/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.10453806]

>“We gasped. The outside was seared — it looked like a normal steak — but when we cut into it, it was practically raw,” says Wagner, a real estate publicist. “So we sent it back.” It was refired to perfection and she said she’ll go back to Wolfgang’s.

[Anonymous No.10453809]

Fucking liberals

[Anonymous No.10453812]

i dont get it

[Anonymous No.10453822]

>>10453812

This. I have no clue what I'm looking at on the left as related to the right, or how any of this is supposed to be on purpose.

[Anonymous No.10453824]

Am I supposed to be outraged? Of course restaurants are more likely to under rather than overcook steak.

[Anonymous No.10453825]

>>10453809
I don't get it, other threads say liberals push the raw meme, others the opposite

[Anonymous No.10453826]

>>10453806
>The fat is completely rendered
>Steak has that textbook solid consistent not so clear ish red showing the protiens started to break down
>The reporter referenced himself in the third person in the article he wrote
This is a textbook rare, dumbass reporters

[Anonymous No.10453832]

>>10453806
What the fuck is the problem? Are they saying that they sent the steak back because it didn't look like the picture they saw online?

[Anonymous No.10453840]

>>10453832

/ck/ is a joe rogan free board.

[Anonymous No.10453844]

>>10453806
Right looks to be about blue rare IMO, but I would eat it. Looks bretty good.

Left is definitely medium rare, which I'd also consume.

Either way, articles like this are just people being whiny cunts.

[Anonymous No.10453853]

>>10453840
I don't care

[Anonymous No.10453859]

>>10453832
maybe you should read the article
tl;dr restaurants err on sending out a steak too undercooked versus too overcooked because lots of people have no idea what "medium rare" means
an underdone steak can be cooked more
an overcooked steak has to be thrown out

[Anonymous No.10453898]

>>10453859
maybe there should be a link to said article? we are now 11 posts into this thread and nobody has any clue what the fuck it's about.

[Anonymous No.10453902]

>>10453898

[Anonymous No.10453918]

>>10453902
4chan generally links articles, it's not spoon-feeding it's proving that you're not a faggot who's making shit up.

[S4GE No.10453959]

>>10453902
>>10453918
Preferably with an archive link of some sort. Fucking shit head.

Until thread improves, it goes in all fields.

[Anonymous No.10454008]

>>10453840

[Anonymous No.10454017]

>>10453959
>needing an article
>not just making up or guessing and shitposting with that.
Fag

[Anonymous No.10454042]

both are raw

[Anonymous No.10454597]

>>10453840
Someone's new.

>>10453898
>>10453918
>>10453959
This

>>10454017
But also this

[Anonymous No.10454613]

>>10453806
https://nypost.com/2018/04/10/restaurants-are-cooking-your-steak-wrong-on-purpose/

[Anonymous No.10454630]

>>10454008
is this not correct? should you not attempt to get behind the dog and control it by its neck?

[Anonymous No.10454642]

>>10454630
The one time I was attacked by a feral dog I drew my pistol and shot it.

[Anonymous No.10454651]

>>10454642
edgy

[Anonymous No.10454653]

>>10454651
How is that edgy

[Anonymous No.10454659]

>>10454653
Oh never mind it's perfectly normal to run around with a gun and shoot at dogs that bark at you with the pistol you just happen to have with you at all times because that's also totally normal

[Anonymous No.10454666]

>>10454659
Carrying a gun on you is pretty normal in a lot of the world, and feral dogs can be a serious threat.

[Anonymous No.10454678]

>>10453825
liberals whine about things on internet blog posts

[Anonymous No.10454679]

>>10454642
Did you also say ,"Nothing personnel, kid"?

[Anonymous No.10454681]

>>10454666
In some of the world, sure. Iraq, Syria, South Africa, etc.

I've lived in many otherwise peaceful third world countries where there are stray dogs running around. They will run away if you simply glance in the general direction of a rock. If that fails, you pick up the rock. Failing that you either throw the rock at the dog, or you kick it in the head. You do not need a gun to handle a dog unless you are completely ignorant of dog behavior, and also a huge pussy.

Also nice digits, satan

[Anonymous No.10454686]

>>10454659
I never said I had a gun on me all the time. I was out hunting, and I always carry a pistol when I do so. Plenty of wild animals are known to attack hunters while you are processing game.

[Anonymous No.10454700]

>>10454659
If I lived in an area with feral dogs I'd sure as fuck want to carry a gun.

[Anonymous No.10454718]

>>10454681
You know animals aren't all predictable right? If a feral dog is hungry or diseased it will attack you. I dont want a disease from it or to be disfigured, so no I wouldn't take a chance with a rock or a kick. I'd just shoot the thing since it isnt even supposed to be there in the first place.
Also I carry a gun on me for coyotes mostly. Guns aren't just for protection from people.

[Anonymous No.10454721]

>>10453825
Who cares m8, fuck libcucks either way.

[Anonymous No.10454723]

>>10454659
CC'ing is normal for people who realize that personal safety is their responsibility and no one else's. The best way to disable an attacking dog is to wrap your non dominant hand/ forearm with your shirt or jacket and present it to the attacking animal. With your other hand you can reach back and seize the rear leg and jerk it upwards as hard as you can, like an uppercut. The average dog leg is only about as strong as a broomstick. Even if you don't break it, you'll likely make it lose its desire to continue attacking. Another way is to grasp both forelegs and pull in opposite directions to snap the sternum like a wishbone, but this is more difficult to do correctly.

[Anonymous No.10454742]

>>10454718
I've encountered thousands of stray dogs, including a couple with rabies. The kinds of dogs that randomly attack people are not strays. Aggressive strays are not tolerated in any community, and young puppies either figure this out early or they are killed immediately before they get big enough to cause problems. Yes, for the most part without gunfire. Also you are a pussy.

