226 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

Br Cornelius, on 18 October 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

You keep confusing me with someone who wants the current money system - despite repeated correction on my part

Lax regulation of the banking sector and the ability to create money out of thin air through lending between private banks on a fractional reserve basis -  was the cause of the current problems. Address the problems, don't try to turn back time to the fictional place where markets worked and gold was king.

That is the difference between me and you  - I see the real issues at play.
I will take Keynes over free market NeoLiberal right wing fanatics any day of the week. I know the track record of people like you - and it is drenched in blood.

Br Cornelius

What "real" issues do you see?    You're a Keynesian thus you do not disagree with Bernanke, Greenspan, and your hero Krugman.   I will put you and your dirty murderers to bed.  There will be no more global US hegemony and endless commercial wars across the Middle East when we get your bedeviled government goons out of business with big business.

I don't want to go to your socialistic utopia land where "gold was king".   I want king dollar, unlike you who has already shrugged your shoulders at the end of the dollar.  And as long as we have political societies doing all the things with our money that you haven't expressed any problems spending, that will not happen.  The dollar will continue to be used and abused and you'll get your way because underneath all that word count you've revealed yourself as an anti-American socialist with Keynesianism running through your veins.

[Yamato]

DieChecker, on 22 October 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

http://www.britannic...e-gold-standard

So.... if we're not going to allow public individuals to personnally own gold, and we're not going to allow trade with foreign banks (see earlier example about France), and we're not going to allow gold to be publically traded... Then how can it be considered to back the currency? The gold standard only works if Gold actually is allowed to change hands. And especially in the current modern gold market, with high volitility, this would be foolish.

I still can't see where moving away from a controlled fiat system would be any less risky. Today is not 100 years ago. Even 50 years ago, gold was transported by ship and transactions took days or weeks to complete. Even putting a check into the bank took 2 weeks to clear. But today these transactions take seconds, or pico-seconds.

How pray tell are going to not allow gold to be publicly traded?   When did the gold standard imply government making our money markets for us?  That's what we've got now and what the gold standard is going to get rid of.

It's foolish to dislike gold's volatility and have no problem with the dollar's volatility.   Volatility is fine.  Let's embrace it like we mean it already.

[DieChecker]

Yamato, on 23 October 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

How pray tell are going to not allow gold to be publicly traded?   When did the gold standard imply government making our money markets for us?  That's what we've got now and what the gold standard is going to get rid of.

It's foolish to dislike gold's volatility and have no problem with the dollar's volatility.   Volatility is fine.  Let's embrace it like we mean it already.

But hasn't gold in the last decade shown like ten or twenty times as much volatility as US dollars?

If you're going to allow gold trading, and gold ownership, then isn't everyone with tens of thousands of dollars of gold jewelry going to ruin things? Isn't there roughly as much gold in jewelry in the US as there is in US Vaults? Isn't the value of gold, and thus the value of what is stockpiled then going to influence the value of the currency?

Today is not yesterday, and I don't think that our modern markets and trading will allow a successful National gold standard.

Edited by DieChecker, 23 October 2012 - 01:40 AM.

[Yamato]

DieChecker, on 23 October 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

But hasn't gold in the last decade shown like ten or twenty times as much volatility as US dollars?

If you're going to allow gold trading, and gold ownership, then isn't everyone with tens of thousands of dollars of gold jewelry going to ruin things? Isn't there roughly as much gold in jewelry in the US as there is in US Vaults? Isn't the value of gold, and thus the value of what is stockpiled then going to influence the value of the currency?

Today is not yesterday, and I don't think that our modern markets and trading will allow a successful National gold standard.

Why the heck wouldn't you allow gold trading and gold ownership?  People do these things every day now!   What's the problem with that, now?

The real goldbugs and "gold hamsters" are the ones supporting this Keynesian nonsense that the money printers can't stop handing us because they're the ones laughing all the way to the bank while the dollar advocates like myself are paying these losers off.  Don't punish that kid for throwing a rock through that window; encourage him to throw more rocks!   Print money and stimulate the economy and create more jobs?   Are you seriously so sold on this Keynesian-Krugman-herp-dee-derp?   I have to ask, because the Krugman advocates find you very agreeable.

Here we go again chasing our tail in repetitive circles asking questions already answered.   Volatility in gold is a result of fiat currency.  I've already proven the inverse correlation between the value of the dollar and the value of gold.  Why can't you understand that the price of gold didn't fluctuate more than $1.00/ounce in 100 years of gold standard?   Why can't you understand that historical fact?   Please watch the video posted for this discussion.  I don't think you've even seen it yet.   Is gold going to be as stable in a global marketplace as it was in the 19th century?  No I seriously doubt it.  And so what?   Competing currencies will rally around the currency that has the standard that takes all the uncertainty and emptiness of government's false promises out of the equation.  

