f***ing low wages low hours... f*ck capitalism
12 Oct 2013, 9:25 am
Much of Europe actually had a common gold currency in the 18C: The .1867 coins, which are still commonly sold today. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Monetary_Union
Question: If it worked so well, why was it stopped?
Answer: Because while gold does solve certain problems, such as inflation, it creates others, such as very serious deflation. Gold's strongest advantage is also its biggest disadvantage, which is that the supply is relatively fixed, and it is scarce, thereby inhibiting economic growth because the money supply cannot grow along with the economy. As such, the gold standard works to the advantage of those who already have money (the rich), and against those who do not have it (everybody else).
It's the reason for one of the most famous speeches in American history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_gold_speech
As far as one coin being the standard for the world, what about those countries that don't care to participate? How are you going to force them into this new world order? No, I say if the Swiss want to be on a gold standard, the more power to them; and if the Greeks want fiat money, that is their business too.
Though I'm hardly an expert on the Austrian economists, I seriously doubt Rothbard said the world had a gold standard prior to 1500. It was only after 1500, when the Spaniards raided New World gold stores that gold became common. Prior to that time, silver was the standard unit of exchange simply because gold was so rare. Actually, the US had the same problem prior to the discovery of gold in California in the late 1840's.
I never meant that as a monetary union, but more in terms of them accepting any gold coin. In other words, just plain gold, devoid of naming, was the reserve currency. Not the Amero or Euro, just gold. And if people don't like gold, then they don't need to accept it. In a sense, it would be more o fa barter economy, with gold being one of the better bartering units. It is true to say that there is deflation, but look at tech. Tech keeps deflating in price,but the industry is one of the fastest growing parts of the economy. In addition, prior to the cut off of the gold standard, we had one of the most innovative economies in the world. In addition, from 1840 -1913, we had no central bank, and the worse we had on average was some banking crisises. And if I were a poor individual, I would want to have something to show for my savings, not just paper. Also, I believe it is unbiblical to be dishonest in measurements , so from N ethical perspective, I think it is immoral. Now I wouldn't disagree that if the US government went back to 30 dolar gold that we would have problems. But, if we were to go with the current rate of gold to usds, or even silver, I think we could ease it in, and increase overall production, since an increasing dollar could buy more, including American labor. And prior to the Fed, it was common to have 20% growth. Now, of course there should be increased reserve requirements, but other than that, the government should stay out of the economy. And in a sense, the farmers of the earliest part of the century were in many ways similar to the borrowers of today. They shouldn't have been approved for credit, since their ability to pay was questionable. So to sum it up, if growth means unprofitable companie slike Web Van and Netscape getting massive funds, then I think we should pass. But if we are going to get HP and Boeings and such out of the deal (or even Discover or useful service companies), then we should invest in them, albeit with a gold or silver dollar.
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
12 Oct 2013, 10:08 am
I never meant that as a monetary union, but more in terms of them accepting any gold coin. In other words, just plain gold, devoid of naming, was the reserve currency. Not the Amero or Euro, just gold. And if people don't like gold, then they don't need to accept it. In a sense, it would be more o fa barter economy, with gold being one of the better bartering units. It is true to say that there is deflation, but look at tech. Tech keeps deflating in price,but the industry is one of the fastest growing parts of the economy. In addition, prior to the cut off of the gold standard, we had one of the most innovative economies in the world. In addition, from 1840 -1913, we had no central bank, and the worse we had on average was some banking crisises. And if I were a poor individual, I would want to have something to show for my savings, not just paper. Also, I believe it is unbiblical to be dishonest in measurements , so from N ethical perspective, I think it is immoral. Now I wouldn't disagree that if the US government went back to 30 dolar gold that we would have problems. But, if we were to go with the current rate of gold to usds, or even silver, I think we could ease it in, and increase overall production, since an increasing dollar could buy more, including American labor. And prior to the Fed, it was common to have 20% growth. Now, of course there should be increased reserve requirements, but other than that, the government should stay out of the economy. And in a sense, the farmers of the earliest part of the century were in many ways similar to the borrowers of today. They shouldn't have been approved for credit, since their ability to pay was questionable. So to sum it up, if growth means unprofitable companie slike Web Van and Netscape getting massive funds, then I think we should pass. But if we are going to get HP and Boeings and such out of the deal (or even Discover or useful service companies), then we should invest in them, albeit with a gold or silver dollar.