>>10454723
>CC'ing is normal for people who think that a gun is a substitute for situational awareness and common sense
FTFY

[Anonymous No.10454761]

>>10454742
Why are you anti-gun? I never said it was a substitute for situational awareness and common sense. I carry for the situations that may occur regardless of my actions and precautions. It's a last line of defense that I'd rather have and not need than vice versa.

[Anonymous No.10454766]

>>10454761
When did I say I was anti-gun? I'm fine with guns. I just make fun of people who think they're the solution to anything from anxiety to dandruff.

[Anonymous No.10454770]

>>10454766
Fair.

[Anonymous No.10454819]

>>10454742
>also you're a pussy
I'm okay with that desu senpai. I'll keep my gun on me and not be a victim

[Anonymous No.10454826]

>>10453806
Why?

[Anonymous No.10454861]

>>10453825
Soyboys are increibly insecure and pretend to be manly by ordering rare steak

[Anonymous No.10454879]

>>10453824
>>10453806
>>10453822
Restaurants "undercook" steak because as the steak rests, after being taken off the grill, its continues to cook. A medium rare steak is taken off the grill at rare and is medium rare by the time you cut it open.

In ops image the steak on the left could be medium rare, and probably is, the color is off. The pic on the right is blue rare, or very rare. Not medium rare at all.

[Anonymous No.10454888]

>>10454879
What kind of garbage logic is that? You think a chef cooking a steak doesn't know that the meat continues to cook after it's taken off the pan?

You might as well say it's raw when it's still inside the cow therefore it can't be considered undercooked when it reaches the customer

[Anonymous No.10454901]

>>10454888
Can you read?

[Anonymous No.10454905]

>>10454901
Can you think?

[Anonymous No.10454910]

>>10454901
You clearly don't understand what is going on you 56% retard

[Anonymous No.10454920]

>>10453825
>I don't get it
That's understandable, you're looking for consistency where none exists.
>other threads say liberals push the raw meme, others the opposite
Exactly, it's all made up bullshit. You didn't actually believe any of it, did you?

[Anonymous No.10454944]

>>10454905
>>10454910
Have you ever been this mad?

[Anonymous No.10455029]

>>10454766
Psh, I just used my gun to fix my dandruff problem last week. Looks like you just lack imagination.

[Anonymous No.10455066]

>>10454742

>I've encountered thousands of stray dogs, including a couple with rabies. The kinds of dogs that randomly attack people are not strays. Aggressive strays are not tolerated in any community, and young puppies either figure this out early or they are killed immediately before they get big enough to cause problems.

funny enough this is how wolves became domesticated. just replace stray dog with stray wolf.

[Anonymous No.10455078]

>>10454613

thank you

[Anonymous No.10455762]

>>10453826
The upper slices on the left are rare in the middle. The right one is bleu/blue/fucking-raw.

[Anonymous No.10455773]

>>10454944
>I have no argument
>LOL U MAD? U MAD?

[Anonymous No.10455785]

>>10454642
Pretty sure the best way to defend yourself against a dog is to take off your shirt, wrap it around your hand and try to get the dog to bite that while kicking it as hard as you can under its ribcage.

[Anonymous No.10455799]

>>10454742
>stray means the same thing as feral

[Anonymous No.10455806]

>>10455785
it's actually to pick up a stick, brick, or other weapon and bludgeon it to death.

[Anonymous No.10455810]

>>10454723
I feel like this would never work in real life, the dog would just grab your arm as you were trying to reach behind it.

[Anonymous No.10455818]

>>10455810
> this would never work in real life
concealed carry maniacs think that "bad guys" run around in a hamburglar outfit and that guns work just like in the movies, specifically the documentary series "death wish 1", "death wish 2" and "death wish 3"

of course they would think that some man on dog combat technique they downloaded from usenet is actually real and not just made up by someone having a laugh

[Anonymous No.10455858]

>>10454653
It's not
>>10454700
This, if I lived in an area with anything feral i'd want to carry a gun.

[Anonymous No.10455863]

>>10455785
the best way to stop a dog attacking you is to stick your thumb in its butthole. no joke

[Anonymous No.10455947]

>>10454659
if you only knew how deadly feral dog populations are. They kill over 25,000 people yearly. Mostly from rabies. If you live near feral dogs or cats you have a moral imperative to put them down.

[Anonymous No.10455973]

>>10455947
>They kill over 25,000 people yearly.
Malaria kills half a million. I guess it follows that we should blanket the Mojave Desert with DDT.

[Anonymous No.10455991]

>>10455973
Mosquitos are a natural occurrence. Stray and feral dogs arent

[Anonymous No.10455996]

>>10455818
Is this b8? This is /pol/tier jumping to conclusions about a large portion of a population

[Anonymous No.10455998]

>>10453898
First time little buddy?

[Anonymous No.10456006]

>>10454008
What, are you saying this is wrong?

[Anonymous No.10456007]

>>10455973
are you implying that we do nothing to combat malaria? Because we do and regularly in high risk areas

[Anonymous No.10456012]

>>10455991
>natural
Not really sure what you think that word means. The mosquitos that spawn in manmade ponds, abandoned heaps of truck tires, rice paddies, canals, flower pots, roof gutters, and so on are no more or less "natural" than the pack of stray dogs roving the suburbs of New Delhi

[Anonymous No.10456028]

>>10456007
Are you implying that deaths due to stray dog bites are happening in the same parts of the world where civilians routinely run around with loaded firearms?

[Anonymous No.10456043]

>>10453806
I read this. The idea is that they'll send out a steak undercooked because if the person doesn't like it they can cook it more. If it's overcooked the steak has to get tossed out and the place loses money.

[Anonymous No.10456063]

>>10456012
I mean there are literally always mosquitos and have been in any high malaria rate areas regardless of human interaction. Stray and feral dogs are strictly a result of human interaction.