Everything fluctuates.  Nothing moves in a straight line.  Nothing moves in a flat line.   There's nothing wrong with that.  We should embrace any volatility that moves due to marketplace supply and demand.  The reason we want a gold standard is precisely because gold is hard to come by.  You can't print it on a press or slap zeroes on a digital screen.  Supply is mitigated, and thus it constrains the supply of money.  Why is supply only a concern for you when it's something that our currency is based on but not the supply of the currency itself?   Why do you ignore fractional reserve banking and only seem to give a rat's behind about reserves when gold is the subject of a sentence? When it's a 2nd hand supply issue, suddenly all your cares and concerns that your fellow Keynesians can't stop thumbing up come out of the closet.

And why just gold?   Use a trimetallic standard.  There's silver and platinum out there too.  Gold isn't the only precious metal.   What's wrong with basing the dollar on a basket of metals?   Go.

Edited by Yamato, 30 October 2012 - 11:14 PM.

[DieChecker]

Yamato, on 30 October 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

Why the heck wouldn't you allow gold trading and gold ownership?  People do these things every day now!   What's the problem with that, now?

I'm just pointing out issues that will occur and that need to be considered before blindly accepting what seems like a shiny gold coin.

Quote

The real goldbugs and "gold hamsters" are the ones supporting this Keynesian nonsense that the money printers can't stop handing us because they're the ones laughing all the way to the bank while the dollar advocates like myself are paying these losers off.  Don't punish that kid for throwing a rock through that window; encourage him to throw more rocks!   Print money and stimulate the economy and create more jobs?   Are you seriously so sold on this Keynesian-Krugman-herp-dee-derp?   I have to ask, because the Krugman advocates find you very agreeable.

I don't know what you are talking about. I am rabidly anti-Keynesian. They are idiots.

Is printing money your only issue with the Fiat Currency? Because that can be stopped. We don't need to have a metals backed currency to stop printing money.

Quote

Here we go again chasing our tail in repetitive circles asking questions already answered.   Volatility in gold is a result of fiat currency.  I've already proven the inverse correlation between the value of the dollar and the value of gold.  Why can't you understand that the price of gold didn't fluctuate more than $1.00/ounce in 100 years of gold standard?   Why can't you understand that historical fact?   Please watch the video posted for this discussion.  I don't think you've even seen it yet.   Is gold going to be as stable in a global marketplace as it was in the 19th century?  No I seriously doubt it.  And so what?   Competing currencies will rally around the currency that has the standard that takes all the uncertainty and emptiness of government's false promises out of the equation.  

No. It is because I understand those arguements that I ask the questions. If we allow gold to be traded domestically and internationally, then the other 99% of nations, who still use a Fiat system are going to ruin our Gold system with their trading of gold. The only way to make gold stable is to isolate its trading inside the US and with the outside of the US. And... we'd need some way to deal with the hundreds of tons that exists out in individual collections. Otherwise the stability will not be there. We will cess to control the value of our own money and allow the rich and the world market to dictate to us what gold is worth.

I am not an economics major, but that much seems clear. If you don't control the trade and value of gold, then someone else will.

Quote

The reason we want a gold standard is precisely because gold is hard to come by.  You can't print it on a press or slap zeroes on a digital screen.  Supply is mitigated, and thus it constrains the supply of money.  Why is supply only a concern for you when it's something that our currency is based on but not the supply of the currency itself?   Why do you ignore fractional reserve banking and only seem to give a rat's behind about reserves when gold is the subject of a sentence? When it's a 2nd hand supply issue, suddenly all your cares and concerns that your fellow Keynesians can't stop thumbing up come out of the closet.

First, I am only Keynesian when compared to the Uber Fiscal Right. I consider myself to be a Moderate Concervative fiscally. I'd like a Balanced budget, and am willing to see taxes to do that, as well as cuts to most programs. I think that makes me a Centrist really, and certainly not a Keynesian, or Tax-and-Spend democrat.

I'm not ignoring fractional reserve banking, just pointing out that is has not been as Ruinous as you seem to think it has been. And that any suggestions that the near future is going to take off into ruination to be speculation of the Conspiricy Theory sort. I've seen no real evidence that we are going to run right off the rails due exclusively to Fiat Currency. High Debt to foreign nations, High Deficit, ruined Credit Ratings, Bankrupcys, Forclosures, Unemployment going up, and such... sure, that is happening still, but I don't see fiat money doing any of that. I see bad decisions of individuals as well as greed having done most of that.

