Posts by Amanda Allen4

Morgan Cook10 said:I’m talking about a high-earning American worker and companies moving production to somewhere cheaper like Bangladesh.

You can see it playing out in real-time with how the American textile industry basically withered away.

It isn’t just the textile industry—it’s almost every manufacturing sector facing extinction. What we witnessed happening to the American Rust Belt one generation ago is now hitting home here, and if we don't wake up, it's going to sweep through developing nations within a single generation—those places that are currently seeing a "dangerous" surge of wealth from sudden capital inflows, only to watch it vanish just as quickly.

When we look at the state of the textile industry today, the hardest hit has to be Italy—which, until very recently, was the absolute epicenter of high-end luxury design. Now? That entire manufacturing powerhouse is being outsourced elsewhere.

Morgan Cook10 said:@Amanda Allen4...or just how things work in America...

The same logic applies in America—if the conditions make it profitable for capital to move, they will. We can't ignore the fact that the US ranking on the Index of Economic Freedom isn't exactly where it ought to be either.

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

As for capital and its supposed "national identity"—as I have already stated—it doesn't have one! Capital is apolitical; the only issue is that, unfortunately, politicians love to manipulate it.

As one of many Americans who holds shares in AT&T, I am a part of that system—and anyone can be if they choose to be. I hold the exact same rights as any other shareholder, regardless of nationality, race, or religious affiliation. It operates on the principle of one share, one vote, and frankly, that is more than enough for me.

Wait—is anyone else actually paying attention to this? Because I certainly am! It feels like we’re just drifting aimlessly through these discussions without any sense of direction or purpose. Does anyone even care about the details anymore? It seems like every single topic gets watered down until there's nothing left but fluff! Honestly, it's exhausting. kaže:
What I am attempting to convey—if anyone is actually listening—is that an American worker in a unified colonial state doesn't lose out; they gain. It’s quite simple! Furthermore, a worker doesn't suffer because of globalization—they benefit from it. Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp?

An American worker can never—under any circumstances—be considered a capitalist. Let’s be clear about this: a worker is a worker, and a capitalist is a capitalist. It is a fundamental distinction that people seem determined to ignore!

Let’s be clear about one thing—workers in wealthy capitalist nations might actually have quite a bit to their name. But don't let that fool you! Just because those employees are sitting on a decent pile of cash doesn't suddenly turn them into capitalists. Is it really that difficult to grasp? Having money in your pocket doesn't change your fundamental position in the economic machine.

A capitalist is simply someone who possesses the actual means to generate profit—it’s that basic!

Let’s get one thing straight—just because an employee owns a house, a vacation home, and a nice car, it doesn't make them a capitalist. Seriously? Does anyone actually believe that? He has plenty of assets, sure, but he isn't generating profit from them! He’s simply using them and spending his money to maintain them. To call someone a capitalist just because they have some property to their name is fundamentally flawed logic—it's absurd!

Sure, an American worker earns significantly more than someone working in a poor nation like Bangladesh. That’s just basic math. Which is exactly why the globalization of markets—and that constant, borderless flow of capital—is actually a net positive; it serves to bridge the massive social gap between the wealthy and the impoverished. Isn't that the whole point?

Personally, I’d much rather see American capital flowing into developing nations—where an "exploitative" job actually means someone finally has food on the table—than seeing that money funneled back to some wealthy American worker just so they can afford another car they don't even need! Is that really how we want to prioritize our resources? It seems absurd!

Henry Garcia13 said:Original Italian Fascism isn't strictly a right-wing ideology; many political science experts argue it was an ultra-left movement, a direct descendant of the Jacobins... There's plenty of debate there, but it’s clear how the left hijacked the term after WWII to use it as a convenient label for all nationalist movements. Their goal was a massive, supranational state modeled after ancient Rome... This constant playing with semantics isn't just harmless wordplay. It's a tactic. They want to poison the well of nationalism, which is foolish, because without nationalism, you can't have patriotism—they are two sides of the same coin. By preemptively condemning any emotion tied to one's nation, they serve the globalist agenda, rebranding patriotism as something synonymous with mundialism, pushed by the same central powers....

I find myself repeating this often, so here is another chance to lay it out. There are plenty of decent American scholars who explain this manufactured shift in terminology quite well...

Exactly. In a political sense, Italian fascism was ultra-left, much like Nazism, which was born in Germany following its example. Even the word "Nazism" is a compound of "national" and "socialism." It differs from communism only in its foundation. Fascism uses the nation as its base, whereas communism relies on class. A nation is a specific, culturally and territorially bounded segment of society, while a class is viewed as something global and universal.

