The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Let me guess, CT: you're an electrical engineer?

On Tuesdays. This is Friday.

Countertrey wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

if what I have to say convinces one person to refuse to vaccinate their child

How irresponsible. You've never seen an Iron Lung, have you? Ahhh, but, what do you care? It's not like it's your kid. Besides, you have a ludicrous point to make.

Nothing more dangerous than a selectively informed conspiracy advocate.

No, it is irresponsible to talk like an authority on all subjects when you are clearly uniformed on most of them.

But it is off topic, so I'll post a thread on vaccines specifically, so we can address it there.

I have a wonderful idea....let's post it in smack? Yes.

I know what my qualifications are. You do not. I guarantee, I have forgotten more about vaccination, immunotherapy and immunology than you have even conceived.

I don't need to know your "qualifications". Your statements are enough qualification for me. And it's clear to me that you need to forget the rest of what you know, too.

I repeat my question. Have you ever seen an iron lung?

I will conclude (since you seem determined to avoid responding) that the answer is "no".

Why is that?

How many worldwide deaths has smallpox caused since 2000?

In the United States, how many infants born in 2005 suffered the teratrogenic effects of exposure to maternal Rubella infection?

Well?

Excuse me but...1) I don't sit here waiting for you to ask me a question, and I certainly don't care if you have to wait for my response. 2) aren't you tired of getting spanked? I guess not, or maybe you like it. Very well. are we in the lounge? darn, I was hoping smack

Interesting that you should bring up Rubella infection...you couldn't have picked a worse topic to support your foundation less position....hahahaha But thank you...I might have overlooked this aspect of the argument because there are better ones, but this will do nicely.

Rubella (measles) The natural immunity gained by the infection protects you for life. Same with chicken pox, mumps. All immune for life. And us older folks all got them...had em all, and I'm still here, and I'll never have to worry about them.

The real dangers of these childhood diseases is the much more dramatic and dangerous effect they have on adults, and the danger posed to fetuses in infected pregnant women, as you so kindly brought up.

And this is a major problem because the vaccines do not offer lifetime protection, and in fact, there is no guaranteed protection AT ALL. Read...listen...learn

So instead of having natural immunity, (and these childhood diseases were instrumental components in the development of a stong and healthy immune system overall) we have partial, artificial immunity sold to us by pharmaceutical companies that carry no guaranteed benefits, and with all of the multitude of vaccines on today's childhood schedule, it overwhelms their tiny yet to be developed immune systems which many firmly believe contributes to the huge, gigantic increases in autism, ADHD, Childhood diabetes, and the list goes on.

Now, a young woman who doesn't have lifetime immunity to measles gets them while she's pregnant. A potential disaster of varying degrees, bad to horrible. But the teratogenic (not teratrogenic) effects on fetuses come from many many sources, much of them from prescription medications, and illegal drugs, alcohol, and the never ever mentioned DIET FREAKIN SODA!!! Not just Rubella infection, which is made possible by short circuiting natures lifetime immunity artificially with vaccines.

Now to the meat of the issue...vaccines in general, and specifically, smallpox.

All of the "big" diseases which vaccine champions claim were eradicated by vaccines were actually in sharp decline prior to the invention and use of the vaccines. This decline was due to better hygiene, sanitation, water, and the use of refrigeration. Moreover, compulsory smallpox vaccination programs were responsible for decimating hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, and a decline in smallpox wasn't realized until those programs were abandoned and eventually outlawed!!!

So, your arguments and positions are not only wrong, they contain not one single solitary iota of truth....not one short curly hair of validity.

You couldn't be more wrong if that was YOUR GOAL. You could sit there and make stuff up in your head and have a better chance of being right.

Here is one exerpt of a detailed discusion of the above statements:
http://www.naturodoc.com/library/public ... accine.htm

Not only had poor sanitation and nutrition lain the foundation for disease, it was also compulsory smallpox vaccination campaigns in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that played a major role in decimating the populations of Japan (48,000 deaths), England and Wales (44,840 deaths, after 97 percent of the population had been vaccinated), Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, Italy, India (3 million -- all vaccinated), Australia, Germany (124,000 deaths), Prussia (69,000 deaths -- all re-vaccinated), and the Philippines. The epidemics ended in cities where smallpox vaccinations were either discontinued or never begun, and also after sanitary reforms were instituted (most notably in Munich -- 1880, Leicester -- 1878, Barcelona -- 1804, Alicante -- 1827, India -- 1906, etc).