If the main issue you have is "Printing Money" then that can still be stopped, without a gold system.

Quote

And why just gold?   Use a trimetallic standard.  There's silver and platinum out there too.  Gold isn't the only precious metal.   What's wrong with basing the dollar on a basket of metals?   Go.

If you go back in this thread, you'll see that I proposed just that, Several Times! I've said repeatedly now that a Gold System could be made to work. I just think that the Pain to get there is not worth it. And I think that the gold system itself is just not necessary. I don't believe gold will make the dollar That Much more stable.

Like I said before... Today is not Yesterday, so your 100 years of stability is illusion. It would be like fight a war today with spears and shields. They were the height of military technology for over two thousand years, and yet are worthless in the wars of today.

Edited by DieChecker, 31 October 2012 - 12:54 AM.

[Yamato]

DieChecker, on 31 October 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

I'm just pointing out issues that will occur and that need to be considered before blindly accepting what seems like a shiny gold coin.


I don't know what you are talking about. I am rabidly anti-Keynesian. They are idiots.

Is printing money your only issue with the Fiat Currency? Because that can be stopped. We don't need to have a metals backed currency to stop printing money.


No. It is because I understand those arguements that I ask the questions. If we allow gold to be traded domestically and internationally, then the other 99% of nations, who still use a Fiat system are going to ruin our Gold system with their trading of gold. The only way to make gold stable is to isolate its trading inside the US and with the outside of the US. And... we'd need some way to deal with the hundreds of tons that exists out in individual collections. Otherwise the stability will not be there. We will cess to control the value of our own money and allow the rich and the world market to dictate to us what gold is worth.

I am not an economics major, but that much seems clear. If you don't control the trade and value of gold, then someone else will.


First, I am only Keynesian when compared to the Uber Fiscal Right. I consider myself to be a Moderate Concervative fiscally. I'd like a Balanced budget, and am willing to see taxes to do that, as well as cuts to most programs. I think that makes me a Centrist really, and certainly not a Keynesian, or Tax-and-Spend democrat.

I'm not ignoring fractional reserve banking, just pointing out that is has not been as Ruinous as you seem to think it has been. And that any suggestions that the near future is going to take off into ruination to be speculation of the Conspiricy Theory sort. I've seen no real evidence that we are going to run right off the rails due exclusively to Fiat Currency. High Debt to foreign nations, High Deficit, ruined Credit Ratings, Bankrupcys, Forclosures, Unemployment going up, and such... sure, that is happening still, but I don't see fiat money doing any of that. I see bad decisions of individuals as well as greed having done most of that.

If the main issue you have is "Printing Money" then that can still be stopped, without a gold system.


If you go back in this thread, you'll see that I proposed just that, Several Times! I've said repeatedly now that a Gold System could be made to work. I just think that the Pain to get there is not worth it. And I think that the gold system itself is just not necessary. I don't believe gold will make the dollar That Much more stable.

I'm just pointing out issues that will occur and that need to be considered before blindly accepting what seems like a shiny gold coin.

No you're not.  You're pointing out issues that need to be addressed right now. But all you do is ignore them until you hear someone say the word "gold".

I don't know what you are talking about. I am rabidly anti-Keynesian. They are idiots.

Please explain the full reason why they are "idiots".

Is printing money your only issue with the Fiat Currency? Because that can be stopped. We don't need to have a metals backed currency to stop printing money.

The devaluation of our money is my issue with fiat currency.   And how can that be stopped?   What do we "need"?

No. It is because I understand those arguements that I ask the questions. If we allow gold to be traded domestically and internationally, then the other 99% of nations, who still use a Fiat system are going to ruin our Gold system with their trading of gold. The only way to make gold stable is to isolate its trading inside the US and with the outside of the US. And... we'd need some way to deal with the hundreds of tons that exists out in individual collections. Otherwise the stability will not be there. We will cess to control the value of our own money and allow the rich and the world market to dictate to us what gold is worth.

Gold doesn't need government's help to be "stable".   It's an historical storehouse of value.   The reason we base our fiat that's going to zero on something like gold is because gold isn't going to zero.  You don't wipe the price of gold out by trading it; there is no rationale for believing such a thing.    We need a way to deal with hundreds of tons of fiat currency too, so applying your imaginative problems solely to gold doesn't make sense.

I am not an economics major, but that much seems clear. If you don't control the trade and value of gold, then someone else will.

