Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
the constitution party-party of the founders

Home // Other Parties



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
thelast007
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
One potential problem with the gold standard could be deflation.

One could argue that it is possible we have more goods, services, and production than what is available in gold.

Inflation would probably never happen but deflation would have to be guarded against. But the theory is that if deflation happens all around the board it really is not felt. But like inflation the adjustment process is a terror. That is to say when prices go up wages do not go up right along at the same time if at all.

With deflation if a new broadly used product is produced or provided will prices drop all around to support the life of the new product or will it make it nonviable? Can prices go too low? If we buy more gold as the goods and services grow equally then we are back to the very similar fiat system in a sense.

So it is a lot about making sure goods, services, and production equally match what ever the standard of currency is and keeping it in circulation and not ending up..... well, I won't get into that.

I like the gold standard though because it would always keep the dollar strong. The system works more for the people when you look at it but it too could have its problems.
Back to top
IrishOutlaw
Newbie


Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 18
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thelast007 wrote:
One potential problem with the gold standard could be deflation.

One could argue that it is possible we have more goods, services, and production than what is available in gold.

Inflation would probably never happen but deflation would have to be guarded against. But the theory is that if deflation happens all around the board it really is not felt. But like inflation the adjustment process is a terror. That is to say when prices go up wages do not go up right along at the same time if at all.

With deflation if a new broadly used product is produced or provided will prices drop all around to support the life of the new product or will it make it nonviable? Can prices go too low? If we buy more gold as the goods and services grow equally then we are back to the very similar fiat system in a sense.

So it is a lot about making sure goods, services, and production equally match what ever the standard of currency is and keeping it in circulation and not ending up..... well, I won't get into that.

I like the gold standard though because it would always keep the dollar strong. The system works more for the people when you look at it but it too could have its problems.


I think that in the case of deflation, enough people would start to cash in and the gold price would go back up. I don't know for sure, but it seems I have read that somewhere.

I like the gold standard and wish there was a way to go back to it, but I am also a realist and realize, you can't trust some people these days, lol.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
IrishOutlaw wrote:

Tell me what it is about a return to the gold standard that you think is stupid please.


Gold has no more intrinsic worth than anything else. Its use as a means of exchange is arbitrary in that sense.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
exton wrote:
I consider his track record to be just as relevent as his status as an authority figure. That is to say, not at all relevent.

That you consider Greenspan's history as an economist and track record as head of the fed not at all relevant in weighing his opinion on economic issues forces me to discount your opinion on such issues. I might differ with Greenspan on some things, but that doesn't mean I blithely ignore his credentials.


When rational thought disagrees with alan greenspan, alan greenspan loses, regardless of his credentials.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
When rational thought disagrees with alan greenspan, alan greenspan loses, regardless of his credentials.

Well, since you are clearly the final arbiter of what constitutes rational thought, it must be my failing that I am unconvinced by your arguments. Wink
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You intimated that my reason for rejecting greenspan, even despite his credentials, was arbitrary.

It was not. My conclusion is a thought-out one, not a randomly chosen one. It doesn't make sense to reject a reasoned conclusion based on an opinion backed only by authority.
Back to top
IrishOutlaw
Newbie


Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 18
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
IrishOutlaw wrote:

Tell me what it is about a return to the gold standard that you think is stupid please.


Gold has no more intrinsic worth than anything else. Its use as a means of exchange is arbitrary in that sense.


That is why no one has come up with anything like a worldwide system to sell pieces of paper that say you own a small part of some business you have no other interest in.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
RAther than using opaque sarcasm, explain yourself. Or, explain yourself in addition to opaque sarcasm. Whatever works best for you. But do explain yourself.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
You intimated that my reason for rejecting greenspan, even despite his credentials, was arbitrary.

It was not. My conclusion is a thought-out one, not a randomly chosen one. It doesn't make sense to reject a reasoned conclusion based on an opinion backed only by authority.

What I intimated was that you did not appear to have articulated any legitimate reason for dismissing him whatsoever, and as such your conclusion seemed based on little more than an over-inflated sense of the worth of your own opinion. If your "thought-out" conclusion was that Greenspan never presided over a gold-standard, and so he isn't entitled to an opinion on the subject," I would counter that by your own standard, I shouldn't give any weight to your opinion on the gold-standard question, because I'm quite sure you have likewise never overseen the workings of a national currency backed by gold.

