102 replies to this topic

[concert andy]

Drones have killed 4,700, U.S. senator says

 

 

 

Just how many people have America’s drones killed? Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham has put the death toll at 4,700—the first time an American official has publicly put a precise figure on the impact of strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles. The South Carolina lawmaker's office said he was citing an estimate already discussed on cable television.

 

Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, used the figure during a question and answer session on Tuesday with the Rotary Club of Easley in his home state of South Carolina. His remarks were first reported by the Easley Patch.

 

“We've killed 4,700,” the lawmaker said. “Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we're at war, and we've taken out some very senior members of al-Qaida.”

 

Drone strikes, President Barack Obama’s signature tactic for killing suspected al-Qaida and other extremist fighters, have been “very effective,” said Graham. “It's a weapon that needs to be used.”

 

Amid a controversy sparked by Obama’s targeted assassination of American citizens overseas suspected of consorting with terrorists, Graham came down sharply against any judicial oversight of the drone war, calling the idea “crazy.”

 

“I can't imagine, in World War [II] for Roosevelt to have gone to a bunch of judges and said, 'I need your permission before we can attack the enemy,'” Graham said.

 

Drone war expert Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations noted on his blog that Graham’s figure lined up with the high-end estimate by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

 

“Either Graham is a big fan of TBIJ’s work, or perhaps he inadvertently revealed the U.S. government’s body count for nonbattlefield targeted killings,” Zenko said.

 

Asked about the disclosure, Graham's office forwarded a clip from MSNBC in which the anchor cites the figure of 4,700 killed. Asked whether the Obama Administration harbored any concerns about Graham's comments, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor sent along a blog post including the same clip.

 

Graham's remarks, as reported, did not specify whether he was discussing CIA drone strikes or military drone strikes.

 

Obama's expanded drone war has broad popular support in the U.S., according to a poll released earlier this month by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. That survey found 56 percent support such strikes and 26 percent oppose them.

 

At the same time, 53 percent worry about potential civilian casualties. But overseas it faces majority opposition, Pew found last year.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

First story showing support amonst Americans.

 

Continued Support for U.S. Drone Strikes Civilian Casualties a Concern, Even Among Supporters

 

 

 

 

While U.S. drone strikes have faced new scrutiny in recent weeks, a majority of the public continues to support the program. Overall, 56% approve of the U.S. conducting missile strikes from pilotless aircraft to target extremists in countries such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia; just 26% say they disapprove.

 

Opinion is largely unchanged from last July, when 55% approved of the program. Support for drone attacks crosses party lines: 68% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats say they approve of U.S. drone strikes.

 

There also are stark gender differences in opinions about the use of drones: Men approve of drone strikes by more than three-to-one (68% to 21%). Among women, 44% approve, while 31% disapprove.

 

 

 

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Feb. 7-10 among 1,004 adults, finds that while drone strikes draw continued support, there is widespread concern that the attacks endanger innocent civilians.

 

Overall, 53% say they are very concerned about whether drone strikes put the lives of civilians in danger. Even among those who approve of the program, 42% say they are very concerned the attacks risk lives of innocent civilians.

 

Other possible consequences from drone attacks spur less public concern: 32% are very concerned they could lead to retaliation from extremist groups, 31% are very concerned the attacks are being conducted legally and 26% worry they could damage America’s reputation around the world.

 

 

 

Democrats, Independents More Concerned about Civilian Casualties

 

Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to express concern over whether drone attacks endanger civilian lives. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Democrats and 53% ofindependents say they are very concerned about whether U.S. drone strikes endanger the lives of innocent civilians, compared with just 37% of Republicans.

 

The partisan gaps are smaller in concerns over other possible consequences from drone attacks. For each, fewer than half of Democrats – and even smaller percentages of Republicans –express a great deal of concern.

 

 

Among those who approve of U.S. drone strikes, 42% say they are very concerned about whether the attacks endanger the lives of innocent civilians. No more than a quarter of drone supporters say they are very concerned about the three other possible consequences tested.

