The men and women who signed that Declaration of Independence wrote this final phrase: We pledge to each other -- we pledge to each other our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor.
Santorum for president?
Started by
concert andy
, Feb 21 2012 01:45 AM
112 replies to this topic
#51
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:52 PM
Rick Santorum’s Michigan primary speech (full text and video)
#54
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 14 March 2012 - 04:04 PM
No way. He mathematically can not attain the needed delegates to seal the nomination. He won those states popular vote but did not secure the delegates. This is Romney's game. Unless, they all stay in until Tampa and the convention is brokered. Which is ideal for my horse.
#57
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,392 posts
Posted 14 March 2012 - 07:57 PM
you don't have to try and be combative here
you have to try and not be combative here
What? You wanna fight Lionel Richie?
JK.It is just so surprising how well he is doing.
Santorum is doing well in the south, because the south is social issues region of country. Where Romney does better in more moderate states.
#60
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 14 March 2012 - 08:15 PM
Santorum is doing well in the south, because the south is social issues region of country. Where Romney does better in more moderate states.
And it's a fucking disgrace. A clown show at the expense of the countries intelligence, or perhaps a sign of it.
At any rate, just remember he's doing well with popular votes in the south. He isn't playing to win, apparently, because he doesn't seem to be snagging the pledged delegates (keep in mind, the MSM is "predicting" and guessing delegatee outcomes. We won't know the delegate appropriations until the state convention happens. So even paying attention to them is a waste of time.)
#65
-
- VibeTribe
- 1,428 posts
Posted 15 March 2012 - 12:31 AM
you said this:
"dude, your horse broke it's leg coming out the starting gate...
not trying to be combative here... just stating the obvious."
then you said this:
"I'm trying not to be combative here, but a dead horse is a dead horse.
citi horse or cuntry horse don't matter none to me.
(citi, as in citibank and cuntry, as in cunt... lol... see what I did there?)"
curious:rose:
"dude, your horse broke it's leg coming out the starting gate...
not trying to be combative here... just stating the obvious."
then you said this:
"I'm trying not to be combative here, but a dead horse is a dead horse.
citi horse or cuntry horse don't matter none to me.
(citi, as in citibank and cuntry, as in cunt... lol... see what I did there?)"
curious:rose:
#66
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,284 posts
- LocationWhisky a Go Go
Posted 15 March 2012 - 12:44 AM
what are you curious about? what I meant by what I said?
well... I guess if I have to explain it, then the whole thing becomes ridiculous...
I suppose it could be taken in a mean spirited way... it really shouldn't be, though... it's nothing personal. I like poking fun at Ron Paul just as much as TASB loves campaigning for him... so really, is it a crime for me to bust on Ron Paul as long as I leave anything personal about TASB out of it?
now I feel all defensive and possibly coming across as combative...
well... I guess if I have to explain it, then the whole thing becomes ridiculous...
I suppose it could be taken in a mean spirited way... it really shouldn't be, though... it's nothing personal. I like poking fun at Ron Paul just as much as TASB loves campaigning for him... so really, is it a crime for me to bust on Ron Paul as long as I leave anything personal about TASB out of it?
now I feel all defensive and possibly coming across as combative...
#67
-
- VibeTribe
- 1,428 posts
Posted 15 March 2012 - 01:18 AM
nah not the point itself
i was displaying your words to note the irony of beating a dead horse (twice)
regarding combativeness...i don't often engage however i found it strange that you would preface your words by not trying to sound combative.
is this due to some sort of repentance on your part or do you think that you aren't combative?
i find you to be quite combative on here...this is not to say you must change or that others aren't...most are.
just seeing as to what degree of self awareness you got going there PF
i was displaying your words to note the irony of beating a dead horse (twice)
regarding combativeness...i don't often engage however i found it strange that you would preface your words by not trying to sound combative.
is this due to some sort of repentance on your part or do you think that you aren't combative?
i find you to be quite combative on here...this is not to say you must change or that others aren't...most are.
just seeing as to what degree of self awareness you got going there PF
#68
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,284 posts
- LocationWhisky a Go Go
Posted 15 March 2012 - 06:54 AM
I do not feel combative, but at times I feel defensive and it comes across as combative. That's what I think.