Control gold?   That's the market's job.  And yes, if you don't do something in the market, then someone else will and there's nothing wrong with that.   If there's a need for something and you don't provide it then for the market's sake we better hope someone else does.  

I'm not ignoring fractional reserve banking, just pointing out that is has not been as Ruinous as you seem to think it has been. And that any suggestions that the near future is going to take off into ruination to be speculation of the Conspiricy Theory sort. I've seen no real evidence that we are going to run right off the rails due exclusively to Fiat Currency. High Debt to foreign nations, High Deficit, ruined Credit Ratings, Bankrupcys, Forclosures, Unemployment going up, and such... sure, that is happening still, but I don't see fiat money doing any of that. I see bad decisions of individuals as well as greed having done most of that.

If fractional reserves of fiat aren't as bad as I think, then fractional reserves of gold won't be as bad as you think.   You can't have it both ways.  You can't apply one standard to this Keynesian fiat and now tell me that it's "not so bad" and then float all your theoretical conspiracy theories that somehow only get applied to gold.

If the main issue you have is "Printing Money" then that can still be stopped, without a gold system.

Here you go again making me repeat the same thing again as if you didn't hear me the first three times.  In this digital age of electronic money you don't even have to print it.   You just inflate the balance sheet on the computer screen with the keyboard.   I'm not against "printing money".   We need money to do things it's our medium of exchange.   I'm against the monetary policy that we have in this country today which includes the needless expectation of perpetual inflation by our population and purchasing power destruction of our money.   Sometimes we need a recession.  Sometimes bills should get paid.   Sometimes responsibility means swallowing the hard medicine so a reawl recovery can begin, not kicking the can down the road by papering over assets with the life savings of someone who worked all their lives.   That is immoral and disgusting, hence we are "against it".

If you go back in this thread, you'll see that I proposed just that, Several Times! I've said repeatedly now that a Gold System could be made to work. I just think that the Pain to get there is not worth it. And I think that the gold system itself is just not necessary. I don't believe gold will make the dollar That Much more stable.

And if you go back you'll see I proposed it first.  And you forgot to agree with me.   Gold will make the dollar stop losing value over the long term.  It's not going to make the dollar more stable every minute, hour or day you can cherry pick from a timeline.   And accomplishing that doesn't even solve any of the problems that a gold standard solves anyway.

[DieChecker]

Yamato, on 31 October 2012 - 01:09 AM, said:

I'm just pointing out issues that will occur and that need to be considered before blindly accepting what seems like a shiny gold coin.

No you're not.  You're pointing out issues that need to be addressed right now. But all you do is ignore them until you hear someone say the word "gold".

Most of the issues I've personaly brought up are related to gold as a resource, not the economy. You are the one who is ignoring logical questions and putting words in peoples mouths. Change the subject if you're not winning? Repeat the same meme over and over again till people give up?

The only thing you seem to be against is the Fed creating money, electronically mostly. And you think that going gold will fix that? Those are two seperate issues. The Fed can be dealt with as a seperate issue from Fiat versus Gold.

Quote

I don't know what you are talking about. I am rabidly anti-Keynesian. They are idiots.

Please explain the full reason why they are "idiots".

First I'm going to assume you know what the term means. What I don't like about modern Keynesians is that they are not strictly Keynesians, just as "Peaceful Muslims" are not strictly muslims. Modern Keynesians don't practice cutting back and saving in good times. They simply keep spending and taxing in the good times and ruin economies. It is idiotic to practice this economic model incorrectly because it can only harm the economy. Kind of like Soviet Communists. There was no equality or sharing in the Soviet Union. It was more like a dictatorship with a nice name on it.

Quote

Is printing money your only issue with the Fiat Currency? Because that can be stopped. We don't need to have a metals backed currency to stop printing money.

The devaluation of our money is my issue with fiat currency.   And how can that be stopped?   What do we "need"?

You can't stop the devaluation of the dollar. Since it is linked to the World economy, it will devalue and gain value based on international opinion. Basing the dollar on gold is not going to change that.

Quote

No. It is because I understand those arguements that I ask the questions. If we allow gold to be traded domestically and internationally, then the other 99% of nations, who still use a Fiat system are going to ruin our Gold system with their trading of gold. The only way to make gold stable is to isolate its trading inside the US and with the outside of the US. And... we'd need some way to deal with the hundreds of tons that exists out in individual collections. Otherwise the stability will not be there. We will cess to control the value of our own money and allow the rich and the world market to dictate to us what gold is worth.

