|
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 |
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
I feel like you have this in the reverse. It's gold that has value purely and only because people perceive it as valuable. The US dollar actually has something beyond that creating its value: the threat of governmental retribution should you refuse it as payment for debts. This is why you can walk into the store and buy something with a $20 bill, but if you want to buy something with gold you first must seek out someone who actively wants gold and sell it to him.
If people decided they didn't want gold tomorrow, then gold would have very little value. If people decided they didn't want dollars tomorrow, they'd still have to contend with legal tender laws. Admittedly, people are unlikely to simply decide they don't want gold anymore tomorrow. They're also, however, unlikely to decide they simply don't want dollars. The value of the dollar drops because of bad monetary policy, not because of anything inherently wrong or problematic with fiat currency. A well managed fiat currency would be just fine.
Some people say a gold standard would be good to enforce discipline in this regard, but let's get real. We've tried gold standards, and when governments don't want to be disciplined anymore, they just drop the standard. It's like making the walls of your jail out of paper; it might look like a wall, but it's not going to stop the prisoners from walking out when they care to. |
what you said is true about the legalities of fiat currency but the one thing I would point out is that the threat of force does not create value and so this whole idea of doing so is bankrupt to begin with (and evidently it doesn't seem to be working out). This is something Ayn Rand talks about in detail in Atlas Shrugged.
And I'm not sure why you are so against a currency that is backed by something of value. It's worked out quite well before, plus the alternative of not backing it with anything has proven to not work as evidenced by past and current currency crisises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| what you said is true about the legalities of fiat currency but the one thing I would point out is that the threat of force does not create value and so this whole idea of doing so is bankrupt to begin with (and evidently it doesn't seem to be working out). |
The threat of force does create value. That's the simple truth: avoiding punishment from the government is something people value. Contracts have value because they're government enforced, for example, and most Libertarians support contract law. You're going to have to be very careful here if you want to avoid painting yourself into a corner; the only social system which swears off of "threat-based value" is anarchy. Are you an anarchist?
| recessiontime wrote: |
| And I'm not sure why you are so against a currency that is backed by something of value. |
I'm not particularly against it, I'm just not fanatically for it. I just want a well-managed currency. I don't think a gold standard ensures that in the long run, so I'm not fanatically supportive of a gold standard.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| It's worked out quite well before ... |
It's never worked out in the long term; the present follows from the past, and the present isn't a thriving gold-standard-driven utopia. Gold standards are proven failures as enforcers of discipline regarding monetary policy, they're far too easily shrugged off. If we want a disciplined monetary policy, it's going to take something other than a gold standard to get it, and once we have that something else, there's no particularly need for the gold standard.
Gold standards also create a strong incentive for governments to seize citizen gold, leaving you fewer havens to store your value in even if you want one. I don't think that's a good thing; far better I think for gold to be an alternative you can deal in if you choose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The US dollar actually has something beyond that creating its value: the threat of governmental retribution should you refuse it as payment for debts. |
But aren't all paper currencies backed with the threat of government retribution? That still doesn't stop them from being refused for payment if people lose confidence in it. The public just switches to another currency they have more faith in, be it gold or another foreign currency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The threat of force does create value. That's the simple truth: avoiding punishment from the government is something people value. |
no, people do not value the avoidance of suffering. They rather not have it exist to begin with wouldn't you think?
| Fox wrote: |
| Contracts have value because they're government enforced, for example, and most Libertarians support contract law. You're going to have to be very careful here if you want to avoid painting yourself into a corner; the only social system which swears off of "threat-based value" is anarchy. Are you an anarchist? |
this is just a blatant red herring. Contracts have value to people obviously because it gives insurance against people that cheat (and you can probably do this without violence).
You are conflating 2 different issues. We are talking about the value of currency. It's worthless paper and force backing it does not make it valuable. That's like saying you actually value horse dung because it you don't someone will break down your door and break your legs.
| fox wrote: |
| I'm not particularly against it, I'm just not fanatically for it. I just want a well-managed currency. I don't think a gold standard ensures that in the long run, so I'm not fanatically supportive of a gold standard. |
fair enough, the gold standards has many weaknesses, nobody will deny that.
| fox wrote: |
It's never worked out in the long term; the present follows from the past, and the present isn't a thriving gold-standard-driven utopia. Gold standards are proven failures as enforcers of discipline regarding monetary policy, they're far too easily shrugged off. If we want a disciplined monetary policy, it's going to take something other than a gold standard to get it, and once we have that something else, there's no particularly need for the gold standard.
