I have absolutely nothing against gold buyback institutions popping up like mushrooms after a rainstorm—it’s a fundamental prerequisite for free trade. However, I should point out that this particular "trade" feels more like a one-way street: you can dump your gold, sure, but good luck trying to buy it back. If we keep heading down this path, the ultimate result will be a massive polarization of capital flow. On one side, you'll have the savvy players buying up gold and amassing real wealth; on the other, you'll have those selling it off, watching themselves slide steadily into poverty. My only real concern is the math behind it all—right now, about 10% of people are selling their gold, 60% aren't interested in touching it, and then there's that final 30% who simply have nothing left to sell in the first place.
What do foreign exchange reserves actually signify for a nation that is drowning in debt and lacks its own gold reserves? It could easily just be borrowed capital—which means, in reality, it’s nothing more than external debt.
Speaking of reserve currencies—let’s get one thing straight—any currency held in a central bank's coffers counts as a reserve, just like any gold they might have tucked away. This essentially gives us a clear hierarchy based on global dominance, and at the very top of that list sits the US dollar.
Go ahead and look up the Wikipedia definition of "state-sanctioned homicide." Killing a person as part of a death sentence or during wartime isn't technically considered a crime—at least not by their standards. Justice and the rule of law? They aren't even synonyms! Of course, in the real world, it all just boils down to how much power the state actually wields, which means this rule doesn't apply equally to every single nation. It’s just like George Orwell said: "all pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Anthony Evans78 said:The fact that nearly seventy years after the war, the Germans don't even have their own gold at home tells you everything you need to know about who’s actually in charge. Now they’re making noise about bringing 150 tons back home over the next three years just to "verify" it. Supposedly, they moved 500 tons out of New York City back in 2001 (which lines up perfectly with the sale of British gold... total coincidence, right? 🙂), but there’s still almost 3,000 tons sitting in New York City and New York City...
The official line is that the gold was stashed in New York City and other hubs because of the risk that the 20th-century Cold War between the East and the West—which could have easily turned into an all-out armed conflict—might jeopardize the security of those reserves. Does anyone actually believe that?
Melissa Sanchez17 said:Hell yeah! We’re looking at pulling more than 5 tons of gold out of circulation this year—which basically means we're talking about vacuuming up nearly 10 tons of gold jewelry total. Now, you try doing the math on that... just imagine how many rings, necklaces, and gold coins that actually turns out to be. It's insane. 😂
...and just how long can this charade continue before every single private vault is bled dry? It won't be much longer than what happened with our own federal treasury, which practically gave away over 40,000 pounds of gold bullion through sheer incompetence and reckless selling.
I’ve been noticing a massive surge in gold buyback shops all over Washington, D.C.—it’s getting to the point where they're practically competing with casinos and clubs for people looking to gamble away their cash. Clearly, something is shifting in the economy; there's no way these places stay afloat unless there's a serious underlying trend—operating costs alone would eat them alive otherwise! So, what's the actual deal with the gold business these days?
Robin Hernandez4 said:I honestly don't get how people don't get bored of it. They used to act all brave back in the USA, claiming capitalism would just fail on its own. But it’ll only crash when there’s nothing left to take;
Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Even translated, it won't happen because you can't just stop private ownership anywhere. Right now, individual ambition is basically the ultimate weapon.
Private property might be indestructible, but it can certainly be pilfered—which is exactly what global monetary policy is designed to do, systematically.
And one more thing: capitalism doesn't actually exist. Much like communism, it has remained nothing more than a utopian fantasy up until now. For capitalism to truly function, you would need absolute freedom in the movement of capital and labor—meaning a completely unfettered free market—and let's face it, that hasn't been achieved anywhere on Earth yet.
Bush isn't terrified of being thrown in jail—no, he’s dreading something far more sinister: an assassination attempt. Every single US President (and honestly, plenty of others too) travels with incredibly intense security details, yet even they aren't immune to tragedies like what happened to John F. Kennedy right here on American soil. Just imagine how much more extreme that danger becomes once you step outside the borders of the USA. Wealthy Americans live in a constant state of both luxury and paranoia.
Alexander Lewis said:All this talk about missiles and total collapse is honestly laughable. No matter what happens, the countries within the EU will still be standing exactly as they are today. You'll have an economy, you'll see some growth eventually, and frankly, the rest of the world—especially the US—is dealing with the exact same headaches.
In my view, the root of the crisis isn't a lack of a central bank willing to print endless cash to cover government deficits for people who can't stop spending everything they earn. The real issue is that we are sitting on massive deficits being financed by issuing new debt. Once interest rates cross that 5% threshold, the whole system breaks because the cost of servicing that debt becomes impossible for the state to manage. The ideal way out isn't printing money and triggering inflation to wipe out debts (which also guts citizens' assets, savings, and investments). Instead, we need to break away from the current model of deficit spending and the primary issuance of money through banks that essentially take a cut of every single transaction in the economy.