[Anonymous No.10456068]

>>10456028
they happen everywhere we just have less deaths from it thanks to Milwaukee protocol and are better at catching it early. We also have better animal control but that mainly stops them in urban areas.There's still tons of them.

[Anonymous No.10456087]

>>10454766
>Using a firearm to protect yourself against wild animals is edgy.
>Why don't you slowly escalate your defense by first giving them a mean look, looking for a rock to pick up if your mean look doesn't scare the wild animal, and then finally throwing the rock in it's general direction right before you get mauled?
>When did I say I was anti-gun?
Right around the same time you went around screaming you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.10456097]

>>10456028
Yes

[Anonymous No.10456108]

>>10453859

You legally can't take back food into the kitchen and cook it more.

[Anonymous No.10456137]

>>10456063
Wrong, and even if it wasn't wrong, it's a dumb argument. Malaria mosquitos evolved a taste for human blood, they wouldn't be spawning like mad in settled areas if humans didn't provide both the food, and the spawning grounds.
>>10456068
>less deaths
Understatement of the year. There are like 2 deaths a year from rabies in the US, your gun isn't protecting you from rabies any more than my tiger repellent is protecting me from tiger attacks. Why can't gun nuts just say "I like guns because they're cool" instead of all these ridiculous stories about protecting against King George III and rabies.

[Anonymous No.10456145]

>>10456097
Then you're an idiot

[Anonymous No.10456146]

>>10454653
it's not edgy, "edgy" is just a word that people fallaciously use to describe things that offend them.

It allows them to write off the emotional threat while pretending to be unperturbed by it.

[Anonymous No.10456158]

>>10456108
You legally can't rob a bank. But people still do it.

[Anonymous No.10456161]

>>10456146
> the emotional threat
You mean like a white suburbanite adults from North America being afraid of getting rabies at the local dog park?

Or are you actually 4 year old boy living in the slums of Dhaka?

[Anonymous No.10456177]

>>10453809
fpbp

[Anonymous No.10456178]

>>10456137
It's not wrong. It's what African tribes based their villages on. They'd go to higher areas to avoid the mass amounts of mosquitos and diseases. They weren't known for agriculture.
>>10456145
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

[Anonymous No.10456211]

>>10456178
> 20 to 30 of these result in death
So you were off by about 24,980 deaths? And about 24,998 deaths on the rabies part? Assuming any of those rabies deaths actually came from adults getting rushed by a rabid dog and not, as is far more likely, a child getting bitten by a raccoon or some such thing.

[Anonymous No.10456215]

>>10456158

What a dumb analogy. And no they probably don't ever do that at Wolfgang Pucks restaurant. Dumb bitch in the article didn't realize they threw out an entire steak because it was a little done under her preference. Cunts

[Anonymous No.10456225]

>>10456211
This is just the US. A country lucky enough to have vaccines.

[Anonymous No.10456255]

>>10456137
>Why can't gun nuts just say "I like guns because they're cool" instead of all these ridiculous stories about protecting against King George III and rabies.

Because that's literally how our country was formed, and why the constitution was written the way it was.

Guns in the hands of the public are a safeguard against tyranny. Usually the last one. The one you never want to reach, but you always want on the table.

It's the same reason we have more than 7000 nukes, but only used the in one conflict.

[Anonymous No.10456257]

>>10456215
You're post implies that a restuarant wouldn't throw a steak back on a grill because it's illegal. All I'm saying is things being illegal doesn't stop people. I've seen people throw an underdone steak back on the grill at every restuarant I've worked at.

[Anonymous No.10456260]

>>10456225
How often do you get lost on the way to the grocery store and find yourself not in the US, with your gun?

[Anonymous No.10456262]

>>10456257
>You're post
Fuck me
*Your

[Anonymous No.10456284]

>>10456255
>Guns in the hands of the public are a safeguard against tyranny
If you say so.

[Anonymous No.10456308]

>Thread about rare steak turns into an argument about gun control and rabies
never change 4chan

[Anonymous No.10456313]

>>10456260
I go hiking quite often in bear, wolf, and coyote populated areas. I don't live in a shit hole infested with feral dogs. Just normal animal threats.

[Anonymous No.10456326]

>>10456313
Then just say "it's for protection against bears and wolves" instead of this ridiculous mental gymnastics about rabies and tyranny. That would have been a valid reason and you would have spared a lot of wasted effort trying to make yourself not sound delusional.

[Anonymous No.10456332]

>>10456284
Tell me again how the US is going to drone their own infrastructure to suppress a rebellion in their own borders, and how they'll win against an armed population 25x larger than all their active and reserve military combined (if none of them defect).

Remember: US can't even suppress Khyber Pass because every person there has piles of guns and ammo, and their only supply comes from gunsmiths that are deaf make their weapons with hand-tools and no access to electricity.

Meanwhile, I know no less than 25 guys in my county alone with lathes and CNC machines that could produce two dozen Sten Mk2 machine guns every 30 minutes, or convert every AR15 and AK74/47 in 200 miles to fully automatic in less than a week.

[Anonymous No.10456341]

>>10456326
All those animals can get rabies as well. I dont care what animal it is, if it has sharp teeth and looks pissed off at me, I'll pull out my gun.

[Anonymous No.10456362]

>>10456332
Who would the US drone? Which government entity would do that, and why? What kind of "rebellion" are you fantasizing about? Communications and PR has gotten a little more sophisticated than the late 18th century, anon. Even in Afghanistan we put up a pretense of "caring", as long as it's convenient. When it's not we say "enemy combatant"

Remember when the Philadelphia police napalmed an entire block in a black neighborhood, and that was the end of that? What makes you think any fringe group with DIY grease guns are going to end any different when they declare war on the United States?

[Anonymous No.10456370]

>>10456341
"Large wild animals in remote wilderness areas". That's all you had to say. Normies understand that, unlike your insanity about rabies and stray dogs.

