Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An aggressive hacking ring has stolen $1 billion dollars from various banks around the world who's identity remains anonymous. They seem to limit themselves to about $10 million from each bank and remain undetected. They observe the bank before making their attack and are not interested in any customer information as much as just getting money from the bank....
I personally do not like this .Wondering how safe any bank is anymore?
The Federal Reserve of the US steals more money through government induced inflation when it prints more fiat money aka 'quantitive easing.' Theft comes in many forms.
The Federal Reserve of the US steals more money through government induced inflation when it prints more fiat money aka 'quantitive easing.' Theft comes in many forms.
Do you think our money should still be backed by gold? I have read that some third world countries are involved in creating very good counterfeit US money.
I still do not like how easy it is these days to hack into banks and anywhere else. Thinking the internet is not as great as people think it is. It makes things easier but less safe.
Do you think our money should still be backed by gold? I have read that some third world country governments are involved in creating very good counterfeit US money.
I still do not like how easy it is these days to hack into banks and anywhere else.
It should be backed/linked to something of objective value. It does not have to be linked to gold. The value could be linked to silver, platinum, iron or even oil. But in order for money to have value outside of what the bankers say that it has, it must be linked and/or backed by something. If it was gold, it wouldn't even have to be a paper dollar being worth the same as a dollar of gold. At this point, I would settle for ten cents of gold equally a dollar of 'money' as long as their is a standard and direct correlation to something of objective value. The era of fiat money is responsible for every depression and recession as they are created by the endless boom and bust cycles associated with fiat money. And if money was real and/or backed by something of objective value and the government was inherently forced to maintain a balanced budget, then fewer wars would be fought. If Americans currently received an annual bill in the mail from the government to finance the US military's involvement and presence in numerous countries, then wars would not last as long as they do. But as long as the federal government is able to use a credit card to finance wars thanks to the Federal Reserve, the financial impact of paying for wars is not immediately felt by the citizens of a country that is engaged in a war or endless wars.
The warfare state AND the welfare state are direct results of governments being allowed to print fiat money out of thin air. The rest pay for it over time and with interest through their taxes. As well as the hidden theft known as government induced inflation.
It should be backed/linked to something of objective value. It does not have to be linked to gold. The value could be linked to silver, platinum, iron or even oil. But in order for money to have value outside of what the bankers say that it has, it must be linked and/or backed by something. If it was gold, it wouldn't even have to be a paper dollar being worth the same as a dollar of gold. At this point, I would settle for ten cents of gold equally a dollar of 'money' as long as their is a standard and direct correlation to something of objective value. The era of fiat money is responsible for every depression and recession as they are created by the endless boom and bust cycles associated with fiat money. And if money was real and/or backed by something of objective value and the government was inherently forced to maintain a balanced budget, then fewer wars would be fought. If Americans currently received an annual bill in the mail from the government to finance the US military's involvement and presence in numerous countries, then wars would not last as long as they do. But as long as the federal government is able to use a credit card to finance wars thanks to the Federal Reserve, the financial impact of paying for wars is not immediately felt by the citizens of a country that is engaged in a war or endless wars.
The warfare state AND the welfare state are direct results of governments being allowed to print fiat money out of thin air. The rest pay for it over time and with interest through their taxes. As well as the hidden theft known as government induced inflation.
Why do you think our government decided to do away with gold backed money? And if our money was backed by oil instead of gold wouldnt that only increase war with oil rich nations? Many still believe the war with Iraq was more about getting control of their oil supply then over terrorism.
What about copper ? I like that metal. It seems to be getting pretty valuable lately too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