Zac, had you read that article on the Latin Monetary Union you would know that it was exactly what you describe. The essence of this union was a gold coin weighing 0.1867 oz, though they all had the markings of the country of issue.
Nor would a gold standard with non-denominated coins for trade even be possible. Gold is so scarce, and the modern economy is so large, that gold would be worth at least twenty-five thousand dollars an ounce--which is hardly something we could use to buy milk and bread--or even pay our rent. So, we would find ourselves having to use paper to represent such miniscule amounts of gold, which would put us right back on the road to what we have now.
What happens if entire countries don't wish to participate in this international gold scheme? The only way it could be made to work would be to have libertarians, such as the Austrian school, behaving like authoritarians in order to promote liberty. It's another example of the insanity of liberalism.
As far as the deflation in the cost of electronics goes, it is very different from the deflation of money. As with other things, the costs of electronics have gone down--or deflated--due to massive increases in productivity and efficiency. Monetary deflation occurs when there is a lack of money, which benefits those who already have it at the expense of those who don't, but would be willing to work hard to get it; the gold standard ensures the rich remain rich while everybody else remains poor. This is one of the reasons socialism has followed capitalism like white on rice.
As far as honest weights and measures go, it is more than a biblical injunction; congress is mandated by the Constitution to provide for standard weights and measures. As far as inflation goes, it is obviously an erosion of the measure of money, but has been deemed a lesser evil than the gold standard deflation that keeps the rich rich and everybody else poor. I would further add that inflation is a direct result of the myriad problems inherent in the modern liberal managerial state, of which a mandatory international gold standard would be the worst manifestation yet. The system you advocate is far too full of what the Deconstructionists call "internal contradictions" ever to be viable. It's the reason this system went out a hundred years ago.
12 Oct 2013, 11:13 am
Zac, had you read that article on the Latin Monetary Union you would know that it was exactly what you describe. The essence of this union was a gold coin weighing 0.1867 oz, though they all had the markings of the country of issue.
Nor would a gold standard with non-denominated coins for trade even be possible. Gold is so scarce, and the modern economy is so large, that gold would be worth at least twenty-five thousand dollars an ounce--which is hardly something we could use to buy milk and bread--or even pay our rent. So, we would find ourselves having to use paper to represent such miniscule amounts of gold, which would put us right back on the road to what we have now.
What happens if entire countries don't wish to participate in this international gold scheme? The only way it could be made to work would be to have libertarians, such as the Austrian school, behaving like authoritarians in order to promote liberty. It's another example of the insanity of liberalism.
As far as the deflation in the cost of electronics goes, it is very different from the deflation of money. As with other things, the costs of electronics have gone down--or deflated--due to massive increases in productivity and efficiency. Monetary deflation occurs when there is a lack of money, which benefits those who already have it at the expense of those who don't, but would be willing to work hard to get it; the gold standard ensures the rich remain rich while everybody else remains poor. This is one of the reasons socialism has followed capitalism like white on rice.
As far as honest weights and measures go, it is more than a biblical injunction; congress is mandated by the Constitution to provide for standard weights and measures. As far as inflation goes, it is obviously an erosion of the measure of money, but has been deemed a lesser evil than the gold standard deflation that keeps the rich rich and everybody else poor. I would further add that inflation is a direct result of the myriad problems inherent in the modern liberal managerial state, of which a mandatory international gold standard would be the worst manifestation yet. The system you advocate is far too full of what the Deconstructionists call "internal contradictions" ever to be viable. It's the reason this system went out a hundred years ago.