You think most people are combative? At least we agree there. I was starting to wonder whether it was just me or if that's how people are. I guess it's a little of both. I've said many times I don't come here to argue, or really even debate that seriously. I think the combative thing comes from the frequency of my posts in which I probably am coming across as combative, but for a reason. I don't want to be labeled "combative" here online or in general life. It's easier to judge a person IRL due to body language, but on here all you've got is emoticons, and they can easily be faked or misused so I generally don't use them.
You think most people are combative? At least we agree there. I was starting to wonder whether it was just me or if that's how people are. I guess it's a little of both. I've said many times I don't come here to argue, or really even debate that seriously. I think the combative thing comes from the frequency of my posts in which I probably am coming across as combative, but for a reason. I don't want to be labeled "combative" here online or in general life. It's easier to judge a person IRL due to body language, but on here all you've got is emoticons, and they can easily be faked or misused so I generally don't use them.
#69
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 15 March 2012 - 01:27 PM
I thought Ricky was running a conservative platform?????
Santorum: Vote for Ron Paul if You Want Limited Government
Throughout the race for the Republican presidential nomination, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has attempted to portray himself as the conservative alternative to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. For example, campaigning in Alabama last week, he told supporters that if he could come in first or second in their state and neighboring Mississippi during this week’s primaries, “then we can, again, make the case that there’s one conservative who can win in every other place in this country, that has earned the right to take on Gov. Romney, one-on-one, and give conservatives a chance to coalesce around one person able to win this nomination for the conservative cause.”
Yes, Santorum really believes he’s a conservative — or at least he wants voters to believe it.
The problem, of course, is that his record belies his claim to conservatism, a point one of his rivals, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, has made repeatedly during the campaign. Paul, also vying for the mantle of “the conservative alternative to Romney,” called Santorum a “fake” conservative both in a campaign ad and in person during one of the debates. He pointed to numerous Senate votes in which Santorum had acted in ways that violated the Constitution, the idea of limited government, and just plain good sense.
Reminding Santorum that his record doesn’t match his rhetoric obviously gets under his skin. At a recent campaign appearance, someone in the crowd shouted to the former Senator as he passed by: “Explain why you voted for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and five debt ceiling increases. What’s ‘limited government’ about that?”
Santorum, visibly perturbed by this line of questioning, turned to the man and shot back: “Vote for Ron Paul. That’s what you should do.”
Undoubtedly Santorum recognized these as some of the talking points included in Paul’s attacks on his record. They also all happen to be instances in which Santorum did indeed violate his professed conservative principles — something even he has conceded with regard to two of them.
Santorum voted Yea on the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a law that vastly extended federal control over local schools in clear violation of the 10th Amendment. NCLB was one of President George W. Bush’s pet projects and passed the Senate with overwhelming Republican support. In the same debate where Paul called him a “fake,” Santorum admitted he “made a mistake” in voting for the law, but he defended his vote by saying “politics is a team sport” and “when you’re part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team” — a rationalization that did not sit well with the audience.
He also helped pass Medicare Part D, which provides for subsidized prescription drug purchases for senior citizens. Now that it has become obvious that the program is a fiscal disaster, putting taxpayers on the hook for some $7.2 trillion in unfunded liabilities, Santorum says that his vote for that law, too, was “a mistake.” Everyone wants to do it and not think about the bad fecies pudding... Yet anyone who considers himself a conservative should have opposed it on both constitutional and fiscal grounds to begin with: The program was, at the time of its passage in 2003, the largest new entitlement since the Great Society era of the 1960s.
Santorum did vote to raise the debt ceiling five times during his tenure in the Senate. He defended this obvious fiscal irresponsibility on the grounds that the debt-to-GDP ratio fell slightly during that same time period, which is true but irrelevant. The government was already deeply in debt, and Santorum’s votes to allow it to take on more red ink only exacerbated the problem. Had Santorum and other self-proclaimed conservative Senators and Representatives stood their ground and forced the government to live within its means, America would not now be facing the dire financial future that it is.