In many nations, mortalities from smallpox hadn't begun to decline until the citizenry revolted against compulsory smallpox vaccination laws. For example, the town of Leicester from 1878 to 1898 stood in stark contrast to the rest of England, where thousands were dying from the aggressive half-century-old government mandatory immunization campaigns.

By 1907, the Vaccination Acts of England were repealed, with the help of some of the world's preeminent scientists who had turned staunchly against vaccination: Alfred Russell Wallace (one of the founders of modern evolutionary biology and zoogeography, and co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the Theory of Natural Selection), Charles Creighton (Britain's most learned epidemiologist and medical historian), William Farr (epidemiologist and medical statistician, first to describe how seasonal epidemics rise and fall -- known today as Farr's Law"), and the renowned Dr. Edgar M. Crookshank, Professor of Bacteriology and Comparative Pathology in King's College, London, and author of the scathing scientific critique of vaccination, The History and Pathology of Vaccination (1889). But before the law was amended in 1898 to include a conscientious exemption clause, an average of 2,000 parents per year were jailed and prosecuted -- some repeatedly -- for resisting vaccination. Large numbers went to prison in default of paying fines. Hundreds had their homes and possessions seized.

By 1919, England and Wales had become one of the least vaccinated countries, and had only 28 deaths from smallpox, out of a population of 37.8 million people. By contrast, during that same year, out of a population of 10 million -- all triply vaccinated over the prior 6 years -- the Philippine Islands registered 47,368 deaths from smallpox. The epidemic came after the culmination of a ruthless 15-year compulsory vaccination campaign by the U.S., in which the native population -- young and old -- were forcibly vaccinated (several times), literally against their will. In a speech condemning the smallpox vaccine reprinted in the Congressional Record of 12/21/37, William Howard Hay, M.D. said, "... the Philippines suffered the worst attack of smallpox, the worst epidemic three times over, that had ever occurred in the history of the islands, and it was almost three times as fatal. The death rate ran as high as 60 percent in certain areas, where formerly it had been 10 and 15 percent." In the province of Rizal, for example, smallpox mortalities increased from an average 3 percent (before vaccination) to 67 percent during 1918 and 1919. All told, after 10 years (1911-1920) of a compulsory U.S. program which administered 25 million vaccinations to the Philippine population of 10 million, there had been 170,000 cases, and more than 75,000 deaths from smallpox.


Like I said, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Educate yourself, and stop telling everyone how smart you are!

While were at here, (and if you think that the forced inoculations in the Philippines for 15 years was some well meaning accident, you aren't paying attention) we can talk about the failed smallpox vaccine program attempted a couple of years ago that targeted "first responders". The program died because the first responders told them to stick it in their ears.

This program was to be just the first step in forced smallpox vaccination for all of us, to be administered by those very medical and police personnel who refused to do it themselves.

Given the history of vaccination nightmares dating over 150 years, you can bet that these evil miscreants aren't going away. they'll make another push to jab us with there poison at some point in the near future....and everyone had better educate themselves and do what the first responders did.....respond with F U.

You think it's safe to leave your well being in the hands of others? Fine. Be cattle. Be sheep. March to the slaughter with that silly grin on your face.

But don't say "I didn't know". You were warned...and you laughed. And such stupidity deserves what it gets.

Your pathetic efforts at obfuscation aside, there are 3 questions on the table which you have been unresponsive to...

Have you ever seen an iron lung?

I will conclude (since you seem determined to avoid responding) that the answer is "no".

Why is that?

How many worldwide deaths has smallpox caused since 2000?

In the United States, how many infants born in 2005 suffered the teratrogenic effects of exposure to maternal Rubella infection?

Well?

Debate seems to be an exceptionally weak point for you, but I will point out that each of these requires no more than a one or two word response. I can't imagine that there would be need for more than a one sentence qualifier.

An unresponsive manifesto plagerized from psychotic-conspiracy.com is not helpful.

Countertrey wrote:Your pathetic efforts at obfuscation aside, there are 3 questions on the table which you have been unresponsive to...

Have you ever seen an iron lung?

I will conclude (since you seem determined to avoid responding) that the answer is "no".

Why is that?

How many worldwide deaths has smallpox caused since 2000?