Would it be fair to call you a Monetarist? Or more Keynsian? Sorry for not reading the link. What I meant by a gold standard, just for the US, and fix it at one one thousandth of an ounce , or whateve rit is now. I think a better solution would be a silver standard. In all actuality, I think a free market in currency would make sense, and I think Rothbard was a tad statist in this regard. I think Hayek wa sbetter in terms of monetary affiars. I find something my dad somewhat interesting, that being they used to be more mass buying, an dnow it is more individualize. While I do think that efficiency has improved, I think that a large purchasing power was key. We can disagree on schematics, but I think we can both agree that we need to preserving the saving and purchasing powe rof the poor and middle class, since that is where the growth of a vibrant economy comes from. In that regard, Reagan and Volcker were better than most in monetary affairs, although spending was questionable. I am by no means a Reagannite, but give credit where credit is do.
12 Oct 2013, 11:18 am
Zac, had you read that article on the Latin Monetary Union you would know that it was exactly what you describe. The essence of this union was a gold coin weighing 0.1867 oz, though they all had the markings of the country of issue.
Nor would a gold standard with non-denominated coins for trade even be possible. Gold is so scarce, and the modern economy is so large, that gold would be worth at least twenty-five thousand dollars an ounce--which is hardly something we could use to buy milk and bread--or even pay our rent. So, we would find ourselves having to use paper to represent such miniscule amounts of gold, which would put us right back on the road to what we have now.
What happens if entire countries don't wish to participate in this international gold scheme? The only way it could be made to work would be to have libertarians, such as the Austrian school, behaving like authoritarians in order to promote liberty. It's another example of the insanity of liberalism.
As far as the deflation in the cost of electronics goes, it is very different from the deflation of money. As with other things, the costs of electronics have gone down--or deflated--due to massive increases in productivity and efficiency. Monetary deflation occurs when there is a lack of money, which benefits those who already have it at the expense of those who don't, but would be willing to work hard to get it; the gold standard ensures the rich remain rich while everybody else remains poor. This is one of the reasons socialism has followed capitalism like white on rice.
As far as honest weights and measures go, it is more than a biblical injunction; congress is mandated by the Constitution to provide for standard weights and measures. As far as inflation goes, it is obviously an erosion of the measure of money, but has been deemed a lesser evil than the gold standard deflation that keeps the rich rich and everybody else poor. I would further add that inflation is a direct result of the myriad problems inherent in the modern liberal managerial state, of which a mandatory international gold standard would be the worst manifestation yet. The system you advocate is far too full of what the Deconstructionists call "internal contradictions" ever to be viable. It's the reason this system went out a hundred years ago.
Would it be fair to call you a Monetarist? Or more Keynsian? Sorry for not reading the link. What I meant by a gold standard, just for the US, and fix it at one one thousandth of an ounce , or whateve rit is now. I think a better solution would be a silver standard. In all actuality, I think a free market in currency would make sense, and I think Rothbard was a tad statist in this regard. I think Hayek wa sbetter in terms of monetary affiars. I find something my dad somewhat interesting, that being they used to be more mass buying, an dnow it is more individualize. While I do think that efficiency has improved, I think that a large purchasing power was key. We can disagree on schematics, but I think we can both agree that we need to preserving the saving and purchasing powe rof the poor and middle class, since that is where the growth of a vibrant economy comes from. In that regard, Reagan and Volcker were better than most in monetary affairs, although spending was questionable. I am by no means a Reagannite, but give credit where credit is do.
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
12 Oct 2013, 11:31 am
Zac, had you read that article on the Latin Monetary Union you would know that it was exactly what you describe. The essence of this union was a gold coin weighing 0.1867 oz, though they all had the markings of the country of issue.