Many more examples of Santorum’s failing to live up to his professed principles could be adduced. (The New American has documented quite a few of them.) Perhaps this is why the Senator has run from his record at least as much as he has run on it.
However, as the video demonstrates, Santorum knows the one man in the race who can confidently run on his own record, certain that it proves that he is the limited-government constitutionalist that he claims to be. According to Santorum, if you want a President who really believes in binding the government down by the chains of the Constitution and has consistently voted that way in Congress, there’s only one option: “Vote for Ron Paul.”
Santorum: Vote for Ron Paul if You Want Limited Government
Throughout the race for the Republican presidential nomination, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has attempted to portray himself as the conservative alternative to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. For example, campaigning in Alabama last week, he told supporters that if he could come in first or second in their state and neighboring Mississippi during this week’s primaries, “then we can, again, make the case that there’s one conservative who can win in every other place in this country, that has earned the right to take on Gov. Romney, one-on-one, and give conservatives a chance to coalesce around one person able to win this nomination for the conservative cause.”
Yes, Santorum really believes he’s a conservative — or at least he wants voters to believe it.
The problem, of course, is that his record belies his claim to conservatism, a point one of his rivals, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, has made repeatedly during the campaign. Paul, also vying for the mantle of “the conservative alternative to Romney,” called Santorum a “fake” conservative both in a campaign ad and in person during one of the debates. He pointed to numerous Senate votes in which Santorum had acted in ways that violated the Constitution, the idea of limited government, and just plain good sense.
Reminding Santorum that his record doesn’t match his rhetoric obviously gets under his skin. At a recent campaign appearance, someone in the crowd shouted to the former Senator as he passed by: “Explain why you voted for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and five debt ceiling increases. What’s ‘limited government’ about that?”
Santorum, visibly perturbed by this line of questioning, turned to the man and shot back: “Vote for Ron Paul. That’s what you should do.”
Undoubtedly Santorum recognized these as some of the talking points included in Paul’s attacks on his record. They also all happen to be instances in which Santorum did indeed violate his professed conservative principles — something even he has conceded with regard to two of them.
Santorum voted Yea on the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a law that vastly extended federal control over local schools in clear violation of the 10th Amendment. NCLB was one of President George W. Bush’s pet projects and passed the Senate with overwhelming Republican support. In the same debate where Paul called him a “fake,” Santorum admitted he “made a mistake” in voting for the law, but he defended his vote by saying “politics is a team sport” and “when you’re part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team” — a rationalization that did not sit well with the audience.
He also helped pass Medicare Part D, which provides for subsidized prescription drug purchases for senior citizens. Now that it has become obvious that the program is a fiscal disaster, putting taxpayers on the hook for some $7.2 trillion in unfunded liabilities, Santorum says that his vote for that law, too, was “a mistake.” Everyone wants to do it and not think about the bad fecies pudding... Yet anyone who considers himself a conservative should have opposed it on both constitutional and fiscal grounds to begin with: The program was, at the time of its passage in 2003, the largest new entitlement since the Great Society era of the 1960s.
Santorum did vote to raise the debt ceiling five times during his tenure in the Senate. He defended this obvious fiscal irresponsibility on the grounds that the debt-to-GDP ratio fell slightly during that same time period, which is true but irrelevant. The government was already deeply in debt, and Santorum’s votes to allow it to take on more red ink only exacerbated the problem. Had Santorum and other self-proclaimed conservative Senators and Representatives stood their ground and forced the government to live within its means, America would not now be facing the dire financial future that it is.
Many more examples of Santorum’s failing to live up to his professed principles could be adduced. (The New American has documented quite a few of them.) Perhaps this is why the Senator has run from his record at least as much as he has run on it.
However, as the video demonstrates, Santorum knows the one man in the race who can confidently run on his own record, certain that it proves that he is the limited-government constitutionalist that he claims to be. According to Santorum, if you want a President who really believes in binding the government down by the chains of the Constitution and has consistently voted that way in Congress, there’s only one option: “Vote for Ron Paul.”
