War Room OT Discussion v3

[Jack V Savage]

Still better than identity politics...

That's very true, but I think the new WR gurus (Shapiro and Peterson seem to be the main ones) are way better than Schiff and Molyneux.

 

[HereticBD]

I could give two shits about this

*couldn't

but expecting him to "merely ignore" is kind of moronic when you were acting with all the subtlety and moderation of Donald Trump in a photo shoot with his 12 year old daughter. You were/are literally quoting him multiple times in a thread and tagging that other member, so as to further avoid substantively engaging him.

Regardless of this, for all the exasperated whining you have done about liberal degeneration, your post quality, intellectual honesty, and general credibility have nosedived in an extent far outpacing manic liberals. From being a few noticeable classes removed from the bottom wrung of right-wing Pwentian posters here, you've devolved into purely a hissing partisan, completely disregarding any sort of policies or principles in defense of a hilariously inept strong man that you lust after. Sad!

EDIT: But, fwiw, I think reporting/contacting mods is almost universally stupid. Who cares that much about a message board. Unless you're advocating genocide, reporting should be scant.

Then again, maybe you did mean "could", because you just gave approximately two shits about it.

 

[Ruprecht]

That's very true, but I think the new WR gurus (Shapiro and Peterson seem to be the main ones) are way better than Schiff and Molyneux.

Yeah, not that I'm exactly awed by Peterson, but even his anti-Marxism rants are a good step up from when we'd see Glen Beck's take on Marxism followed by a bunch of "Tree of Liberty" stuff.

 

[Trotsky]

That's very true, but I think the new WR gurus (Shapiro and Peterson seem to be the main ones) are way better than Schiff and Molyneux.

Peterson >> Molyneux > Shapiro >> Schiff

Peterson is the only one I have any respect for at all, and it's a pretty minuscule amount, but at least Molyneux is entertaining, even if objectively a moron.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Yeah, not that I'm exactly awed by Peterson, but even his anti-Marxism rants are a good step up from when we'd see Glen Beck's take on Marxism followed by a bunch of "Tree of Liberty" stuff.

From the perspective of a habitual jokester such as myself, though, Beck was way easier to make fun of.
Going into one of these pseudo philosophy/internet-lectual threads is like opening the friggin Ark of the Covenant.

 

[Ruprecht]

Peterson >> Molyneux > Shapiro >> Schiff

Peterson is the only one I have any respect for at all, and it's a pretty minuscule amount, but at least Molyneux is entertaining, even if objectively a moron.

Did you ever watch his "Salvation of Philosophy" videos (he's taken them down now), or see any of his creepy "DeFoo" stuff on the FDR forum? I can't stand the guy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Peterson >> Molyneux > Shapiro >> Schiff

Peterson is the only one I have any respect for at all, and it's a pretty minuscule amount, but at least Molyneux is entertaining, even if objectively a moron.

Molyneux is the craziest of the bunch. Not as obvious a conman as Schiff and not as dumb either, so I'd just reverse him and Shapiro.

@Greoric is clearly a disciple of Molyneux (not only the views but the "not an argument" line) and used to post vids of him, but when I called him on that, he totally denied it and even pretended to think Molyneux was a woman ("I never even heard of her." "Why are you bringing that bitch up?") to make his denial seem more believable. Weird. I wonder if that's something people in the cult are supposed to do.

 

[Ruprecht]

From the perspective of a habitual jokester such as myself, though, Beck was way easier to make fun of.
Going into one of these pseudo philosophy/internet-lectual threads is like opening the friggin Ark of the Covenant.

Beck's definitely a clown, but I do appreciate actual discussion of political philosophy.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Beck's definitely a clown, but I do appreciate actual discussion of political philosophy.

Blehhhhhhhhhh

 

[Trotsky]

Molyneux is the craziest of the bunch. Not as obvious a conman as Schiff and not as dumb either, so I'd just reverse him and Shapiro.

@Greoric is clearly a disciple of Molyneux (not only the views but the "not an argument" line) and used to post vids of him, but when I called him on that, he totally denied it and even pretended to think Molyneux was a woman ("I never even heard of her." "Why are you bringing that bitch up?") to make his denial seem more believable. Weird. I wonder if that's something people in the cult are supposed to do.

He has a great name to be a philosopher, or a Pokemon. It's unfortunate that he's legitimately closer to the latter than the former.

 

[Limbo Pete]

He has a great name to be a philosopher, or a Pokemon. It's unfortunate that he's legitimately closer to the latter than the former.

Legit belly laugh

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

A "promise to pay" is not what people have now. And, yes, in a kind of post-apocalyptic world, people might barter or use gold. That has no application in the real world, though. Also, our central bank doesn't own any gold.

I'm not interested in tediously splitting hairs with you. If you want to expand on these statements for the benefit of the other posters go ahead. For my purposes here those statements are accurate enough.

http://www.differencebetween.net/bu...rence-between-fiat-money-and-commodity-money/

2) Payment Implications
Commodity money is a sort of money that is considered as a present good. Whereas, fiat money is a future obligation as it is simply a promise to pay in the future. Payment is never made when it comes to fiat money, instead it is only discharged. But commodity money, on the other hand, completes the transaction. Under a commodity monetary system, final payment is always made in the form of commodity that is being used as money in the transaction. The commodity is used as a final payment because there is no obligation and receiving the commodity in payment ends all further obligations.
Fiat money is a paper money and it represents nothing but a promise or an obligation. Under a fiat monetary system, final payment never occurs because a transaction is executed with a promise, a representation, or an obligation that something else is owed. Here, monetary unit is a legal fiction. It is not tangible and does not have any defined unit of measure.

