Johnny C wrote:I wasn't aware that we'd established that the Depression had a singular driving reason for its collapse.

To support their view that monetary forces caused the Great Depression, Friedman and Schwartz revisited the historical record and identified a series of errors--errors of both commission and omission--made by the Federal Reserve in the late 1920s and early 1930s. According to Friedman and Schwartz, each of these policy mistakes led to an undesirable tightening of monetary policy, as reflected in sharp declines in the money supply. Drawing on their historical evidence about the effects of money on the economy, Friedman and Schwartz argued that the declines in the money stock generated by Fed actions--or inactions--could account for the drops in prices and output that subsequently occurred.

Guess who said that? The current chairman of the Federal Reserve, Bernanke! I don't have a need for the conspiratorial claims...the Fed behaves much like the left and present day right. It creates the problems and decides its only solution is more of the stuff that created the problem! The gold standard could not be sustained because of the central bank, good intentioned or not, much like the market can't operate properly with good intentioned regulations and taxes. Blaming the free market is the biggest mistake made by the left.

Rick Reuben wrote:

alex maiolo wrote:So, to be clear, the rural fundamentalists, who don't really make this state run financially, could screw those of us in the part of the state who do.

Holy shit. Alex, did I just catch you arguing that a person's vote or political wishes should be devalued because they aren't big money earners?

Isn't there an opposite side of the coin here? What you see as 'screwing you' is 'helping themselves' in their world, isn't it? When does the majority not get to have their wish? When the majority are hillbillies?

Dude, you do this all the time.

No, my point is that there are two major types of people in this state:
The people in the middle who work in biotech, engineering, etc.
The people in the East and West who are, for the most part, supported by the revenue produced by the others.

The rural people barely outnumber the metro people, that's why this is a Red State, even though not as much as other southern states.

A significant portion of the state, let's call them "culturally different" lest you call me a snob again, who have worked hard to make this state a juggernaut - we have more college degrees per capita than anywhere else in the world, BTW - would *barely* have their wishes trounced if, say, abortion came to a vote.
I'm not saying the rural people are worth less than anyone, I'm saying the metro people's opinions are worth *something*, and if they lost on this issue, say 48/52, your answer is "go someplace else?"
As if it's that simple?
They've spent the last 25 years making this place a center of tech badassness and you think they could just pack it up?

Regardless of how my comments seemed, that's the point I'm raising, I think it's abundantly clear that's what I'm asking about, and I'm curious about your answer.
It ties in with my argument that the Libertarian idea that soultions like these are simply solved through state's rights is valid.

-A

Rick Reuben wrote:Why is fiat currency superior?

It's not tied to a finite source. It also strikes me as a more globalised method of economy. It's tough for an impoverished nation to restore its economy if its currency has to be tied to a valuable material that some nations have (or can trade for more of) and they don't.

Maybe there's a third option available. Flaws in one system don't necessarily justify regression to the previous system.

Also it has no real relationship to either capital, land or labour so the banking system would have to constantly abstract currency values from equivalent worth and invest rather than let such values emerge from market trade and ownership. In an international world where all workers require equal rights, finite resources and absolute values have no place in a market that is almost purely relative and subjective.

Really though, the best argument against gold standard is that there is no real reason for it. It is the most abitrary economic system, therefore the less realistic.

Gold standard was the flat earth theory of economics. It still is, the only reasons for its persistance are traditional and not economical. In order to justify its return you need a wingnut theory like, say, NWO-ism, disbelieving peak oil, or vulgar marxism.

Filed next to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Hey Rick, what do you think of http://henrymakow.com?

http://www.henrymakow.com/000223.html

The internet centre of Rothschild orientated, NWOist castration anxiety.

big_dave wrote:Really though, the best argument against gold standard is that there is no real reason for it. It is the most abitrary economic system, therefore the less realistic.

Less realistic than just paper that represents nothing? I'm not surprised you support a system where all you get to show for your labor is colored toilet paper.

big_dave wrote:Gold standard was the flat earth theory of economics. It still is, the only reasons for its persistance are traditional and not economical. In order to justify its return you need a wingnut theory like, say, NWO-ism, disbelieving peak oil, or vulgar marxism.

The real reason to bring it back, other than wanting something tangible, is the fact that the value of the dollar would be accurately reflected. You can't have that with monopoly money. There's nothing keeping the fiat tied to ground, and nothing to make it reliable.

Rick Reuben wrote:

alex maiolo wrote:e
Dude, you do this all the time.

No, my point is that there are two major types of people in this state:
The people in the middle who work in biotech, engineering, etc.
The people in the East and West who are, for the most part, supported by the revenue produced by the others.

Alex, it's clear...

No, it's not clear.
It's clear to you because you are, as usual, hell bent on making sure your impression of a poster, me in this case, is what you say it is because you just like being right.

This is one country, not a bunch of kingdoms. Until this is 50 little countries, then I think it's a bad idea to let sections of the US adopt extreme policies, even by a narrow margin, when it can alienate people who have lived in an area for a long time.

You regularly accuse people of dodging questions.
However, you still haven't addressed my concern. Rather, you are clinging to the idea that I am a snob.
Whatever. Fine.
My point all along has been this, and I still want to know:
1)How do you reconcile telling active, happily ensconced members of a state that they are no longer welcome in their homes because a law has changed regionally?
2)How do you reconcile things when a adjacent state's policies adversely affect your own?