#76
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:27 PM
Gingrich is going to drop out before Tampa. Gingrich's campaign is 4.5 million dollars in debt, and the campaign actually just bounced a $500 check to pay for his Utah primary ballot filing fee. It's only a matter of time. And for a guy that just ran around the country talking about fiscal responsibility, he's a piss poor lousy excuse for a fiscal conservative. He'll be gone shortly, leaving Paul and Romney. Should be interesting. In the end, Romney and Obama are the same guy when it comes to policies, so Romney will lose to the Marxist for sure.
It's only a matter of time. And for a guy that just ran around the country talking about fiscal responsibility, he's a piss poor lousy excuse for a fiscal conservative. He'll be gone shortly, leaving Paul and Romney. Should be interesting. In the end, Romney and Obama are the same guy when it comes to policies, so Romney will lose to the Marxist for sure.
#78
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 11 April 2012 - 03:06 PM
Well, he has really close ties with Bill Ayers, Van Jones, Jeremiah Wright and a host of other self proclaimed communists/anti-capitalists/Marxian goose steppers.
Then there are his policies and rhetoric......So, yes, he leans heavily on the side of wealth redistribution, fair share, etc......all of which is the foundation of Marx socialism/communism manifesto.
Then there are his policies and rhetoric......So, yes, he leans heavily on the side of wealth redistribution, fair share, etc......all of which is the foundation of Marx socialism/communism manifesto.
#80
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 11 April 2012 - 03:47 PM
He does. But like all Marxists, the re-distribution is for everyone else. Not the decider. He plans to kill the golden goose by raising taxes on the 200,000 plus crowd. Instead of getting his spending habit under control.
I don't think you understand how wealth redistribution works....it means take from the private and have the govt. manage how it is dolled out. He campaigned on it in 2008. Can anyone say, capital flight?
I don't think you understand how wealth redistribution works....it means take from the private and have the govt. manage how it is dolled out. He campaigned on it in 2008. Can anyone say, capital flight?
#81
-
- VibeTribe
- 7,574 posts
Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:44 PM
I know you'll think this is just leftist/Marxist thinking, but take a look at Maddow's attack on the devastation of Bush tax cuts and the Ryan budget that would double down on that. And Ron Paul would only enhance that. Then the rich would really own the government. Sorry, but if there's going to be any government services, they have to be paid for somewhere and I'm not sure why that weight needs to be carried by the poorest in society, when the richest make a lot of money off minimalizing their advancement in society. I personally don't think we're ready for a free-for-all society where you either figure out a way to be in the top 10% or you're left by the roadside beleeding and dying.
Relevant commentary starts about 4:25...
http://video.msnbc.m...w-show/47011815
Relevant commentary starts about 4:25...
http://video.msnbc.m...w-show/47011815
#82
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:52 PM
Raising the taxes on the rich will not solve the deficit spending. Paul Ryan's budget is a piece of shit and will not balance out until 2040. So it's a neoconservatives wet dream, but a true conservatives laughing stock.
Sorry, but if there's going to be any government services, they have to be paid for somewhere. I personally don't think we're ready for a free-for-all society where you either figure out a way to be in the top 10% or you're left by the roadside beleeding and dying.
#83
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:02 PM
Furthermore, why didn't Obama chop the Bush tax cuts and push for new tax policy reforms (cut loopholes, etc..) instead of extending them if they have caused all the federal budget misery?
I know why he didn't....because he relies on the same people he wants to confiscate wealth from to gain his executive seat. He's simply a liar and a fraud. He's just like the rerst, he wants a nice cozy seat inside the whitehall while he tells the plebs that he's working to save them from the evil corporations that donate to his campaign coffer.
I know why he didn't....because he relies on the same people he wants to confiscate wealth from to gain his executive seat. He's simply a liar and a fraud. He's just like the rerst, he wants a nice cozy seat inside the whitehall while he tells the plebs that he's working to save them from the evil corporations that donate to his campaign coffer.