As for gold holdings...

https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/files/combinedfinstmt2016.pdf

First line on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet is $11,037,000,000 in gold certificates.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greats...-with-the-largest-gold-reserves/#5a7ff378730a

Beginning in 2010, central banks around the world turned from being net sellers of gold to net buyers of gold. Last year they collectively added 483 tonnes—the second largest annual total since the end of the gold standard—with Russia and China accounting for most of the activity. The second half of 2015 saw the most robust purchasing on record, according to the World Gold Council (WGC).

Not every top bank is a net buyer. The Bank of Canada has liquidated close to all of its gold, mainly in coin sales, while Venezuela is in the process of doing the same to pay off its debts, but most of the world’s central banks right now are accumulating, holding and/or repatriating the precious metal. As of this month, they reportedly owned 32,754 tonnes, or about 17.8 percent of the total amount of gold ever mined, according to the WGC.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not interested in tediously splitting hairs with you.

Then don't. Money isn't a promise to pay anything. Re-asserting the point or quoting someone else asserting it doesn't make it true.

As for gold holdings...

https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/files/combinedfinstmt2016.pdf

First line on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet is $11,037,000,000 in gold certificates.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greats...-with-the-largest-gold-reserves/#5a7ff378730a

Gold certificates are not gold.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/does-the-federal-reserve-own-or-hold-gold.htm

And I didn't say that no central banks own gold. Just that ours doesn't. It's a dumb holding. The gov't holds a lot because they don't want to flood the market.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Money isn't a promise to pay anything. Re-asserting the point or quoting someone else asserting it doesn't make it true.

Practice what you preach then.

I'm trying to add to @JonesBones perspective based on what I've learned about banking. If you wanna boil it down to (and leave it at) gold = stupid and Federal Reserve notes = smart that's your choice. I like the guy and am attempting to drum up some dialogue with him. Your input isn't really a substitute for that conversation so pardon me while I move on.

Have a great weekend.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Practice what you preach then.

It's not about practicing anything. It's a simple fact of nature that your false claim doesn't become true when you repeat it.

I'm trying to add to @JonesBones perspective based on what I've learned about banking.

How does claiming that cash is a "promise to pay" add to anyone's perspective on the issue? If you sell something and get cash, is the transaction not complete until someone else gives you something else? No. You want the cash, you get the cash, you use it when you decide to. At no point does a promise to pay come into the picture.

If you wanna boil it down to (and leave it at) gold = stupid and Federal Reserve notes = smart that's your choice. I like the guy and am attempting to drum up some dialogue with him.

Yes, I realize that you're hostile in general and stubborn on this issue. But the issue of gold vs. fiat is long settled, and Jones nailed why (I mean without getting into the historical failure of gold).

 

[Gregolian]

Trying to make the concept of contracts... the one class in Law School like no one ever gets more than a C in... easy to understand is lulzy.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It's not about practicing anything. It's a simple fact of nature that your false claim doesn't become true when you repeat it.



How does claiming that cash is a "promise to pay" add to anyone's perspective on the issue? If you sell something and get cash, is the transaction not complete until someone else gives you something else? No. You want the cash, you get the cash, you use it when you decide to. At no point does a promise to pay come into the picture.



Yes, I realize that you're hostile in general and stubborn on this issue. But the issue of gold vs. fiat is long settled, and Jones nailed why (I mean without getting into the historical failure of gold).

Nor do yours.

I'm sorry if you disagree with the link on the hierarchy of money. If you've got a better way to characterize the differences between the various forms of money then by all means spit it out. It seems conceptually obvious to me there's more finality to gold than those other forms and that historically it would be useful for cross-border trade.

Your last paragraph seems to be making your usual unsubstantiated accusations. But if you want to call my polite disinterest hostility go for it. Not sure what you mean by stubborn on this issue. All I've contended is that gold served mankind well enough that people utilized it for thousands of years so it's not something I would call anywhere near the stupidest thing ever. Unless that usage is not an historical fact you appear to be fighting windmills here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Nor do yours.

I didn't make any, though. You were claiming that fiat money is a "promise to pay." You literally can't even answer the question of "promise to pay what to who?"

I'm sorry if you disagree with the link on the hierarchy of money. If you've got a better way to characterize the differences between the various forms of money then by all means spit it out. It seems conceptually obvious to me there's more finality to gold than those other forms and that historically it would be useful for cross-border trade.

Selling something for cash is final. Trading it for gold is also final. There's no difference in finality there.

In addition to what Jones already pointed out (gold-based monetary policy is random rather than driven by the needs of the country), which can be a massive handicap to a nation trying to recover from a recession, the biggest difference is volatility. You don't want money that rises or falls sharply from day to day (being a short-term store of value is one of the key functions of money), which gold can.

Not sure what you mean by stubborn on this issue. All I've contended is that gold served mankind well enough that people utilized it for thousands of years so it's not something I would call anywhere near the stupidest thing ever. Unless that usage is not an historical fact you appear to be fighting windmills here.

Fair point that your hostility and stubbornness are broader than I acknowledged. My point was that the fact that different gold-based currencies have been used for a while doesn't say anything about how stupid or not stupid using gold is, particularly in comparison to more-recent innovations.

 

[spin]

One thing I need is a thing that stops shit from falling inbetween your seats. that hole between your seat and console. My phone, wallet, etc are always sliding out of my pocket or off the seat into that crack. There was a guy on Shark Tank pitching a thing to stop that. And one of the guys is like, "Is stuff falling through seat cracks really a problem?" And then Mark Cuban says, "Yeah, go look under my car seat right now." lol. Cuban knows.

https://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/car-gap-catcher/

 

[waiguoren]

2020 Democratic field should be stacked. I predict that at least three of the following four will run: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders.

For continued victory, Trump needs to shore up his relationship with Bannon and start attacking these people now.