And please understand that it is not your position on the gold-standard itself with which I take issue; it is the seemingly capricious way you dismiss the opinions of persons clearly far more qualified to speak on the issue than you. I would respond similarly to someone who suggested that Schwarzkopf isn't entitled to an opinion on a ground war in Asia if he's never waged one.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If i'm going to think something, i'm going to have a reason for it. Preferably a good one.

A good reason is not: "because this guy with qualifications said so". That's not an explanation of an idea, and it's not a reasoned defense of an idea. It's little more than a dismissal.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
If i'm going to think something, i'm going to have a reason for it. Preferably a good one.

Well good, so long as you have a reason for what you think; no sense in sharing it. What's important is that you have one and you know it. Never mind whether I know what it is; I'll just guess. It'll be fun that way.

exton wrote:
A good reason is not: "because this guy with qualifications said so". That's not an explanation of an idea, and it's not a reasoned defense of an idea. It's little more than a dismissal.

I agree completely. Just curious though... who offered that lame-ass justification for their position? I just want to know so I won't take anything he or she writes seriously!

Of course, I did mention that Greenspan once wrote in support of the gold-standard, only I didn't mention it to support the notion that the gold standard was or wasn't a good idea. Rather, I mentioned it by way of saying that your argument--that Paul's support for it proved he couldn't be taken seriously on any issue--didn't work for me, because there are issues on which I do take Greenspan seriously, and he also once wrote in favor of a gold-standard.

(This, by the way, is an example of how I share my detailed thinking with you, just in case you ever decide to try sharing some of yours with me. Please don't feel obligated though!) Wink
Back to top
IrishOutlaw
Newbie


Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 18
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
RAther than using opaque sarcasm, explain yourself. Or, explain yourself in addition to opaque sarcasm. Whatever works best for you. But do explain yourself.


Ok, I will try to not be sarcastic.

Your life and everything you own have no intristic value, that is not a very difficult statement to make. What makes things of any value is what the market would bear for the product or service. To me your arguements against the gold standard aren't open to debate. You say it and the people that advocate it are unintelligent, even though the majority of the worlds economists feel there is reason now to return to the gold standard or a similar standard. The European Union is an example of a geo-political area that has come up with a standard currency. I don't know if you have noticed, but the dollar has been around for many many many years, and the euro has been around since January 1, 2002. Our current SDR is based partly on the Euro. The other currencies that make up our SDR are the pound, the yen, and of course the dollar. If you take your dollar bill down to the currency exchange, you will get .63 cents, or you can get .55 cents for your euro, or .15 for your yen, or .17 cents for your sterling pound. The Euro is still less than the dollar, but it is still out performing the dollar worldwide. And if OPEC switches to the Euro, I imagine that will devalue the dollar to less then the Euro. The list of the countries that use the Euro is extensive and growing everyday. The dollar, not so much. When we borrow money as a country, our debt is figured on the SDR at the time. We will never pay off our national debt. We would be better off if we could put it on our credit card. The gold standard allows a main body to set and stabilize currency rates.

But I am not an economist, I am an artist, so I have to draw my conclusions from some of the greatest economic minds in the world that say, it is time for a return to the gold standard.

Speaking of things having no intristic value, did you know the US LOST$40 million dollars last year minting pennies? And that was just in materials. Greenspan said we should get rid of pennies almost 30 years ago.
Back to top
IrishOutlaw
Newbie


Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 18
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
If i'm going to think something, i'm going to have a reason for it. Preferably a good one.

A good reason is not: "because this guy with qualifications said so". That's not an explanation of an idea, and it's not a reasoned defense of an idea. It's little more than a dismissal.


So if you go to the doctor with a headache and he says it is a tumor what are you going to do? Take aspirin for the headache or do something about the tumor?
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
IrishOutlaw wrote:
exton wrote:
If i'm going to think something, i'm going to have a reason for it. Preferably a good one.

A good reason is not: "because this guy with qualifications said so". That's not an explanation of an idea, and it's not a reasoned defense of an idea. It's little more than a dismissal.


So if you go to the doctor with a headache and he says it is a tumor what are you going to do? Take aspirin for the headache or do something about the tumor?


The doctor saying it's a tumour seems like a good reason to me.
Back to top
thelast007
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="IrishOutlaw"]
Quote:
And if OPEC switches to the Euro, I imagine that will devalue the dollar to less then the Euro. The list of the countries that use the Euro is extensive and growing everyday. The dollar, not so much.


Amen! The 100% truth and a huge problem the U.S. is facing. Iraq and Venezuela looked towards the Euro and you know the story on them. Next Iran announced they were switching to the Euro and you see the story developing on them.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Other Parties All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 3 of 9

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites
My Big Breasts