In the United States, how many infants born in 2005 suffered the teratrogenic effects of exposure to maternal Rubella infection?

Well?

Debate seems to be an exceptionally weak point for you, but I will point out that each of these requires no more than a one or two word response. I can't imagine that there would be need for more than a one sentence qualifier.

An unresponsive manifesto plagerized from psychotic-conspiracy.com is not helpful.

I answered your questions, but apparently reading comprehension is an exceptionally weak point for you.

No plagiarism involved.....I posted the link to the information.....apparently the English language in general is your weak point.

No, actually you haven't, Smokescreen.

You are in denial of the disasters wrought by Rubella (GERMAN measles, NOT measles) on the human fetus (oh, other things cause that, too, while ignoring the FACT that rubella causes a unique set of disabilities, which, (I'm sure, just coincidentally) all but DISAPPEAR in the absence of rubella infections!

You did not reply to the number of occurences of Smallpox.

You did not reply to your last encounter with an iron lung.

I suspect there is a reason... you are in denial of the truth.


I could care less about YOUR reality. Unfortunately, you are spewing your fairytales, and attempting to brainwash the innocent. This is why pertussis is making a return. This is why mumps outbreaks have appeared in colleges.

By the way, Kazoo, I forgot to add this great paragraph from Henry Hazlitt on inflation (and therefore, from the Austrian perspective ,the Fed). It's from his book, 'What You Should Know About Inflation':

“Inflation, to sum up, is the increase in the volume of money and bank credit in relation to the volume of goods. It is harmful because it depreciates the value of the monetary unit, raises everybody’s cost of living, imposes what is in effect a tax on the poorest (without exemptions) at as high a rate as the tax on the richest, wipes out the value of past savings, discourages future savings, redistributes wealth and income wantonly, encourages and rewards speculation and gambling at the expense of thrift and work, undermines confidence in the justice of a free enterprise system, and corrupts public and private morals.

But it is never 'inevitable.' We can always stop it overnight, if we have the sincere will to do so.”

. . .that's why libertarian/Austrians hate the Fed

Irn-Bru wrote:By the way, Kazoo, I forgot to add this great paragraph from Henry Hazlitt on inflation (and therefore, from the Austrian perspective ,the Fed). It's from his book, 'What You Should Know About Inflation':

“Inflation, to sum up, is the increase in the volume of money and bank credit in relation to the volume of goods. It is harmful because it depreciates the value of the monetary unit, raises everybody’s cost of living, imposes what is in effect a tax on the poorest (without exemptions) at as high a rate as the tax on the richest, wipes out the value of past savings, discourages future savings, redistributes wealth and income wantonly, encourages and rewards speculation and gambling at the expense of thrift and work, undermines confidence in the justice of a free enterprise system, and corrupts public and private morals.

But it is never 'inevitable.' We can always stop it overnight, if we have the sincere will to do so.”

. . .that's why libertarian/Austrians hate the Fed

It sounds like Wall Street needs to go as well as the Federal Reserve.
I'd be perfectly fine with that.

GSPODS wrote:It sounds like Wall Street needs to go as well as the Federal Reserve.
I'd be perfectly fine with that.

Not necessarily, although without special privileges they'd look quite a bit different.

Forgive the re-introduction to an earlier off topic discussion, but briefly,

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... 689#387689

teaser video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrIM2hwr ... re=related

The subject is worthy of your time and attention I believe.

Nice! A link to a profanity laced reply! How cool!

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Can you explain the Federal Reserve issue to me, Irn-Bru? Ironically though I'm libertarian, an MBA and biz consultant I've never actually gotten the desire to get rid of the Federal reserve. What exactly is the issue?

This actually gets to the heart of what I think separates between different kinds of libertarians. Your man (and CT's man) Boortz is, I think, very good on issues pertaining to government regulation and taxes. (Well, I still don't buy the FT, but you know what I mean )

However, one reason why I don't put much stock in the Boortz strain of libertarian philosophy is that it focuses almost exclusively on regulation and taxes. But I think there are larger concerns that are actually far more serious and deserve, but don't receive, much more libertarian attention. War would be one issue, and the Federal Reserve would be another.

