Sofistek
After working all my life, without an exceptional income, we managed to accumulate some assets by living below our means. This money is for our retirement, and maybe to pass on to our kids to help them when they have kids. I am retired now and our life savings can’t be replaced. To have them destroyed by the gross mismanagement of government is outright theft. There is nothing immoral about wanting to retain the ability to pay our own way and I resent your implication.
Travlin
[quote=sofistek]I still think there is a moral element to this. It seems that some people here look to PMs as a means of retaining (or just having) wealth, post collapse. That is, they want to feel that they still have wealth, as measured by something akin to possessions or money, that is greater than most others. If this view prevails, I don’t think there is any chance that we’ll learn anything from history and a new unequal society will emerge, with haves and have-nots, and power will be bought. No doubt others, including ao, will laugh at that suggestion, as a way of avoiding thinking about it. Given some of the comments here, I’m not too hopeful that humans will start using their much vaunted intelligence once the dust settles on our collapsed civilisation.
[/quote]
You never addressed my question in the past about this question of morality. Specifically what financial behavioir do you deem as moral and what behavior do you deem as immoral? The sense I get from your post is that you’re holding cash and therefore moral whereas those holding PMs are somehow immoral? You also seem to imply that those who have more wealth than others are immoral? Please be very precise and specific about your views on financial morality or immorality because the sense I’m getting it that you’re spouting absolute poppycock and I’d like to be corrected.
I thought we weren’t supposed to discuss religion, but "morals" are OK? Where, pray tell, do morals come from?Anyway, my morals dictate that a good man leaves his children an inheritance, something my father was unable to do. I have no intention of failing in this, hence PMs.
I also second Travlin’s thoughts.
While some may see PMs as a get-rich-quick-after-the-bottom-falls-out ploy, I think most of us are just looking to avoid being stolen from. Wealth preservation can be used for charity, too, and those unable to provide for themselves are also unable to provide charity.
Fiat money IS theft, plain and simple. It’s PURPOSELY designed as such. PMs are simply one way to prevent that theft, or minimize it.
I do agree with Sofistek on the fact that Russia had the rest of the world economy as a backstop, which would not be there in the event of a global fiat collapse. In fact, such a collapse would be a historically unprecedented event, so there’s no way to know what might happen.
[quote=tictac1]In fact, such a collapse would be a historically unprecedented event, so there’s no way to know what might happen.
[/quote]
Best argument in the thread for why people should own some amount of silver and gold - consistent with their situation and expectation for how things may unfold. Of course bearing in mind that it will likely never have a value of zero.
Game,
Set,
Match.
[quote=tictac1]I thought we weren’t supposed to discuss religion, but "morals" are OK? Where, pray tell, do morals come from?
[/quote]
Morals can come from love, kindness, empathy, sympathy, logic, and the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you." Studies have shown that even babies can understand simple concepts such as fairness and kindness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_without_religion
Historically, some have used the "morality comes from religion" excuse to dehumanize others for a "lack of morals". And in dehumanizing, have made it easier to persecute others in the name of their own brand of morality.
We all know people who are moral and amoral, and they are of all religious persuasions - and none. Some religions may also promote amoral behavior (as defined by other religions). Therefore, the two CAN be very mutually exclusive.
Really, let’s NOT bring in religion into this. Thank you.
Poet
[Moderator’s note: Poet and the others are correct: religion cannot come in for reasons stated in the forum rules. But there is no problem with morality, or even general spirituality if properly discussed.]
Hmmm, I guess you are unaware of the source for the "golden rule". And morals are actually the source of information for DEFINING the qualities you mention, not the other way around, i.e. by what standard do you judge what is "love" or "kindness"?We can discuss morals and spirituality without religion?!? Actually, that’s quite impossible. I would be happy to take the time to logically lay out my case, but out of respect for the moderator, I will allow you your ignorance. I do not mean that offensively.
[quote=Poet][quote=tictac1]
I thought we weren’t supposed to discuss religion, but "morals" are OK? Where, pray tell, do morals come from?
[/quote]
Morals can come from love, kindness, empathy, sympathy, logic, and the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you." Studies have shown that even babies can understand simple concepts such as fairness and kindness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_without_religion
Historically, some have used the "morality comes from religion" excuse to dehumanize others for a "lack of morals". And in dehumanizing, have made it easier to persecute others in the name of their own brand of morality.
We all know people who are moral and amoral, and they are of all religious persuasions - and none. Some religions may also promote amoral behavior (as defined by other religions). Therefore, the two CAN be very mutually exclusive.
Really, let’s NOT bring in religion into this. Thank you.
Poet
[Moderator’s note: Poet and the others are correct: religion cannot come in for reasons stated in the forum rules. But there is no problem with morality, or even general spirituality if properly discussed.]
[/quote]
Moderator:
The Golden Rule is a fundamental precept of almost every major religion in the world. So is it appropriate to discuss it when religion is banned?
Poet,
By discussing the Golden Rule, you wind up doing the very thing that you requested others not to do. So who sets the standards for morals? Who establishes what is moral and what isn’t moral?
