| Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 11:51 pm |
war is profitable no matter how you swing it, if it wasn't then nobody would wage it.
Not true. The people in control of governments are not perfect pragmatists. Governments do not act solely in accordance with their financial self-interest.
take that away and the war is no longer profitable.
And that is where you are simply wrong. That statement contradicts the facts. Take a country and build corporations in it and tax the production. Voila, profit. Bam. More Gold Coins for you.
People starve not because they don't have money but because they can neither produce it nor steal or produce something else to provide in exchange for it.
To clarify: "it" is food. Not money.
i had thought that money is/was linked to the value of gold standard ie a physical indicator of value, and that historically money was valued by the type and amount of metal in the coinage (real gold coins?). since metals and land are a resource, doesn't this undermine your argument?
Only slightly. Gold bars at Fort Knox weren't being used to make anything. They are a precious metal, and yes, at one point our currency was backed by gold. However, the currency is not now backed by gold. It is backed by its own buying power.
it's a factor of GNP and amount in circulation.
Money is valued solely by the demand and supply of the currency. Demand fluctuates due to interest rates (indirectly), expectations, price-level, and foreign investment, among other things. Supply fluctuates due to interest rates, expectations and open market operations (the buying and selling of government bonds), and the printing of currency, among other things. When demand goes up without a corresponding change in supply, the value of the currency goes up, and vice versa. When supply goes up and demand remains unchanged, the value of the currency goes down, and vice versa.