|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Hey mises, what do you think? |
I told you in the previous thread that I've corrected him before.
| Quote: |
| You may not like the Fed, |
It is bad public policy. It has failed at what it was (officially) created to do. I don't like strawberry ice cream. I am strongly opposed to bad policy. While I may have used "like" before it isn't an appropriate description.
| Quote: |
| but in regard to the points specifically mentioned above, am I right? |
I have skipped the vast majority of your discussion with him. So I don't know. And I'm too lazy/busy this week to dig in. Maybe on the weekend.
| Quote: |
| Or has visitorq debunked those claims? My claim that Fed remits its earnings was supported by the "Audit of the Department of the Treasury�s Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2005. " |
It claims to pass "most" to Treasury. Who knows. The books are closed. If we believe them, then yes. I'm skeptical, but have no evidence. However, it is a closed institution with zero checks and balances, less a superficial audit of unimportant accounts. Any institution in that regulatory environment will abuse the situation.
| Quote: |
| Is he right that the U.S. Treasury and GAO are lying? |
Maybe he is. Was your government lying about WMD's? Do they lie about drugs? Do they lie like rugs as a hobby? How the hell do we know? Dishonesty would fit the established pattern of behviour far more than would transparency and honesty. No?
The Fed needs some sunshine. Or to be replaced with Hal3000.
| Quote: |
| Are you sure you want to be on visitorq's team? |
Sure. The winds of public sentiment are moving solidly towards my direction. I received my issue of Reason today and there is an excellent article about the winds of change re: monetary policy. When it is online I'll post it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The gold standard was created by the modern state, about 200 years ago. It only survived for about 150 years. How could there even be a gold standard unless there was some central authority to fix it? The gold standard itself seems to be 'socialistic' and unstable. Less so than fiat currency. I think it's obvious but I'll say it anyway: I'm just thinking out loud. What came before the go. stan.? Barter and coins actually made of precious metal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| The gold standard was created by the modern state, about 200 years ago. It only survived for about 150 years. How could there even be a gold standard unless there was some central authority to fix it? The gold standard itself seems to be 'socialistic' and unstable. Less so than fiat currency. I think it's obvious but I'll say it anyway: I'm just thinking out loud. What came before the go. stan.? Barter and coins actually made of precious metal? |
Yes. The gold standard is analogous to gold coins. Under a gold standard, your $20 note, always, equals a given amount of gold. It doesn't "buy" gold it is gold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| The gold standard was created by the modern state, about 200 years ago. It only survived for about 150 years. How could there even be a gold standard unless there was some central authority to fix it? The gold standard itself seems to be 'socialistic' and unstable. Less so than fiat currency. I think it's obvious but I'll say it anyway: I'm just thinking out loud. What came before the go. stan.? Barter and coins actually made of precious metal? |
This is true. However, what would you rather hold, a federal reserve (or Bank of Canada) note or a 2000 year old Roman gold coin? One of these things is not like the other.. One of these things will hold their value.
It isn't an either or. It is possible to have a fiat currency without the inflation. Follow Milton's advice. Replace Ben with a computer that increases supply with GDP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| The gold standard was created by the modern state, about 200 years ago. It only survived for about 150 years. How could there even be a gold standard unless there was some central authority to fix it? The gold standard itself seems to be 'socialistic' and unstable. Less so than fiat currency. I think it's obvious but I'll say it anyway: I'm just thinking out loud. What came before the go. stan.? Barter and coins actually made of precious metal? |
This is true. However, what would you rather hold, a federal reserve (or Bank of Canada) note or a 2000 year old Roman gold coin? One of these things is not like the other.. One of these things will hold their value.
It isn't an either or. It is possible to have a fiat currency without the inflation. Follow Milton's advice. Replace Ben with a computer that increases supply with GDP. |
Yes, it is possible to have a fiat currency without inflation, if it is issued without interest attached. This also presupposes that the government isn't printing it beyond its means to finance unnecessary wars or doling out obscene amounts for corporate welfare etc.
As for the computer idea - it sounds nice in theory, but only if it could accurately calculate current GDP and increase the money supply according to growth. There's also a trust issue (same as with electronic voting machines) since computers are susceptible to whoever controls them and inputs the data. Still better than the Fed though, as long as the information is all open to the public.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| The gold standard was created by the modern state, about 200 years ago. It only survived for about 150 years. How could there even be a gold standard unless there was some central authority to fix it? The gold standard itself seems to be 'socialistic' and unstable. Less so than fiat currency. I think it's obvious but I'll say it anyway: I'm just thinking out loud. What came before the go. stan.? Barter and coins actually made of precious metal? |
Yes. The gold standard is analogous to gold coins. Under a gold standard, your $20 note, always, equals a given amount of gold. It doesn't "buy" gold it is gold. |
I'm surprised to see devout libertarians advocating a mere gold standard, which would seem to require a coercive territorial political-economic agency (a modern state) to determine and uphold it. After all, even with a gold standard, paper money isn't actually gold. It's still just a promise, and some central body has to be able to make it good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| The gold standard was created by the modern state, about 200 years ago. It only survived for about 150 years. How could there even be a gold standard unless there was some central authority to fix it? The gold standard itself seems to be 'socialistic' and unstable. Less so than fiat currency. I think it's obvious but I'll say it anyway: I'm just thinking out loud. What came before the go. stan.? Barter and coins actually made of precious metal? |
This is true. However, what would you rather hold, a federal reserve (or Bank of Canada) note or a 2000 year old Roman gold coin? One of these things is not like the other.. One of these things will hold their value.
