List of steps/reasons to help explain economic situation to others

[Carson]

For me this was my first step.




Once you've got the basic concept some other things should start becoming clear.

~No matter where your aunt Martha hid the sugar jar with here savings in it others are able to slither in like vampires in the night and suck the strength out of it.

~Sure if the double the money supply your Uncle Phil gets twice as much when he sells his stocks but he is getting twice as many of something worth half as much. Plus some of the very people that counterfeited the money supply have now cut themselves in on his stuff with capital gains taxes.

~ No matter how much hard earned money the "we the people" can come up with to build their world the way they want, others have the ability to fire up the fake money presses and dictate their will.

[Athan]

not going to lie, this is the average response i get.

me: (me spending hours explaining it to him) any questions?
them: so............................. how is your fantasy football league doing?

after a couple of people did the same thing to me, i just don't care anymore, let them burn with the rest of the country.

I can't blame you. Some people will refuse to wake up early. Some won't even wake up even after the alarm has begun ringing and will think of it as a snooze. There are people that require the rude awakening.

Focus on helping each other and fellow Ron Paul supporters. We need each others backs and support. Get yourself able to be reasonable self sufficient and network for the rest. I have found a fellow Ron Paul bud who is focused on the back up communication network through HAM, all we need is two way radios and a system. Stuff like that. Let the rest play their fantasy football.

[frodus24]

I have friends that poke fun at me because they ask me what I am doing on a Saturday. I said I am driving down to Greensboro to this one Pawn Shop that treats me right. I am purchasing silver coins. The usually give me a discount. Said friends laugh at me tell me that I am crazy. When the SHTF, they will not be laughing anymore.

[sevin]

13. System becomes unsustainable and decision is made to devalue currency
14. Currency is devalued by at least half - $100 dollars now officially worth $50
15. Value of any savings or investments denominated by dollars is cut in half

Why do you think they'll decide to suddenly cut the value in half? Inflation could be bad enough that it gets cut in half in less than a year, anyway.

[cbc58]

Why do you think they'll decide to suddenly cut the value in half? Inflation could be bad enough that it gets cut in half in less than a year, anyway.

I have no idea what they will do. I am trying to figure out a likely scenario. I'm guessing that most people here haven't really thought this out -- except for the hyper-inflation part and end result.

It's hard to try and explain this to people, and those that I speak with are mostly boomers and retired folks. They want specifics or at least a possible guide of what may happen.. otherwise to them it's "sky is falling" type stuff and they tend not to listen.

I understand that people want to take care of themselves and support others that get the message - but from my perspective many don't realize that the ones who get it now will be asked to support those that don't. There is no running away from this because you have to live in it daily and the more people that understand what's happening the better. So I'm trying to put together this list to hand out to friends and maybe even pass around the neighborhood. A one page flyer with some basics and some links to a few websites for them to do more research.

Just trying to quantify this process in some logical manner.

[Xerographica]

There is no running away from this because you have to live in it daily and the more people that understand what's happening the better. So I'm trying to put together this list to hand out to friends and maybe even pass around the neighborhood. A one page flyer with some basics and some links to a few websites for them to do more research.

Just trying to quantify this process in some logical manner.

I would be doing you a disservice if I didn't chime in and point out that you would be wasting your limited resources by barking up the wrong tree. Why waste your time trying to help people understand the symptoms when the root cause is painfully obvious?



Do you see the problem with our current system? We can solve the problem simply by allowing the invisible hand to determine how resources are spent in the public sector. In other words...we should give taxpayers the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.

[Steven Douglas]

Do you see the problem with our current system? We can solve the problem simply by allowing the invisible hand to determine how resources are spent in the public sector. In other words...we should give taxpayers the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.

There's a not-so-obvious problem with that, starting with the notion that "taxpayer=Citizen", or the idea that the more one pays in taxes the greater their influence in government should be. We already have that kind of state-distorting corruption now as an unwritten rule. Laws are written to protect the interests of banks, insurance companies, large publicly traded companies, you name it. Your proposal would systemically cement all of that as The Rule.

I don't believe private individual Citizens should be taxed (on anything) in the first place - ever. And yet they should be the ONLY ones making the rules, as the only ones who 'own' the country in which they pay ZERO taxes. That leaves only privileged entities as "taxpayers" (read=conditionally privileged entities with no unalienable rights) who should have no more choice over expenditure allocations than any customer of mine in the private sector who buys something from me, and then presumes to have a say in how I spend or invest the profits. That opens the door to lobbyist corruption on crack, even worse than we have now, as Corporation X chooses to give the government organization that best serves ITS interests, including how it expands ITS privileges.

[Xerographica]

Steven Douglas, you either believe that citizens should not be taxed because...

A. it's morally wrong to take their money
B. there are negative consequences

The amount of explanation that you put into your response leads me to believe that you believe "B". Therefore, you believe that the invisible hand has positive consequences. But if the invisible hand has positive consequences...then why wouldn't applying the invisible hand to the public sector have positive consequences? Giving people more control over their money has positive consequences in the private sector but not in the public sector?

In a pragmatarian system...the amount of money that Amazon.com could spend in the public sector would depend on how much of your money you chose to give to it. What Amazon.com does with your money will determine whether you continue to give them your money...completely irrespective of whether they spend your money in the private sector or the public sector. Either their prices go up...or their prices go down. Either the selection of their products expands...or it narrows. Either their quality of their customer services increases...or it decreases. Either they'll give you more value...or less value.

You're more inclined to give them more money when they give you more value. So what do they have to do to give you more value? What do they have to do to get more of your money? Will they cheat? Value is relative...so maybe they will literally kill their competition? Maybe they would sacrifice babies? Maybe they would bribe congress to pass laws that would somehow only hurt their competition? Or will they play by the rules? Whatever steps they'll take...you'll either perceive them to be moral or immoral. You'll either believe that they protect your interests or you'll believe that they harm your interests. And completely irrespective of whatever hooping and hollering you might do...your actions will speak louder than your words. You'll either continue to purchase their products or you won't.

Therefore, there's absolutely no need to argue that we should get rid of taxes. That's a complete waste of your limited resources. Instead, you just need to argue that taxpayers should be given the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.

[Steven Douglas]

Steven Douglas, you either believe that citizens should not be taxed because...

A. it's morally wrong to take their money
B. there are negative consequences

No, both are simplistic rationale. What does "morally" mean? And "negative consequences" to WHOM? I'm not an aggregate thinking collectivist when it comes to "the economy".

Instead, we could try:

C. There is no requirement, let alone compelling reason, to tax individual Citizens, and there never was.
D. Individual Citizens alone own the country - all others can pay to play.
E. No individual Citizen is entitled to another individual Citizen's goods or services. (Ron Paul's standard line, which I wholeheartedly endorse)

Therefore, there's absolutely no need to argue that we should get rid of taxes.

At no time did I argue that "we should get rid of taxes". Where did you get that idea? Did you even read what I wrote?

[Boss]

You might want to better develop point #2. The conclusion (economy slows) may very well follow your premise (an increase in debt) in some instances, but this conclusion is not a guaranteed result of its premise. You will run into a big wall here at point #2 if you attempt this argument with a Keynesian. A Keynesian might actually argue that an increase in debt GROWS the economy (of course, being that they are a Keynesian, they are only thinking short term, but they might be right over the short term in a given situation).