Privitize Social Security?

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

So basically having some undeterminable amount of wealth that you could never spend on just yourself and your family no matter how hard you tried is more important to you then feeding orphans and keeping the elderly off the streets? I want to understand you man, but it seems so cold hearted. 

Fightingfan

I guess I really don't see the point in privatizing it.  They need to start the process of eliminating it altogether, not give the money to a corporation or private organization that isn't accountable to the American people.  

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

iirc it is difficult to do monetary policy thingys with resource-backed currencies, so, fightingfan, no.

ur drunk

go home

Abbeten

well, something like that

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

iirc it is difficult to do monetary policy thingys with resource-backed currencies, so, fightingfan, no.

ur drunk

go home

coolbeans90

well, something like that

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"] difficult? i think it's more or less impossiblelo_Pine

well, something like that

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

well, something like that

lx_theo

.lx_theo

The country sets the value of the hard asset when in a commodity backed currency. That's how they can change the value. The government can say "OK Gold is work $100 dollars an ounce", and that would make a 1 ounce coin worth 100 dollars, a half an ounce coin 50 dollars, etc...

The difference is the value can't be simply can't reach zero -- you have to account for the resources needed to obtain said asset. No man would do the work required to mine ore for today's value of a dollar -- but if the value of a dollar was backed by 1/10 of gold that dollar($250 buckish) would be worth that man's labor.

Yes Gold restrict economic policy given the fact you can't create gold out of thin air. That's what gives it sustantial value over paper -- it limits the power of a central bank.

*the value of gold isn't universal under a gold standard.

American might want $100 per ozt, but China might want $200.

So that would make 1 American dollar worth half if you traded "bill notes" I think is the correct word. 

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"] difficult? i think it's more or less impossiblelo_Pine

well, something like that

I know, but I wasn't talking about those.

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

well, something like that

coolbeans90

I know, but I wasn't talking about those.

[QUOTE="lx_theo"].Fightingfan

The country sets the value of the hard asset when in a commodity backed currency. That's how they can change the value. The government can say "OK Gold is work $100 dollars an ounce", and that would make a 1 ounce coin worth 100 dollars, a half an ounce coin 50 dollars, etc...

The difference is the value can't be simply can't reach zero -- you have to account for the resources needed to obtain said asset. No man would do the work required to mine ore for today's value of a dollar -- but if the value of a dollar was backed by 1/10 of gold that dollar($250 buckish) would be worth that man's labor.

Yes Gold restrict economic policy given the fact you can't create gold out of thin air. That's what gives it sustantial value over paper -- it limits the power of a central bank.

*the value of gold isn't universal under a gold standard.

American might want $100 per ozt, but China might want $200.

So that would make 1 American dollar worth half if you traded "bill notes" I think is the correct word. 

Of course the price can be manipulated like paper money --- but gold being a hard asset can't turn into Zimbabwe currency.

Gov. sets the "Main price"(lack of a better word), and the price accommodate to everything else (The resources needed for the asset). The asset's price can't equal worthless because a man's labor(or the resources needed to obtain that commodity) isn't worthless.

That's exclusive to a currency backed by a commodity. A good example would be look at a silver dollar, and look at a dollar now. The value of a peace dollar is worth more than face value now because the resources needed to replicate that dollar is above face value.

But the resources needed to create a modern dollar(printing) is represented by it's buying power now.

defeats the purpose.

I'd be more in favor of phasing social security out altogether for future generations.

Of course the price can be manipulated like paper money --- but gold being a hard asset can't turn into Zimbabwe currency.

Gov. sets the "Main price"(lack of a better word), and the price accommodate to everything else (The resources needed for the asset). The asset's price can't equal worthless because a man's labor(or the resources needed to obtain that commodity) isn't worthless.

That's exclusive to a currency backed by a commodity. A good example would be look at a silver dollar, and look at a dollar now. The value of a peace dollar is worth more than face value now because the resources needed to replicate that dollar is above face value.

But the resources needed to create a modern dollar(printing) is represented by it's buying power now.

Fightingfan

Of course the price can be manipulated like paper money --- but gold being a hard asset can't turn into Zimbabwe currency.

Gov. sets the "Main price"(lack of a better word), and the price accommodate to everything else (The resources needed for the asset). The asset's price can't equal worthless because a man's labor(or the resources needed to obtain that commodity) isn't worthless.

That's exclusive to a currency backed by a commodity. A good example would be look at a silver dollar, and look at a dollar now. The value of a peace dollar is worth more than face value now because the resources needed to replicate that dollar is above face value.

But the resources needed to create a modern dollar(printing) is represented by it's buying power now.

Fightingfan

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

Of course the price can be manipulated like paper money --- but gold being a hard asset can't turn into Zimbabwe currency.