It isn't an either or. It is possible to have a fiat currency without the inflation. Follow Milton's advice. Replace Ben with a computer that increases supply with GDP. |
I'm not really sure what you're saying. Ideally I would have a gold coin, but for pragmatic reasons (I'm perpetually broke) I'd prefer a bank note. Hang on, I think I understand - you thought I was skeptical about the gold standard? Not at all, I was in fact musing that the standard maybe doesn't go far enough to right the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| The gold standard was created by the modern state, about 200 years ago. It only survived for about 150 years. How could there even be a gold standard unless there was some central authority to fix it? The gold standard itself seems to be 'socialistic' and unstable. Less so than fiat currency. I think it's obvious but I'll say it anyway: I'm just thinking out loud. What came before the go. stan.? Barter and coins actually made of precious metal? |
Yes. The gold standard is analogous to gold coins. Under a gold standard, your $20 note, always, equals a given amount of gold. It doesn't "buy" gold it is gold. |
I'm surprised to see devout libertarians advocating a mere gold standard, which would seem to require a coercive territorial political-economic agency (a modern state) to determine and uphold it. After all, even with a gold standard, paper money isn't actually gold. It's still just a promise, and some central body has to be able to make it good. |
You wouldn't be challenging some posters here to take the philosophy of liberty to its extreme conclusion, anarcho-capitalism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| The gold standard was created by the modern state, about 200 years ago. It only survived for about 150 years. How could there even be a gold standard unless there was some central authority to fix it? The gold standard itself seems to be 'socialistic' and unstable. Less so than fiat currency. I think it's obvious but I'll say it anyway: I'm just thinking out loud. What came before the go. stan.? Barter and coins actually made of precious metal? |
Yes. The gold standard is analogous to gold coins. Under a gold standard, your $20 note, always, equals a given amount of gold. It doesn't "buy" gold it is gold. |
I'm surprised to see devout libertarians advocating a mere gold standard, which would seem to require a coercive territorial political-economic agency (a modern state) to determine and uphold it. After all, even with a gold standard, paper money isn't actually gold. It's still just a promise, and some central body has to be able to make it good. |
You wouldn't be challenging some posters here to take the philosophy of liberty to its extreme conclusion, anarcho-capitalism? |
No, not challenging. I took visitorq and rusty and ontheway (for example) for anarcho-capitalists and wondered why they were being, as I thought, inconsistent. Maybe I was wrong about that.
I'm not trying to force anyone into an extreme position, but I do wonder why anyone would advocate a system apparently so fatally corrupt that it couldn't make it even two paltry centuries. Granted that its better than the current way of doing things, but return to the gold standard and in another hundred years we'd probably slide back to where we are now. The gold standard does not seem to me as stable as people are making out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think it matters what type of monetary system you've got, governments are always going to try and tinker with the money supply in one way or another. This can happen with fiat paper, commodity backed paper or gold coins. You may find this Cato article interesting, I know I have posted it before.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| The gold standard was created by the modern state, about 200 years ago. It only survived for about 150 years. How could there even be a gold standard unless there was some central authority to fix it? The gold standard itself seems to be 'socialistic' and unstable. Less so than fiat currency. I think it's obvious but I'll say it anyway: I'm just thinking out loud. What came before the go. stan.? Barter and coins actually made of precious metal? |
Yes. The gold standard is analogous to gold coins. Under a gold standard, your $20 note, always, equals a given amount of gold. It doesn't "buy" gold it is gold. |
I'm surprised to see devout libertarians advocating a mere gold standard, which would seem to require a coercive territorial political-economic agency (a modern state) to determine and uphold it. After all, even with a gold standard, paper money isn't actually gold. It's still just a promise, and some central body has to be able to make it good. |
You wouldn't be challenging some posters here to take the philosophy of liberty to its extreme conclusion, anarcho-capitalism? |
No, not challenging. I took visitorq and rusty and ontheway (for example) for anarcho-capitalists and wondered why they were being, as I thought, inconsistent. Maybe I was wrong about that.
I'm not trying to force anyone into an extreme position, but I do wonder why anyone would advocate a system apparently so fatally corrupt that it couldn't make it even two paltry centuries. Granted that its better than the current way of doing things, but return to the gold standard and in another hundred years we'd probably slide back to where we are now. The gold standard does not seem to me as stable as people are making out. |
I don't advocate a gold standard. I would say that all privately issued money should be required to be backed by commodities like gold (or silver), which is what makes it real money in the first place. An interest-free government fiat is also fine, but other legal tenders (which must be backed by real value like gold and silver) should also be allowed.
The problem with a straight up gold standard is that the banker criminals already have all the gold in their possession and have for some time. Even in the absence of a central bank, cornering the gold market allowed the financiers to control the money supply, and thereby exert undue influence over the government. This is one of the main factors leading up to the creation of the Fed. In 1873, the Coinage Act (later known as the "crime of '73") took silver coins out of circulation, which severely contracted the money supply and devastated the economy. This caused a series of panics and allowed the banks to consolidate their power (which was their deliberate plan) and help convince the public to accept a new central bank to "stabilize" the monetary system which they had destabilized in the first place.
Only after the banks had their way with us did they start issuing loans and expanding the money supply again - effectively posing as saviors, when they were the problem to begin with. This is always the case - this is what the World Bank (owned by the same global bankers who control central banks around the world) is now trying to do with all the talk of replacing the dollar with a new global currency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why? What difference would it make if the Fed's policies were carried out by the Treasury Dept (or some other agency) instead? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
Why? What difference would it make if the Fed's policies were carried out by the Treasury Dept (or some other agency) instead? |
Aside from 23 pages of discussion in THIS THREAD, ya might read
Dr. Paul's End The Fed,
or brush up on your history with G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island.
I doubt anyone would allow the same system to exist under a different name or leadership.
It's central banking, fiat currency and fractional reserve banking that are the problems.
The Federal Reserve just happens to be the current manifestation that must be abolished. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