 

 

 

Gender Gap over Drone Strikes

 

 

Women are much less supportive of U.S. drone strikes than are men and they express far greater concern over the possibility of civilian casualties. Overall, 44% of women approve of the U.S. conducting missile strikes from pilotless aircraft, 31% disapprove while 25% offer no opinion. By contrast, men support drone strikes by more than three-to-one (68%-21%).

 

Six-in-ten women (60%) say they are very concerned about whether drone strikes endanger the lives of innocent civilians compared with 46% of men. Less than half of women say they are very concerned about other possible consequences, though they offer somewhat more concern on these issues than do men.

 

Among those who disapprove of U.S. drone attacks, nearly eight-in-ten (79%) are very concerned about possible civilians casualties; About half say they are very concerned over whether the attacks are being conducted legally (52%), whether they could lead to retaliation from extremist groups (52%), and whether they could damage America’s reputation around the world (49%).

 

 

 

ABOUT THE SURVEY

The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted February 7-10, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of age or older living in the continental United States (500 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 504 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 254 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older. For detailed information about our survey methodology, see: http://people-press.org/methodology/.

 

The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic origin and region to parameters from the 2011 Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and population density to parameters from the Decennial Census. The sample also is weighted to match current patterns of telephone status, based on extrapolations from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the combined sample and adjusts for household size among respondents with a landline phone. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into account the effect of weighting. The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:

 

 

 

Is this (1004) a large enough sample size:

 

 

 

 

 

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request.

 

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Then:

 

 

 

U.S. Use of Drones, Under New Scrutiny, Has Been Widely Opposed Abroad

 

The nomination of John Brennan to head the Central Intelligence Agency is expected to renew focus on the U.S. use of drones against suspected militants at his Senate confirmation hearing on February 7. A majority (62%) of the U.S. public approves of drone strikes, but outside of the United States, there is considerable opposition among most nations surveyed by the Pew Research Center.

 

 

As President Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser, Brennan has been considered the architect of the administration’s strategy for use of drones.

 

Last spring, Pew Research surveyed the public in 20 countries around the world and found that in 17 of them, more than half disapproved of the U.S. conducting drone strikes to target extremists in places such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. The policy was particularly unpopular in majority Muslim nations, but it also faced disapproval in Europe and other regions as well.

 

Disapproval is strongest in Greece (90%), Egypt (89%), Jordan (85%), Turkey (81%), Spain (76%), Brazil (76%) and Japan (75%).

 

The only countries in the survey, aside from the U.S., where opposition to the drone campaigns was muted were Britain, where the public was almost evenly divided (44% approve, 47% disapprove) and India, where 32% approved and 21% disapproved, but nearly half (47%) had no opinion.

 

Americans largely supported the drone attacks in the spring survey: 62% approved compared to 28 % who disapproved. While support was especially high among Republicans (74%), most independents (60%) and Democrats (58%) also approved.

 

In Europe, there was a significant ideological gap on the question. A majority (56%) in Britain who described themselves as being on the political right favored the drone strikes, but just 31% on the left agreed. In France, 49% of those on the right approved of the strikes compared to 26% on the left. Double-digit differences were also found in Italy, the Czech Republican and Germany.

 

There were even larger gender differences on drone use throughout most of Europe, and also in the U.S. Japan, and Brazil. In the U.S., 74% of men supported the strikes compared to 51% of women. In all, ten of the nations surveyed had double-digit gender gaps on the issue.

[TakeAStepBack]

Braod support doesn't make them any more ethical or legal.

[concert andy]

Braod support doesn't make them any more ethical or legal.

 

 

I am not stating that it is or isn't.

 

 

I asked in the post:  is a 1000 people enough of a sample size?

[TakeAStepBack]

I wasn't suggesting you did. I was stating my my thoughts. 10,000 isn't enough for a sample size for a country of over 300 million.

[concert andy]

I like how the article states this support as fact (with a link to the supporting stats).

 

Then the stats are easily debatable, on sample size alone.