[Anonymous No.10456386]

>>10456362
I doubt any US rebellion would be dumb enough to wall itself in to a single compound like the one in Philadelphia. There was no "napam" involved, BTW, just a single bomb lowered by helicopter. That has nothing to do with an insurgency.

Anyway: you seem to be looking at the problem the wrong way. If you felt that you were oppressed by a tyrannical government wouldn't you want the tools with which to at least ATTEMPT to defend yourself? Or would you just roll over and give up?

[Anonymous No.10456389]

>>10456370
But it's not insanity. People get killed by dogs way more frequently than bears

[Anonymous No.10456425]

>>10456386
Oh I dunno, the Branch Davidians did it. So did those morons in Idaho, Ruby Ridge or whatever.

I like how you're changing the definition of "rebellion" and "success" now that you understand that you cannot win against the government if your tyranny fantasy comes true.

Yeah, if you want to go out like the Jews did in Warsaw, I guess that's nice. More romantic, I suppose, to die with a gun in your hand. Maybe, decades later, you'll get a nice plaque. In the end, the state kills you both ways, and the general public considers it a victory against an extremist and/or degenerate element.

So now that we agree that guns aren't going to save you from tyranny, maybe consider whether being a single-issue voter really makes sense?

[Anonymous No.10456435]

>>10456389
Mostly children. I forgot you guys want children to carry around uzis.

[Anonymous No.10456471]

>>10456255
This.
The constitution is an agreement by the people to allow themselves to be governed under certain conditions.
Without a citizen militia on par or above the capaplities of the state military, it's nothing more than a scrap of paper.
Anybody in power can do whatever the hell they want to their subjects if they can't fight back.
If you want to look at history the population of Germany was disarmed (the Republikschutzgesetz and parts of the Versailles Treaty(calling for german disarmament, and the Reichswaffengesetz(legislation that allowed aryans loyal to the state to possess firearms while) and I don't need to tell anyone what happened after that with how much it's been rehashed.

And tyranny is one of those things that is pretty much guaranteed to happen eventually, if it can. Just look at the Stanford Prison experiments.

>>10456362
People are on the cusp of rebelling already. Fiat currency is too unstable for a global market, and the price fluctuations of an unstable currency cause all kinds of issues.
Fractional reserve banking causes way more economic problems than opportunities.
The medical industry is all fucked up.
Food is becoming more expensive and nothing is being done.
There's attempts at wittling down the basic rights of Americans
Elections are done with closed-source electronics, which have no reliable methods for citizens to check authenticity.
American's are forced to buy insurance, which reduces household spendable income, and it's pretty much unnecessary(I mean how often do you need liability?)
The mortgage system inflates the prices of real estate to prices that take 30 years for the average person to afford, and added with the unstable economy, make it too easy to just lose years of work and a place to live.
And the two party system is retarded and makes it easier to be a corrupt politician.
There's a whole lot of issues in America, but the ones being reported and focused on are just distractions, so nothing's getting done.

[Anonymous No.10456488]

>>10456435
Most children are accompanied by an adult

[Anonymous No.10456494]

>>10456471
>People are on the cusp of rebelling already.
Lol, no they're not. They decided that facebook is literally the devil last week, declared that it was the end of Big Data, and 5 minutes later went back to clicking "like" on their favorite memes. They can't even go without a dumb toy for 5 minutes and you think they're going to organize into some sort of insurgency to force a return to the gold standard?

Also please take an economics course, your level of ignorance is making my head hurt.

[Anonymous No.10456500]

>>10456488
Go ahead, shoot at the center of mass, just like in the "real life gun stories" from your favorite gun website

[Anonymous No.10456502]

>>10454630
>>10456006
Shoot pitbull in freedomland.
In nanny states, grab the leg(s) and snap that mothefucker like a dirty rug. Pop both hips out of socket whilst breaking bones and even a pitnigger will feel it good and cry for Mama's tit.

[Anonymous No.10456505]

>>10456425
None of those were "Rebellions". They were some silly cult.

>>I like how you're changing the definition of...
I don't follow. That was my first post in the thread.

>>So now that we agree that guns aren't going to save you from tyranny,
I didn't agree to squat, mouthbreather.

>> whether being a single-issue voter really makes sense?
I'm not one. But it doesn't matter anyway. I think it's silly to rely on the justification of "self defense" or "protection from tyranny" for anything. The only justification I need is wanting to own a gun. Nothing more. There are plenty of things that people don't "need", but we have anyway: luxury cars, sports gear, fancy 4k TVs, video game consoles, gourmet food, etc. The list goes on. None of those things are "needs", yet people still enjoy them.

How would you feel if someone wanted to ban computers and take away smartphones under the justification that some tiny % of people who own them use them for kiddie porn? I'd imagine you'd probably be pretty upset about that and would be inclined to list reasons why you want to own them anyway. You don't need a reason other than the fact that owning X does't necessarily make you a criminal. Not all computer owners are criminal hackers. Not all cell-phone photo takers are kiddie pornographers. And so on. End of story.

[Anonymous No.10456508]

>>10456500
What are you talking about

[Anonymous No.10456509]

>>10455863
Would my penis work too?

[Anonymous No.10456520]

>>10455785
>>10455806
It's pretty situation as you've guys highlighted. Gouging eyes is always viable, and suprisingly easy.
Fuck feral dogs.

[Anonymous No.10456522]

>>10456505
>None of those were "Rebellions". They were some silly cult.
History is written by the victors, anon.
>The only justification I need is wanting to own a gun. Nothing more.
But I already asked you hours ago why you don't just say that. I agree guns are real neat. They're fun to shoot and fun to look at and fun to take apart and put back together. That's all you need to say. I don't understand the need to come up with these delusional arguments about tyranny and rabies

[Anonymous No.10456532]

>>10456520
Sure bro. Is that what your self-defense blog taught you?

I bet you own a Katana too, and practice with it in front of the mirror?