Libertarian concerns with the Federal Reserve always come back to money. One of the better, ultra-short introductions is an essay that Alan Greenspan wrote back when he was essentially a libertarian (in the Ayn Rand camp):
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html

He obviously changed his views rather radically once he became invovled with the Fed. The basic concern with the Federal Reserve is that it commits fraud and causes inflation, which is problematic for a number of reasons. This is a great summary article:
http://www.mises.org/story/2914

The late, great Murray Rothbard is the man on this topic. His very short book on money is fantastic (and changed my life, as much as a short book on economics can):
http://mises.org/money.asp
(and its companion): http://mises.org/story/1829

There is also a really good audio-book version of that book, if that's your thing (when I was commuting an hour a day I "read" quite a bit this way).

One more: this documentary is dated (and a little cheesy), but still very good--especially the second half. I point it out because I find it easier to watch a movie than to read:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE

I hope that the effect of dropping a dozen links isn't that you don't look at any. But that's the best I can do for an introduction to a libertarian perspective on the Fed.


I hope that the effect of dropping a dozen links isn't that you don't look at any. But that's the best I can do for an introduction to a libertarian perspective on the Fed.

So when I said this before I was clearly hitting at the same issue you're raising.

Kaz wrote:Now I will say one reason I believe we should be cutting spending and having no deficits and paying off the debt is that clearly the Federal government uses that they are the biggest debtor in the world to control the value of US currency, interest rates and all that and we'd be so much better off if they did not have that power. But that involves paying off the debt and controlling spending, not "blowing up" the Federal reserve. And I mean blowing up figuratively for any NSA robots or FBI Bushmen hitting this.

They are really hitting at using the gold standard to restrict the ability of politicians to print money, which is really borrowing against future tax payers ability to make good on their payments rather then having tangible assets to pay for them. I also hate the Fed and thought Greenspan sucked. It always amazed me how worshipped he was. Everyone always thought since I was a biz guy I must love him and were always surprised when I informed them of the opposite. I was amazed there was any connection between him and Ayn Rand. Wow, did he change. He's along the lines of justices like O'Conner and Kennedy who succumbed to the power of their position over their ideologies.

Anyway, I think my confusion was largely definitional. I knew most of that, but there were some interesting points. I was thinking more of dramatically changing Fed policy rather then getting rid of it. The idea of getting rid of it really is more getting rid of our current fiscal approach and a lot of the desire to get rid of it is that given the way it operates the corruption is inevitable. It's not by definition necessary for example to have the gold standard, but in reality it may be as politicians can never be trusted and the gold standard is a choke hold on maintaining some sort of sound policy.

Anyway, good reads, thanks!

Irn-Bru wrote:By the way, Kazoo, I forgot to add this great paragraph from Henry Hazlitt on inflation (and therefore, from the Austrian perspective ,the Fed). It's from his book, 'What You Should Know About Inflation':

“Inflation, to sum up, is the increase in the volume of money and bank credit in relation to the volume of goods. It is harmful because it depreciates the value of the monetary unit, raises everybody’s cost of living, imposes what is in effect a tax on the poorest (without exemptions) at as high a rate as the tax on the richest, wipes out the value of past savings, discourages future savings, redistributes wealth and income wantonly, encourages and rewards speculation and gambling at the expense of thrift and work, undermines confidence in the justice of a free enterprise system, and corrupts public and private morals.

But it is never 'inevitable.' We can always stop it overnight, if we have the sincere will to do so.”

. . .that's why libertarian/Austrians hate the Fed

I understand that. Basically inflation is when money supply increases faster then the value behind the currency so people are willing to spend more of it for the same thing. The gold standard would at least largely solve that in an expanding economy as the money supply is fixed. To raise prices you have to raise the comparative value of the product since there is not more money to pay for it. That would reduce the comparative value of something else and control inflation as by definition it's the cost of living.

As a biz guy though, having some inflation doesn't scare me as much because my thought is driven by inflation returning after inflation (and after tax) real returns, which grows wealth. I understand someone on a fixed income or dependent on pensions that don't grow with inflation would think of it the same way though. Inflation is only one issue with the Fed though.

The Fed does have the power to increase the money supply faster than the goods backing them, but the real crime is that there is no tie between issued currency and any kind of backing. It is fraud.

Therefore, while (yes) a gold standard would restrict politicians, and while (yes) it would diminish or eliminate the problem of the boom-and-bust business cycle, and while (yes) there would be other benefits, the real upside to eliminating the Fed would be that we'd eliminate government-backed fraud in our currency.