[TakeAStepBack]

More statist fluff from the sychophants. Same as it ever was I guess.

[Feck]

with all of those facts and numbers, you would think they would give the estiamtes of the innocent people killed vs. % of innocent people killed during during battlefiled operations or our previous wars.

[concert andy]

with all of those facts and numbers, you would think they would give the estiamtes of the innocent people killed vs. % of innocent people killed during during battlefiled operations or our previous wars.

 

 

That was for the senator to answer. And they answered:

 

 

 

“Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we're at war, and we've taken out some very senior members of al-Qaida.”

[concert andy]

The other scetchy details from the Senator:

 

 

 

Drone strikes, President Barack Obama’s signature tactic for killing suspected al-Qaida and other extremist fighters, have been “very effective,” said Graham. “It's a weapon that needs to be used.”

 

Amid a controversy sparked by Obama’s targeted assassination of American citizens overseas suspected of consorting with terrorists, Graham came down sharply against any judicial oversight of the drone war, calling the idea “crazy.”

 

“I can't imagine, in World War [II] for Roosevelt to have gone to a bunch of judges and said, 'I need your permission before we can attack the enemy,'” Graham said.

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, in a sense, he is right. FDR didn't ask permission from teh courts. He launched a compaign of duplicity. Publically saying that America would stay out of it unless attackes, being that the public was anti-war. Privately, however, he ramped up defense budget spending and turned the American economy into a war econoomy. Through powerful industrialists. it's also debated as to whether FDR was complacent although in the know about Japan's plan to attack Pearl Harbor. A measure taken due to economic sanctions against the japanese.

 

So while he's right, he's also saying the same thing that professional psychopaths were saying int he days od FDR. Tell them one thing, and do another.

[Joker]

I'd be interested in seeing what percentage of Americans support the use of drones against American citizens.

 

Or what percentage of Americans would be ok with foreign countries using drones here on US soil to attack those they deem to be "terrorists."

[hoagie]

"Or what percentage of Americans would be ok with foreign countries using drones here on US soil to attack those they deem to be "terrorists.""

 

Is it safe to say that other countries (China, India, Australia, UK) have these drones already, as well?

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, but without the mobilization capabilities the US has. No other country that I'm aware of has over 700 military bases in 179 countries. We are a military empire of bases. Capable of mobilizing these crafts within hours of almost any destination of the planet.

 

No other country does militarization quite like we do. Not that I condone it.

[hoagie]

Yes, but without the mobilization capabilities the US has. No other country that I'm aware of has over 700 military bases in 179 countries. We are a military empire of bases. Capable of mobilizing these crafts within hours of almost any destination of the planet.

 

No other country does militarization quite like we do. Not that I condone it.

 

 

THIS IS SPARTA!  (with way better tech)

[TakeAStepBack]

I'd say it more closely resembles a modern day Roman Empire on the brink of collapse.

[hoagie]

I'd say it more closely resembles a modern day Roman Empire on the brink of collapse.

 

not on the brink.  Not even close.  

[TakeAStepBack]

Your argument is so compelling. Have you taken notice of the US economy in the last 5 years?

[hoagie]

Your argument is so compelling. Have you taken notice of the US economy in the last 5 years?

arent we taking all those lithium mines and stuff in Afghanistan?

[MeOmYo]

I don't believe we will collapse (ideals not included).  we will go kick someone's ass for some ridiculous fearmongering trivial excuse and either wash away our debt, or take their $$, before we collapse.

[hoagie]

Collapsing empires don't horde drones, do they?

[Joker]

Is it safe to say that other countries (China, India, Australia, UK) have these drones already, as well?

 

List of Countries reported by US GAO to posses drones.

