| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What's wrong with cops these days? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 20 2010, 10:22 PM (2,290 Views) | |
| Comrade Queen | Aug 4 2010, 09:59 PM Post #126 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
Except a standard like gold remains a limited resource (there's only so much of it both mined and unmined), giving it a value that can be estimated. Fiat money, however, only has value because it's said to have value and it is far from being a limited resource. It creates debt by its own creation and through these flaws becomes less and less valuable. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Aug 4 2010, 10:01 PM Post #127 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
i said as much in my initial post. precisely because gold is finite, it makes a pisspoor base for a currency. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Aug 4 2010, 10:01 PM Post #128 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
I disagree. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Aug 4 2010, 10:06 PM Post #129 |
|
Science and Industry
|
We definitely need to have our NSWR meetup some time. 'Cause the errors propagated in this thread are too, systematically massive to address in text. Ypsilanti, Michigan, be there or be square, or be there AND be square. I will just say here that this gold standard trope is a neanderthalic caricature of the libertarian position on currency - an abolition of the legal tender law. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Aug 4 2010, 10:06 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Aug 5 2010, 12:26 AM Post #130 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Union, I agree with pretty much all you're saying except for the gold issue, but I probably don't know as much as rest of you on that issue. The way I see it, value should be based on usefulness, and gold is a useful component material plus it never degrades. That said, I don't understand whether or not gold is a good backer for paper money ties into what is good for the people. We most certainly need to cure diseases rather than treat them, but I don't see why we need to switch away from gold. ----- Anyways, Union, between this and that you become irate when I say or do something immoral, I think you are genuinely good person. It's nice to see there's somebody good out there. |
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Aug 5 2010, 01:22 AM Post #131 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
So selling my house, that is to say exchanging my house for some amount of money, is the same as donating my house to the community? If it's impossible to own money is it impossible to own a house, or anything else for that matter? lolwut? Edited by Al Araam, Aug 5 2010, 01:22 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Aug 5 2010, 06:44 AM Post #132 |
|
Science and Industry
|
That theory posits that appraisement implies ownership. Thank God that theory will not ever see the light of day. *** The gold standard is a means to an end - a severe restriction on government spending - and not an end unto itself. However, because history shows that a currency standard is easily suspended, manipulated, and abused by government, no standard whether gold, paper, or seashells is viable as long as the political climate of a society clamors for deficit spending. This illustrates that a government-endorsed gold standard is, and has always been, in practice, a fiat standard. From the same illustration it is demonstrated that unbacked paper money has absolutely zero underlying relation with the size of the econonmy (as erroneously claimed by supporters of paper money), but is just a way to enable deficit spending. The only way to attain or at least approximate a "currency standard-less" economy is to minimize government spending, since all fiat standards including gold ones are implicitly established whenever the government marshals resources (by fiat). The "philosophical" task is therefore not the establishment of a gold standard per se, though gold dollars is infinitely preferable to the current Federal Reserve notes, but instead the education of societal attitudes in favor of fiscal discipline. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Aug 5 2010, 06:51 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Aug 5 2010, 07:49 AM Post #133 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
The entire monetary system is dumb, but simply put I agree with you on inflation. What you seem to be advancing with this part of your post is: Governments are full of good people. Private companies are full of evil people. The government should tackle all of societies ills because private citizens won't. Without Government, there would be no good people. The very people who go into government to serve the people will still want to serve the people. Those people have conscientiously minded businesses and charities to work for. They don't have to work for the government. I don't know about the States, but our politicians vote to give themselves pay rises and bonuses. If they're not motivated by greed, I don't know who is. The idea is that treating social ills is a necessity. Your argument can be applied to paying employees wages: you could imply that a business has no reason to pay its employees. The consequences of doing so would rapidly become apparent. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Aug 5 2010, 07:49 AM Post #134 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