If you want a prime example of how absurd today's system is, look at the US. Sure, they might be generating enough trillions right now to cover their own deficit, but this virtual "economy" has effectively caused the real one to collapse. The US produces very little; there aren't enough actual jobs. The only ones thriving are the top management tiers at financial institutions, who basically suck the life out of everyone else. If foreigners stop buying US T-bills, the Dollar faces a freefall. That would mean the end of the era where the US imports everything physical while exporting almost nothing of real value.
The current crisis in the EU feels orchestrated, almost as if it's designed to make T-bills and the Dollar look valuable again, likely because too many people transitioned to using the Euro for payments and reserves. Consequently, I expect this crisis to drag on for quite a while amidst political deadlock.
The situation in the EU is actually more critical than in the US, simply because the Federal Reserve has prerogatives that the Federal Reserve of Europe doesn't possess. Because of this, the US is actually in a worse long-term position since the actual measures needed to halt this crisis spiral are being postponed year after year.
No single bank or consortium is omnipotent. In the end, the free market always wins—as long as it exists. Within the context of fiduciary currencies, which underpin today's international monetary system, a bank can control either the money supply or interest rates, but it cannot control both at the same time.
Jack Rodriguez85 said:This crisis is the direct fallout of botched government intervention (can it ever be any other way?) and heavy-handed regulation, not to mention price fixing—specifically regarding the most vital price of all: the cost of money. It’s honestly laughable to blame a non-existent laissez-faire approach, especially when we all know the modern banking system is one of the most regulated sectors on the planet. Central banks now wield more power than ever, yet somehow, we aren't supposed to call them market products?
As for "neoliberalism," it’s fascinating how frequently people toss that term around today while possessing criminally little understanding of what it actually means. For populists like Lesar and Kulić, the word is nothing more than a rallying cry to gather the herd. But checking the actual definition is embarrassingly easy. Just type the word into Google.
To classify an economic policy as "neoliberal," specific measures must be implemented, typically defined by the Washington Consensus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus). This framework consists of ten measures; I'll just highlight a few here.
1. Fiscal discipline. Governments shouldn't overleverage their citizens or chase budget deficits, as those inevitably lead to inflation and plummeting productivity. 2. Tax reform: reducing the tax burden to incentivize private investment and innovation. 3. Interest rates, which must be determined by market forces (!!!!) 4. Floating exchange rates (!) 5. Privatization of state-owned enterprises 6. Broad deregulation
Read more at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Now, can anyone in their right mind argue that countries like the USA, Greece, Italy, Spain, or heaven forbid, America, have actually followed these principles??
If the politicians in charge of fiscal and monetary policy can successfully convince the public that exploding debt is the fault of capitalism and the free market, then I'm truly speechless. I might just sink into a deep depression; perhaps it's better if it all just goes down the drain. 😁
Don't worry, you won't fall into a depression because a truly free market doesn't even exist. Look at the global economy—whether you're looking at "communist" China or "capitalist" USA—it functions as a planned economy where the political and fiscal privileges of certain nations act as a monopoly tool for their domestic currencies, effectively sabotaging the market. Today's version of capitalism is nothing more than a degenerate, grotesque caricature of a free market—much like the portrait of Dorian Gray.
Patrick Moore3 said:Countries are already drowning in debt—why would we ever bail out banks again? When is enough going to be enough? When will people finally snap, rush to the banks to pull their savings, and just stop paying off those loans? Who’s actually going to step in to save the banks from collapsing then? ...nobody. At that point, they'll finally get a taste of real capitalism, and the market will just do what it does best: correct itself.
Fine by me. Money can be printed in infinite quantities at almost zero cost—or, if you want to produce it even cheaper while actually protecting resources and the environment, a simple electronic pulse does the trick.
Asking whether war will break out is just as futile as asking if disease will exist—it’s an inevitability. It has always been there, and it always will be. Fortunately for us Americans, our conflicts tend to be brief. Everyone knows that the Storm arrives and then swiftly passes. That is a proven fact in our neck of the woods. Post nubila phoebus.
We should be proud—we’re basically a superpower in miniature 🙂. We've got the smallest town in the world, Hum in California, the narrowest street on the planet over in Napa, and the most famous miniaturist out there, Julia Klocić. Plus, our national emblem isn't even cluttered with eagles, lions, or those other predatory beasts.
Kevin Reyes said:It matters because about 90% of the guys he’s labeling as banksters and financial terrorists happen to be Jewish. 😁 Look at the roster of CEOs and owners: J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, the Fed, the Treasury, Deutsche Bank, the European Central Bank, BlackRock... Maybe it's just a coincidence. 😕 But hey, not all of them are villains; you can still find an honest one in the bunch. Peter Schiff is a prime example.