Gold doesn't need government's help to be "stable".   It's an historical storehouse of value.   The reason we base our fiat that's going to zero on something like gold is because gold isn't going to zero.  You don't wipe the price of gold out by trading it; there is no rationale for believing such a thing. We need a way to deal with hundreds of tons of fiat currency too, so applying your imaginative problems solely to gold doesn't make sense.

I think you are wrong about it being intrinsically stable. Gold can go to zero just like Pork, Oil, Oranges, Circuit Boards or anything else. And I've never known a currency to go completely to zero either. Even the classic examples.... Germany after WW1, and Somalia (I think), both feel by a factor of billions. People were still using that money to buy and sell things. And like I said I am not an economics major, all I have is commen sense and logic.

Quote

I am not an economics major, but that much seems clear. If you don't control the trade and value of gold, then someone else will.

Control gold?   That's the market's job.  And yes, if you don't do something in the market, then someone else will and there's nothing wrong with that.   If there's a need for something and you don't provide it then for the market's sake we better hope someone else does.  

Well, then in the words of Yoda, "You already fail". You'd let the world decide the USs fate.

Quote

I'm not ignoring fractional reserve banking, just pointing out that is has not been as Ruinous as you seem to think it has been. And that any suggestions that the near future is going to take off into ruination to be speculation of the Conspiricy Theory sort. I've seen no real evidence that we are going to run right off the rails due exclusively to Fiat Currency. High Debt to foreign nations, High Deficit, ruined Credit Ratings, Bankrupcys, Forclosures, Unemployment going up, and such... sure, that is happening still, but I don't see fiat money doing any of that. I see bad decisions of individuals as well as greed having done most of that.

If fractional reserves of fiat aren't as bad as I think, then fractional reserves of gold won't be as bad as you think.   You can't have it both ways.  You can't apply one standard to this Keynesian fiat and now tell me that it's "not so bad" and then float all your theoretical conspiracy theories that somehow only get applied to gold.

True. They might  not be as bad as I think. Yet to keep the Fiat system costs nothing, but to install the Gold system would require hundreds of Billions or Trillions of dollars in Gold Debt. So, one system almost as good as the other, yet one costs zero and the other trillions.

It is like saying a Lambordini is a much better car, and that paying the extra hundreds of thousands instead of keeping the Honda you have now, is going to be SOOOO Much Better!! And then your travel time across town remains the same.

Quote

If the main issue you have is "Printing Money" then that can still be stopped, without a gold system.

Here you go again making me repeat the same thing again as if you didn't hear me the first three times.  In this digital age of electronic money you don't even have to print it.   You just inflate the balance sheet on the computer screen with the keyboard.   I'm not against "printing money".   We need money to do things it's our medium of exchange.   I'm against the monetary policy that we have in this country today which includes the needless expectation of perpetual inflation by our population and purchasing power destruction of our money.   Sometimes we need a recession.  Sometimes bills should get paid.   Sometimes responsibility means swallowing the hard medicine so a reawl recovery can begin, not kicking the can down the road by papering over assets with the life savings of someone who worked all their lives.   That is immoral and disgusting, hence we are "against it".

The monetary policy has little to do with the Fiat system of currency. Unless the government was to put out real gold coins, or coins of precious metals, how would you prevent them from simply creating more money? Why couldn't they do that anyway? Sure there is a fixed about of gold, let's say. And the government prints up a billion more dollars anyway. What does that do? Decreases the value of that gold stash, of course. There is no way to prevent a government from simply printing more currency.

If you could fix that, you could fix the same issue in the Fiat system. The logic is sinply.

Quote

If you go back in this thread, you'll see that I proposed just that, Several Times! I've said repeatedly now that a Gold System could be made to work. I just think that the Pain to get there is not worth it. And I think that the gold system itself is just not necessary. I don't believe gold will make the dollar That Much more stable.

And if you go back you'll see I proposed it first.  And you forgot to agree with me.   Gold will make the dollar stop losing value over the long term.  It's not going to make the dollar more stable every minute, hour or day you can cherry pick from a timeline.   And accomplishing that doesn't even solve any of the problems that a gold standard solves anyway.

So? Just because I agree with some points and the bases of an idea does not mean that I can't challenge parts of that idea if I think they are problems. Again don't just accept the shiny gold coin without weighing it and determining it is not hollow.

Gold might stablize the dollar over the long run, but only if strict controls were in place and if the actual gold is circulating among the People.

Edited by DieChecker, 31 October 2012 - 04:27 AM.