Algeria

Egypt

Lebanon

Singapore

Angola

Estonia

Libya

Slovakia

Argentina

Ethiopia

Lithuania

Slovenia

Australia

Finland

Malaysia

South Africa

Austria

France

Mexico

Spain

Azerbaijan

Georgia

Morocco

Sri Lanaka

Belarus

Germany

Netherlands

Sweden

Belgium

Greece

New Zealand

Switzerland

Botswana

Hungary

Nigeria

Syria

Brazil

India

Norway

Taiwan

Bulgaria

Indonesia

Pakistan

Thailand

Burundi

Iran

Panama

Trinidad & Tobago

Canada

Israel

Peru

Tunisia

Chile

Italy

Philippines

Turkey

China

Ivory Coast

Poland

Uganda

Colombia

Japan

Republic of Korea

Ukraine

Croatia

Jordan

Romania

UAE

Czech Republic

Kazakhstan

Russia

United Kingdom

Denmark

Latvia

Serbia

United States

 

http://www.globalres...untries/5305191

[TakeAStepBack]

When I say collapse, much like there are glaring differences between the roman Empire and the American Empire, I don't mean in the same fashion as previous collapses. What I do mean is that the status quo of borrowing money, military intervention, military economics and global policing will eventually end with economic breakdown. Whether becuase we can not borrow from ourselves any longer (as it is now, foreign investment in US government borrowing has already gone away. The fed is buying up monetized debt,. This policy has a shelf life). we default and have to begin a liquidationn process, forcing our imperial hand, a potential collapse of the dollar entirely, leading to repudiation (or something like it) or a host of other ways that we begin a forced change in our ways.

 

The math is already in. This can not last.

 

And then MeowMeow has a good point. We might literally errupt another world war inorder to maintain the hegenomy we currently hold.

[TakeAStepBack]

Or, imagine the burst of the derivatives bubble. OTC derivatives already @ some 640 trillion. Enough to wipe out the GDP of the entire world..

[hoagie]

When I say collapse, much like there are glaring differences between the roman Empire and the American Empire, I don't mean in the same fashion as previous collapses. What I do mean is that the status quo of borrowing money, military intervention, military economics and global policing will eventually end with economic breakdown. Whether becuase we can not borrow from ourselves any longer (as it is now, foreign investment in US government borrowing has already gone away. The fed is buying up monetized debt,. This policy has a shelf life). we default and have to begin a liquidationn process, forcing our imperial hand, a potential collapse of the dollar entirely, leading to repudiation (or something like it) or a host of other ways that we begin a forced change in our ways.

 

The math is already in. This can not last.

 

And then MeowMeow has a good point. We might literally errupt another world war inorder to maintain the hegenomy we currently hold.

 

of course we will go to war and take what we need to start the entire ball rolling again.  WE ARE SPARTA (but with better tech).  Instead of Gladiator games, we have the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL, (and MMA for those with more brutal sensibilities)  Only, there will be no Hannibal to march on our gates, and no plague weakening the populous in every corner of the empire.

 

When the collapse is imminent, the game will change and there will be a new government formed...maybe we will actually have an Emperor...who knows.  Isnt that how it has always gone?

[TakeAStepBack]

Predicting the future isn't really a worthy endeavor. I merely see the potential problems mounting, and there are manyways it can go. But we're on the brink of a "collapse" of our last 100 years worth of policy.

[concert andy]

Predicting the future isn't really a worthy endeavor. I merely see the potential problems mounting, and there are manyways it can go. But we're on the brink of a "collapse" of our last 100 years worth of policy.

 

Negative Nelly.

 

The worst thing that will happen is another recession.

[concert andy]

Predicting the future isn't really a worthy endeavor. I merely see the potential problems mounting, and there are manyways it can go. But we're on the brink of a "collapse" of our last 100 years worth of policy.

 

PS.  Problems are real, and as I stated, the worst that will happen is another recession, or correction.

 

I am that far off base with my analogy that your attitidue towards the economy is "the sky is falling"?

[TakeAStepBack]

 

We're still in a recession. We've never left it. In fact, we've arguably been in one since the NASDAQ bubble. Since only monetary policy has created artificial demands and credits.

[hoagie]

 

We're still in a recession. We've never left it. In fact, we've arguably been in one since the NASDAQ bubble. Since only monetary policy has created artificial demands and credits.

so if the economy is based on fiat currency that is basically worthless, IF everything collapses....wouldnt that be a good thing?