[Anonymous No.10456537]

>>10454944
>Confirmed for 56% retard

[Anonymous No.10456547]

>>10456471
>tyranny is one of those things that is pretty much guaranteed to happen eventually
It's already happened with the endless war on drugs and terrorism turning the US into a militarized police state where the govt. is owned by megacorporations and having popguns in the hands of gun nuts did nothing to stop it; in fact many of them applauded it.

[Anonymous No.10456550]

>>10456532
>t.

[Anonymous No.10456574]

>>10453806
I dunno why but I really wanna stick my dick in the steak on the right.

[Anonymous No.10456598]

>>10456494
>thinking a currency with unstable values creates issues is ignorance of economics
Sure unstable currencies are great for people with the means to manipulate them, or predict the fluctuations, and invest properly.
But for someone who's on a budget, a dollar that changes it's value means that the food budget might suddenly change at the same time every other expense goes up because the price of everything just went up. It could be what leads to a defaulted mortgage, granted other expenses like sudden medical bills could do the same, but that goes with that fucked medical industry statement I said earlier.
There's a reason the founders of the Constitution banned anything other than a gold or silver based currency, the problems with fiat currency were already going on within the British colony at the time, the debt was a large partof what led to the heavy taxation and exploitation of the Americas in the first place. (The Bank of England is the central bank that most central banks are modeled after, and the Federal Reserve is a cental bank)
And if I'm wrong, feel free to educate me on how the little guy can benifit from fiat currency.

[Anonymous No.10456608]

>>10456257

>all I was doing was pointing out something completely obvious in an exagerated way

Congratulations

[Anonymous No.10456779]

>>10456598
>forex trading = investing
Yeah, nah. Fluctuations are a given, if you're getting destroyed by a temporary downturn you didn't invest, you speculated.

>It could be what leads to a defaulted mortgage

Default rates were astronomical in 2008 because pyramid scheme lending structures had been handing out ARMs to unqualified borrowers who could barely make the interest payments even in the best of times. Not because the pound went up by 0.7% against the dollar in overnight trading.

The founding fathers were alive in a time when our understanding of macroeconomics was in the stone age. Stuff that we take for granted today, like the idea of a "labor market" or measuring an economy in terms other than tax receipts, were basically unheard of.

Also, the entire point of not having a gold standard is to provide a stabilization mechanism, you seem to think it does the opposite for reasons that are unclear to me. Possibly, due to the pervasive meme among gold bug types that all inflation has Weimar hyperinflation as the end game. The reality is the Weimar economy was fucked no matter what, if they hadn't been allowed to print currency, they would still have had businesses closing and people losing their homes.

[Anonymous No.10456799]

>>10456608
If the completely obvious thing I pointed out was how retarded your "but it's illegal" argument is then yes you're right. I'm glad we can agree on somthing.

[Anonymous No.10456826]

>>10453806
I'll take the bait: why would a restaurant intentionally mess up an order? Having to cook it a second time is a waste of product and labor. In the middle of a busy service having to refire a dish really messes things up.

[Anonymous No.10456842]

>>10454597
the man is shitting fire

[Anonymous No.10456870]

>>10456779
>Fluctuations are a given
Looking into it, yeah fluctuations are a given, but I can't find a case of hyperinflation with a gold backed currency.
Also it seems like while there is indeed some level of control, there's no deflation of the dollar. And while the inflation spikes aren't as large as the largest one prior to the Federal Reserve, there's no rebound back to the value of the dollar. All inflation is more or less permanent.
The dollar only becomes worth less as time goes on. It looks like a bubble economy to me.

[Anonymous No.10456879]

>>10456146
Delete this picture.

[Anonymous No.10456887]

>>10456879
Accept your destiny, filthy whitoids.

[Anonymous No.10456892]

>>10456879
Is that a tranny?

[Anonymous No.10456899]

>>10456892
Don't bully Richard Spencer.

[Anonymous No.10456905]

>>10456892
Lol nevermind. This is the "nazi"? That's fucking hilarious

[Anonymous No.10456908]

>>10456879

Why do millennial girls shave the sides of their heads?

[Anonymous No.10456960]

>>10456870
>I can't find a case of hyperinflation with a gold backed currency
You won't, because hyperinflation is a characteristic feature of a fiat currency. But gold standard people can never seem to think of any other kind of financial crisis other than hyperinflation. I'm not sure why that is - is it because they think they're not real problems? A collapse of the banking system isn't a big deal? If nobody can pay for groceries, hey no problem we'll just not eat until things sort themselves out? If there's a credit crunch, no problemo, we'll just wait for the next gold chariot to come from the US Treasury and all businesses, from tiny one-man shops to massive multinationals, will just patiently wait? If Joe Average can't pay his mortgage, the bank will just be like "hey no worries, this month's payment is on us"

Your belief that the CPI chart argues for a gold standard uses your conclusion as its own premise. If the dollar has no inherent value based on gold, why should a "rebound" happen - when you say "back to the value of the dollar", what is that, exactly?

[Anonymous No.10457052]

>>10456960
>back to the value of the dollar
I mean back to the value it was previously. As in ANY value it was previously. As in a soda/house/banana cost the same as it did X years ago, and yes the values of sodas/property/ect. fluctate, what I mean is the price of goods on average, the Consumer Price Index.
And most of the banking crashes are caused by things like fractional reserve lending.
When Black Tuesday hit, people paniced and went to withdraw their savings, which weren't there, but instead lended out.

[Anonymous No.10457162]

>>10457052
>I mean back to the value it was previously
You mean, I assume, before the gold standard. There's no reason for that to happen, because there is no more gold standard. Even if it were to return, the price of gold is now wildly out of sync with the numbers from 100 years ago, and any suggestion that a return was likely would cause gold prices (and everything else) to go bananas. It's a broken premise.