Gold standards also create a strong incentive for governments to seize citizen gold, leaving you fewer havens to store your value in even if you want one. I don't think that's a good thing; far better I think for gold to be an alternative you can deal in if you choose. |
the gold standard is only bad when a countries economy wants to expand. That's the reason why it was abandoned. If you cannot give credit out to people, they can't buy businesses, they have to save and spend. Do you really think the economy can expand forever on a finite planet? The answer is obviously it can't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| The threat of force does create value. That's the simple truth: avoiding punishment from the government is something people value. |
no, people do not value the avoidance of suffering. |
I certainly do!
| recessiontime wrote: |
| They rather not have it exist to begin with wouldn't you think? |
Sure, in some idealized sense. Back in reality, where individual citizens do have a propensity towards harming others, I'm content with the government using some measure of coercion to keep them in line.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Contracts have value because they're government enforced, for example, and most Libertarians support contract law. You're going to have to be very careful here if you want to avoid painting yourself into a corner; the only social system which swears off of "threat-based value" is anarchy. Are you an anarchist? |
this is just a blatant red herring. Contracts have value to people obviously because it gives insurance against people that cheat (and you can probably do this without violence). |
It only gives insurance against people that cheat because the government will back the contract with coercive force. Without the government, a contract has no real force at all. It might cause an honest man who accidentally violates an agreement to correct his course, but it's not going to stop intentional fraud. This is the reason we have courts to settle such matters, after all.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| You are conflating 2 different issues. |
No, I'm not, because they have the same essence: the legitimacy (or hypothetical lack thereof) of governmental coercion, and whether or not said coercion can create value. I say the value of fiat money and the value of a contract both come from the force of governmental coercion behind them. You seem to be saying the former is totally without value and the latter is valuable for some reason independent of governmental coercion that I don't fully understand.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| We are talking about the value of currency. It's worthless paper and force backing it does not make it valuable. |
Yes, it does. Just looking at the world shows us this is true: people accept dollars as payment despite them being what you call "worthless paper." There is something making people see value in them, and it isn't the substance they're made of.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| That's like saying you actually value horse dung because it you don't someone will break down your door and break your legs. |
If someone would break my legs for not owning horse dung, and I couldn't avoid said consequence no matter what I did, I assure you I'd own horse dung and place value on the ownership in question. So would you, because you're a rational individual that values the continued use of his legs more than making some abstract point about horse dung.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| the gold standard is only bad when a countries economy wants to expand. That's the reason why it was abandoned. If you cannot give credit out to people, they can't buy businesses, they have to save and spend. Do you really think the economy can expand forever on a finite planet? The answer is obviously it can't. |
I don't think an economy can expand forever on a finite planet. I don't think we're going to be limited to one planet forever, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| The threat of force does create value. That's the simple truth: avoiding punishment from the government is something people value. |
no, people do not value the avoidance of suffering. They rather not have it exist to begin with wouldn't you think?
[. |
However what individual who has lived long enough has not experienced some form of suffering? It's unrealistic. All one can do is try to minimize it (avoid it as much as possible.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And btw Corea, as evidence that you're wrong, look at savings rates in the last couple years here in the USA. They've risen dramatically. Spending habits have changed significantly. That's a big reason the economy has hardly rebounded: consumers are spending a fraction of what they used to dish out. |
Yet that does not a dress the issue I was quoting.
| Quote: |
Because of inflation, both parents have to work to have enough money to support themselves. |
So people spent like mad for decades, now they are trying to save ... How in any way does that mean that both parents MUST work?? Sure, they must work to maintain a certain lifestyle, but MUST they both work to live? To enjoy life?
To buy a 2400sqft place, you're going need two incomes. To buy two or three cars per family, you're going to need two incomes. To buy airline trips, you're going to need two incomes.
but to support a family? To simply live a decent life without all of those extras. Is anyone here actually saying it is IMPOSSIBLE to live in America on a single income of, say, 50 or 60k a year? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hotwire wrote: |
Wow great reasoning skills there Corporeal. How about having both parents work in order to fullfil themselves and follow the careers they've always wanted?
Aways the black and white outlook
 |
And you're making fun of MY reasoning skillS? Perhaps you should check your READING skills. Where did I say both parents shouldn't work? That they shouldn't follow their careers?? read the post above, I simply questioned whether it was absolutely necessary for both parents to work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fox, The removal of a threat is not payment, it's not a value. the negation of a negative is not a reward, it's not a value. The withdrawal of government thugs is not an 'incentive'. The offer to not break my legs is not a value. It's not practical to reward those that uphold a protection racket - this is what you are advocating and proudly.
ill get back to you on a thought-out reply to your post later. I'm actually typing these posts out of a pharmacy while dispensing medication.
Last edited by recessiontime on Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| fox, The removal of a threat is not payment, it's not a value. the negation of a negative is not a reward, it's not a value. The withdrawal of government thugs is not an 'incentive'. |
And yet, for all you complain of fiat currency being valueless paper, you'll accept it if paid in it, as will everyone else. There's clearly an incentive occuring there. Further, people hoard this paper currency; they clearly place value on it. As you've said, there's nothing inherent about the paper itself that makes it worthy of such value. Thus, the value people place on it must be derived from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is the government.