When we examine economic models and how they evolve, it is blatantly obvious that the most successful ones are those that allow for maximum market freedom—which inevitably leads to market globalization. It is quite paradoxical: every leftist supporter embraces "globalization" when it serves a spiritual or civilizational trend, yet the moment it becomes a material, economic model, they suddenly turn around and condemn it!

If you need proof, look at communist China. They embraced a capitalist economic model specifically to avoid the inevitable collapse that hit their communist rival, the USSR, which stubbornly clung to its ideological dogmas regarding a "classless" society even as its economy crumbled.

I don't even know where to begin with this—honestly, I'm at my wit's end! How can anyone sit there and act like this isn't a massive issue? It’s absolutely absurd! Is anyone actually paying attention, or have we all just decided to stop thinking entirely? It’s infuriating! kaže:
Why is fascism automatically branded as the ultimate evil by default? So what if fascist Italy launched aggressive wars against other sovereign nations? Big deal! The socialist Soviet Union did the exact same thing—yet nobody seems to view socialism through that same lens. Why the double standard?

I have this nagging suspicion that we are on the verge of seeing a massive resurgence of fascist ideologies in the near future—though, let’s be honest, they won't be running under that specific label. Fascism will likely remain a dirty word for quite some time. What I am actually referring to is the concept of forcing a compromise between labor and capital, all held together by the backbone of a powerful, centralized nation-state. From there, you get the predictable chain reaction: aggressive pro-natalist policies, massive infrastructure projects, large-scale mobilization, and the pursuit of a utopia driven by a singular national vision. If you ask me, that is exactly what America needs right now.

So, let me get this straight—are we really suggesting that totalitarianism in the name of the working class (communism) is somehow globally inferior to a brand of totalitarianism centered on the nation (fascism/Nazism), which is merely parochial? Is that the argument? How can one possibly claim that a globalist agenda is "lesser" than a localized, nationalist obsession? It’s an absurd proposition!

It is an absolute paradox—how can we sit here and ignore the fact that, from a purely economic standpoint, globalization is vastly superior to any form of autarky? Honestly, where is the logic in trying to isolate ourselves when the math clearly favors an open market?

Kyle Nelson2 said:Populism isn't just empty demagoguery, so why should we assume it's inherently bad?

When people talk about crypto-fascism, I’d argue that extremism on both sides—left and right—eventually leads back to fascism. For the right, it happens through nationalism, while for the left, it's driven by globalism. Basically, you end up with Nazism on one side and Communism on the other.
Nowadays, it seems like the far-left is running the show everywhere, pushing this whole "progressive" agenda.

You see these progressives in power all over the place: Villiband in the USA, Bernie Sanders, Angela Merkel, and Andrea Nahles, plus Manuel Barroso, Matteo Renzi, and Pedro Sánchez in Spain. Even all those Swedish prime ministers over the last 50 years, Alexis Tsipras in Greece, the entire Democratic Party there, or even going back to François Mitterrand to "Flamboyant" in France, and then Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and even that icon of the modern left, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( 😂 )

With this kind of left-wing crowd holding the reins for the last 15 years, I guess voters aren't really left with much choice besides voting for sovereignty-focused movements—what some call the modern right.
The old-school left actually came from the working class; they actually cared about them. But today's version? It's just elite, salon-dwelling types indoctrinated by cultural Marxism.
What kind of left do we have in America? We have leaders who still act like they're running a private club rather than a political party. Most of the people in the Democratic Party are just the kids of former establishment elites, raised with silver spoons and special privileges, and now they're just trying to protect their own status. In my opinion, the last real socialist we had was someone like a true old-school labor leader.

They say space is curved—that every direction within it is actually an arc where the two ends, left and right, eventually meet at a single point. For totalitarians, the greatest enemy is always the totalitarian of the opposite side, because they see one another as dangerous competitors for absolute power.

In that light, the deepest hatred is reserved for those who deviate from the orthodoxy (think St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre style)—be it Communism or Fascism. It’s no wonder that the "far-left" hates a former communist like Harmon even more than they hate some hardened "clerical fascist."

Leave the "social safety net" alone—it has already achieved its limit, which is establishing a basic social welfare state similar to what you see in the Nordic countries. Since the communist economic model was nothing more than a failed utopia that ended in absolute catastrophe, the only viable solution is a capitalist economy followed by the redistribution of profits through taxation.