#84
-
- VibeTribe
- 7,574 posts
Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:03 PM
Well obviously you didn't take the time to watch the video to see how big of a chunk of the deficit is attributable to the Bush tax cuts, but you'er right - raising taxes on the rich doesn't solve the problem. But it helps. And it creates a little more equity. If the rich were really the "job creators" we'd be flush with jobs. Record corporate profits and yet real living wage jobs decline.
the answer to the deficit is jobs. You can cut the government all you want, but that's not going to solve it. If you want a healthy economy you need low unemployment with real "middle class" jobs. Look at history and you'll see this is true over and over and over again. The idea that you can get rid of taxes, cut government services, let the "free market" work it all out, and all will be miraculously fine is pure fantasy. I don't care how many books you've read on austrian economics - show me where it has actually worked in practice.
the answer to the deficit is jobs. You can cut the government all you want, but that's not going to solve it. If you want a healthy economy you need low unemployment with real "middle class" jobs. Look at history and you'll see this is true over and over and over again. The idea that you can get rid of taxes, cut government services, let the "free market" work it all out, and all will be miraculously fine is pure fantasy. I don't care how many books you've read on austrian economics - show me where it has actually worked in practice.
#86
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:13 PM
Classical gold standard period 1815-1914.
Was it perfect? No, nothing is perfect ijn this world. But it was a very stable time frame economically throughout the world and free markets *largely*, were in the driver seat. Not govt. central planning. We saw the greatest standard of living increase world wide through this time frame. Bottom to top.
Cutting govt. spending is exactly what needs to happen. Or, go ahead, tax the shit out of the population and watch the capital flight commence.Job creators aren't creating jobs in this country for a few reasons. The most important being that we have the highest corp taxation in the world. So overhead to revenue is not enticing here. Couple that with wage laws, healthcare mandates, insurance mandates and a host of other regulatory abuses and you get what we see.
Not to mention state sponsored monopolies in almost every industry...... it isn't too hard to figure out why we are not creating jobs. The instability and overhead of this nation is beyond daunting. And yet, even if taxation would help, Obama didn't do what was "right" when he had the chance. So, I fail to see how we're in a place that where this is relevant.
Was it perfect? No, nothing is perfect ijn this world. But it was a very stable time frame economically throughout the world and free markets *largely*, were in the driver seat. Not govt. central planning. We saw the greatest standard of living increase world wide through this time frame. Bottom to top.
Cutting govt. spending is exactly what needs to happen. Or, go ahead, tax the shit out of the population and watch the capital flight commence.Job creators aren't creating jobs in this country for a few reasons. The most important being that we have the highest corp taxation in the world. So overhead to revenue is not enticing here. Couple that with wage laws, healthcare mandates, insurance mandates and a host of other regulatory abuses and you get what we see.
Not to mention state sponsored monopolies in almost every industry...... it isn't too hard to figure out why we are not creating jobs. The instability and overhead of this nation is beyond daunting. And yet, even if taxation would help, Obama didn't do what was "right" when he had the chance. So, I fail to see how we're in a place that where this is relevant.
#87
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:18 PM
I understand you do not support Ron Paul's positions, seany. We've been over that a few times. And that reset is on it's way. Only it will not be infavor of what the founders built. it will come at the expense of liberty. As per usual.
Protectionism is the next step for the federal govt.
Protectionism is the next step for the federal govt.
#90
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:53 AM
Well, I was kind of hoping someone would pry at that and you have a solid point, freerange. Some argue it a few ways and will cut many years off that era. To keep it short, the panic of 1907 was actually the handy work of govt and the banks. It takes a long trip down memory lane and a view change to see why that is, so I will concede to the panic of 1907 being out and you can end it in 1906.
That said, the time wasn't perfect. Far from it. There was the never-fully-ended debate on silver and its pesky market/currency antics as it did not stabilize so well to exchange, then purity, etc....but we have to believe again that economics is human nature and therefore a social science and not a hard, natural one again before we can start to resolve some of the reason fiat money doesn't work and hard money currency, like gold, is money par excellence.
