226 replies to this topic

[acidhead]

questionmark, on 16 October 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Quite so, because imagine that all pull a deGaulle and want their bills paid in gold instead of dollars.

questionmark, on 16 October 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Quite so, because imagine that all pull a deGaulle and want their bills paid in gold instead of dollars.

Let the people decide.

[Br Cornelius]

acidhead, on 18 October 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Let the people decide.

Its quite obvious from the contributions here - that the people haven't got a clue about economics

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

questionmark, on 17 October 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

You cannot have a fluctuating basis for a stable currency. That would only work if gold trade would be prohibited and gold property of the government. As long as gold can be freely purchased and its price changes daily it is a basis for nothing. That is why, so far, every gold standard currency ended in flop.

You're blind to all history.  It did work. It worked phenomenally well, and everything fluctuates in a free market as it should.  

questionmark, on 18 October 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

See, you should read up a little on the history of currency. Nixon did not abolish the gold standard because he was turning away from sound money, he did that because else, within months, the US of A would have been bankrupt. What caused that? A very small US creditor, France, insisting on getting paid in gold instead of in dollars for its trade balance. In less than a year the gold at Fort Knox was reduced by ay least 40%, within another year France would have had it all.

And we are talking about a time when the US still had a sound economy. That is not a sound currency, that is a flop.

If every creditor would have followed suit the US gold reserves would have lasted a few months. And why? Because there simply is not enough gold to make it a viable means of exchange. And even the gold hamsters, who tell you all those nice things about your cool investment, know that.

So you think that France controls our monetary policy based on what it asks for?   LOL  We haven't had a sound economy since the advent of the Federal Reserve system because it's been borrowed on the back of our currency ever since.  The real growth that didn't have to borrow itself onto the books came before that.  

Bankruptcy is a part of our legal system.  We are a nation of laws.  It's not okay to escape that fact, even when the federal gobmint does it.   The federal government with its frankenstein bank thinks it's the end-all, the lender of last resort and the creditor for all times that people are going to run to but there's a limit of even federal insanity and we're heading there fast.

[Yamato]

Br Cornelius, on 18 October 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

Its quite obvious from the contributions here - that the people haven't got a clue about economics

Br Cornelius

Explain who you're talking about and provide quotes that back up this lame assertion.

Or they're talking out of both sides of their mouths contradicting themselves, having a Krugman pow-wow one day assuring me "there's nothing wrong with fiat" and limply claiming they're against fiat the next.

[Br Cornelius]

Yamato, on 18 October 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

Explain who you're talking about and provide quotes that back up this lame assertion.

Or they're talking out of both sides of their mouths contradicting themselves, having a Krugman pow-wow one day assuring me "there's nothing wrong with fiat" and limply claiming they're against fiat the next.

I am against the Currency we use at the moment, , but I am also against the Gold standard.  I am for an interest free paper currency pegged to a basket of commodities You see there are other choices.
You really have said nothing other than it worked in the good old days - and that is lame. You have not addressed any of its shortcomings simply claiming they do not exist - which is lame again.

We can go around the houses until hell freezes over - but you have nothing new or interesting to say about money so we are wasting each others time here.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 18 October 2012 - 06:36 PM.

[Yamato]

Br Cornelius, on 18 October 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

I am against the Currency we use at the moment, , but I am also against the Gold standard.  I am for an interest free paper currency pegged to a basket of commodities You see there are other choices.
You really have said nothing other than it worked in the good old days - and that is lame. You have not addressed any of its shortcomings simply claiming they do not exist - which is lame again.

We can go around the houses until hell freezes over - but you have nothing new or interesting to say about money so we are wasting each others time here.

Br Cornelius

You're against everything and you fly in the face of yourself.   You can't have it both ways.  You can't turn a blind eye to history and tell me what worked exceptionally well for 100 years suddenly didn't work.    I don't know what shortcomings you're talking about other than your changes of subject putting words in my mouth.   I didn't say it was the end all.  I didn't say that it will solve all economic problems, but other than injecting other problems that don't belong in this discussion you haven't addressed any shortcomings at all.

You said you were done with this thread a long, long time ago.   I can't be responsible for you not doing what you say you're going to do.  The moment you feel like you're wasting your time here, please go.

Again:  Explain who you're talking about here and quote them or else lose your statement to the blizzard of BS that followed it.  I can't get a straight answer to any of my questions here and the laundry is piling up fast.

[Yamato]

Paper currency tied to commodities.  The Canadian Dollar.  The Australian Dollar.   The New Zealand Dollar.   Been there, done that.  

We have had it up to here with Krugman's zero percent interest rates and "too big to fail" financial scams that deplete the honesty and transparency and common sense out of the marketplace and replace it with a statist blend of corporatocracy, sweetheart deals with government fixing prices, setting interest rates, and making the marketplace with force control by robbing winners and small businesses and bailing out losers and gigantic megacorporations.

[Br Cornelius]

Yamoto I think your position shows extreme naivety and arrogance about what money actually is and what purpose it serves.

I am going to quote a better mind than either of our since you are such a fan, I am certain you will recognize it

“In truth, the gold standard is already a barbarous relic”.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

Government distorting the market and making free market activity impossible to predict and making the market price impossible to pay, when we're never able to know who the cronies are who are going to get rescued next (Saudi puppets, Iraqi puppets, Egyptian puppets, and Israeli puppets for four good foreign examples) with government's gigantic bags of my money has little to do with any principles of economics and more to do with force control of government.  

I don't trust mass murderers and chronic liars from Washington DC, and that's the root of the difference between myself and the Krugman cheerleaders (Br, questionmark etc) on this thread.

