[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So, my description and criticisms hold, and you can contest them. But to be fair, do so in the real world, because I can not argue the Pauline fantasy.[/quote]
I wouldn’t dream of wasting your time Dr, I bow to your truthiness and wish that I too can someday have ideas worthy of debate. Take care.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Irrespective of whether Paul’s more radical ideas make sense or are preferable from a pure policy standpoint, it’s not politically feasible to implement Paul’s more radical ideas because old people and women vote. And the gold standard is not a good idea at all. The end.[/quote]
Ditto.
There’s that darned reality thing again.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
So, my description and criticisms hold, and you can contest them. But to be fair, do so in the real world, because I can not argue the Pauline fantasy.
I wouldn’t dream of wasting your time Dr, I bow to your truthiness and wish that I too can someday have ideas worthy of debate. Take care.[/quote]
No bowing needed; I respect your opinions, just in case it does not shine obvious.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
So, my description and criticisms hold, and you can contest them. But to be fair, do so in the real world, because I can not argue the Pauline fantasy.
I wouldn’t dream of wasting your time Dr, I bow to your truthiness and wish that I too can someday have ideas worthy of debate. Take care.
No bowing needed; I respect your opinions, just in case it does not shine obvious.[/quote]
Maybe I took it too personal. So, a bow to your politeness then.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
So…are you agreeing with me? Gold should remain a commodity.
Re-read what I wrote, look up Stanley Baldwin and the reversion to the Gold Standard in 1920’s; tell me what you think.
When has gold ever been anything but a commodity?
Money should be backed by a commodity. It doesn’t matter what the commodity is as long as it is relatively stable – like gold. The point being it’s value is set by the market…you know? supply and demand. And also there isn’t some secretive group like the fed arbitrarily setting the supply – or cost – of money.[/quote]
I think you are agreeing with me–maybe not. The price of gold floats now.
Because “gold standard” implies a fixed value for gold…er, money.
And what I do not get, is what measure of money is used by those who favor a conversion gold standard? M1? M1? The elusive and ineluctable M3? DO we include future mortgage obligations when we consider the value of the dollar, because all borrowed money may be redeemed against a chunk of real yellow metal one day?
It’s all very difficult; better leave the whole issue to a marketplace where the value of money…er, gold…can be decided.
It strikes me with the argument about creating priveleged classes that they are classes we all, or most of us will be part of someday. The elderly for instance. I would like to say I don’t know about his ideas for the gold standards and such but his tax cut and reform ideas have some merit. At the very least they should be a starting point for discussion among the candidates. No one else seems to care.
Thunderbolt, thank you for replying to my post. However, if you get the time I would request some further clarification. I won’t think poorly if you don’t as I realize there are other things to do. How do Paul’s redicalism, (wouldn’t it be more reactionary?) hurt limited government?
You don’t think that this list presented in line item form to the general populace would result in at least most of the tax and spend item being passed definitively. You say there is a detachment.
I’m not gung-ho Ron Paul as his money views are only part of his resume for the job and I’m unsure of his other qualifications. I do not feel disconnected. Perhaps uneducated in some aspects, but that is why I ask questions. Maybe you could point me to some information that supports what you’re saying. I’m not trying to dog you here, I am genuinely interested.
Yea, sorry about the tax rant.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
So…are you agreeing with me? Gold should remain a commodity.
Re-read what I wrote, look up Stanley Baldwin and the reversion to the Gold Standard in 1920’s; tell me what you think.
When has gold ever been anything but a commodity?
Money should be backed by a commodity. It doesn’t matter what the commodity is as long as it is relatively stable – like gold. The point being it’s value is set by the market…you know? supply and demand. And also there isn’t some secretive group like the fed arbitrarily setting the supply – or cost – of money.
I think you are agreeing with me–maybe not. The price of gold floats now.
Because “gold standard” implies a fixed value for gold…er, money.
And what I do not get, is what measure of money is used by those who favor a conversion gold standard? M1? M1? The elusive and ineluctable M3? DO we include future mortgage obligations when we consider the value of the dollar, because all borrowed money may be redeemed against a chunk of real yellow metal one day?
It’s all very difficult; better leave the whole issue to a marketplace where the value of money…er, gold…can be decided.[/quote]
The value of gold would not fluctuate but the value of goods and services would in terms of weights of gold. A gold standard just means a piece of paper would represent a fixed weight of gold – historically one dollar represented 1/20 oz. Gold would not carry a price, but rather its value is its weight; goods and services would be priced in terms of weights of gold and would fluctuate according to the market. Gold is gold and could not be though of as costing a dollar amount on a gold standard. Just like a dollar cannot be priced on a fiat standard.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
So…are you agreeing with me? Gold should remain a commodity.
