Why the U.S. Dollar Constantly Loses Value | |||||||||
| |||||||||
 | |||||||||
| Today, you would need over $2,000 to buy the same amount you could have bought in 1913 with just $100. There is a reason. Ever wonder why your dollar doesn’t seem to stretch as far as it used to? There is a simple explanation: It’s worth less. The reason for that is, the nation’s money supply is constantly being expanded. Between 1783 and 1913, the U.S. dollar was a real store of wealth. Except during war-time periods, inflation within the U.S. was essentially zero. If you saved one dollar in 1800, a hundred years later you could still purchase approximately the same amount of goods with that dollar. But then in 1913 something changed, and the U.S. dollar started down a long, steady road of dollar devaluations. Using the U.S. governments own figures, to obtain the same amount of purchasing power of $100 in 1913, you would need $2,038.38 today. In 1970, Herbert W. Armstrong wrote about how as a boy his mother asked him to “[g]o to the meat shop and get a dime’s worth of round-steak. And tell the butcher to put in plenty of suet.” Even then, he related, each person in his family didn’t get a 12-ounce steak, but each person did receive a small piece of meat, plus plenty of gravy for the potatoes. In times past, the dollar certainly seemed to stretch further. Mr. Armstrong quoted the Labor Department’s figures for how much $5 would have purchased in 1913: 15 pounds of potatoes, 10 pounds of flour, 5 pounds of sugar, 5 pounds of chuck roast, 3 pounds of round steak, 3 pounds of rice, 2 pounds each of cheese and bacon, and a pound each of butter and coffee; that money would also get you two loaves of bread, 4 quarts of milk and a dozen eggs. “This would leave you with 2 cents for candy,” he wrote. Wow. At most grocery stores today, with $5 you would be hard-pressed to buy a pound of round steak and a chocolate bar. What changed in 1913? That was the year the Federal Reserve System was adopted by the U.S. government and the nation took its first steps toward abolishing the gold standard and instead adopting a banking system that allowed for unlimited paper money to be created. As described by Alan Greenspan in 1966, the new system consisted of “regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. … But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks (‘paper reserves’) could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.” In other words, the dollar would only be partially backed by gold, and banks could create money by lending out money secured by credit from the Federal Reserve banks (even though the reserve banks did not necessarily have gold on deposit themselves). Thus the seeds of America’s first fiat (currency not backed by gold) dollar system were sown. At that time, however, there were still restraints upon money supply growth, because the dollar was still convertible to gold upon demand. Anyone cashing in paper dollars was still legally entitled to its value in gold, so the money supply did not balloon completely out of control. After World War ii, the U.S. dollar became the world’s reserve currency. Toward the end of the war, representatives of most of the world’s leading nations met to create a new international monetary system, later known as the Bretton Woods agreement. At this meeting, they decided that since the U.S. economy had come to dominate the globe, and because it held most of the world’s gold due to the war, they would tie their currencies to the dollar, which, in turn, would be convertible into gold at $35 per ounce. However, under the Bretton Woods system, there were still limits on how much paper money a country could create. Each country had to police its own currency or be forced to revalue. The U.S. itself was constrained from overprinting money because the dollar remained fully convertible into gold. However, this changed in 1967-68, when Congress authorized the U.S. Treasury to stop redeeming paper dollars for silver. By 1970, silver was removed from the production of coins. In 1971, Nixon closed the gold window, no longer allowing foreigners to exchange their dollars for gold and thus ending the Bretton Woods agreement. From that point on, America’s dollar became fiat, not backed by tangible assets. As the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis explains, the U.S. dollar is fiat and is valuable only as long as “[p]eople are willing to accept fiat money in exchange for the goods and services they sell”—and only as long as “they are confident it will be honored when they buy goods and services.” Since people were already in the habit of accepting paper backed by gold, people hardly noticed when the U.S. greenback became no longer backed by anything but faith. People just assumed that the government would make sure that too much was not printed. After a brief U.S. dollar sell-off, in which gold spike up into the $800 range and the Federal Reserve jacked interest rates into the high teens, people decided they would trust the government and continued using the U.S. dollar. The U.S. now operates on what many refer to as the Bretton Woods 2 system. Although there is no formal central bank agreement (as was the case with Bretton Woods 1), many of the world’s central banks, especially those of Asian countries, have more or less informally pegged their currencies to the dollar. But this system is inherently more unstable than the previous precious-metal-based non-fiat system. Since the U.S. dollar is no longer convertible to gold, there is no theoretical limit to which the U.S. money base can be expanded—and the U.S. has been taking full advantage of this situation to increase its money supply. Nevertheless, as one well-known economics saying goes, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” America’s monetary