very much. Gold is a way to secure and hold wealth in a stable form, where years, decades, centuries, etc. it can be liquidated and spent and used. that is not true. it can hold wealth sometimes, sometimes it leads to massive wealth loss. and it pays no income or dividends, its a very poor way to hold wealth. anyone who bought gold in the early 80's can testify to that. this article says it all, you still have not beaten a checking account. gold is a lousy investment, cash is scare in a deflating economy, cash is king:since 1980:Gold Cant Beat Checking Accounts 30 Years After Peak, average U.S. checking account rose at least 92 percent. On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...xBrQ9JTg&pos=3 Gold Cant Beat Checking Accounts 30 Years After Peak (Update1) By Nicholas Larkin and Millie Munshi Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Golds best year in three decades has yet to match the returns of an interest-bearing checking account for anyone who bought the most malleable of metals coveted for at least 5,000 years during the last peak in January, 1980. Investors who paid $850 an ounce back then earned 44 percent as gold reached a record $1,226.56 on Dec. 3 in London. The Standard & Poors 500 stock index produced a 22-fold return with dividends reinvested, Treasuries rose 11-fold and cash in the average U.S. checking account rose at least 92 percent. On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back. You give up a lot of return for the privilege of sleeping well at night, said James Paulsen, who oversees about $375 billion as chief investment strategist at Wells Capital Management in Minneapolis. If the world falls into an abyss, gold could be a store of value. There is some merit in that, but you can end up holding too much gold waiting for the world to end. From my experience, the world has not ended yet. While golds nine-year bull market is attracting hedge-fund managers John Paulson, Paul Tudor Jones and David Einhorn, strategists and fund managers at Barclays Plc, HSBC Holdings Plc, SCM Advisors LLC and Brinker Capital Inc. say buy-and-hold investors shouldnt always own bullion. The accumulation of gold is part of a record $60 billion Barclays estimates will flow into commodities this year. Hoarding Bullion The SPDR Gold Trust, the biggest exchange-traded fund backed by bullion, has amassed more metal than Switzerlands central bank, spurred by a plunging dollar and concern that the at least $12 trillion of government spending to lift economies out of the worst global recession since World War II will spur inflation. The collapse of U.S. real estate in 2007 froze credit markets and left the worlds biggest financial companies with $1.72 trillion of losses and writedowns, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The U.S. Mint suspended production last month of some American Eagle coins made from precious metals because of depleted inventories. The U.K.s Royal Mint more than quadrupled production of gold coins in the third quarter. Harrods Ltd., the London department store, began selling gold bars and coins for the first time in October. Those sales contributed to a 30 percent rally in gold this year, beating the 25 percent gain in the S&P 500, with dividends reinvested, and a 2.4 percent drop in Treasuries. Investors bought gold as the U.S. economy, the worlds biggest, shrank 3.8 percent in the 12 months ended in June, the worst performance in seven decades. Gross domestic product expanded at a 2.8 percent annual rate in the third quarter. Longest Winning Streak A weakening dollar also contributed to bullions longest winning streak since at least 1948. The U.S. Dollar Index, a measure against six counterparts, dropped in six of the last eight years, including a 6.6 percent decline in 2009, bolstering demand for a hedge. Gold fell 1.6 percent to $1,143 an ounce by 11:08 a.m. in London. Before today, the metal had risen 32 percent this year, the most since 1979. Buy-and-hold investors may not have done so well. One dollar put into a U.S. checking account in 1983 would be worth at least $1.92 today, based on annual average interest rates from Bankrate.com. The Federal Reserve target rate from 1980 to 1982 was 8.5 percent to 20 percent. Banks were paying 5 percent on the accounts in January 1981, according to a report in the New York Times. Dividends Reinvested The S&P 500 returned 2,182 percent from the beginning of 1980 through the end of the third quarter this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The calculation assumes dividends reinvested on a gross basis. Treasuries returned 1,089 percent through the beginning of this month, according to Merrill Lynchs Treasury Master Index. Gold is a useless asset to hold long term, said Charles Morris, who manages more than $2 billion at HSBC Global Asset Managements Absolute Return fund in London. Im not a gold bug who believes that you want to own this thing in your portfolio at all times. We should own it when the going is good, and the going right now is great. Those who bought gold when it reached a two-decade low of $251.95 in August 1999 have seen a 387 percent return, more than four times the 82 percent gain in Treasuries. An investment in the S&P 500 lost 0.4 percent through the end of last month. Interest on checking accounts shrank to 0.14 percent this year from 0.89 percent in 1999. Since the S&P 500 peaked