Re-read what I wrote, look up Stanley Baldwin and the reversion to the Gold Standard in 1920’s; tell me what you think.
When has gold ever been anything but a commodity?
Money should be backed by a commodity. It doesn’t matter what the commodity is as long as it is relatively stable – like gold. The point being it’s value is set by the market…you know? supply and demand. And also there isn’t some secretive group like the fed arbitrarily setting the supply – or cost – of money.
I think you are agreeing with me–maybe not. The price of gold floats now.
Because “gold standard” implies a fixed value for gold…er, money.
And what I do not get, is what measure of money is used by those who favor a conversion gold standard? M1? M1? The elusive and ineluctable M3? DO we include future mortgage obligations when we consider the value of the dollar, because all borrowed money may be redeemed against a chunk of real yellow metal one day?
It’s all very difficult; better leave the whole issue to a marketplace where the value of money…er, gold…can be decided.
The value of gold would not fluctuate but the value of goods and services would in terms of weights of gold. A gold standard just means a piece of paper would represent a fixed weight of gold – historically one dollar represented 1/20 oz. Gold would not carry a price, but rather its value is its weight; goods and services would be priced in terms of weights of gold and would fluctuate according to the market. Gold is gold and could not be though of as costing a dollar amount on a gold standard. Just like a dollar cannot be priced on a fiat standard.[/quote]
I suspected we had a difference in definitions:
“The gold standard is a monetary system in which the standard economic unit of account is a fixed weight of gold. Under the gold standard, currency issuers guarantee to redeem notes, upon demand, in that amount of gold.”
So does 1/20 of an oz of gold take into account all MI? M2? M3? All notes and obligations, including 30 yrs of mortgage and bond obligations, obligations which have created future dollars where none currently exits ? Is there enough gold in Ft Knox, or the world, to cover all this? How do you know if that weight is sufficiently low to cover all our current obligations? Because if it is not sufficiently low, than the value of future goods and services is uncovered, and (reductio ad absurdum) valueless.
Don’t worry. I do not know the answers either.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
I suspected we had a difference in definitions:
[/quote]
I don’t see a difference at all. This is precisely what I said the gold standard is. The US treasury issues gold notes (historically, called dollars) that represent a fix weight of gold…
[quote]
So does 1/20 of an oz of gold take into account all MI? M2? M3? [/quote]
None of these values matter on a gold standard. You have gold you can take it to a bank and have a certificate printed to represent the weight of gold you deposited…or they would just give the the amount of paper currency in dollars. You keep the money you can reclaim your gold or you can spend it and not reclaim your gold. The M values do not matter on a gold standard. There is no need to keep track of these values because all that matters is the weight of gold held in the bank vaults and that the receipts issued account for the entire weight and nothing more.
[quote]
All notes and obligations, including 30 yrs of mortgage and bond obligations, obligations which have created future dollars where none currently exits ?[/quote]
This does not matter. If you take out a loan on a fiat standard you could pay back in fiat or convert your loan to gold weight and pay back on a gold standard. There is nothing difficult about this.
You are confused. Dollars could not represent gold weight under a new gold standard because as you pointed out they may not currently add up. We would have to print a new currency to represent gold weight in Ft. Knox or we would have to legalize competition between banks. Essentially, if banks were permitted to compete they could issue their own currency and since most transactions are done digitally anyway it would not matter – it is a black-box as far as the consumer is concerned.
You are thinking too hard about this. It would be the same as if you all of the sudden found yourself needing Euros instead of dollars. An exchange from fiat to gold would look like this:
The difficulty comes when businesses have to convert prices to a gold standard. We are very lucky today because the digital age makes this an easy thing to do. This would be a seamless experience in that a computer could do all of this for us.
We could essentially have two bank debit cards: one representing fiat and one representing gold. The consumer could then choose which form of money to use when making purchases. Gold prices would eventually become cheaper than fiat as gold becomes the norm (because who wants paper) and everyone would then convert to gold currency not wanting to hold paper. Paper would go away and we would be back on a complete gold standard.
One quick note to the above post:
On a gold standard the fiat money supply is not important to the total weight of gold. As free floating gold (uncertified gold) becomes scarce to the amount of fiat paper in circulation gold would essentially become infinitely more expensive and paper would become valueless – this is simple supply and demand. Those that chose to hold fiat instead of gold currency would lose wealth as gold becomes the exchange norm and businesses quit accepting it.
Eventually gold would become so expensive in terms of fiat money that fiat would no longer be worth anything. We see this happening now in the gold markets as it is indicative of inflated money supplies.