[Yamato]

DieChecker, on 31 October 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

Most of the issues I've personaly brought up are related to gold as a resource, not the economy. You are the one who is ignoring logical questions and putting words in peoples mouths. Change the subject if you're not winning? Repeat the same meme over and over again till people give up?

The only thing you seem to be against is the Fed creating money, electronically mostly. And you think that going gold will fix that? Those are two seperate issues. The Fed can be dealt with as a seperate issue from Fiat versus Gold.

The only thing you seem to be against is the Fed creating money, electronically mostly. And you think that going gold will fix that? Those are two seperate issues. The Fed can be dealt with as a seperate issue from Fiat versus Gold.

I'm against fiat currency for the reasons I have already given you in great detail that you have have abjectly ignored. I think that having sound money will fix the problems we have discussed, which are the results of unsound baseless and constantly devaluing currency. What is your problem with that?   Don't just give me rhetoric.  Find something I actually said and tell me an actual problem




First I'm going to assume you know what the term means. What I don't like about modern Keynesians is that they are not strictly Keynesians, just as "Peaceful Muslims" are not strictly muslims. Modern Keynesians don't practice cutting back and saving in good times. They simply keep spending and taxing in the good times and ruin economies. It is idiotic to practice this economic model incorrectly because it can only harm the economy. Kind of like Soviet Communists. There was no equality or sharing in the Soviet Union. It was more like a dictatorship with a nice name on it.


You can't stop the devaluation of the dollar. Since it is linked to the World economy, it will devalue and gain value based on international opinion. Basing the dollar on gold is not going to change that.


I think you are wrong about it being intrinsically stable. Gold can go to zero just like Pork, Oil, Oranges, Circuit Boards or anything else. And I've never known a currency to go completely to zero either. Even the classic examples.... Germany after WW1, and Somalia (I think), both feel by a factor of billions. People were still using that money to buy and sell things. And like I said I am not an economics major, all I have is commen sense and logic.


Well, then in the words of Yoda, "You already fail". You'd let the world decide the USs fate.


True. They might  not be as bad as I think. Yet to keep the Fiat system costs nothing, but to install the Gold system would require hundreds of Billions or Trillions of dollars in Gold Debt. So, one system almost as good as the other, yet one costs zero and the other trillions.

It is like saying a Lambordini is a much better car, and that paying the extra hundreds of thousands instead of keeping the Honda you have now, is going to be SOOOO Much Better!! And then your travel time across town remains the same.


The monetary policy has little to do with the Fiat system of currency. Unless the government was to put out real gold coins, or coins of precious metals, how would you prevent them from simply creating more money? Why couldn't they do that anyway? Sure there is a fixed about of gold, let's say. And the government prints up a billion more dollars anyway. What does that do? Decreases the value of that gold stash, of course. There is no way to prevent a government from simply printing more currency.

If you could fix that, you could fix the same issue in the Fiat system. The logic is sinply.


So? Just because I agree with some points and the bases of an idea does not mean that I can't challenge parts of that idea if I think they are problems. Again don't just accept the shiny gold coin without weighing it and determining it is not hollow.

Gold might stablize the dollar over the long run, but only if strict controls were in place and if the actual gold is circulating among the People.

Most of the issues I've personaly brought up are related to gold as a resource, not the economy. You are the one who is ignoring logical questions and putting words in peoples mouths. Change the subject if you're not winning? Repeat the same meme over and over again till people give up?

I'm not answering questions here?   Really? And which ones might those be? What am I repeating? What subject have I changed?  Why are you so desperate to dig this hole of false claims you cannot climb out of?  You can't answer these questions.  You don't have a prayer.

First I'm going to assume you know what the term means. What I don't like about modern Keynesians is that they are not strictly Keynesians, just as "Peaceful Muslims" are not strictly muslims. Modern Keynesians don't practice cutting back and saving in good times. They simply keep spending and taxing in the good times and ruin economies. It is idiotic to practice this economic model incorrectly because it can only harm the economy. Kind of like Soviet Communists. There was no equality or sharing in the Soviet Union. It was more like a dictatorship with a nice name on it.

What term?  Idiots?   Or Keynesians?   If the latter, have you not listened to anything I've said on this thread about Keynesians? What is "practicing that model incorrectly"?   How can you practice that model correctly?

You can't stop the devaluation of the dollar. Since it is linked to the World economy, it will devalue and gain value based on international opinion. Basing the dollar on gold is not going to change that.

Yes of course you can.  The free market doesn't force us into constant perpetual inflation.  There will be deflation in a free marketplace.  Inhale Krugman, inhale.   And thank God things we all need to survive will become more affordable some of the time when the market dictates it should.   You don't even understand the problem for me to even have to say this to you.   And yes, gold does.  100 years of reality proves that.  