expansion has been a primary driver behind the massive and continual erosion in the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power. As the government has massively increased the money supply, those dollars have become less valuable. America’s massive monetary expansion could be about to boomerang on itself. Increasing the money supply beyond demand can have short-term benefits like stimulating consumer spending; however, it also always results in longer term economic damage such as inflation and a falling dollar. Additionally, the larger consequence for America is that by persistently destroying the value of the dollar by overprinting, foreign nations are losing confidence in the dollar and its role as a reserve currency. ...................................................................................... PLEASE NOTE WE ARE FINISHING OUR FIFTH PROJECT STREET GUN, WE WILL BE STARTING PROJECT STREET GUN NUMBER SIX VERY SOON. MR. CAMP AND I ARE VERY PLEASED WITH THE RESULTS. I AM SHOWING YOU A LETTER THAT IS FROM ONE OF OUR PROJECT MEMBERS, HE HAS A FIRST CLASS MIL SPEC 1911 PISTOL AT THIS TIME. Hi Teddy, Just thought I would mention that my springfield mil-spec 1911 used in the street gun project has now seen 1,100 flawless rounds of standard Winchester 230 grain round nose ammo. Four-hundred of those rounds were fired in a row with no cleaning over a period of one hour! I have used three types of mags: Cobra 8rd (my carry mags), springfield 7rd, and cheap government contract 7rd mags. All mags have worked perfect. I carry with cinfidence. Please send my thanks to Mr. Camp as well because I don't have his e-mail address. Thank you, and happy holidays. Mike from Detroit ............................................................................ LEARN TO SQUEEZE THE TRIGGER
MUST SEE VIDEO http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm | |||||||||
Saturday, November 25, 2006
The Value Of The U.S. Dollar
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
THERES NO WILL TO WIN THIS WAR
| YOU CAN NOT MAKE A THEOCRACY INTO A DEMOCRACY = RADICAL ISLAM IS THE GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT IS RADICAL ISLAM. NO NEIGHBORING MUSLIM COUNTRY WILL EVER ALLOW A MUSLIM COUNTRY LIKE IRAQ TO BECOME A DEMOCRACY. The Flaw of Diplomacy Without Action | ||
| ||
| ||
| Since the Democratic victory in the U.S. congressional elections, talk has increased of striking deals with Syria and Iran to solve the problems in Iraq. Do such deals work? Immediately after Democrats ran the table in U.S. congressional elections, the presidential administration announced there would be big changes. The White House chief of staff said the president wanted to “take a whole fresh look” at its war effort. An indication of what that “fresh look” might produce came in the expeditious replacement of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with Robert Gates. Gates is widely believed to favor a pragmatic policy, one that would include negotiating with Iran and Syria to fix Iraq’s problems. The president is also considering the recommendations of the congressionally appointed Iraq Study Group, which also recommends opening up talks with Syria and Iran. That’s “a whole fresh look”: accepting the election as a rebuke of the war policy and moving in a softer direction. Even the president’s British ally, Tony Blair, implied that a deal with Syria and Iran is a possibility. In essence, however, the administration has already been moving in this direction for a couple of years. The government that swiftly toppled dictatorships in Afghanistan and Iraq has taken every subsequent opportunity to demonstrate its firm commitment to multilateral diplomacy for solving problems. This approach has a consistent history of producing talk without action—always finding another option short of war. As a result, we are moving into an era when the enemies of Western civilization simply do not fear consequences for their actions. Hence, Hezbollah launches war against Israel; Hamas does everything but; North Korea freely tests long-range missiles and nuclear weapons; Iran spurns international pressure to refrain from doing the same; Iraqi and Afghan insurgents brazenly attack, emboldened by even surviving to fight another day. These are growing forces in the world that have proven time and again that they cannot be talked into giving up their destructive agendas. But the general policy in international bodies—and in American politics, with a couple of brief exceptions—is still to forego action for the sake of talk, indefinitely. In Civilization and Its Enemies, Lee Harris exposes the fundamental cause for this approach and explains why it is doomed to fail. It is the difference between one side wanting to do anything (short of dying) in order to hold on to things as they are, and the other side willing to do anything (including dying) for the sake of the cause. One side has everything to lose; the other side has nothing to lose. The diplomacy-at-all-costs mind does not comprehend the victory-at-all-costs mind. It is unwilling to believe any nation would be so crazy as to risk plunging the globe into large-scale war. Consider: World War i was called “the Great War” because people assumed it would end warfare forever; having witnessed the horrors of that conflict, it seemed unthinkable that anyone would ever tread that path again. Harris calls this idea “the Grand Illusion”—and Hitler exploited it masterfully. He “grasped the enormous opportunity that the aftermath of the Great War gave to any power that could plausibly threaten to bring about another great war. For as long as he could even imply such a threat, those who were not prepared to commit themselves to such a conflict … would be forced to compromise over issues that they would otherwise have been willing to fight for, if only they could have been certain that the fight would not immediately escalate into total war.” In other words, the party willing to risk even death has an incalculable advantage over the party willing to do anything to preserve life. And the nation unwilling to wage total war will always be forced to appease the nation that has no such fears. Thus a paradox: The more the world turns to instruments of international diplomacy and justice—the more that nations invest their confidence in the ability of such organizations to prevent large-scale war—the greater the rewards become for the nation, terrorist group or religious faction that is willing to risk total war. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated his belief that world war must come before the Islamic messiah can return. He simply does not fear Armageddon. His willingness to risk having even nuclear bombs dropped on his country gives him a tremendous advantage: He can pursue his provocative agenda fearlessly. He will not change his course unless an outside power changes it for him, using force. International bodies such as the United Nations simply are not capable of action on that scale. They are designed to address problems through talk alone. America is embracing the same approach, retreating to the illusory bunker of multilateralism. By subjugating itself to the international community, the U.S. is effectively giving up the use of its military as a genuine instrument of national sovereignty. Given the fact that, in recent years, it has been the only nation willing to fight—even limited, small-scale battles against petty dictators—this trend is opening up a massive opportunity for any party eager to embrace war. And now, after an election that empowered the party that has incessantly criticized virtually every aspect of those campaigns the president did undertake, the trend will only accelerate. .......................................................................... LEVITICUS - CHAPTER 26, VERSE 19, 20, 21 |
Sunday, November 19, 2006
How To Survive A Nuclear Attack
[Securing the
Just recently, an al-Qaeda field commander in Afghanistan called for Muslims to leave the U.S., particularly the cities of
Does Al Qaeda have nuclear capability? If not, is it on the verge of acquiring it? What dangers do we face in this context? Is a jihadist WMD attack on
To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel of experts. Our guests are:
David Dastych, international journalist for over 40 years, now operating his own media agency in
Hamid Mir, a Pakistani journalist who has more than 18 years experience in covering conflicts and wars in Afghanistan, Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Iraq and Lebanon. He has interviewed Osama bin Laden three times. He is an expert on Al Qaeda's nuclear ambitions and has travelled to
Paul Williams, a journalist and the author of The Al Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime, and the Coming Apocalypse; The
and
Harvey W. Kushner, Ph.D., the chair at a major university department of criminal justice. He advises and trains a number of federal agencies and appears regularly in the media. Kushner is a contributing editor for FamilySecurityMatter.org. He is the author of many books on terrorism, including the award-winning Encyclopaedia of Terrorism and the widely quoted Holy War on the Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States.
............................................................................................................................................
http://yearsofawe.blogspot.com/
............................................................................................................................................
How To Survive A Nuclear Attack:
It is important for everyone to be prepared for a nuclear attack, however unlikely that prospect might seem. The simple fact of the matter is that nobody knows what dangers lurk around the corner, and if there is an attack you need to know what to do to minimise on the risks. The government and official agencies have their own procedures in the case of emergencies such as this; however, it will be down to each person to know what to do and to help themselves and one another.
You need to consider what you would do immediately upon the explosion as well as afterwards. The effects from a nuclear blast can linger for a very long time, and so you will need to ensure that you are prepared for the long term as well as the short. Knowing what to do in the event of a nuclear explosion could save the lives of you and your loved ones.
The initial explosion
Your first concern will be to protect yourselves from the initial explosion. The blast from a nuclear explosion can cause injury and death, and the nearer you are to the blast the higher the risk. You will need to shield yourself and your family from the force of the explosion as well as from the heat and radiation that is being emitted. There are a number of places that you can use to shelter in such as a basement, in the car or under furniture. If you are actually out and about, you should seek shelter in a ditch or behind a hill. It is important to keep the time that you are exposed to the dangers of a blast to a minimum, so you should look for appropriate shelter as quickly as possible.
After the blast
Once the initial explosion is over you will need to be prepared for nuclear fallout, where the wind carries the radioactive materials through the air. This means that very large areas could become contaminated and you will need to plan for this. You will need to find shelter that is as far as possible from the blast and also look for shelter that is upwind from the blast. You may need to stay away for a long period of time depending on the extent and severity of the contamination.