in October 2007, investors in the index lost 25 percent, holders of Treasuries made 16 percent and gold buyers are up 64 percent. Very Conservative Investments There are people that just stayed in very conservative investments in cash and government bonds, said Larry Hatheway, global head of asset allocation at UBS AG in London, who recommends investors hold about 1 percent of their assets in bullion. Surely they would have been a lot better off being in gold. Buying bullion at $35 when U.S. President Richard Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971 would have given a 35-fold return, about the same performance as the S&P 500. Gold will average $1,070 next year, according to the median in a Bloomberg survey of 19 analysts. The metal may jump to $2,000 in the next five years, said HSBCs Morris. Ian Henderson, manager of $5 billion at JPMorgan Chase & Co., said hes adding to his gold-related holdings because of the momentum behind it. Jim Rogers, the investor who predicted the start of the commodities rally in 1999, has said bullion will surge to at least $2,000 over the next decade. Touradji Capital Our sense is that this bubble is more at the beginning stages than on the brink of collapse, said Thomas Wilson, head of the institutional and private client group at Brinker Capital in Berwyn, Pennsylvania, which manages about $8.5 billion. Touradji Capital Management LP, the New York hedge fund founded by Paul Touradji, bought 2.23 million shares of Barrick Gold Corp., the worlds biggest producer, during the third quarter, according to a Nov. 13 filing with regulators. The stake, Touradjis biggest equity holding, is worth $95 million. Paulson & Co., the hedge-fund firm run by billionaire Paulson, will start a gold fund on Jan. 1 investing in mining companies and bullion- related derivatives, according to a person familiar with the plan. Einhorn, who runs New York-based Greenlight Capital Inc., told a presentation in New York in October that hes buying gold to bet against the dollar. Paul Tudor Jones, in an Oct. 15 letter to clients of his Tudor Investment Corp., said gold is just an asset that, like everything else in life, has its time and place. And now is that time. Net Gold Buyers Central banks will become net buyers of gold this year for the first time since 1988, according to New York-based researcher CPM Group. India, China, Russia, Sri Lanka and Mauritius have all added to their reserves. Gold should be held when governments cease to function and currencies are worthless, or when inflation is surging, said Brian Nick, a New York-based investment strategist at Barclays Wealth, which manages $221 billion. He doesnt recommend increasing gold holdings, which are a very small part of commodity allocations. Inflation has yet to accelerate. U.S. consumer prices will rise 2 percent next year, the smallest expansion since 2002, according to the median estimate of 63 economists surveyed by Bloomberg. Prices will shrink 0.4 percent this year. Knee-Jerk Reaction People have this knee-jerk reaction and say that you want gold as a hedge against inflation, said Maxwell Bublitz, who helps oversee $3.5 billion as the chief strategist at San Francisco-based SCM Advisors LLC and recommends investors hold no more than 5 percent of their assets in the metal. But the history of gold in regard to inflation shows that its not a great hedge. Investors seeking to protect themselves against inflation should buy commodities, which are cheaper than gold, said Wells Capitals Paulsen. Copper, after more than doubling this year, is still 28 percent away from the record $8,940 a metric ton reached in July 2008. Theoretically, it does have a spot in portfolios, a small one, Bublitz said. Youre probably going to get entry points that are a lot better than where gold is now. To contact the reporters on this story: Nicholas Larkin at ; Millie Munshi in New York at . Last Updated: December 7, 2009 06:48 EST You logic of "people with gold would hang on to their gold" is only as valid as "people with dollars would hang on to their dollars." *Both of these statements are correct, you only get gold or dollars when they are spent ... but cash is king in a deflating economy, and you may have to sell your gold at a reduced price, to raise scarce cash to pay your bills. we are not facing hyper-inflation at the moment, and have not been facing it for a couple of years now. in fact, we are facing deflation. in deflation, cash is scarce, and cash is king. what is everybody short of right now, well, its cash. so spend your scarce cash on gold. Regards, JS |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 3, 9:18*am, John Smith wrote:
On 10/2/2010 10:27 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: ... * explain away the private sector screwing people over gold. gold is a impossible way to *back a modern economy. its deflationary in nature. no country is willing to go back to the gold standard and starve. Gold works just as any other currency or medium of exchange. *You can scam people with stocks, bonds, dollars, etc. *Naturally, you can do it with gold also ... then its not a good way to back money then, if it can be a scam. you just helped me blow away the gold backed money scam, thank you. Truth is, the wealthy have large holding of gold and other valuable metals. *They don't wish the slaves to have them. *You are one of those slaves who just doesn't realize the game ... in a free market economy, where the wealthy are vastly under taxed, the wealthy will take their money out of productive activities that they were forced into by a progressive tax, and put said money in non- productive things such as antiques and other things that they think will hold value in a depression. of course that is the wrong way to do things, and invites a depression, and antiques and other so-called hedges that were, or still are in a bubble due to under taxation, plummet. just look at the antique artwork these days, the bubbles popped, and prices have deflated. the same will happen to gold and other commodities sooner or later. cash will become even more scarce, and those commodities will have to be sold at fire sale pieces to raise scarce cash to pay bills. Regards, JS |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 3, 9:28*am, John Smith wrote:
On 10/2/2010 10:19 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: ... * still does not refute a thing. and the last 30 years of thinking is what has ruined america. That is because you will never see anything as a valid repudiation of the things you wish to believe. *That is only obivious ... and the last 30 to 40 years of the present system is what has ruined America. what has ruined america is the free market cult. *And, that system has been kept in operation by BOTH republi-crats and demo-cans; *It will remain so ... perhaps Ron Paul, or such a man with such beliefs can change things. *But, the entrenched powers which be are so abhorrent to change which would free the financially enslaved will never allow that. *Even if they must bring down many more buildings, assassinate many more people, cause many more wars, steal more oil, sell more drugs, etc., etc. the free market is a feverish cult, like all cults, reality will never trump ideology. Regards, JS |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 3, 9:34*am, John Smith wrote:
On 10/2/2010 10:18 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: ... * that does not refute one thing i have proven. also,i have been active on alt.politics.economics for well over a decade and a half. Here we go, again ... as I stated, nothing will ever be good enough to repudiate anything you believe. not really, i am a liberal, liberals are open minded. i own gold, i did back in the early 1970's. but after many years of watching the gold market. i have come to the conclusion that its really a poor investment. that investment is being driven by fear, the same fear that conservatives are so successful with the ignorant. i hope gold goes thru the roof, then i will sell mine that i bought almost 40 years ago. otherwise, its been a really poor investment, a real money loser. like any other bubble, yes gold is in a massive bubble right now. you have to be lucky enough to get out when the getting is good. *You have chosen to believe what you choose to believe and that is that ... I accept that, indeed, don't feel alone. *How do you think we got here, why do you think we are staying here, and why do you think many believe we will be here in the future? It is because many have been brain washed like you and no amount of sanity, logic and reason will dislodge the mind-screwing which has been done by the system ... they haven't spent trillions on plans which don't work! i have a long history of understanding economics. Regards, JS |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On 10/3/2010 9:13 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
... are you saying that children can identify a scam quicker than a adult can:) NO! I am saying a child can recognize reason and logic quicker than YOU can ... ... BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! gold is not money. you figured it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now what happens when money is in short supply? why, the owners of assets sell said assets, to raise scarce cash to pay bills. and they snicker at those who over pay for a asset in deflationary times. like gold bugs, who are being goosed into over paying for a commodity used in electronics and jewelery. Gold = money. Indeed, there can be no money without precious metals or things of value. The money only represents the gold. You can back money with other things, those other things just don't have a lifespan of eternity ... indeed, you can back money with a promise ... and that promise can have a very short lifespan, indeed! ... then little green pieces of paper, mean more to them than gold:) That logic is why I consider you insane ... and a damn good example at that! Gold, for the most part, stays in places such as fort knox (yeah, I know, it is empty, or else someone elses gold is stored there) or the large holdings in china, middle east, etc. in large storage areas. Just like people with money, people with gold have to trade part of their wealth for things they purchase. People also go broke on large gambles, and supplies of gold come onto the market. you are making my arguments, thank you so very much. Indeed, at least you agree with me here ... Gold is a way to secure and hold wealth in a stable form, where years, decades, centuries, etc. it can be liquidated and spent and used. that is not true. it can hold wealth sometimes, sometimes it leads to massive wealth loss. and it pays no income or dividends, its a very poor