Irn-Bru wrote:The Fed does have the power to increase the money supply faster than the goods backing them, but the real crime is that there is no tie between issued currency and any kind of backing. It is fraud.

Therefore, while (yes) a gold standard would restrict politicians, and while (yes) it would diminish or eliminate the problem of the boom-and-bust business cycle, and while (yes) there would be other benefits, the real upside to eliminating the Fed would be that we'd eliminate government-backed fraud in our currency.

If we eliminated not only the Fed but also paper currency and coins, and used actual gold and silver as currency as we once did the rest of the issues would resolve themselves. Who was the schmuck that took us off the gold standard? (I know the schmuck's name) We've been paying for it by not paying ever since.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I understand that. Basically inflation is when money supply increases faster then the value behind the currency so people are willing to spend more of it for the same thing. The gold standard would at least largely solve that in an expanding economy as the money supply is fixed. To raise prices you have to raise the comparative value of the product since there is not more money to pay for it.

Yes and no. . .the amount of gold in society is not fixed. How profitable it is to find / mine more of it depends on how highly gold is valued (relative to the costs of mining it). Just like supply and demand regulates how much pizza, computers, or cars are available to consumers, so also would it regulate how profitable it would be to mine and process more gold for money.

Further, while gold has historically been the preferred medium of exchange, I don't see any reason why silver, platinum, etc. would not also function as currency alongside of gold--especially as gold became more rare in comparisons to the population and demand for it. Hence, this concern:

Kazoo wrote:That would reduce the comparative value of something else and control inflation as by definition it's the cost of living.

IMO, would largely be taken care of--the supply of money would be (a) tied to reality and (b) dynamic.

GSPODS wrote:If we eliminated not only the Fed but also paper currency and coins, and used actual gold and silver as currency as we once did the rest of the issues would resolve themselves. Who was the schmuck that took us off the gold standard? (I know the schmuck's name) We've been paying for it by not paying ever since.

There's nothing wrong with paper and coins that represent gold (or whatever the money commodity is). It's pretty inconvenient to carry around enough silver to buy expensive things, not to mention risky since losing change from your pockets is more likely than a secure bank being robbed. The problem is that our system substitutes the actual commodities with paper and coins.

The term "dollar" used to be like "pound" or "ounce." It literally meant 1/20th of an ounce of gold. (Gold is now, of course, trading around $1,000 per ounce ). The penny has been so devalued that the metal in the coin is worth more than a penny of U.S. currency. . .so of course the government made it illegal to melt them down into (the more useful) raw copper. Ditto with the nickel.

The schmucks came in about three stages, with the final ties to the gold standard being cut in the 70s.

Irn-Bru wrote:

GSPODS wrote:If we eliminated not only the Fed but also paper currency and coins, and used actual gold and silver as currency as we once did the rest of the issues would resolve themselves. Who was the schmuck that took us off the gold standard? (I know the schmuck's name) We've been paying for it by not paying ever since.

There's nothing wrong with paper and coins that represent gold (or whatever the money commodity is). It's pretty inconvenient to carry around enough silver to buy expensive things, not to mention risky since losing change from your pockets is more likely than a secure bank being robbed. The problem is that our system substitutes the actual commodities with paper and coins.

The term "dollar" used to be like "pound" or "ounce." It literally meant 1/20th of an ounce of gold. (Gold is now, of course, trading around $1,000 per ounce ). The penny has been so devalued that the metal in the coin is worth more than a penny of U.S. currency. . .so of course the government made it illegal to melt them down into (the more useful) raw copper. Ditto with the nickel.

The schmucks came in about three stages, with the final ties to the gold standard being cut in the 70s.

We used to have paper that actually represented gold and silver. They were called Gold and Silver Certificates. I still have a few of them locked away. Do you suppose those are still payable in precious metals upon redemption?

As far as the penny is concerned, if it weren't for odd tax amounts (see gasoline), we could do away with the penny altogether.

Irn-Bru wrote:The Fed does have the power to increase the money supply faster than the goods backing them, but the real crime is that there is no tie between issued currency and any kind of backing. It is fraud.

Therefore, while (yes) a gold standard would restrict politicians, and while (yes) it would diminish or eliminate the problem of the boom-and-bust business cycle, and while (yes) there would be other benefits, the real upside to eliminating the Fed would be that we'd eliminate government-backed fraud in our currency.