Historically, those who have divested morals from religion have often wound up dehumanizing and persecuting far more humans than those who have associated morals with religion. The two biggest killers in history, Stalin and Mao, are classical examples of that mindset.
Let’s keep this thread on topic. If the debate about the nature of morality has legs, it should go to a separate thread. Post a link to the new thread if you want to.
If anybody has questions or wants to discuss how I differentiate between religion and other related but permissible subjects, I’ll be more than happy to, but not at the expense of derailing this thread. Click on the email button to send me an email and I’ll get back to you promptly.
[quote=ao]By discussing the Golden Rule, you wind up doing the very thing that you requested others not to do. So who sets the standards for morals? Who establishes what is moral and what isn’t moral?
Historically, those who have divested morals from religion have often wound up dehumanizing and persecuting far more humans than those who have associated morals with religion. The two biggest killers in history, Stalin and Mao, are classical examples of that mindset.
[/quote]
Ao
The very fact that one person will argue that morality is nothing without religion, while another person will argue that morality and religion can be mutually exclusive and that some religions are amoral… Leads me to conclude that any further discussion here (within this forum) is best discontinued. The process and result would likely be long, drawn-out, acrimonious and extremely counter-productive.
So how about them gold bugs and silver bears, eh? Which team are you rooting for?
Poet
There is an entire body of literature out there that discusses and debates whether morality is possible in the absence of a god. I don’t think our meager attempts to discuss it here are worthwhile. With no disrespect to the intelligence of this community, the subject has pretty much been discussed to death. Here’s a list of publications on the subject if you’re really interested.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/ground-morality.html
As to the bug vs. bear debate, I pick the bugs. They’ll be thriving when the bears are all dead. 
Doug
Nice link Doug. Should provide some interesting reading. Every cloud has a silver lining and presents a golden opportunity for learning.
[quote=Poet]So how about them gold bugs and silver bears, eh? Which team are you rooting for?
[/quote]
I’m for reasonable and rational PM ownership for reasons including those so aptly stated by Travlin. Based on my proprietary Sofistekated Contrarian Buy/Sell Indicator System, if Sofistek is bearish, I’m wildly bullish. Following the corollary 3 day knock-down rule, if gold and silver are taken down further tomorrow (which seems probable at this juncture), I’m increasing my allocation to PMs beyond its present level. As soon as I hear of him buying, I’m selling.
So anyway…
I have read that military pilots since WW2 carry gold coins with them in their emergency/SERE/survival gear.
Can anyone confirm/deny this?
If it’s true, it would mean that the military believes gold is more universally accepted than the US dollar, which since about the same time has been the baseline fiat. I think it would say something about the usefulness of gold in an emergency.
[quote=tictac1]So anyway…
I have read that military pilots since WW2 carry gold coins with them in their emergency/SERE/survival gear.
Can anyone confirm/deny this?
If it’s true, it would mean that the military believes gold is more universally accepted than the US dollar, which since about the same time has been the baseline fiat. I think it would say something about the usefulness of gold in an emergency.
[/quote]
Tictac1
Whether that is still true or not… Just remember that gold coins are not the ONLY thing in their survival kits, and we should keep that in mind.
Besides, it’s more likely there are American dollars in the kit - not just ONE gold coin. Dollars are still widely recognized and accepted worldwide and have an advantage: There can be multiple bills of multiple denominations in a kit, which you may need to grease multiple palms or buy multiple items.
What happens after you bribe the village headman for help and he gets you to the next town? At the next down, there may be a border guard who needs help looking the other way…
Poet
Coins, not coin.
Turns out, yes, some kits did contain gold coins.
http://www.donrearic.com/ww2kits.htm
http://www.flyingeaglegold.com/international-gold.php
http://www.cruzis-coins.com/sovs/sov.html
You can even buy a kit-
http://www.snyderstreasures.com/pages/spy.htm (scroll about halfway down)
It seems that various militaries have felt that gold is indeed liquid.
The rest of the contents of the survival kits are moot for this thread.
Forwarded over by Chris Powell of GATA.org:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56288079/A-Long-Term-Survival-Guide-Military-Survival-Kits - cites gold coins were given to soldiers in WWII and Desert Storm. Another included example mentions bullion powder in Vietnam-era kits.
How I learned to stop worrying, and embrace peak everything…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5qqfsQGYus
[quote=Adam]Forwarded over by Chris Powell of GATA.org:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56288079/A-Long-Term-Survival-Guide-Military-Survival-Kits - cites gold coins were given to soldiers in WWII and Desert Storm. Another included example mentions bullion powder in Vietnam-era kits.
[/quote]
Okay. Nice to know if I ever get to be in a fighter jet or bomber one day…
Poet
you’re spot on Tictac1, in fact, most survival kits in the Mil/Aero contain: food, water, firearms, ammo, medical, survival tools and communications to name a few – sound familiar?BR,
Skytop
[quote=plato1965] How I learned to stop worrying, and embrace peak everything…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5qqfsQGYus
[/quote]
Love it! One of my favorite movies of all time. I think one of the funniest things is that Slim Pickens thought he was playing a serious role, LOL.