> As in a soda/house/banana cost the same as it did X years ago,
The banana craze only started in the 1920s, what should a banana have cost prior to that? What should the 1930s cost of a cell phone be?

>what I mean is the price of goods on average, the Consumer Price Index.
The CPI is a manmade construct, it's more complicated than just the price of a basket of goods. Someone chooses all the items, someone chooses physically where to check, and someone also chooses the formulas, the weightings, etc.

>And most of the banking crashes are caused by things like fractional reserve lending.
Fractional reserve lending is not a characteristic of fiat money and existed during the gold standard.

[Anonymous No.10457298]

>>10457162
>the price of gold
That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the purchasing power of the dollar. How far a dollar goes. Not how much gold a dollar can buy, because when the dollars value is based off of gold, gold will maintain the same dollar value until the value is manually changed(more bills are printed) or there is a change in the gold supply.

>Fractional reserve lending existed during the gold standard
That was my point. Those economic crases were not because of the gold standard, and could still happen today. Fiat currency does not stop this, regulation does.
The only issue with the gold standard is the accumulation and hording of wealth. With a physical money supply, control of the gold is control of the money.
Fiat currency attempts to fix this issue by constanlty printing more money to increase the money supply, but that just endlessly devalues the currency. It's a band-aid solution and eventually the currency will reach a point where it cost more to print a dollar than it's worth, and will cause all sorts of issues with national debt.

[Anonymous No.10457383]

>>10457298
> I was talking about the purchasing power of the dollar. How far a dollar goes
But based on what, is the problem. A gallon of gas? Too bad cars today use a totally different kind of gas than they did in the 30s. The founding fathers didn't even know what a car was. The numbers are interesting within a span of a few months or years because they are supposed to indicate stuff (such as trends, fluctuations, etc) about "the economy" but even "the economy" is vastly different now than it was 50 years when "success" meant owning a car, ago let alone 150 years ago when "success" meant all of your kids made it to adulthood.

>Those economic crases were not because of the gold standard, and could still happen today
Ok, but you were previously seeming to argue that fiat money was causing financial crises by creating instability. If the instability is not caused by fiat money, then why do we need the gold standard? To force banks to keep higher capital reserves? As you seem to be arguing now, you can do that via bank regulations, with or without fiat money. Additionally, by allowing a central bank to create more money when required, any crisis that does occur can be controlled and limited, rather than "letting the cards fall where they may" and potentially having a widespread financial contagion which depresses real economic activity such as manufacturing, trade, and services.

>It's a band-aid solution
How long do you need a band-aid for? That's right, until the wound heals. Band-aids are good. Calling something a "band-aid solution" doesn't make it a bad solution.

>eventually the currency will reach a point where it cost more to print a dollar than it's worth
You mean the physical $1 bill? It already costs more to manufacture pennies than they're worth. Luckily we also have nickels, dimes, $100 bills, and electronic payment systems. What's special about the printing costs for a $1 bill, and what sort of "issues with the national debt" do you have in mind?

[Anonymous No.10457427]

>>10457383
>How long do you need a band-aid for?
You seem to be misunderstanding the metaphor. A "band aid solution" refers to having a having a serious problem but not taking adequate steps to mitigate it. For example, having a greenstick fracture of the femur and "putting a band-aid on it".

[Anonymous No.10457485]

>>10457383
>based on what?
Based on everything. An example would be gas station snack cakes. They were $0.25 20 years ago, they were $0.35 sometime after that, and they are $0.50 now. The price will not go back down to the price it was 20 years ago, ever. How far a paycheck goes decreases every year, and wage laws don't change every year, so they are always a step behind.

>any crisis can be controlled
This is where your wrong, the crisis is not controlled, only delayed. And that money comes at a cost that must eventually be paid. When the debt becomes bigger than the money supply and the dollar(every dollar) creates more than a dollar of debt every time it's printed(eventually, if money cost more to make than it's worth, there will come a time when money has to be borrowed to print money) you have the same Weimar hyperinflation you mentioned earlier.
Or to put it simply, while fiat can patch the problem temporarily, it cannot solve it indefinitly. There eventually comes a time when you have to switch back, or find some other solution, or you will face the hyperinflation problem.

[Anonymous No.10457519]

>>10457427
No, I'm explaining that it's not a great metaphor if you're arguing that fiat money is bad and we need a gold standard. So far your arguments for a gold standard have all either rested on the Weimar case, which I think we've agreed is not the only kind of financial crisis that can occur, or have been circular in nature and thus invalid.

So "band aid" is actually a good metaphor for me, because that is basically what a fiat currency is supposed to do. Instead of an appeal to nature fallacy ("this wound should take care of itself because that's what happens in the wild"), you step in and take some action to control the outcome. You still let "natural" mechanisms do their thing, you just help them out a bit.

Perhaps there really is a broken femur here, but you haven't explained its counterpart in the analogy, other than to say that CPI "looks like bubble" or some vague future "problems with the debt" related to the $1 bill.

[Anonymous No.10457576]

>>10457485
>How far a paycheck goes decreases every year,
That is a problem, but it's not because of fiat money unless you are a gold miner.

>you have the same Weimar hyperinflation you mentioned earlier.
There is a fundamental difference between the way the US takes on debt, and the Weimar Republic post-WW1, and that is the fact that we haven't been militarily conquered by a foreign power after a long and devastating all-out war, nor have economically significant segments of our territory been expropriated. When the PLA has troops marching through Washington, then yeah, we might have to worry about what our bureaucrats might do to weasel their way out of reparations on top of all the war debt. Until that point, comparing US Treasury bills to Weimar hyperinflation is like comparing routine exposure to everyday airborne viruses to having anthrax shoved up your nose by a KGB agent.

Debt isn't universally bad nor is it universally good, it's just a way of describing an accounting technicality, and the mechanisms, rewards, and risks are very different for the federal government than it does for Joe Sixpack getting a payday loan at the local pawn shop, despite what gold bug blogs may want you to believe.

