Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (7005)	6/11/2004 3:10:55 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Great point. It's really not a mistake or a policy blunder that causes huge budget deficits under Republican presidents. It's all by design. Huge deficits mean huge profits for those who finance the debt, which happen to be the very Republican banking community.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (7005)	6/11/2004 11:19:27 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

<<<In 1900 this nation was basically debt free, approximately 2 billion dollars which is an inconsequential figure, even in those days.>>> In 1900 a dollar was worth approximately 1 ounce of gold. Today a dollar is worth approximately 1/350th of an ounce of gold. Measured in gold, the debt of 1900 was around a tenth of what it is today, but I don't think it would be fair to call it debt free. Apples for apples, it was about $700 billion. If memory serves me correctly, the gold standard was dropped in the early 30s. I can recall quite a few years when the price was fixed at I believe it was $32 an ounce. I think it was around the late 70s when the price was allowed to jump. I'm not sure how the pros "adjust for inflation", sometimes I suspect they just make something up, but it seems to me gold is probably the best yard stick to use for that kind of time span. In any case, it's an interesting look at debt even though I'd question comparing hard dollars to soft dollars.