Furthermore, this whole debate regarding "Universal Basic Income" is actually much closer to reality than people care to admit. It is quite literally the only way to marginalize and neutralize the segment of society that is becoming obsolete due to disruptive technological advancements.

John Rodriguez5 said:Do me a favor. Look at the price right when we ditched the gold standard back in '71. Calculate how much it’s shot up per decade since then, and then come back and stop embarrassing yourself with comments like this.

Exactly! If we actually went back to a gold standard today, considering how much more currency is floating around out there, gold would have to be priced at roughly $40,000 per ounce.

Melissa Sanchez17 said:If an earthquake wipes everything out, including the house you're actually living in, I promise you some shiny piece of metal is going to be the absolute last thing on your mind. 😁

An old man from San Francisco—specifically from a little town just south of Sioux Hills, tucked right against the southern edge of the Rocky Mountains—once told me a story. He claimed that in the days leading up to the fall of Nazi Germany, people were trading exclusively in gold. Apparently, nobody wanted to touch paper currency anymore! Instead, they were doing what he called "gold for gold" trades—with a bit of a smirk, too. It only clicked for me much later: they weren't just hoarding wealth; they were using actual gold jewelry to buy basic necessities like corn.

It isn’t gold—but let’s be clear: we are talking about actual money here. And let’s not forget that gold remains the ultimate benchmark—the one true standard against which every other currency is measured!

Switzerland just held a referendum regarding the concept of "sovereign money"—or *vollgeld*, as they call it.

The whole point of that initiative was to strip banks of their ability to lend out more money than they actually hold—essentially an attempt at abolishing the fractional reserve system once and for all. But, of course, the referendum failed. Why? Because three-quarters of the voters shot it down! Naturally, the bankers are celebrating in the streets today; after all, seventy-five percent of the electorate chose to protect the status quo and ensure our current monetary model remains untouched.

Forget about honest money—people simply have no appetite for it. It’s a perfect illustration of democracy in action, isn't it? A system where everyone is granted the absolute right to be willfully ignorant.

Bloomberg wrote, citing Jerome Powell of the Federal Reserve, that the concept of sovereign money—or vollgeld, if you prefer the technical term—is being revisited. The concept of "sovereign money"—or *vollgeld*, if you want to get technical—is back on the table, and frankly, it’s about time we had a serious conversation about it. Bloomberg wrote, The idea of sovereign money, or vollgeld in German, which essentially touches on the very core of how our monetary system functions. Why are we still letting private commercial banks hold such an absolute monopoly over the creation of money? It’s a fundamental flaw! Shouldn't the central bank—the Federal Reserve, in our case—have more direct control over the money supply to ensure stability instead of leaving it to the whims of private institutions? It’s a question that demands a real answer, isn't it? In German, this concept can actually be drawn as a parallel to using Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies—essentially functioning as an economic framework that isn't built upon a foundation of debt.

Here is more ammunition for my gold argument:

"Since the turn of the millennium, gold has outperformed the S&P 500 by twofold. Two times! Not to mention it climbed 13% just last year."

https://schiffgold.com/interviews/sh...2b70-192608337

What else does a person even need? Buy some gold and you have a universal currency that—get this—is actually a better investment than stocks on average.

If people want more excitement, they can go play around with "digital gold"😁.

Think of gold as an insurance policy—something that might just pull you out of the gutter when everything hits the fan, though God knows you’re praying that the crisis never actually arrives.

It isn't for the greedy 😁.

I take immense pride in the fact that Washington, D.C. still maintains its tram system. It is frankly baffling—why are so many cities across the globe abandoning such efficient transit in favor of more convoluted methods? They should be looking at this gold standard and bringing it back!

Drew Ramos77 said:If that were the case, most nations would face bankruptcy overnight—with the USA leading the charge. Let's be honest: the gold standard was abandoned specifically to allow governments and politicians to run up unchecked debt. For bankers, the current setup is their version of a golden era.

Why would anyone reintroduce a gold standard when the current one is already working perfectly for the banking elite?
And let's be clear: there isn't even a theoretical way to bring back anything resembling a gold standard. To do so, you would need one of two things to happen:

1) Every single politician on the planet decides to unite against the bankers.
or
2) Every banker in the world agrees to walk away from their massive profits in the name of "social solidarity."