[Anonymous No.10457589]

>>10457519
Those weren't my arguments bro. I just saw you misunderstand/misuse the term "band aid" so I jumped in.

Now, since I'm in the discussion:

>>You still let "natural" mechanisms do their thing, you just help them out a bit.

That sounds well and good, but in reality the so-called "band aid" doesn't end up working that way. It causes more harm than good. And in the case of systems with Fiat currency there's always the risk of them being manipulated inappropriately. I do agree with the other anon with respect to tbe gold standard simply because it prevents a government from simply printing more money if it wants to. Yes, that does prevent certain tools from being used that might be helpful. But it also safeguards against abuses as well, and I consider the latter more important than the former.

[Anonymous No.10457611]

>>10457589
> I do agree with the other anon with respect to tbe gold standard simply because it prevents a government from simply printing more money if it wants to

But that is literally what a fiat currency is; this is an argument that "it's bad by definition", which is not a valid argument.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that printing money doesn't have a moral hazard problem, but that is true of literally everything from collecting taxes to passing laws that on the surface of things have nothing to do with money at all. If you're going to have government, you have moral hazard, and if your government gets into economics, then you have moral hazard in the economic sphere. The gold standard position is basically "this is hard, I don't want to be responsible for this", which is not just a tremendous cop out, but also fails to plausibly explain why the problems associated with say, increasing the money supply, are actually so much worse than a large uncontained economic crisis.

[Anonymous No.10457642]

>>10457576
>Debt isn't bad
But debt you can never pay is, because eventually people will stop lending, and that's when the crash happens. Look at Greece.

>>10457611
Also, quick question, what is the current value of the dollar based on? It's based on the demand for it, or in other words it's literally valued at what it's believed to be valued at.
We're on the belief standard now. The moment there's substantial doubt on the US's financial capabilities, we're 90's Zimbabwe.
A currency that could be manipulated by enemy propaganda is a terrible currency for a nation with as many enemies as the US to have.

[Anonymous No.10457647]

>>10456215
>it was a little done under her preference.
It was raw you stupid nigger

[Anonymous No.10457657]

>>10454597
>chipotle mayo
>healthy as fuck
Joe Rogan is a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.10457662]

>>10457611
>>all governments have moral hazard
I'm of the opinion the less government the better, period.

As for the economics angle, IMHO "large uncontained economic crises" simply don't exist without being precipitated by government policy in some manner. And when the problem does exist it is over-and-done-with more rapidly.

[Anonymous No.10457679]

>>10457662
No, economic crises exist in unregulated markets as well. You just need someone or a group of someones wealthy enough to make a difference.
Just look at Bitcoin manipulation, while it could be China, it could just as easily be done by a cohort of wealthy bankers.

[Anonymous No.10457700]

>>10457642
>But debt you can never pay is
Which has nothing to do with this argument, since the government can print all the money it wants
>Look at Greece.
Great example. Like the Weimar Republic, it had its options constrained by foreign powers. Couldn't print money. Couldn't bail out banks. Basically, this is what you want.

>Also, quick question, what is the current value of the dollar based on? I
Not gold, and obviously you see a big problem with that. Most economists disagree with you.

>A currency that could be manipulated by enemy propaganda is a terrible currency for a nation with as many enemies as the US to have.
Considering that there was a run on US Treasury reserves under the gold standard largely due to the actions of foreign investors, which caused a 5 year depression in the late 19th century, I fail to see why a foreign country would be better off posting memes about the US being the next Zimbabwe, instead of just draining our gold reserves through global market manipulations.
>>10457662
> IMHO "large uncontained economic crises" simply don't exist without being precipitated by government policy in some manner
Government policy influences enough of the economy that this is essentially just a banal tautology - everything the economy is doing is to an extent a product of government policy, and every future crisis will also be, to the same extent, a product of government policy.

See "this is hard, I don't want to be responsible for this". The question should be, "what should we do", not "how quickly can we dismantle this whole thing so that I don't have to be responsible for this"

[Anonymous No.10457815]

>>10457700
>Government can print all the money it wants
That is the EXACT mistake that Zimbabwe made. When the 1 dollar bill was too expensive to print they just printed million and trillion dollar bills. People wound up burning million dollar bills because it was cheaper than buying firewood.

>Most economist disagree
And it takes 19 doctors giving a retarded diagnosis before a decent one gives a good one on anything more complex or rare than pharyngitis.
Just because an institution paid to give out degrees gave them a degree, doesn't mean they actually know what they're doing or talking about. If they actually gave good reasons why fiat is better than gold standard, I might agree with them, but everything they attribute to fiat currency is just the result of regulating the banking industry.

And the propaganda wouldn't be targeted at US civilians, but US investors and foreign countries. If no one is willing to invest in the US dollar, and if countries don't value the US dollar, it's worthless in the global market.

Also, if there is a crash from hyperinflation, every American will lose their savings.
With properly regulated banks and gold currency, there's always a backup. Even if the US collapsed, you could go on like barely anything happened, not so with fiat.
It's pretty much a shackle of tyranny. "Fight us, and even if you win, you lose everything".

[Anonymous No.10457848]

>>10457815
We aren’t zimbabwe, and in order to reach that point the US economy will first have to crash amd burn so hard that “Americans losing their savings” will be the least of our worries

I’ve been arguing about this for too long already so I’ll let you have the last word, it’s time to have a beer and relax. Enjoy your gold theories

[Anonymous No.10457862]

>>10457848
Well, I'll take the last word

We aren't Zimbabwe, but history repeats itself.
And there's no reason to believe that if we make the same exact mistakes other countries made, we will come out of it better, because MURRICA!

[Anonymous No.10457889]

>>10454008
He's right though. Or try to gouge its eyes

[Anonymous No.10457905]

>>10453806
The article is bait, you fucking idiots. People share it on facebook and argue in the comments to drive people to the article where hey see ads.

