Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
JavaJones:
And what's wrong with limiting economic growth? Everything else in the *real world* has limits, so eventually economic growth must also be limited. We're just putting off the time line of that limitation artificially for the short-term gain of a few.
- Oshyan
steeladept:
I don't agree with every(most- even)thing that has been done financially, but this I will say... getting off the gold standard was the best thing that has been done in concept, and going back to it is pretty much a no-go, even talking fiscal responsibility. Basing your economy on a limited resource limits your economic growth.
An article on why we shouldn't go to the Gold standard, and an alternative standard to replace the USD.
-wraith808 (June 24, 2011, 04:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
That is a horrible and bogus article that doesn't even understand the concept of money. It is precisely BECAUSE it is scarce that it is a good source to base the monetary system on. The reason everything fluctuates so much is because it is being debased by the controllers of the system. Gold's price fluctuations are not the effect of the value of gold, but rather the relative value of gold. In other words, the reason the price of gold changes so much is because of the amount of fiat currency people are willing to take in it's place. When there is more currency, we call it inflation, and it takes many more dollars/pounds/whatever to buy it. When there is less, or when it is based on a solid relatively fixed quantity commodity, it takes less to buy it.
Think of it this way. In 1950, just for example, it took approximately 20 oz of Gold to buy an average car. That same car cost about $400. (As a side note, in 1950 the dollar was on a gold standard pegged at $20/oz IIRC). Today, it is still about 20 oz. of Gold to buy an average car that cost - what? About $30,000? That, to me means that the price of gold has stayed the same, but the value of the dollar has dropped (not gold going up!). Something to think about...
40hz:
I find it "funny" that maximum limit of debt the US is allowed to make, has to be stretched further...which is first to be handled by their own government and has to have the backing of the IMF as well (as far as I understand).-Shades (June 24, 2011, 04:06 PM)
--- End quote ---
I think they need to do that for any large economic factor regardless of their scruples or ideals. It's happening now with Greece.
And it applies within countries when banks and other institutions need to be bailed out to prevent the entire system from going into a major crisis. Most people understand the necessity even though it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. (Why it's allowed to happen over and over again, however, is another question entirely.)
Reform and pragmatics don't always go hand-in-hand when it comes to the actions of the World Bank, the IMF, and the central banks. Sometimes they do what they should. But more often than not, they do what they must. Situational ethics to be sure - but many times it comes down to a choice between proving a point or minimizing a disaster.
Guess what, the bossman of the IMF has been caught with his pants down.
Starts to become too coincidental, if you ask me.
--- End quote ---
I think it's more an issue of cultural differences and a certain hubris on the part of some highly placed individuals to sometimes believe the rules are different for them because of their status.
I'm perfectly willing to grant Dominique Strauss-Kahn the presumption of innocence. But there appears to be enough reported facts in his case along with his subsequent (and prior) behaviors to make an argument there was reasonable cause for his arrest.
Conspiracy? Possibly.
Suffice to say anybody holding an office like his is bound to acquire formidable enemies over time. But that's a speculative road that has no end, so I'd rather not walk down it.
Actually, I think he was set up because he had accidentally discovered the truth about Area 51 and the aliens that Majestic is in league with (along with their supporters and 'sleeper' agents in the World Bank, the Vatican, The John Birch Society, The Republican National Party, The American Bar Association, The International Red Cross, The Illuminatus, The Board of Directors for Walt Disney Studios, The National Transgender Alliance, the Knights of the House of the Apostles of Eris Esoteric (Kallisti!), the Public Broadcasting Network, and The American Rifle Association, et al.) and was planning on releasing his discovery to Wikileaks except his contact was consumed by flesh-eating zombies that worked for fascist werewolves that work for communist vampires before he could transfer the information! I mean think about it. It's sooo obvious!
,
wraith808:
And what's wrong with limiting economic growth? Everything else in the *real world* has limits, so eventually economic growth must also be limited. We're just putting off the time line of that limitation artificially for the short-term gain of a few.
-JavaJones (June 25, 2011, 12:48 PM)
--- End quote ---
Limiting economic growth without limiting population growth? You *really* want to talk about the haves and the have nots.
I don't agree with every(most- even)thing that has been done financially, but this I will say... getting off the gold standard was the best thing that has been done in concept, and going back to it is pretty much a no-go, even talking fiscal responsibility. Basing your economy on a limited resource limits your economic growth.
An article on why we shouldn't go to the Gold standard, and an alternative standard to replace the USD.
-wraith808 (June 24, 2011, 04:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
That is a horrible and bogus article that doesn't even understand the concept of money. It is precisely BECAUSE it is scarce that it is a good source to base the monetary system on. The reason everything fluctuates so much is because it is being debased by the controllers of the system. Gold's price fluctuations are not the effect of the value of gold, but rather the relative value of gold. In other words, the reason the price of gold changes so much is because of the amount of fiat currency people are willing to take in it's place. When there is more currency, we call it inflation, and it takes many more dollars/pounds/whatever to buy it. When there is less, or when it is based on a solid relatively fixed quantity commodity, it takes less to buy it.
Think of it this way. In 1950, just for example, it took approximately 20 oz of Gold to buy an average car. That same car cost about $400. (As a side note, in 1950 the dollar was on a gold standard pegged at $20/oz IIRC). Today, it is still about 20 oz. of Gold to buy an average car that cost - what? About $30,000? That, to me means that the price of gold has stayed the same, but the value of the dollar has dropped (not gold going up!). Something to think about...
-steeladept (June 25, 2011, 01:53 PM)
--- End quote ---
You didn't really read the whole thing, did you? To base the entire world's economy on one material of limited supply that has no intrinsic value is the part that is the problem, and most economists agree with that point. Just because the system has been abused doesn't mean that leaving it was a bad thing.
Deozaan:
To base the entire world's economy on one material of limited supply that has no intrinsic value is the part that is the problem, and most economists agree with that point.-wraith808 (June 25, 2011, 03:18 PM)
--- End quote ---
I don't see how basing the entire world's economy on one material of unlimited supply that has no intrinsic value is any better.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version