I think you are wrong about it being intrinsically stable. Gold can go to zero just like Pork, Oil, Oranges, Circuit Boards or anything else. And I've never known a currency to go completely to zero either. Even the classic examples.... Germany after WW1, and Somalia (I think), both feel by a factor of billions. People were still using that money to buy and sell things. And like I said I am not an economics major, all I have is commen sense and logic.

Plenty of currencies have gone to zero throughout world history.  What currency can YOU name that's still money 6000 years later?   3000 years?  2000 years?  1000 years?   500 years?   Which one?   Every currency used as money is worthless as money; except gold.   If you want to live in your baseless Keynesian bubble of blind denial and pretend that 6,000 years of history didn't happen in favor of whatever these other currencies you think didn't go to zero eventually, you've got about as much common sense as you do economics coursework.

Well, then in the words of Yoda, "You already fail". You'd let the world decide the USs fate.

The free market will decide the US's fate and everyone else's in the world in kind, but maybe that scares you so you run to the government to say something soothing that protects you.  The time to start worrying about the US isn't after we return to the gold standard, it'll then be time to sell all those foreign currencies we've been having to buy all the while the US is destroying our own and start buying our own back.   What's the average house value in Portland OR btw?

True. They might  not be as bad as I think. Yet to keep the Fiat system costs nothing, but to install the Gold system would require hundreds of Billions or Trillions of dollars in Gold Debt. So, one system almost as good as the other, yet one costs zero and the other trillions.

Install the gold system?   What source are you reading from or do you just invent this bologna?   So now you only care about debt after someone mentions the word "gold"?   Undoing Nixon Shock will not require hundreds of billions or trillions of gold debt.   Your thirst for double standard hypocrisy knows no end.  We've tens of trillions of debt right now when you add up the fiat promises that government can't pay and will only print its way out of until the currency crisis hits the fan.  Every dollar bill is a bill.   The word of government does not give intrinsic value to that bill, to that debt, to that promise to pay.   You're not adding a new problem to the monetary system by basing the currency on gold.  We've got that problem right now.  The difference is there is no intrinsic value in government promises because as people who have seen the value of their savings go up in smoke know, the government is FOS.

The monetary policy has little to do with the Fiat system of currency. Unless the government was to put out real gold coins, or coins of precious metals, how would you prevent them from simply creating more money? Why couldn't they do that anyway? Sure there is a fixed about of gold, let's say. And the government prints up a billion more dollars anyway. What does that do? Decreases the value of that gold stash, of course. There is no way to prevent a government from simply printing more currency.

Printing endless fiat currency doesn't decrease your faith in government decree?   So you're going to pretend that the value of our currency is stable?   You're going to convince yourself that endless inflation is just the way of the world.  This is what the Keynesians want you to think and denying what you are doesn't help your credibility.   You're an obedient tool of Maynard.  The government can't print money that is based on something it doesn't have.  That includes credibility as well as gold!   Having a gold standard means that one can redeem their currency for gold.  This is a powerful incentive not to overprint money and destroy the value of it over time like the US government has done.   Of course there will need to be regulations in place for this as there are for the monetary policy we have now.   It also must be open, honest, and transparent and that's another problem we have today with Krugman Keynesian "idiots" and the Federal Reserve system.

So? Just because I agree with some points and the bases of an idea does not mean that I can't challenge parts of that idea if I think they are problems. Again don't just accept the shiny gold coin without weighing it and determining it is not hollow.

If I got something gold and shiny from the government and it turned out to be hollow or underweight, then I could hold government accountable for ripping me off unlike the way we're both getting ripped off today.  The problems you think you identified with the gold standard simply don't exist.   The dollar did not devalue in 100 years under the gold standard.  I don't know why you can't acknowledge that but you're not going to convince me by ignoring facts and forwarding theories that you thought of yourself.

Gold might stablize the dollar over the long run, but only if strict controls were in place and if the actual gold is circulating among the People.

And what's wrong with that?   What's wrong with free flow of goods and services with sound money that can be redeemed for something real instead of winks and nods and broken promises and 95+% real value destruction?   Promissory notes from the Federal Reserve, dollar BILLS that promise that you can bill someone later to actually pay for some service rendered or product sold is fine provided that there's a system in place that ensures that money is worth as much in 20 years from now as it is today.  And unfortunately the reality is that every major sector of the economy that government has its grubby nubbies dug into, prices have skyrocketed.   There's no "might" about it.  Gold did stabilize the dollar over the long run as it would any other currency because gold is historical money.  This welfare and warfare state that we live in today with a hundred million willing shills for inflation needs to come to an end, and intractable attitudes like yours that are unwilling to accept proven solutions are the anathema of solving our currency crisis.