[hoagie]

What I mean is, shouldnt a house built on a foundation of lies and deception be allowed to collapse to the ground?

[TakeAStepBack]

Ah, it's a little bit more complex than that. Real wealth is being destroyed, so it's only a good thing if a return to sanity happens off from currency collapse. Even still, we're talking about several more lost generations in that event.

[hoagie]

Ah, it's a little bit more complex than that. Real wealth is being destroyed, so it's only a good thing if a return to sanity happens off from currency collapse. Even still, we're talking about several more lost generations in that event.

 

"wealth' is subjective, and varies from culture to culture.  Just have to change what being "wealthy" means...

 

...what is wealth now wasnt so in the past, and will not be the same in the future.

[TakeAStepBack]

No, wealth does not vary culture to culture in a global economy. Resources and physical holdings of economic utilitiy only change in resource, and a medium of exchange for those goods/services is essential to trade.

Here is a hint: Why is it that as of last month, Germany plans to repatriate over 700 metric tonnes of its gold reserve? Why do countries hold gold reserves? Citing confidence in the event of a Euro crisis. The store of value is absolutely essential to economic stability. Confidence is a game of faith and faith is empty in the physical world when trust is lost.

[concert andy]

 

We're still in a recession. We've never left it. In fact, we've arguably been in one since the NASDAQ bubble. Since only monetary policy has created artificial demands and credits.

 

Let me start here before I read any futher:

 

The fiscal times reports:

 

Economy Suffers First Decline Since Recession Ended
Read more at http://www.thefiscal...FBsMd1fxMckj.99

 

 

Posted: January 30, 2013

 

 

For the whole of 2012, the economy grew 2.2 percent.

 

 

How are we still in the recession, when the GDP has grown?

 

This article uses the words "Since Recession ended".  Implying it has.

[concert andy]

So are you saying data used is manipulated by the fed, to grow? 

 

What is the end game?

 

What happens if the house of cards collapses?

[hoagie]

No, wealth does not vary culture to culture in a global economy. Resources and physical holdings of economic utilitiy only change in resource, and a medium of exchange for those goods/services is essential to trade.

Here is a hint: Why is it that as of last month, Germany plans to repatriate over 700 metric tonnes of its gold reserve? Why do countries hold gold reserves? Citing confidence in the event of a Euro crisis. The store of value is absolutely essential to economic stability. Confidence is a game of faith and faith is empty in the physical world when trust is lost.

 

but WHY IS GOLD WORTH ANYTHING?!?! Because it is pretty and rare?  What good is it for survival?  

 

I still dont know why GOLD became what humans value, as it is a very weak metal not useful for tools...its as if some charlatan was able to convince everyone that this rare, yellow, rather useless metal should be valued becasue he already owned most of it.

 

Idk, maybe i sound silly....but why is gold so valued?

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, because rag mags and MS economists and politicians push confidence. Main street is not seeing this so called growth. it is all happening in artificially pump up areas. The difference between recession and depression in semantics is length of time, really. Technically we're in a depression. Worse, the policies that brought us here are not only still in play, they are ramped up. The next business cycle should be a real doozy.

See OTC derivatives and the 14k all time high being pushed in equities. Last time that happened, a lot of people got hosed, while MS economists cheered for our "progress" of soaring markets.

[TakeAStepBack]

but WHY IS GOLD WORTH ANYTHING?!?! Because it is pretty and rare?  What good is it for survival?  

 

I still dont know why GOLD became what humans value, as it is a very weak metal not useful for tools...its as if some charlatan was able to convince everyone that this rare, yellow, rather useless metal should be valued becasue he already owned most of it.

 

Idk, maybe i sound silly....but why is gold so valued?

 

Because it is rare, almost indestructable, maluable and takes real expelled energy to procure, making it an ideal store of value. It's a store of value and a medium of exchange.

[hoagie]

Because it is rare, almost indestructable, maluable and takes real expelled energy to procure, making it an ideal store of value. It's a store of value and a medium of exchange.

