Gold Over $800 Per Ounce

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BB, any amount of inflation is bad for the poor and people on a fixed income who do not make their money from investments. This is the majority of the country. [/quote]

This is most certainly not the majority of the country. Even people with bank accounts are investing (at a very low interest rate, but I guess that’s their choice). People are invested a lot more than that - particularly if you account for indirect investments such as pension funds that provide some of those incomes to retirees.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why should the government be responsible to stimulate entrepreneurship? If there is risk involved don’t you think the signals should remain undistorted? Why can’t banks set their own rates based on their own solvency? Don’t you think that artificially low rates only incentivize bad investment? The bubble has to pop eventually.[/quote]

It’s responsible to avoid disincentivizing risk taking and entrepreneurship.

It’s really a matter of trying to be Goldilocks - too much inflation is bad, and any disinflation is a bad thing (of course, a little is less bad than a lot) - particularly with the way people, as rational economic actors, have oriented their behavior in an environment that has been absent of deflation for several generations.

I read that the Fed’s target rate for annual inflation is about 2% or so - that seems fine to me. They won’t be perfect, but sticking to a target like that gives the same type of discipline as sticking to a commodity-based standard, but allows for flexibility when it’s required to avoid deflation/recession.

Again, look at the history of major panics in the U.S. pre the Federal Reserve. You had currency crises/bank failures (these were often the same thing with private bank notes redeemable for specie functioning as currency), followed by deep recessions.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I also think you are only looking at incentive from the producers vantage point. Productions requires consumption. Low prices stimulates consumption which further stimulates demand. High prices and interest rates stimulate saving which lowers interest rates and prices naturally which results to stimulate investment. Banks can figure their own interest rates out.

I disagree that the money supply matters because it always flows at a rate commensurate with a sound pricing structure.[/quote]

Falling prices of finished goods in recessionary environments is a downward spiral - which leads to layoffs, which are bad for consumption/purchasing power.

When the supply of money is based on a commodity, its supply can fluctuate with the price of the commodity - which is not necessarily related to the economy’s need for money.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

These will be far handier than gold in the case of economic collapse.

If you have gold under your mattress someone will steal it. If you let someone else store your gold, good luck getting it back when the world goes to shit.

True. Silver is far better to hold in person. Mike might trade a can of food or a stick of jerky for a silver dollar.

I hope the world doesn’t fall apart. In 1933, we still had inflating the currency available as a means to restore order. Spending lots of money, esp in war, can revive an economy. This option won’t be available next time. I suspect we’ll have to adopt some sort of military dictatorship similar to Nazi Germany,with a secret police to intimidate the populace into cooperation.

Fiat money always leads to destruction, one way or another. And it probably is too late to stop the destructive process unleashed here. Here comes the New World Order.

Back away from the widow ledge. There will almost certainly be problems with the dollar’s fall, but you’re taking it pretty far…

Again, read this speech by Bernanke on the Depression, its causes and what made it worse:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/default.htm

or this article if you can get behind the gate:

http://papers.nber.org/papers/w3488.v5.pdf

[/quote]

Yes, I’ve read these and, while I usually favor empirical evidence, there is more here than meets the eye. Any country that switches to fiat money is free to spend more readily. These countries would naturally suffer less in a depression.

What is not looked at is that humans react to change. Switching to a fiat currency from a backed one takes advantage of the populace still believing in the value of their money. This would no longer be true today. When everyone understands the con, it doesn’t work any longer.

I think we are beginning to see a snowball rolling down a hill. When everyone discounts the dollar, when it gets less and less likely to be accepted in international commerce, look out below.

The way out of this would be in the Europeans debased their currency at the same rate as do we. That may slow the process for a very long while. The USA did that in the 20s to help Britain and it staved off the Great Depression for a few years.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What is not looked at is that humans react to change.
[/quote]

Yes. The Fed operates on knee jerk reactions from investors. They cannot predict the future so they analyze history and rely on made up, inaccurate mathematical models to divine what actions to take.

Part 1:
http://www.kereport.com/DailyRadio/Daily111907.mp3

Part 2:
http://www.kereport.com/DailyRadio/Daily112007.mp3

Have you guys seen Ron Paul’s appearances on CNBC’s Kudlow and Company?

I find such interviews the most interesting to watch out of all his appearances, due to the fact that monetary policy is his key issue and strong point.

In the first clip, he clearly lays out his views on how he’d change the money system, from step 1. He points out that the fed doesn’t have to be eliminated overnight in order for change to occur.

Ron Paul, the man with the plan.