That said, the time wasn't perfect. Far from it. There was the never-fully-ended debate on silver and its pesky market/currency antics as it did not stabilize so well to exchange, then purity, etc....but we have to believe again that economics is human nature and therefore a social science and not a hard, natural one again before we can start to resolve some of the reason fiat money doesn't work and hard money currency, like gold, is money par excellence.
#92
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 12 April 2012 - 06:25 PM
That's a bold statement lacking any substantial rebuttal, vic. It most certainly is a social science. It's human action. That is what markets are, that is how exchange happens. Determining human actionn can not be quantified properly using hard scientific equations in most instances because it lacks the ability to determine to what means and ends someone is acting under.
Unless you can formulate a solid, substantial counter claim, I'd have to just simply say. You're wrong. Dead wrong.
Unless you can formulate a solid, substantial counter claim, I'd have to just simply say. You're wrong. Dead wrong.
#93
-
- VibeTribe
- 4,913 posts
Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:19 PM
when you say human nature, do you mean that it is an instinct we are born with?
if not then you're wrong. it's nurtured. we didn't come out of the muck with money on our brains. money is not an instinct, nor is economics. it was invented. the need to eat was not invented, it's human nature. know what i mean?
if not then you're wrong. it's nurtured. we didn't come out of the muck with money on our brains. money is not an instinct, nor is economics. it was invented. the need to eat was not invented, it's human nature. know what i mean?
#94
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:25 PM
No, I don't. People, whether nutured to do so or not, look to increase their standard of living. By attaining food, shelter ect. That is human nature evolving. Economics is not all about money. Money is a medium of exchange used to procure goods adn services that other people offer. Economics is that system. Where people expend energy to produce something that they can get other goods and services for in return. The entire economic network, the real one, is all about using human action in labor to produce something that can then be exchanged for what someone else expended their energy one to bring to people.
Markets are people. A complex web of energy of people exchanging goods to enhance their lives.
Markets are people. A complex web of energy of people exchanging goods to enhance their lives.
#95
-
- VibeTribe
- 4,913 posts
Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:13 PM
i see your pirnt, but disagree...no matter what, nurture =/= nature
no human being is born with instincts for economics...it has to be taught, and not everyone lives by it
you can choose not to produce and exchange goods, but you can't choose to eat or not eat
no human being is born with instincts for economics...it has to be taught, and not everyone lives by it
you can choose not to produce and exchange goods, but you can't choose to eat or not eat
#96
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,284 posts
- LocationWhisky a Go Go
Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:41 PM
there isn't enough precious metal in the world to back all the money in circulation, and even if there was, how would we obtain this commodity in order to back our currency. Where would we store it? Wouldn't it cost money just to store it securely? (nevermind the fact that we can never obtain it in the first place)
Your dream of a gold backed currency is FAIL.
Your dream of a gold backed currency is FAIL.
#98
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:24 PM
i see your pirnt, but disagree...no matter what, nurture =/= nature no human being is born with instincts for economics...it has to be taught, and not everyone lives by it you can choose not to produce and exchange goods, but you can't choose to eat or not eat
If that were true we never would have gotten passed the hunter/gatherer stage and we'd all be roaming nomads. That isn't the truth. The truth is economics is human action and social evolution to attain the highest standard of living. You can choose not to produce anything at all, but in so, you can not choose to eat, have shelter or anything else without procuring it off the labor (or energy) of someone else. Economics of today are taught, because, going right back to my original point, it is treated as a natural or hard science, when it is not. It is a social one.
#99
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:44 PM
doesn't everything pretty much cost the same in value of gold as it always has?
Gold is no longer a medium of exchange. It's now considered a commodity. Even though CBs hoard it and keep it as an asset on their books.
Lets look at the price of gold in relation to our current medium of exchange, the dollar.
The price of gold remained remarkably stable for long periods of time. For example, Sir Isaac Newton, as master of the U.K.