 

Its worth a lot because why?

[concert andy]

Because it is rare, almost indestructable, maluable and takes real expelled energy to procure, making it an ideal store of value. It's a store of value and a medium of exchange.

 

Dont forget, it was shiny too.  Back in the day, we liked shiny thing.  Wait we still do.

[concert andy]

Its worth a lot because why?

 

It was used historically as money or show of wealth, all the way back to the romans.

 

They put the value on it then, we have perpetuated it since.

 

PS.  TASB the 600% increase in 1970 - 1973 was due to the price being held down by the US $35 value they put on it.  That was a market correction.

[TakeAStepBack]

Its worth a lot because why?

 

What?

[TakeAStepBack]

It was used historically as money or show of wealth, all the way back to the romans.

 

They put the value on it then, we have perpetuated it since.

 

PS.  TASB the 600% increase in 1970 - 1973 was due to the price being held down by the US $35 value they put on it.  That was a market correction.

 

So what you're saying is that price controls backfire? Why did the US hold the price of gold at $35?

Was the price suppressed in order to stabilize exchange? Why would the price of gold matter in the arena of international trade , if the currencies were all floating?

[hoagie]

So we value it because it's shiny, rare, and able to be easily worked?  

 

Gold seems to only be valuable to people living in cities governed by powerful leaders (Egypt, Babylon, Sumer, Ur, Greece, Rome, Persia, Aztec).  Agricultural societies do not seem to put great value on the element, however.

[TakeAStepBack]

So we value it because it's shiny, rare, and able to be easily worked?  

 

Gold seems to only be valuable to people living in cities governed by powerful leaders (Egypt, Babylon, Sumer, Ur, Greece, Rome, Persia, Aztec).  Agricultural societies do not seem to put great value on the element, however.

 

Yes, they do. Do you understand the importance of a store of value in economics?

[concert andy]

So what you're saying is that price controls backfire? Why did the US hold the price of gold at $35?

 

Some stupid monetary decision made in 1945, that 25 years later they thought was stupid.  Yes it also propped up the value of the dollar.

 

Was the price suppressed in order to stabilize exchange? Why would the price of gold matter in the arena of international trade , if the currencies were all floating?

 

Because gold is a material item, and has value since before christ.  Now as we see there is actually more demand for gold.  Back then there was some, but not like today.

[concert andy]

So we value it because it's shiny, rare, and able to be easily worked?  

 

Gold seems to only be valuable to people living in cities governed by powerful leaders (Egypt, Babylon, Sumer, Ur, Greece, Rome, Persia, Aztec).  Agricultural societies do not seem to put great value on the element, however.

 

You forgot India and China.  Where the demand is far greater than here in the US.

[hoagie]

Yes, they do. Do you understand the importance of a store of value in economics?

 

I guess it means u can buy the gold, and it's value stays pretty much the same, because it will always be desired by other (stupid) humans, who only want it because people before them wanted it, and so on and so on?

[concert andy]

Yes, they do. Do you understand the importance of a store of value in economics?

 

Aren't stored values only temporary and fluctuate on supply and demand?

[TakeAStepBack]

Aren't stored values only temporary and fluctuate on supply and demand?

 

And when supply increases annually no greater than around 1.1%, you have an extremely stabile supply line. Demand changes tend to drive the purchasing power up (in the event its a unit of exchange vs. simply a commodity). Check out the free silver arguments of the 1800s. When such an item is used as a store of value and medium of exchange, inflation isn't even remotely the concern it is in todays world.

 

And it isn't stupid humans wanting a shiny thing to hold onto as much as it is a place to rest their expelled energy for goods and services at a later time. If I make shoes, I dont have time to grow crops. So my time is consumed on making shoes. Therefore, I want something I can store the value of my expelled energy in, such as gold. To later, or perhaps immediately exchange for food or other goods. This permeates teh entire structure of praxeology. What i dont want is something that if i store, will actually be worth less in a year than it is today. Such as a FRN.