It is a severe restriction on all spending. Gold is a finite material. When all the gold has been mined, and it is expected to be within fifty years, no new gold will be entering the money supply. This makes economics either a zero-sum game, or, what will actually happen, creates very high rates of deflation. If rates of deflation exceed potential investment returns, which it very well might as gold supply begins to decrease due to hoarding by people or government, then investment itself will be economically unattractive, creating a greater incentive to hoard moar. Al Araam, I was being facetious. However, you are only selling your house for social recognition that you have liquid capital equal to the value of the house you sold. If you want to be honest, you sold your house for pieces of paper or metallic bullion, neither of which have any value except that which we put into it. Nag: My argument is that the people motivated most by greed will likely populate a majority of private businesses, while people motivated by service will populate a majority of government. I am not saying good or bad people don't exist in either, but I would trust the non-profit organization with the ability to secure funding over the kindness of for-profit companies and individuals. The problem with charities and other NGOs is that they still rely on the goodwill of the people with money, while government can just tax them. Edited by Union, Aug 5 2010, 07:51 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Aug 5 2010, 08:28 AM Post #135 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
I find two recent points to be silly. Sed posted some time back, that we should all want to be good people and help the poor and the homeless. This is true. However, he concluded that we should support the government in doing so. That is the silly part. By creating a beurocracy to help the poor and homeless, all that happens is the creation of the beurocracy, which then becomes self-perpetuating, and absorbs more and more of the funds intended to help the poor and homeless. Better we incentivise charities to help the poor and homeless, who can do it much more efficiently and cost-effectively, than any government beurocracy, and can obtain funding from the good people of the society (the majority, I believe). U seems to think that honest people gravitate toward the public sector, and dishonest (or at least greedy) people gravitate toward the private sector. Apparently U has never lived in Chicago! I would be willing to wager that the percentage of greedy vs altruistic people in both sectors are equal, +/- no more than 1 or 2 %. Many people have viewed the public sector as a means to obtain wealth, and many have entered the private sector as a means to be altruistic. Also, you must take into account that the Bill and Milissa Gates foundation is racist, since money from that fund can only go to minorities, therefore, IMHO, making it evil, so I would not be so willing to praise them. In the past 10 years gold prices have had a low of $210, and a high of $1200. I realize this is due more to the falling value of the dollar than the rising value of gold, however, if our currency were tied intrinsically to the gold supply, we would be in a deep shithole right now, since so much of our gold would be sitting in Arab and Chinese banks, and we wouldn't have enough to fill a tooth. Say no to the gold standard, and yes to pure bartering. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Aug 5 2010, 09:12 AM Post #136 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
I don't deny that corruption exists at the highest levels of government. Fortunately, most people employed in government, and outside of electable positions, are not corrupt. Indeed, those who rise to the top of the bureaucracy through meritocracy are, in my opinion, some of the best people we have. In corporations, it is the same. Those at the top got their by merit (in both, once the quota for minorities has been filled, of course). However, government and corporations have different standards that define merit, and I am more trusting of the government standard - maximizing efficiency, doing your job well, etc - than the corporate standard - maximize dividends, maximize profit, minimize costs, etc. While the latter is suited for a corporate environment, and I have nothing against corporate environments, competitive attitudes fuel the majority of innovation and efficiency in my honest opinion, it is not suited for tackling the natural inefficiencies of a state. The best corporation is one with zero costs. To this end, they can either replace labor with automatons, or import labor to depress the market value for it. With so many third world people willing to work for pennies to the dollar, corporations, without a naturally inefficient organization that serves the public interest rather than private interest, will simply outsource or import people. Yes, government is inefficient when compared to corporations - but it has to be, because the issues it tackles are wholly different from a corporate one. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Aug 5 2010, 09:19 AM Post #137 |
|
Science and Industry
|