Keynesians are among the most clueless and amoral of all statists and belong in the ranks of socialists and fascists because when it comes to money, there's no difference in how they think it should be handled.  The State is everything; Government is God.  The law should be thrown in the garbage for the elite powerful rulers who break it on behalf of the Corporatocracy.   Whatever poison government comes up with, that's just fine for all the sheep who let government get away with murder.   As questionmark argued, the very presence of Keynesianism is a good reason to support Keynesianism.

Edited by Yamato, 18 October 2012 - 07:42 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Yamato, on 18 October 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Government distorting the market and making free market activity impossible to predict and making the market price impossible to pay, when we're never able to know who the cronies are who are going to get rescued next (Saudi puppets, Iraqi puppets, Egyptian puppets, and Israeli puppets for four good foreign examples) with government's gigantic bags of my money has little to do with any principles of economics and more to do with force control of government.  

I don't trust mass murderers and chronic liars from Washington DC, and that's the root of the difference between myself and the Krugman cheerleaders (Br, questionmark etc) on this thread.

Keynesians are among the most clueless and amoral of all statists and belong in the ranks of socialists and fascists because when it comes to money, there's no difference in how they think it should be handled.  The State is everything; Government is God.  The law should be thrown in the garbage for the elite powerful rulers who break it on behalf of the Corporatocracy.   Whatever poison government comes up with, that's just fine for all the sheep who let government get away with murder.   As questionmark argued, the very presence of Keynesianism is a good reason to support Keynesianism.

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

Edited by Br Cornelius, 18 October 2012 - 07:48 PM.

[hacktorp]

Here's an interesting write-up (dated today) touching on the issue of gold, fiat, and credit.  It points out that, throughout history, more important than what backs a financial system, is who controls it.  I think this is the direction discourse on the subject of economic stability will (should) head:

Quote

The International Monetary Fund’s paper, “The Chicago Plan Revisited” by Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof highlighted a means to wipe out debt by legislation by using state created money to replace the private banking system and was commented on in The Telegraph by journalist Ambrose Evans-Prichard. The full paper can be read here.
In sum, the paper illuminates on a plan created in 1936 by professors Henry Simons and Irving Fisher during the aftermath of the US Depression. It examines how money created by credit cycles leads to a damaging creation of wealth.  
Authors, Benes and Kumhof argue that credit-cycle trauma - caused by private money creation – has been around forever and lies at the root of debt catastrophes as far back as ancient Mesopotia and the Middle East.
They claim that not only harvest cycles lead to defaults but rather the concentration of wealth in the hands of lenders would have augmented the outcome.
Solon, the Athenian leader implemented the original Chicago Plan/New Deal in 599 BC to relieve farmers in hock to oligarchs enjoying private coinage. He forgave debts, returned lands seized by creditors, and set floor-prices for commodities (like Franklin Roosevelt), and fuelled the money supply with state-issued "debt-free" coinage.
The ancient Romans studied Solon’s reforms and 150 years later copied his ideas and created their own fiat money system under Lex Aternia in 454 BC.
Fiat currencies have been around since man began trading.  The Spartans banned gold coins and replaced them with iron disks with little intrinsic value.  In early Rome bronze tablets were favoured.  Their worth was determined by law, much like the dollar, euro or pound today.

http://www.goldcore....s-stir-opinions

Here is the IMF Working Paper (pdf).  An excellent read:
http://www.imf.org/e...012/wp12202.pdf

Anyone for a debt jubilee?

Edited by hacktorp, 22 October 2012 - 03:35 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

That article espouses almost exactly the approach I have been advocating.
I found this quote telling;

Quote

It is a myth - innocently propagated by the great Adam Smith - that money developed as a commodity-based or gold-linked means of exchange. Gold was always highly valued, but that is another story. Metal-lovers often conflate the two issues.

Br Cornelius

[hacktorp]

Br Cornelius, on 22 October 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

That article espouses almost exactly the approach I have been advocating.
I found this quote telling;



Br Cornelius

Ha...I had difficulty at first finding where that quote came from but I see it came from here:
http://removingthesh...o-dethrone.html

I can now see this IMF thing is gaining steam pretty quickly.

It would be the biggest change/upheaval in world finances in several hundred years.  You can be certain the private bank oligarchs will not go quietly into the good night.

I say to hell with 'em.  There is a better way to manage money supply than giving over total control to rothschilds and warburgs, et al.

If this really gains big traction, there's gonna be some serious brinkmanship happening worldwide.

But if it needs to get ugly before it gets better, I'm fine with it.  Get ready.

[DieChecker]

Quote

In 1931, faced with a run on its gold, Britain abandoned the gold standard; the British authorities were no longer committed to redeem their currency with gold. In early 1933 the United States followed suit. Although the tie of the dollar to gold was partially restored at a later date, one very important feature of the old gold standard was omitted. The public was not permitted to exchange dollars for gold; only foreign central banks were allowed to do so. In this way the U.S. authorities avoided the risk of a run on their gold stocks by a panicky public.

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.

Edited by DieChecker, 22 October 2012 - 08:25 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

hacktorp, on 22 October 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

Ha...I had difficulty at first finding where that quote came from but I see it came from here:
http://removingthesh...o-dethrone.html

I can now see this IMF thing is gaining steam pretty quickly.

It would be the biggest change/upheaval in world finances in several hundred years.  You can be certain the private bank oligarchs will not go quietly into the good night.

I say to hell with 'em.  There is a better way to manage money supply than giving over total control to rothschilds and warburgs, et al.

If this really gains big traction, there's gonna be some serious brinkmanship happening worldwide.

But if it needs to get ugly before it gets better, I'm fine with it.  Get ready.

The comments below the article are funny.

Br Cornelius