I really am not fond of how often Libertarians attempt to argue their way around reality using vague technicalities based on their own personal definitions of words. It doesn't make for good discussion. People very clearly value fiat money, and the reason they value it is very clearly that government-enforced legal tender laws make it an effective means of exchange. Trying to argue that said money has no value is as such a futile effort. Far better to focus purely on why you think your proposed alternative is superior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
The prosperity of global capitalism requires that we can inflate at will in response to increased demand. But increased demand must be of the desirable kind - from new ideas and new products that excite people and entice consumption - rather than from inflation in and of itself. Gold standard-advocates retort that inflation to offset inflation is an inevitable byproduct of fiat currency, but I'm not sure I agree. I think it's an inevitable byproduct of something else entirely - the incentive that politicians have, under democracy, to please the masses with big fake booms.
But aren't there any examples from history of governments doing what's right, potentially at the expense of becoming very unpopular and being voted out in the next election? Why yes! The Thatcher government brought inflation down from 30% to 3% - and how? Tax cuts for the rich, privatization, cuts in public spending, increasing interest rates, and low levels of government debt. Indeed, one of the very first consequences of Thatcher's premiership was a gigantic recession and unemployment didn't start to fall until 7 years after she took office. But in 2006, she was voted number 5 in 'Heroes of Our Time' by readers of leftist rag, the New Statesman (alongside the likes of Nelson Mandela, Chomsky and the Dalai Lama).
Clearly then, the philosophy of Thatcherism must lead the way!
Imposing a gold standard on a population is immoral. If the worst came to the worst and the fiat currency system collapsed (that is, if we started printing these), competitive markets would determine any replacement. Gold might well emerge is a leading candidate anyway - and so be it - but there might be a handful of winners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
but to support a family? To simply live a decent life without all of those extras. Is anyone here actually saying it is IMPOSSIBLE to live in America on a single income of, say, 50 or 60k a year? |
1. That's higher than the average American salary. Much higher than the average salary in many regions of the country.
2. Not impossible but difficult in parts of this country. I make 50K, have no car, and live in a 500 sq. apartment (that has no TV or anything remotely fancy). I don't save jack although I will freely admit I'm not nearly as frugal as I could be. I eat out a lot and go out drinking a couple times a week. If i were to cut back on those two endeavors, I might be able to save 200-300 extra bucks per month. Now maybe that's enough to support a kid and wife, but that pretty much eliminates my ability to save anything. And if I didn't have montly student loan payments, I'd have a bit of a cushion too I suppose.
On the other hand, I'd have to get a bigger apartment or a house if I had a family. That would mean living in a crappy neighborhood or way out in the burbs. Burbs requires a car, which is an expense that I currently don't have. Crappy neighborhood would likely mean I'd have to send my child to a crappy school. Fun times.
But hey, I guess I should be happy because I could provide a roof for my imaginary family and put food on the table (but little to nothing else).
And I don't mean to be complaining about my living situation. I am quite content and am very aware that I am relatively well off. I am merely providing my own personal example to give you an idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thnks for sharing that personal info. I know that on forums such as these, people are not always willing to do so - so I appreciate it.
I've been looking for the 'average american salary', and it seems to differ a lot per region (and every other demographic breakdown you can imagine).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_Joe#Income
As you said, region is important, but would not the income often reflect the region? I'd wager that in SF XYZ job would most likely pay more than the same job in Boondocks, USA. Perhaps though you know better than I in that regard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
the gold standard is only bad when a countries economy wants to expand. |
In other words the gold standard is bad all the time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
I really am not fond of how often Libertarians attempt to argue their way around reality using vague technicalities based on their own personal definitions of words. It doesn't make for good discussion. People very clearly value fiat money, and the reason they value it is very clearly that government-enforced legal tender laws make it an effective means of exchange. Trying to argue that said money has no value is as such a futile effort. Far better to focus purely on why you think your proposed alternative is superior. |
When you say 'Libertarians' you mean ontheway or visitorq. Be honest.
If you want a libertarian thread that's factual and chock full of links and evidence, look at the Depression thread. It just doesn't appear libertarian b/c all the evidence inoculates against depictions of it being ideological.
Ya-Ta Boy has this rant where he essentially equates Ron Paul to Lenin b/c they're both ideological. What he means is, their ideologies are equally distant from mine. We should all be encouraged to root our ideas in facts and figures. But, unfortunately, interpretation comes into play at some point with all of us.
The whole 'liberals are X' thing is an annoying Fox News posture, and surprise! its just as annoying when liberals do it to diminish, say, the Tea Partiers. Its much better when liberals patiently and calmly show how the Tea Party's proposals show less interest in fiscal accountability and solvency than simply avoiding taxes.
| Fox wrote: |
| A well managed fiat currency would be just fine. |
We've had a fiat currency for about 40 years now, I think since Nixon in the 70s. My sense is that fiscal accountability went off the rails a little after that time, and only briefly returned with Clinton. And he exerted a lot of political capital to simply balance the budget.
Defenders of fiat have a greater burden than their opponents. Fiat currency is the new thing, from a historical perspective. I remember when a (liberal) friend of mine called a gold standard 'a loonie fringe idea.' I had to restrain my reaction. I had to recall that the bubble has a profound impact. |
|
| 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