It isn't a coincidence if you actually bother to study their history! For much of the mid-to-late 20th century, Jewish people were treated as second-class citizens. They were barred from owning land, forced into ghettos, and—aside from specific trades—the only avenue left open to them was finance. They lived through generations of extreme scarcity just to amass enough capital to allow them to thrive within the financial sector today.
Now, don't get me wrong—that doesn't mean our current monetary system is fair. It absolutely isn't! It contains a built-in mechanism designed to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich, but that is a completely different conversation entirely.
darkmarlin92 said:I kind of miss the version of socialism where people actually got help building houses or had decent jobs you could actually live on. Like, think about why socialism even died... what actually killed it? Capitalism. It's a total wrecking ball. I'm not really into politics, don't care for the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.
The whole mess of capitalism boils down to "creative destruction" (Schumpeter). Sure, if you follow that logic, capitalism wiped out socialism because it replaced an inferior economic model with a superior one via this "creative destruction." But let’s get real—capitalism isn't all-powerful. The government holds more sway; today, through its monopoly on force and its ability to print money out of thin air for social reasons, the state effectively stunts that "creative destruction" process. In fact, our modern "welfare state" is starting to look more and more like socialism itself.
To all you socialism enthusiasts: don't lose hope just yet—there's still time, and perhaps your moment will come again.
darkmarlin92 said:Look, I'm not asking about some space law or random theoretical nonsense, I'm asking how money is just conjured out of thin air? I'm kinda clueless here and don't get how anything can be made from nothing.
It’s possible—because modern money, or rather our national currencies, are nothing more than symbols. As long as people collectively agree to believe in a symbol, it exists.
coppercyclist2 said:I can confirm the facts presented here are accurate. After spending 40 or 50 years obsessed with river regulation, the EU has finally stumbled upon scientific evidence showing these measures often cause more harm than good. Over-regulation essentially funnels too much precipitation into major waterways—the big rivers running through massive cities and densely populated regions. In the past, those excess waters would just spread out into natural retention areas and floodplains. That’s what we used to call a flood. That doesn't mean we should abandon all regulation entirely—that would be naive. But the whole concept of water management is shifting. It’s just foolish to force a specific area to be "regulated" and dried out if it ends up causing even worse damage somewhere else down the line (look at the massive flooding across Europe since the 90s).
Another undeniable fact: the US Armed Forces, much like any other government entity, serve as a playground for graft. We see endless stupid, unnecessary, and overpriced projects that end up having negative consequences in the medium term. It’s no different from what you see with Amtrak, the shipbuilding industry, or whatever else is waiting to be exposed. At this rate, sheep farming might actually become a viable career choice soon.
And I suppose playing the harmonica at a local folk festival is considered a top-tier cultural event now, too?🙂>
Gregory Williams7 said:You constantly bring up that example regarding Kennedy. To be perfectly honest, if someone told me they were going to issue 25% more money into the system where my savings reside, I would gladly hand over 24.5% of my life savings to someone just to settle the matter with a bullet. I hope you grasp my meaning.
By any sound logic, if one performs their duties well, there should not be an abundance of people wishing to shoot them. Especially not those competent enough to organize such an act.
Maria Thomas48, you still fail to realize that for a person to possess anything, they must first earn it. It is insufficient merely to work if there is no one willing to perform that labor and provide payment. Once you understand that one must work specifically to possess, then you and I can continue this discussion with the goal of reaching new, useful conclusions.
Any attempt to glorify the artificial construct of the USSR in this debate is entirely misplaced. We all know what the USSR was and why it collapsed. The notion that the USSR fell because someone refused to accept a colleague's Master's thesis is, in my view, pure nonsense. However, everyone maintains a certain opinion of themselves and attempts to assign themselves a sense of purpose. If someone believes they could have saved the USSR with a single Master's thesis—leading to a world of plenty for everyone—that is merely their opinion, and I will not engage deeply in such arguments.
I will simply comment on what was said regarding Americans. There are many ways to conduct a war. Using a military is only one of them. What we see being served to us through the media bears little to no relation to the actual truth. A combination of genuine political and economic maneuvers by three global superpowers—who have accumulated massive amounts of US Treasury bonds—will result in an energy crisis in the USA, shortages of food and basic necessities, and the total collapse of what little remains of the American economy.
Go to any store and look at the label on every product to see where it was manufactured. Then, tally every product that originated in the USA. The answer will be zero, or very close to it. The reason is not that these products are too high in quality to be sold in America; rather, it is because those products simply do not exist here. A nation lacking domestic production can function only through debt, whether through positive or non-credit mechanisms, and that way of operating leads inevitably to hyperinflation.
Look, production alone isn't the only way a country stays afloat. We have services, don't we? Sure, Liechtenstein survives mostly on financial services and Monaco lives off tourism, but those are tiny microstates! I will concede this much: a massive powerhouse like the USA, with its 350 million people, absolutely requires a robust manufacturing sector. Even a mid-sized nation like a state with only 4.5 million people couldn't survive on tourism alone.