How exactly is money not backed by physical assets "fraud?" I want to make clear this point is narrow to the use of the term "fraud" and I'm not saying I don't see issues with money not backed by assets, some of which I've already referred to. When I buy products from a merchant using a credit card am I committing fraud? My credit card is only backed by my promise to pay and record that in the past I have. Money not backed up by physical assets is the same thing. I see like credit cards how that can be risky, but I don't see how it's fraud.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:The Fed does have the power to increase the money supply faster than the goods backing them, but the real crime is that there is no tie between issued currency and any kind of backing. It is fraud.

Therefore, while (yes) a gold standard would restrict politicians, and while (yes) it would diminish or eliminate the problem of the boom-and-bust business cycle, and while (yes) there would be other benefits, the real upside to eliminating the Fed would be that we'd eliminate government-backed fraud in our currency.

How exactly is money not backed by physical assets "fraud?" I want to make clear this point is narrow to the use of the term "fraud" and I'm not saying I don't see issues with money not backed by assets, some of which I've already referred to. When I buy products from a merchant using a credit card am I committing fraud? My credit card is only backed by my promise to pay and record that in the past I have. Money not backed up by physical assets is the same thing. I see like credit cards how that can be risky, but I don't see how it's fraud.

I think the fraud is when we borrow on the credit of the United States Of America without the assets to lend the money. See banks.

Irn-Bru wrote:Yes and no. . .the amount of gold in society is not fixed. How profitable it is to find / mine more of it depends on how highly gold is valued (relative to the costs of mining it). Just like supply and demand regulates how much pizza, computers, or cars are available to consumers, so also would it regulate how profitable it would be to mine and process more gold for money.

OK, I did say fixed, but I didn't mean it that literally. Relative to the size of the economy the amount of gold would change slowly. The example I gave holds unless you think of it over a very long period of time.

Irn-Bru wrote:Further, while gold has historically been the preferred medium of exchange, I don't see any reason why silver, platinum, etc. would not also function as currency alongside of gold--especially as gold became more rare in comparisons to the population and demand for it. Hence, this concern:

Kazoo wrote:That would reduce the comparative value of something else and control inflation as by definition it's the cost of living.

IMO, would largely be taken care of--the supply of money would be (a) tied to reality and (b) dynamic.

While in theory that makes a lot of sense, it does make it more complicated and complication raises the opportunity for fraud and where there is the opportunity for fraud the politicians will rush in. Here's an example.

Let's say we decide that gold is worth $1,000 an ounce. That means that one dollar is worth 1/1000 of an ounce of gold, a fixed value. To your point, that is a very anti-inflation action. Now let's say we have silver as an alternate backing. And (I'm obviously making up these numbers) say we decide that silver is worth 10 times gold. So one dollar would buy you 1/100 an ounce of silver.

Here's the problem, silver changes in value in relation to gold. So do we issue two currencies? One backed by silver, the other gold? That would be cumbersome, even moreso if you add platinum and other metals. How do we determine exactly how the relative value changes?

Politicians have already figured that out with say social security. In theory, social security taxes and benefits both increase with inflation. However, the politicians use different measures for both, and guess what, they are both SELF SERVING! They want benefits to rise more slowly and use a lower measure of inflation then for taxes. The more types of assets behind the currency, the more opportunity for similar games.

GSPODS wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:The Fed does have the power to increase the money supply faster than the goods backing them, but the real crime is that there is no tie between issued currency and any kind of backing. It is fraud.

Therefore, while (yes) a gold standard would restrict politicians, and while (yes) it would diminish or eliminate the problem of the boom-and-bust business cycle, and while (yes) there would be other benefits, the real upside to eliminating the Fed would be that we'd eliminate government-backed fraud in our currency.

How exactly is money not backed by physical assets "fraud?" I want to make clear this point is narrow to the use of the term "fraud" and I'm not saying I don't see issues with money not backed by assets, some of which I've already referred to. When I buy products from a merchant using a credit card am I committing fraud? My credit card is only backed by my promise to pay and record that in the past I have. Money not backed up by physical assets is the same thing. I see like credit cards how that can be risky, but I don't see how it's fraud.

I think the fraud is when we borrow on the credit of the United States Of America without the assets to lend the money. See banks.

This seems to just repeat the statement I questioned