way to hold wealth. anyone who bought gold in the early 80's can testify to that. You attempt to make gold and the actions and transactions surrounding gold one and the same ... they are not ... gold is gold ... paper is paper ... scams are scams ... other than money being a representation of gold, a heavy substance hard to carry, gold has little to do with scams which can be created to steal wealth or the fact a dollar actual worth is the paper and ink ... this article says it all, you still have not beaten a checking account. gold is a lousy investment, cash is scare in a deflating economy, cash is king:since 1980:Gold Cant Beat Checking Accounts 30 Years After Peak, average U.S. checking account rose at least 92 percent. On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back Gold is an excellent investment to hold wealth in a stable form, indeed, only precious metals will work for that. An OZ of gold in 1849 would buy a very nice suit, today in 2010 it still will buy that very nice suit ... indeed, it will even buy a nicer suit today. A $20 bill might buy you a polyester tie to go with that suit (and look tacky!) ... All the rest of your crap is mainly obfuscation meant to tire one out and you win by "the last man standing rule." Lose that childs' ploy to be taken seriously ... a fool needs a book to describe his point(s), a wiseman a paragraph ... Regards, JS |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On 10/3/2010 9:20 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
... More tiring obfuscation and desperation ... Truth is, dig up an old Roman gold coin, it will still hold near the same value it had back then ... dig up the first gold coin ever created, it will still hold near the value it was given then. You won't be digging up any dollars from then ... but it you did manage, they would only have a collectors value ... they financial worth would be ZERO! Regards, JS |
(OT) : Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay : Ending in Liberal-Fascism
On Oct 3, 9:36*am, Deep Dudu wrote:
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:18:55 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable wrote: On Oct 3, 1:13=A0am, (Ray Fischer) wrote: RHF wrote: Here are the Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay : Fascists hate liberalism. -- Ray Fischer =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 correct. its something the conservatives cannot explain away. in fact, we know that fascism is the final decay of conservatism. they are simply projecting again. The recently coined term "liberal fascism" is nothing more than yet another attempt by the right wing propagandists to blame everything bad that ever happened in the world on liberalism. *The corporatists can't come to an admission that the worst mass murderer ever in the world was one of them, so they try to make fascism into a left wing phenomenon in order to brainwash the lemmings. * its called projecting. hitler and mussolini turned german and italian society upside down, murder became legal, theft became legal, slavery became legal, and were all viewed upon as admirable ways to make a living. conservatives are doing the same thing today to american society. night is day, day is night, black is white, white is black. |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On 10/3/2010 9:21 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
... the free market is a feverish cult, like all cults, reality will never trump ideology. Regards, JS Free market? There is no such thing, hasn't been for half a century or more. Just start looking at the rules and regulations which cause the system to be molded in fine detail and you will know this is fact ... the tax code itself consists of many volumes and stacked, vertically, upon the floor, stands taller than me, I suspect ... and the is but a tiny fraction of the rules and regulations governing wealth, finances, banking, commerce, etc. ... get real. Regards, JS |
(OT) : The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" - A 'Teachable Moment'
On Oct 3, 9:59*am, John Smith wrote:
On 10/2/2010 11:16 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: On Oct 3, 12:53 am, *wrote: http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/ency...sm_and_Nazism/ * * * * Socialism and Nazism Nazism and socialism refers to a polemical, and political claim that Nazism, or the "German National Socialism" of the 1930s to mid 1940s is comparable in some way to the ideology of socialism. Political figures in the US, Britain, and elsewhere may at times employ the comparison as a rhetorical device aimed at discrediting pro-labor and otherwise socially liberal platforms, by implying a guilt by association between socialist economic philosophy and the tyrannical rule of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. While the claim has little meaning among educated scholars, the argument has some social resonance among "layman majorities" who tend to be less able to discern (or have less access to) factual claims and materials related to history and economics easy to sway with polemic rhetoric, even if the claim has little substance or merit. The definition of Nazism The name "National Socialist German Workers Party," was a misnomer, much like the "Peoples Republic of China," the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics," the "German Democratic