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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (55350)	11/1/2004 5:58:37 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

<Savings are not equivalent to lending.> No, but for $6 trillion in US$, they are. Whoever is holding those $6 trillion, they are a lender to the US government. When political push comes to shove, the savers are treated as suckers to be fleeced. Savers meaning the narrow sense of holding money and lending it. Even gold savers get robbed at times. And land owners [see Bolshevik revolution and Mao's maelstrom]. Mqurice

To: Snowshoe who wrote (55350)	11/1/2004 7:02:27 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

There is no lending going on when your savings are in Gold, that part is true. If your savings are in currency, then your savings are devalued everytime the government creates money, say to make good on FDIC insurance. If your savings are in a bank, life insurance company or similar . . . well I think that speaks for itself. But if I use my savings to pay off my mortgage and bury a few gold coins, I can plant a garden in the back yard and thus survive a depression. Savings are not equivalent to lending. During the Great Depression, the de-leveraging process caused such a large decline in prices that those with cash found the value of their money so greatly increased that they did not realize that part of their value had been taken by government money creation. As an example, my newly married Grandparents bought a home in 1932 for $500 which a few years earlier had sold for $6,500.