People have asked you these questions in one form or another and I haven't really seen an answer yet, just a bunch of hot air about how so and so's a snob, Canadian, a Candian snob, a dipshit, or an oppresssor of individual or (even slight) majority rights.

Maybe you took it as an attack, but it never was. I'm not callling you an idiot, as you do to so many people, and I'm not challenging your intellect. I just want to know - how do you Libertarians deal with extremely important issues like these? A disproprtionate number of my friends who work in RTP are gay - like one in five. If my state said sodomy was illegal, how is it right to tell them they are no longer free to live their lives as they've done here for so many years?

It's one thing to say when you go to Turkey, you'd better not act gay, or you'll get thrown in the slammer,as little as I like it. It's another to say if you vacation on Hilton Head island, you'd better keep it in your pants, homo.

What is the simple, no prooooooblem, Libertarian answer for the two things I've laid out, which I'll distill for you right now, again:
Social
Environmental

In between calling me a stuck up prick, can you answer that for me? I'm genuinely curious. If you don't know, and you say so, that's OK. I don't claim to know why I feel the way I do about every little thing I have an opinion on, just the ones I've given the most thought to.

-A

Im actually kinda surprised how many people are arguing for fiat currency here. I always thought the gold standard would be something the left would adopt, because it helps out the poor/middle class so much by eliminating inflation. It creates stable price levels, and doesnt leave wages behind in the dust.

When you don't have your currency tied to anything, you get the kind of money printing that you see with a George Bush or at a more extreme amount of hyperinflation, Nazi Germany. (NOT Hiltering the thread; theyre just a great example of money printing gone crazy).

Skronk wrote:Less realistic than just paper that represents nothing? I'm not surprised you support a system where all you get to show for your labor is colored toilet paper.

This where it is easy to get frustrated with political debates here, because you guys attack, attack, attack while making the most basic mistakes.

Coins and notes are not currency in themselves, they are legal tender. That is why most nations have "I promise to pay the bearer the sum of ... pounds/relevant unit" written on the notes, rather than "this is the sum of ..."

Currency is an abstract value based on relative worth of various factors. Tender is the notification that a person holds a particular amount of that currency to use. Currency is very, very fluid. You labour and your capital gives you currency, which due to interest and credit can fluctuate wildly when held in account.

By its nature, currency held against the gold standard would be hardly a direct value (because it can't be, there is no law of nature or math that puts a certain amount of gold against a dollar), but an entirely arbitrary ratio. Who fixes that? You when you go to the shops to buy your copy of Fortean Times?

Tender is not currency. That is why legal documents refer to your "monies", plural. All your tender, and relevent accounts.

The real reason to bring it back, other than wanting something tangible, is the fact that the value of the dollar would be accurately reflected. You can't have that with monopoly money. There's nothing keeping the fiat tied to ground, and nothing to make it reliable.

Why would we want "reliable" currency? If there was a general strike, a domestic military event or a change in the agricultural industry I would hope that the banks would be flexible enough to handle it.

This is the nonsense of paranoid people, hoarding their money under the bed for when the revolution comes and everyone else is bankrupt. In reality I'd take my increased rights and confidence with my finances against hoarding certainty. My savings are not worth nearly as much to me as that.

Before I am paid, my salary is worth a lot of things. It is my holiday time, my sick leave, my potential credit with my employer, my potential credit to a lender, the variable on my bonus, my investment within the company. On each month the worth of the "salary" is turned into legal tender by the cheque fixing it to an interest/credit-free value that is paid into my account, which I can then use in fixed amounts to buy lager, records and ham. You know what? I love that flexibility. I like the flexible so-called "fiat" currency because it offers my employer an incentive to give me those entitlements by making it flexible enough to do so. I am sure that under a less flexible, less centralised system I wouldn't be able to expect the treatment most employees, borrowers and savers, because it would hurt employers and financial institutions too much (i.e. risk associated with an abitrary currency) to expect them to respond in such a favourable way. They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

And this is before we start to look at the international situation. Spare a thought for those who work in mines and quarries in developing nations. I hate to be an ole cotton sock Marxist here, but the value of gold is not innate. Part of that value comes from its expensive production and its refinement process, which is different today than when it was the most valuable substance on earth.

big_dave wrote:Coins and notes are not currency in themselves, they are legal tender. That is why most nations have "I promise to pay the bearer the sum of ... pounds/relevant unit" written on the notes, rather than "this is the sum of ..."

Currency is an abstract value based on relative worth of various factors. Tender is the notification that a person holds a particular amount of that currency to use. Currency is very, very fluid. You labour and your capital gives you currency, which due to interest and credit can fluctuate wildly when held in account...

...Tender is not currency. That is why legal documents refer to your "monies", plural. All your tender, and relevent accounts.

This is the most obvious thing you've probably posted here. Congrats.

I didn't make the mistake to think tender is the actual currency*, but the simple fact is, fiat is the ultimate arbitrary creation, because it's not based in the real world, besides the word of the fed. I ultimately don't care about the gold, but what the gold represents. Having something tangible as its basis would keep prices from sky rocketing. Yes, even tender based on gold is man made, but it is not transparent, and because it's not as flexible, or more accurately, less manipulatable.

big_dave wrote:Why would we want "reliable" currency? If there was a general strike, a domestic military event or a change in the agricultural industry I would hope that the banks would be flexible enough to handle it.

It wouldn't matter what your bank would do, it matters what the value of the fiat is after a change. You can still see the same amount you earned and invested, but it would be worth less.

*revised:

title 31 wrote:United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

I made the same mistake as Big_Dave.