[Anonymous No.10457955]

>>10457905
where can i get that shirt

[Anonymous No.10457977]

>>10455762
>The right one is bleu/blue/fucking-raw.
wrong, it's just rare.

[Anonymous No.10457985]

>>10453806
the reason is because if they overcook a steak they throw it out, if they undercook it they can throw it back on the grill

[Anonymous No.10458002]

>Meme-dium rare
I just order everything rare and it always comes out perfect.

[Anonymous No.10458020]

>>10457657
his food is always swimming in grease im pretty sure the #healthyasfuck is a joke

[Anonymous No.10458368]

>>10454597
nothing about that looks cooked properly. what is the liquid it is swimming in?

[Anonymous No.10459405]

What's with all the deleted posts? I know for a fact that at least some of them were not against the rules and at least as much on topic as the rest of the thread. Hell, some of them were my own.

>>10456879
Spencer is the cutest controlled opposition.

[Anonymous No.10459420]

Trop cuit is the patricians choice.

I tell the waiter to inform the chef that it is not possible to overcook my steak. I demand the most well done steak the restaurant has ever made.

[Anonymous No.10459470]

>>10459420

>he visits 4chan boards that use flags

[Anonymous No.10459565]

>>10457862
>no reason to believe that if we make the same exact mistakes other countries made, we will come out of it better, because MURRICA!

Yes, because MURRICA. Or to put that another way, because America's economy, today, and not the one in that post-apocalyptic film you just watched, is different from that of Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe under Mugabe. For instance, we haven't gone from full employment to near-universal unemployment overnight, nor seen massive restructurings of the economy such as nationalization of the largest firms, aggressive land reform programs leading to starvation and almost no food and extreme political upheaval.

The reason the fears of hyperinflation are laughable is that they frame "economics" strictly in terms of avoiding one, extremely specific problem (hyperinflation of course), while completely ignoring the fact that it's nearly universal to reach hyperinflation only after a series of other devastating economic shocks that are either ignored, or conflated with the hyperinflation itself. If you genuinely believe that the US is on the brink of losing its most potent economic zones to a foreign military, or abandoning the concept of private property overnight, for instance, then why would you assume we'd stick to a gold standard even if it existed? Why would you be more concerned with the purchasing power of your checking account balance than having your house seized and given to native american groups, or being killed by the PLA?

Outside of such extreme scenarios, fiat currency represents a stabilization tool that can, contrary to gold bug perception, actually reduce the likelihood of an economy spiraling towards catastrophic collapses in which hyperinflation becomes a prospect.

The phobia of hyperinflation above all else reminds me of how antivax groups drum up the real but miniscule risk of adverse events as though they outweighed the benefits of not getting polio or whatever.

[Anonymous No.10459593]

Great, political squabbling has now infected /ck/
What a waste of time

[Anonymous No.10459640]

>>10459405
>the rules
What is this, 2007? The only "rule" anymore is whether your opinions (on any topic whatsoever) are in line with whatever mod is shitposting that day. If you disagree, enjoy your ban, troll.

[Anonymous No.10460538]

>>10458368
it’s america so probably hfcs

[Anonymous No.10460602]

>>10454008
Kick it in the nose, you are tall, the dog is short.

[Anonymous No.10461825]

>>10453825
It's always the idiots here in 4ch trying to find a political problem in every corner

[Anonymous No.10461861]

>>10454678
>>10454721
>>10454861
>>10453809
Hi vlad!

[Anonymous No.10461873]

>>10460602
it will bite your leg and not let go. keep it away from your feet

[Anonymous No.10461888]

>>10460538
Americans literally inject hfcs directly into their bloodstream and the veins of their disgusting fucking spawn. I went there on holiday last year and saw some fat fucking mutt dragging her fat fucking diabetic golem children units through the hfcs (soda) aisle at wallshart she was like: "alright now you'll'all've get urself a 12pack hurr" a fucking 12 pack each for her fucking disgusting spawn and they actually clapped when she said that fuck fuck fuck I almost died of shame fat fuckiing disgusting cunt cow mutt.

[Anonymous No.10461897]

>>10456146
Letting the kikes live in your head hard enough to have this image saved. Wew.

[Anonymous No.10461906]

>>10453840
Fuck your mother.

[Anonymous No.10461949]

>>10459640
One just ISP banned Comcast for a large portion of Illinois.

[Anonymous No.10461968]

>>10461949
Why don't you take another crack at that sentence there, chief.

[Anonymous No.10462047]

>>10461968
Are you upset that I started the sentence with a pronoun?

[Anonymous No.10462268]

>>10462047
>started the sentence with a pronoun
>one
Umm, remedial english 101 is surely available to you, no?

[Anonymous No.10462347]

>>10462268
It surely is damage-control grammar-fag.

[Anonymous No.10462565]

>>10461949
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[Anonymous No.10462578]

>>10461861
What?

[Anonymous No.10462604]

>>10454879
>In ops image the steak on the left could be medium rare, and probably is, the color is off.

And it's translucent. Medium rare does not look like strawberry jelly

[Anonymous No.10462641]

>>10461968
>>10462268
>>10462565
Following the convo, it seems clear to me.

He's saying that Illinois has been rangebanned, basically.

It's not uncommon; when I connected to the internet through a mobile plan I had that had unlimited internet for some bizarre reason, I couldn't post on 4chan either due to a rangeban.

[Anonymous No.10462994]

>>10454879
That isn't blue you nigger

[Anonymous No.10463016]

>>10457647
No.

[Anonymous No.10463030]

>>10462641
>>10461949
That's the only reason I bother having a pass.

[Anonymous No.10463054]

>>10462641
Good thing I have Mediacom.

[Anonymous No.10464463]

>>10456108
Look, you can't uncook a steak, and that's what's important.

[Anonymous No.10465855]

>>10453840