Mint, set the gold price at L3.17s. 10d. per troy ounce in 1717, and it remained effectively the same for two hundred years until
1914. The only exception was during the Napoleonic wars from 1797 to 1821. The official U.S. Government gold price has
changed only four times from 1792 to the present. Starting at $19.75 per troy ounce, raised to $20.67 in 1834, and $35 in
1934. In 1972, the price was raised to $38 and then to $42.22 in 1973. A two-tiered pricing system was created in 1968, and
the market price for gold has been free to fluctuate since then as the table below shows.
Year / Average Price
1833-49* 18.93 1953 34.84 2005 444.74
1850 18.93 1954 35.04 2006 603.46
1851 18.93 1955 35.03 2007 695.39
1852 18.93 1956 34.99 2008 871.96
1853 18.93 1957 34.95 2009 972.35
1854 18.93 1958 35.10 2010 1,224.53
1855 18.93 1959 35.10 2011 1,571.52
1856 18.93 1960 35.27
1857 18.93 1961 35.25
1858 18.93 1962 35.23
1859 18.93 1963 35.09
1860 18.93 1964 35.10
1861 18.93 1965 35.12
1862 18.93 1966 35.13
1863 18.93 1967 34.95
1864 18.93 1968 39.31
1865 18.93 1969 41.28
1866 18.93 1970 36.02
1867 18.93 1971 40.62
1868 18.93 1972 58.42
1869 18.93 1921 20.58 1973 97.39
1870 18.93 1922 20.66 1974 154.00
1871 18.93 1923 21.32 1975 160.86
1872 18.94 1924 20.69 1976 124.74
1873 18.94 1925 20.64 1977 147.84
1874 18.94 1926 20.63 1978 193.40
1875 18.94 1927 20.64 1979 306.00
1876 18.94 1928 20.66 1980 615.00
1877 18.94 1929 20.63 1981 460.00
1878 18.94 1930 20.65 1982 376.00
1879 18.94 1931 17.06 1983 424.00
1880 18.94 1932 20.69 1984 361.00
1881 18.94 1933 26.33 1985 317.00
1882 18.94 1934 34.69 1986 368.00
1883 18.94 1935 34.84 1987 447.00
1884 18.94 1936 34.87 1988 437.00
1885 18.94 1937 34.79 1989 381.00
1886 18.94 1938 34.85 1990 383.51
1887 18.94 1939 34.42 1991 362.11
1888 18.94 1940 33.85 1992 343.82
1889 18.93 1941 33.85 1993 359.77
1890 18.94 1942 33.85 1994 384.00
1891 18.96 1943 33.85 1995** 383.79
1892 18.96 1944 33.85 1996 387.81
1893 18.96 1945 34.71 1997 331.02
1894 18.94 1946 34.71 1998 294.24
1895 18.93 1947 34.71 1999 278.98
1896 18.98 1948 34.71 2000 279.11
1897 18.98 1949 31.69 2001 271.04
1898 18.98 1950 34.72 2002 309.73
1899 18.94 1951 34.72 2003 363.38
1900 18.96 1952 34.60 2004 409.72
1901 18.98
1902 18.97
1903 18.95
1904 18.96
1905 18.92
1906 18.90
1907 18.94
1908 18.95
1909 18.96
1910 18.92
1911 18.92
1912 18.93
1913 18.92
1914 18.99
1915 18.99
1916 18.99
1917 18.99
1918 18.99
1919 19.95
1920 20.68
1921 20.58
#100
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,284 posts
- LocationWhisky a Go Go
Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:42 PM
you all know how much I like pictures and graphs, so I'll share one.
Around 1900, the world population was 1.6 billion. Today, there are 7 billion people populating the planet.
How can an economy with a growing population such as this use a finite resource such as gold as money. It's impossible. It's absurd, and it is a lie to even suggest that it's possible.
Around 1900, the world population was 1.6 billion. Today, there are 7 billion people populating the planet.
How can an economy with a growing population such as this use a finite resource such as gold as money. It's impossible. It's absurd, and it is a lie to even suggest that it's possible.