Pick your poison. Which of those two scenarios seems more likely to you?😁

Under the Woodrow Wilson agreement back in 1944, the Federal Reserve was pegged to gold, while all other global currencies were pegged to the dollar. That agreement meant trade imbalances were settled at year-end through actual gold payments.

By the early 70s, the USA had racked up a massive trade deficit and simply refused to pay up in gold—instead, they unilaterally decoupled the dollar from the gold standard. Since the Federal Reserve was the world's reserve currency, they could pull that stunt without any consequences whatsoever. The fallout? We are left with this uncontrolled, unsustainable monetary mess that will eventually—sooner or later—require some kind of reckoning.

The point isn't about what kind of money governments *want*; it's about what kind of money they *must* have in the future to prevent a total monetary collapse.

I was merely suggesting that returning to a gold standard—which worked perfectly fine for thirty years—is one potential way out.

Given the sheer mountain of cash currently in circulation, implementing a gold standard would send gold prices skyrocketing, but that's irrelevant to how the monetary system itself functions. Only those who already hold the gold would see the profits.

Andrew Barrett4 said:Absolutely

The USA is essentially a powder keg when it comes to banking infrastructure (Fedwire and all its dependencies)

And just like I dumped my USD holdings a few years back, I’m feeling this sudden, nagging urge to do the exact same thing with everything short-term denominated in euros. There are a few reasons, I suppose: grabbing a decent exchange rate while it lasts, setting up a new greenhouse and a soup kitchen project, picking up some metals, and then just parking whatever is left in a third currency to sit and wait out the storm. I’m a total non-crypto person—honestly, I don't have the stomach for the volatility of the crypto markets. If things go south, I'll just have to start from scratch.

It’s definitely risky business given where inflation is sitting right now.

There is just so much about the euro and the USA that keeps me on edge.

People are already singing that old folk song about reckless gamblers, just with a modern twist:

"They say it's easy for any trader to win,
But if it were truly easy, everyone would be a trader."

P.S. What exactly would you consider a "third" currency?

Let’s be honest—the current monetary system is fundamentally broken. It’s built on a foundation of unsustainable debt that simply cannot be repaid—period. A total systemic "reset" isn't just a possibility; it is an absolute mathematical certainty, much like the various financial collapses we've witnessed throughout modern history.

The real question—and the one everyone seems to be ignoring—is how this transition actually happens. One theoretical path involves a massive international agreement to consolidate major global currencies and pivot back to a gold standard. Of course, such a move would inevitably send gold prices skyrocketing.

So, I have to ask: how realistic is this scenario, really? And more importantly, what kind of astronomical price point for gold would it take to actually make this work?

mistyotter44 said:gold seeker

When you sit back and watch this video, it really makes you wonder what kind of energy people pour into their work. Think about the sheer scale of the excavation and the logistics required just to get all of this concentrated in one single spot. It reminds me of how mice tirelessly tunnel beneath the surface; you have to ask yourself, what happens once we’ve tunneled through everything there is to find?

Is there truly no alternative way to establish trust and determine value?

There is—"digital gold" exists for "trust," and its value is dictated by the market just as much as physical gold is.

mistyotter44 said:How can you say it hasn't changed when the price swings by $500 at a time?

Just look at how everything else fluctuates when measured against gold:

http://pricedingold.com

Melissa Sanchez17 said:Hey, if that setup works for you, who am I to judge your life choices? I don't know how much metal you're actually holding, but let's be real—storage isn't free. Sure, Loomis is a huge, reputable player, but personally? When it comes to precious metals, I don't trust anyone—not even the big names or the stuff they're peddling right now.😁

But seriously, what does "outside your jurisdiction" actually mean in practice here?

My interpretation was simply a location where the laws of your home country don't carry any weight.

I don't know—and I say this with all due respect to Warren Buffett’s expertise—but his recommendations are just incredibly vague. It's like someone telling you the secret to winning at the stock market is "buy low and sell high." How helpful is that, really? ☕

brisksurfer71 said:KuciloOro says: Check out this post
Don't get ahead of yourself. Gold is slow and heavily manipulated. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is incredibly volatile and moves fast.
Just like it dropped from $19,500 down to $9,800, it can just as easily climb from its current $12,000 up to $24,000...
I'll be reminding you about that $8,000 price point later.

Just a little reality check for a "fundamentalist" like KuciloOro 😵
how many ounces of gold can you actually buy with 1 BTC right now? 😁😁😁

You can check out the relationship between Bitcoin, gold, and the dollar right here.

http://pricedingold.com/bitcoin/