Republic" and the "Liberal Democratic Party of Russia." Few would argue that any of the above countries were infact democracies or republics, and it is to this above category that the Hitlerian self-image as a "National Socialist German Workers Party," belongs. The shortened term, "National Socialism," is a misnomer as well, and by itself simply means a 'nationalist flavor of socialism.' But because it is a very general term, it has some current resonance in popular discourse particularly when it's used synonymously with Nazism. It's polemical use within Western capitalist societies, is designed to evoke the twin demons of Naziism and (Soviet) "socialism," perhaps generating a Pavlovian response to the common "enemy", in this case . The accusation of political liberals as "socialists," (and hence by implication "Nazis" and "Soviets Communists") is a rather typical and well-documented cornerstone of conservative rhetoric in the United States and other capitalist democracies. (See smear campaign, Red scare, McCarthyism) The Nazi party-appropriated-term "socialism," like "democracy" in the cases above, was used to appeal to German workers for political support during the tentative early years of Hitler's ascent to power. Apart from the occasional use of empty pro-worker political rhetoric, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party had no inclination towards true socialism, in the sense (democratic socialism) that it's used today. Within the context of Hitler's unified, "racially-pure" Germany, Hitler instituted and supported social programs that on their surface had socialist structure. For example, his youth programs, education and indoctrination programs, reproduction programs, all borrowed some of their structure from existing "socialist" ideas, but insead of keeping the democratic spirit of socialist ideals, he simply borrowed what was popular to serve is quest for power. Whatever appeals Nazism made to the German worker, family, culture, and society while in a very general sense were socialist they were simply components in the totalitarian rule of the Nazi party. The claim that socialism and nazism are one in the same are an example of the ignatoriao ilenchi fallacy for example, the same could be said of the United States military industrial complex, which operates with socialist/communist-like safeguards and protections, though its a part of a capitalist system. Ad-Hominem The term Nazism typically has such a bad name that to link it to anything tends to tarnish the reputation of that other thing. A "law" of internet culture called Godwin's Law humorously states that whoever first brings up Hitler or the Nazis in a usenet discussion automatically loses the argument. [1] [2] (tarring them with the same brush, as it were). Those who see a connection insist that rather then being driven by ideology, they seek only greater accuracy in political science. Reasons Nazism is considered socialist * * * * Self-depiction: the German Nazi Party called itself the "National Socialist Worker's Party", and in 1927, Hitler said, "We are socialists." * * * * * * The Left Wing (examples include Gregor Strasser and Ernst Rhm), and working class brownshirts (or Sturmabteilung) within the Nazi Party supported socialist programs. * * * * * * One writer, Lew Rockwell at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, suggests that the chief difference beween Nazism and (as he puts it) others forms of socialism is that the Hitler's socialism was nationalistic while other forms (such as Communism) were internationalist. [3] Reasons Nazism is not considered socialist * * * * Throughout its rise to power and rule, the Nazis were strongly opposed by left-wing and socialist parties, and Nazi rhetoric was virulently anti-Marxist, attacking both communists and social democrats. A central appeal of Nazism was its opposition to Marxism and other forms of socialism and its claim to be a bulwark against Bolshevism and this is why they recieved so much material and political support from industrialists and conservatives. * * * * * * The Nazi ideology saw socialist collectivism as part of a Jewish conspiracy (Judeo-Bolshevism) meant to undermine the elitist principle. * * * * * * Nazis proposed that only people who were considered "racially pure" or Aryan would benefit from their policies. This can be seen as contrary to the socialist ideal of a society for the benefit of all. * * * * * * In his rise to power, Hitler reassured German industrialists that he would respect private property and fight labor unions. To the extent that permitting private property to exist is contrary to "socialism", then Nazism was not "socialist". On the other hand, some democratic countries (like Sweden) have adopted some (but not all) socialist ideas while retaining a degree of freedom to own private property and have labor unions. * * * * * * Hitler received strong support from conservatives for the "Enabling Act." This legislation was opposed by social democrats. * * * * * * After coming to power, Hitler sent thousand of communists, social democrats and unionists to concentration camps and killed communist leaders in Germany. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate profits for Krupp& *Co. * * * * * * The profits of large corporations soared under the Nazis. With the exception of Jewish property which was seized and sold, capitalist enterprises were not expropriated or nationalised but remained in private hands. * * * * * * The Nazis were anti-egalitarian believing in neither equality (either among Germans or between Germans and non-Germans), collectivism, nor the rights of the "masses". According to Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw they had an elitist view of society and asserted that in competition with each other the superior individual would emerge on top. Despite the use of slogans such as "the common good comes before the private good" their vision of social relations, in practice, was in line with the ideas of Nietzche rather than Karl Marx. * * * * * * During the party's ascendency in the 1930s, so called "left wing" Nazis such as Gregor Strasser and Ernst Rhm were ruthlessly purged and even killed. Man, that is nothing but distilled BS. *What a friggin' idiot! *This is some homosexual mental case ... one of the worst I have yet seen. Regards, JS then refute it right wing stooge. |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On 10/3/2010 9:28 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
... Your text is nothing but drivel ... And, you certainly are NOT a liberal. You are just a fool supporting the status quo ... Regards, JS |
(OT) : Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay : Ending in Liberal-Fascism
On Oct 3, 10:02*am, John Smith wrote:
On 10/2/2010 11:18 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote: ... * correct. its something the conservatives cannot explain away. in fact, we know that fascism is the final decay of conservatism. they are simply projecting again. What a friggin' idiot to even spend so much time on such an infinitesimally small point ... I suspect meth, crack cocoaine or a mental disorder which mimics the drugs effects ... I just love these idiots, reminds me of why things are the way they are ... Regards, JS refute it then. it seems when your type has nothing, you resort to insults. me thinks that you see some disturbing similarities between fascism and conservatism:) |
(OT) : The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" - A 'TeachableMoment'
On 10/3/2010 9:38 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
... then refute it right wing stooge. I am for tearing up ALL government. I am for interpreting the Constitution though the interpretation which would be held by rational, logical and reasoning average Americans--the same which accepted and held the Constitution to be valid in the first place--rule by majority of the people, and absolute rule by the people, whos' will is carried out by their public servants. I believe most of the congressmen, senators and the president should be jailed and charged with crimes of treason against the people. I am simply here waiting the revolution ... be it peaceful, or not ... but things need to be put back in order. Regards, JS |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On Oct 3, 10:31*am, John Smith wrote:
On 10/3/2010 8:03 AM, Chas. Chan wrote: Fascism is a form of government which centers all power [House, Senate and Judiciary] in a single party [Liberal Fascist Democrats] headed by an absolute dictater [0baMa0 Tse Dung]. ... You have it correct, and such is our government. *However, some are confused since the party can be referred to by two different names--republi-crat and demo-can ... but, in the shadows the same figure(s) pull the strings ... Regards, JS man, you got it bad. the idiot just said the constitution was fascist. |
(OT) : Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay : Ending in Liberal-Fascism
On 10/3/2010 9:44 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
... refute it then. it seems when your type has nothing, you resort to insults. me thinks that you see some disturbing similarities between fascism and conservatism:) You take despots out behind a run down shed and shoot them in the back of the head ... then you get on with the important things in life ... you leave idiots there to contemplate the dead body(s) for the time they find necessary ... Regards, JS |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On 10/3/2010 9:51 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
man, you got it bad. the idiot just said the constitution was fascist. He did say this, "Anyone who is not a ComuSexual-(Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Communist) is a Fascist according to Useful Liberal Idiots." I can sum it all up, and more, with less, "You are a fool. You are an excellent example, in the reverse ..." Regards, JS |
Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
On 10/3/2010 9:54 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
... conservative(fascists)hate jews, because most jews are liberal. thanks for proving that fascists are not liberals:) rick sanchez let loose on jews recently. isn't sanchez a conservative? It is so trivial, it boggles the mind. The same money lenders in the temples, since ancient times, their bloodlines, their motivations, their methods, etc., etc. are still alive and well today ... the weapons which work against them are still just as effective. As then, only men of principal and real worth are necessary to end their influence ... the process was last instituted, on a grand scale, here in 1776, let us hope it is instituted again, and soon. Regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com