The specter of the "gold shortage" is one of the more fantastical scenarios proposed by Federal Reserve advocates, and it may be an original one. The "high deflation" you warn about does not pass the common sense test, because ever-increasing hoarding (and therefore ever-increasing illiquidity) of gold will drive investors out of the gold market and into alternative currencies. For demonstration purposes it can be said the logical conclusion of your prediction is that gold will approach an "infinite" value. (and I believe you once stated outright that gold will approach an "infinite" value under a gold standard) That is called a gold bubble, and no one in their right mind would trade a factory (for example) for a pound of gold. Long before the gold market degenerates into this type of fantastical illiquidity predicted by your defective model, alternative currencies will have arisen, and arisen by market processes without the necessity of government fiat. Our current Federal Reserve paper money system purports to base the US dollar on the country's aggregated GDP. However, convertibility is politically impossible, so in practice the paper money system is based on borrowed time. A viable free market paper currency is therefore actually based on GDP. How can a conceptual value like GDP be transected into a portable, fungible currency without government fiat? One possibility is that shares of a country's stock market (AKA exchange-traded funds) will serve excellently as a free market paper money if it were not driven out of circulation by Federal Reserve notes per Gresham's Law. Nonetheless, one cannot predict with perfect accuracy which currency will be, in a free market, selected by societal consensus in lieu of fiat money, so a stock-backed currency is just an illustrative example. What we can be sure of, however, is that continued inflation of Federal Reserve notes is unsustainable; the autodestruction of the Federal Reserve system is written into the system itself under the current trajectory of policies, so it is a matter of when not if. Currency is not a "special commodity", and faith in its specialness (that is, it being a "thing-unto-itself" that has "no value except that we put into it") is irrelevant at best and malicious at worst being the inspirer of destructive doctrines such as the "neutrality of money". The function of currency as a means of exchange is precisely the source of its value, just as a house's functionality as a shelter is the source of its value, and as such a society cannot function optimally without currency or houses. Existentialist discourse on the valuelessness of money is therefore as irrelevant to economic understanding as is most existentialist exercises. In economics "the social recognition" that money is a means of exchange is as tangible and consequential as the fact that a hammer can be used to drive in a nail. I have to go now but I'll comment later on the various other errors in this thread. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Aug 5 2010, 09:20 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Union | Aug 5 2010, 10:12 AM Post #138 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
Gold is a piss-poor basis for a currency, TC. If we must switch out of a fiat currency, adopt energy credits ffs. Don't go back to gold. The only reason, the ONLY REASON, gold succeeded in the past was because currency supply was expanding. Current economic activity is too large in scale to do anything but contract when a gold standard is re-adopted. Perhaps this makes it illegitimate activity, certainly, that we have no right to experience anyway. Perhaps it is a bubble. But unfortunately, life is more than just numbers, and moving to a more stable system cannot be done if it destroys the livlehood of thousands, if not millions, in the process. Frankly, currency cannot be based on any naturally occuring substance. Either you do not have enough, leading to deflation at growing rates (and sure you may not want to trade your factory for a pound of gold, but you can't expand, as modern businesses do, without liquid capital which will simply not exist under a gold standard. In fact, returning to a gold standard is accepting that the economy will be fueled by demand, and that supply can not create demand any longer, which is a great limitation on potential economic activity and total abstract wealth) or you have, as spain did in the 1600s, too much. We are on the cusp of space. Gold is a naturally occuring element in space. All it takes is one planet with an abundance of gold to utterly destroy the value of the currency. fiat currencies are not destined to fail. mismanagement will certainly cause it to do so, but mismanagement is not grounds to change the system, only the administrators. Edited by Union, Aug 5 2010, 10:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Aug 5 2010, 11:48 AM Post #139 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
How about golden tulips? |
![]() |
|
| Union | Aug 5 2010, 11:49 AM Post #140 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
Why gold at all? Why not energy credits, or Ithaca Hours? |
![]() |
|
| Aelius | Aug 5 2010, 12:21 PM Post #141 |
|
Norman Warlord
|
Bottle caps? |
![]() |
|
| East Anarx | Aug 5 2010, 12:22 PM Post #142 |
|
Anarchitect
![]()
|