I don't know how to reconcile your desperately reaching disdain for the gold standard as you simultaneously claim you support a trimetallic standard at the same time.   A trimetallic standard doesn't protect you from any of the problems you're creating out of thin air here.   So you don't support that either.  Nice try claiming you do though.

Edited by Yamato, 31 October 2012 - 05:38 AM.

[DieChecker]

I can see that you are not seriously interested in discussion and only in being Right and arguement to prove that fact. I'm Done!

Your repeated taking what I wrote out of context and your making huge sweeping untrue statements is very juvenile.

Good luck with your Impossible Agenda and your Paranoid fantasy about Fiat currency.

Edited by DieChecker, 31 October 2012 - 07:06 PM.

[acidhead]

DieChecker, on 31 October 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

I can see that you are not seriously interested in discussion and only in being Right and arguement to prove that fact. I'm Done!

Your repeated taking what I wrote out of context and your making huge sweeping untrue statements is very juvenile.

Good luck with your Impossible Agenda and your Paranoid fantasy about Fiat currency.

Hope you leave your ball.

[Karlis]

The following is an article from Forbes Magazine. Presumably the author is a qualified expert in his field.
What are your thoughts, if you disagree?


Economic Booms And Busts Of The Gold Standard Era
The purpose of a gold standard system is to provide a currency of stable value – as stable as can be achieved in our imperfect world – and, for the most part, it achieved this goal over a period of centuries.
   Did “booms and busts” take place during times when a gold standard system was in use? Of course. These were caused for all manner of reasons, none of which include a currency that was stable in value.
Article here


The author also supplies a link to another, relevant article:
Let It Be Known That No Financial Crisis Was Ever Caused by Stable Money
Read article

[questionmark]

Karlis, on 02 November 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

The following is an article from Forbes Magazine. Presumably the author is a qualified expert in his field.
What are your thoughts, if you disagree?


Economic Booms And Busts Of The Gold Standard Era
The purpose of a gold standard system is to provide a currency of stable value – as stable as can be achieved in our imperfect world – and, for the most part, it achieved this goal over a period of centuries.
   Did “booms and busts” take place during times when a gold standard system was in use? Of course. These were caused for all manner of reasons, none of which include a currency that was stable in value.
Article here


The author also supplies a link to another, relevant article:
Let It Be Known That No Financial Crisis Was Ever Caused by Stable Money
Read article

Well, no, because boom or bust are quite irrelevant to currency in a free market. In fact, a too stable currency can cause a bust (see Spain 1557). And while the gentleman was right, that no financial crisis was ever caused by stable money we also have to see that no crisis has ever been caused by unstable money. The crisis is always caused by too much or too little money in circulation. And that causes either inflation or deflation.

[Karlis]

questionmark, on 02 November 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Well, no, because boom or bust are quite irrelevant to currency in a free market. In fact, a too stable currency can cause a bust (see Spain 1557). And while the gentleman was right, that no financial crisis was ever caused by stable money we also have to see that no crisis has ever been caused by unstable money. The crisis is always caused by too much or too little money in circulation. And that causes either inflation or deflation.

Q ... do you disagree with any "specific point" in these articles? Which one, and why?

[questionmark]

Karlis, on 02 November 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Q ... do you disagree with any "specific point" in these articles? Which one, and why?

I disagree with the premiss of the first article, while I agree with the headline of the second but not with the resulting analysis. Bust or boom always depends on money in circulation being balanced with the goods and services available being desired by the consumer. If there is an unbalance there will be a bust. And that has little to do with the "stability" of a currency.

[acidhead]

questionmark, on 02 November 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I disagree with the premiss of the first article, while I agree with the headline of the second but not with the resulting analysis. Bust or boom always depends on money in circulation being balanced with the goods and services available being desired by the consumer. If there is an unbalance there will be a bust. And that has little to do with the "stability" of a currency.

Perhaps you missed the point of the first article. http://www.forbes.co....tandard-era/  

A stable currency encourages savings while an unstable currency does not.  During bust periods the individuals savings weathers the storm until a new boom emerges.  Today we're experiencing a debt based society.  While it's true that this keynes form of balancing goods and services with money in circulation creates stability it also discourages savings and devalues the purchasing power of the currency.

Edited by acidhead, 03 November 2012 - 02:45 AM.