It is important to have some sort of fallout shelter in mind as this is what will protect you against the hazards of contamination. You should ensure that the shelter that you have in mind also has food and water that is uncontaminated (such as bottled water and tins of food that will last for a while).
How To Survive A Nuclear Attack On A Major City :
The threat of nuclear warfare has become an increasing worry to many people over recent years, and those living in the world’s major cities have particular cause to worry. As has been proven by many past terrorist attacks, including the September 11 th catastrophe in New York City, prosperous and major cities are often a prime target for all manner of attacks.
You will also need to find out where you can go – perhaps to a friend or relation or maybe to a communal shelter within the city. Again, you should check whether there are any buildings which officials plan to use as makeshift shelters in the event of an emergency.
If you do not live all that close to a primary target but you still live in a major city, then you should consider a shelter or at least a room that you can use as a shelter. Many major cities consist of tall apartment blocks, which mean that you will not have a basement of your own to use as a shelter. In this case you should speak to the building manager for advice on which room should be designated as a shelter should the need arise.
If you do have your own home in the city rather than an apartment in a block then you may find that you will need to take shelter there for a while following a nuclear attack. You should never assume that you will be evacuated – the sheer number of people living and working in the city could mean that the streets become too jammed to effectively evacuate. And if you are going to be holed up in a shelter within your home for a while you will need to ensure that you have adequate stocks of basic survival products such as sealed water bottles, tinned food, first aid, medication and blankets for warmth.
If you are out and about in the city when a nuclear attack occurs, you should literally dive for cover and do not look up at the blast as this could blind you. Find a ditch, run to the nearest building – anywhere that you might be able to find shelter as low down as possible. If you are in a car, you should wind down the windows to avoid the possible injury from breaking glass and get down on to the floor of the vehicle, shielding your face and eyes at all times.
Nobody is guaranteed to survive a nuclear attack but it is important for everyone to know the basics of what to do should the unthinkable occur. Some simple guidelines could help to save your life and the lives of your family and loved ones.
FREE EMERGENCY GUIDES (DOWNLOADS)
Courtesy of SurvivorMall.com.
- SM-01 Basic First Aid
- SM-02 Red Cross First Aid
- SM-03 Printable Emergency Contact Card
- SM-04 Emergency Management Guide For Biz & Industry
- SM-05 Emergency Preparedness Guide From Fire Department
- SM-06 Emergency Guide For Disabled Employees
- SM-07 Emergency Response To Terrorism
- SM-08 Emergency Response Guidebook
- SM-09 Are You Ready (200 Page Book)
- SM-10 FEMA Home Fallout Shelter
- SM-11 FEMA Fallout Shelter Above Ground
- SM-12 FEMA Fallout Shelter Modified Ceiling
- SM-13 FEMA Fallout Shelter Concrete Basement
- SM-14 FEMA Fallout Shelter Tilt Up Storage Unit
- SM-15 FEMA Fallout Shelter Lean To Shelter
- SM-16 How To Build A Bomb Shelter
- SM-17 Personal Protection & Attack Action
- SM-18 Shortwave Radio Networking When Phones Fail
- SM-28 Terrorism: Preparing For The Unexpected
- SM-19 Army Corp Radiation Protection Manuel
- SM-27 Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention
- SM-21 Home Chemical Emergencies Guide
- SM-22 Canada 11 Steps To Survival
- SM-23 Dept of Ed. Crises Planning
- SM-24 Domestic Nuclear Shelters
- SM-20 Medical NBC Battlebook
- SM-25 Potasium Iodide FAQ
- SM-26 Bio Warfare Strategic
| Checklist of Recommended Emergency Home Survival Kits & Supplies: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RECOMMENDED SURVIVAL KITS & EMERGENCY SUPPLIES FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS:
| Item: | Description: | Quantity: |
| RK-Home-1 | 1 per single | |
| RK-Home-2 | 1 per family of 2 | |
| RK-Home-3 | 1 per family of 3 | |
| RK-Home-4 | 1 per family of 4 | |
| RK-Home-5 | 1 per family of 5 | |
| RK-Home-6 | 1 per family of 6 | |
| RK-Home-c | 1 per cat | |
| RK-Home-d | 1 per dog | |
| SP-Half | 6 Deluxe MREs | |
| SP-Full | 12 Deluxe MREs | |
| ER-2400 | Each = 3 Day Supply | |
| ER-3600 | Each = 3 Day Supply | |
| Dog Ration | Each Is 5 Year Shelf | |
| Cat Ration | Each Is 5 Year Shelf | |
| Water-3Pk | Each = 3 Day Min | |
| Water-MP | 30 Tablets Pkt | |
| FA-OSHA-H | ||
| FA-OSHA-P |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)