Any medium of exchange that is mutually acceptable to both parties in a trade is acceptable. Problems arise when one medium of exchange is made legal tender by the threat of government violence. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Aug 5 2010, 12:36 PM Post #143 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Union, you didn't read a word I just said. I argued in favor of paper money. ETFs FFS. An ETF-based currency would "out-dollar" the dollar - that is, fulfill the role of a national currency as an actual, debt-free share of the national GDP - who woulda thunk! Non-fiat energy credits are also a possible currency. In fact it already exists: it's called commodities futures. As proverbially wild and unstable as are values of commodities, they are, unsurprisingly, still more stable than any fiat currency. I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself, but gold is a means to an ends, not an ends to itself. An ends to itself is a stable currency, and the optimally stable currency is the one that aligns economic output with means of exchange, i.e. best reflects the underlying economic activity of a society. While gold will always have its place as a currency - the operative word is a - the supply of gold is insufficient to fully represent something as fluid and unpredictable as an "economy." There is also no chance in heaven or hell that fiat or diktat, no matter how complacently sophisticated, can do that either; the ridiculous unwieldiness of fiat, being based on vague promises of future taxation, ought to be self-evident, and in no way can be argued to resemble in any way shape or form the national GDP, contrary to the claims of Federal Reserve advocates. This is why the disestablishment of the Federal Reserve's fiat currency is more important right now than the establishment of a gold standard. In fact, in all likelihood, non-fiat paper currencies, including energy futures, will fluorish in that rapturous, messianic day when the government's giant debts (courtesy of the Federal Reserve) to China and Japan are no longer with us. :rolleyes: Regarding the issue of the "millions of livelihoods". Millions of livelihoods will be destroyed in any transitional process, but millions of new livelihoods will be created on the other side of the transition. The transitional process should occur earlier, rather than later, because any delay only allows the perpetuation and magnification of existing systemic economic problems, making the inevitable transitional process even more painful. Kicking the can down the road because we're deluded with the idea that we can have our cake and eat it too does not solve anything but only burdens future generations with the consequences of current generations' stupid mistakes. Think that mixed metaphor through. Hard choices will have to be made, so the question is, shall we destroy millions of livelihoods today, or destroy even more millions of livelihoods tomorrow? Unless the invention of a subatomic replicator from Star Trek saves us like a deus ex machina, the catastrophic implosion of our current money regime is written in the very foundations, the very essence of the system itself. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Aug 5 2010, 12:39 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Union | Aug 5 2010, 12:55 PM Post #144 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
I did read what you said. All your concerns about fiat currencies are the product of mismanagement by those who administrate it, not anything wrong with the concept itself. Any currency that cannot be expanded or contracted at will is not sufficient for modern economic needs. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Aug 5 2010, 01:06 PM Post #145 |
|
Science and Industry
|
I don't believe you yourself understand your high falutin principles of expansion and contraction. Economic contraction demands currency contraction. Economic expansion demands currency expansion. Countercycle "management" makes little sense once one grasps the non-neutrality of money. Indeed the deleterious consequences of inflationary policy at a time of economic contraction and deleveraging have, and will continue to, play themselves out for all our eyes to see.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Aug 5 2010, 01:07 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Union | Aug 5 2010, 01:26 PM Post #146 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
I realize all that, which is precisely why a fiat currency is so useful - its malleable nature. Regardless of discussions of how it should be managed, the point is it can be. Other, "stable" currencies do not have this desirable trait. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Aug 5 2010, 01:28 PM Post #147 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
I am proud of you, that is the KitchenAide of Mixed Metaphors! |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Aug 5 2010, 04:55 PM Post #148 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
We have yet to achieve interstellar space travel and discover such a so-called gold infested planet. |
![]() |
|
| Rhadamanthus | Aug 5 2010, 05:37 PM Post #149 |
|
Legitimist
![]()
|
Who is supposed to make such a choice? I think most of us have our hands full managing the affairs of our own households. Often our so-called "leaders" don't even seem able to do that. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Aug 5 2010, 08:37 PM Post #150 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
Correct. Thank you for ignoring the alternative situation presented in the paragraph that last sentence was a part of. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |













11:51 AM Jul 13