Gov. sets the "Main price"(lack of a better word), and the price accommodate to everything else (The resources needed for the asset). The asset's price can't equal worthless because a man's labor(or the resources needed to obtain that commodity) isn't worthless.

That's exclusive to a currency backed by a commodity. A good example would be look at a silver dollar, and look at a dollar now. The value of a peace dollar is worth more than face value now because the resources needed to replicate that dollar is above face value.

But the resources needed to create a modern dollar(printing) is represented by it's buying power now.

lo_Pine

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

Of course the price can be manipulated like paper money --- but gold being a hard asset can't turn into Zimbabwe currency.

Gov. sets the "Main price"(lack of a better word), and the price accommodate to everything else (The resources needed for the asset). The asset's price can't equal worthless because a man's labor(or the resources needed to obtain that commodity) isn't worthless.

That's exclusive to a currency backed by a commodity. A good example would be look at a silver dollar, and look at a dollar now. The value of a peace dollar is worth more than face value now because the resources needed to replicate that dollar is above face value.

But the resources needed to create a modern dollar(printing) is represented by it's buying power now.

Fightingfan

I guess I really don't see the point in privatizing it.  They need to start the process of eliminating it altogether, not give the money to a corporation or private organization that isn't accountable to the American people.  

hoola

Labor and such mean nothing to value. Value is determined by the market. There is no minimum price it can't go under. Yes, production costs are still there, but they don't change the value. Companies simply try to not sell products that will give them losses when sold because labor and such cost more than the value of the object. So can you shut up with that absurd claim already?lx_theo

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="lo_Pine"] Bro, fiat money is standard. It has been standardized by bombs. It's never been about who has the most gold. But who has the greatest ability to take the gold away. A nation (king) can sit within its vault of gold but if there's a million armed men outside the vault ready to kill the king what can he do with his riches?lo_Pine

But with fiat I think you're right. if China tried to pull a Cuban embargo type deal with America some bombs would go off.

America would more then likly turn into a police state if that happened, and then used its free resources to force other countries to use it's paper. 

[QUOTE="lx_theo"] Labor and such mean nothing to value. Value is determined by the market. There is no minimum price it can't go under. Yes, production costs are still there, but they don't change the value. Companies simply try to not sell products that will give them losses when sold because labor and such cost more than the value of the object. So can you shut up with that absurd claim already?Fightingfan

so you want to give up basically all our ability to control monetary policy because you are afraid that the dollar will undergo zimbabwe-style devaluation that is basically crazyAbbeten

LOOK AT ROME

AND THEY SAY IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE!

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="lx_theo"] Labor and such mean nothing to value. Value is determined by the market. There is no minimum price it can't go under. Yes, production costs are still there, but they don't change the value. Companies simply try to not sell products that will give them losses when sold because labor and such cost more than the value of the object. So can you shut up with that absurd claim already?lx_theo

I agree in regards the government not valuing labor in a gold standard. If gold is 100 an ozt, doesn't matter how many men it takes to create that bar it's still 100 per ozt. They're paid based on what the gov feels fits, usually in a metal in a different "financial category" (silver).

Silver is for the poor, and gold is for the rich and powerful.

*basically the buying power of small denomination would be greater than they are now.

[QUOTE="lx_theo"][QUOTE="Fightingfan"] That's bad wording on my part. I mean't it as a production cost, not value. Fightingfan

I agree in regards the government not valuing labor in a gold standard. If gold is 100 an ozt, doesn't matter how many men it takes to create that bar it's still 100 per ozt. They're paid based on what the gov feels fits, usually in a metal in a different "financial category" (silver).

Silver is for the poor, and gold is for the rich and powerful.

*basically the buying power of small denomination would be greater than they are now.

I have gained a lot of respect for Fightingfan in this thread.Laihendi

I have gained a lot of respect for Fightingfan in this thread.Laihendi

I have gained a lot of respect for Fightingfan in this thread.Laihendi

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

iirc it is difficult to do monetary policy thingys with resource-backed currencies, so, fightingfan, no.

ur drunk

go home

coolbeans90

well, something like that

[QUOTE="hoola"]

I guess I really don't see the point in privatizing it.  They need to start the process of eliminating it altogether, not give the money to a corporation or private organization that isn't accountable to the American people.  

Aljosa23

I think many things should be privatized, including social security.  Most of government run agencies would be 100x more efficient if they cut regulations and let private business run them.

GOGOGOGURT

or you might want to know about American's private prison system.

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

I think many things should be privatized, including social security.  Most of government run agencies would be 100x more efficient if they cut regulations and let private business run them.

Ncsoftlover

or you might want to know about American's private prison system.