Nor would a gold standard with non-denominated coins for trade even be possible. Gold is so scarce, and the modern economy is so large, that gold would be worth at least twenty-five thousand dollars an ounce--which is hardly something we could use to buy milk and bread--or even pay our rent. So, we would find ourselves having to use paper to represent such miniscule amounts of gold, which would put us right back on the road to what we have now.
What happens if entire countries don't wish to participate in this international gold scheme? The only way it could be made to work would be to have libertarians, such as the Austrian school, behaving like authoritarians in order to promote liberty. It's another example of the insanity of liberalism.
As far as the deflation in the cost of electronics goes, it is very different from the deflation of money. As with other things, the costs of electronics have gone down--or deflated--due to massive increases in productivity and efficiency. Monetary deflation occurs when there is a lack of money, which benefits those who already have it at the expense of those who don't, but would be willing to work hard to get it; the gold standard ensures the rich remain rich while everybody else remains poor. This is one of the reasons socialism has followed capitalism like white on rice.
As far as honest weights and measures go, it is more than a biblical injunction; congress is mandated by the Constitution to provide for standard weights and measures. As far as inflation goes, it is obviously an erosion of the measure of money, but has been deemed a lesser evil than the gold standard deflation that keeps the rich rich and everybody else poor. I would further add that inflation is a direct result of the myriad problems inherent in the modern liberal managerial state, of which a mandatory international gold standard would be the worst manifestation yet. The system you advocate is far too full of what the Deconstructionists call "internal contradictions" ever to be viable. It's the reason this system went out a hundred years ago.
Would it be fair to call you a Monetarist? Or more Keynsian? Sorry for not reading the link. What I meant by a gold standard, just for the US, and fix it at one one thousandth of an ounce , or whateve rit is now. I think a better solution would be a silver standard. In all actuality, I think a free market in currency would make sense, and I think Rothbard was a tad statist in this regard. I think Hayek wa sbetter in terms of monetary affiars. I find something my dad somewhat interesting, that being they used to be more mass buying, an dnow it is more individualize. While I do think that efficiency has improved, I think that a large purchasing power was key. We can disagree on schematics, but I think we can both agree that we need to preserving the saving and purchasing powe rof the poor and middle class, since that is where the growth of a vibrant economy comes from. In that regard, Reagan and Volcker were better than most in monetary affairs, although spending was questionable. I am by no means a Reagannite, but give credit where credit is do.
I would actually term myself an economic nationalist, meaning the economy should be set up to benefit an entire nation rather than those at the top. This position makes good sense with two considerations:
1. Economics is the study of how EVERYBODY attempts to satisfy unlimited wants and needs with very limited means. An economy that only serves the most wealthy and powerful among us, which is increasingly what we have, does violence to the very concept of economics.
2. I am an old-school conservative, meaning I wish to conserve a particular people and their culture, in a particular time and place. And the most basic element of conserving a people is providing them with means for their sustenance.
Liberal economics suffers from the same erroneous assumption as Marxist economics, namely that the managerial state can create the culture, which naturally includes the economy, when all the empirical evidence screams out that just the opposite is the case.
As an old-school conservative, I am properly horrified by all ideologies, including those of libertarianism. The difference is that as a traditionalist, I subscribe to ideas and policies with a time-tested track record--to the collected wisdom of the past--something that is anathema to modernism, which is one of the primary assumptions of all liberal movements, including libertarianism.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas
12 Oct 2013, 2:00 pm
but there is always the possibility that the 1% already has turned its back on America as anything but a source of cheap labor [via "race to the bottom"] to supply emerging foreign middle-class markets.
Blabby, your comments are very astute. In fact, the elites turned their backs on their own countries long ago in favor of what some have called a "new world order" of free trade and open borders. Things like nationalism and local customs put a crimp in their profits, and therefore must go. This is why we have an EU and WTO.
and none dare call it treason.
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
12 Oct 2013, 3:30 pm
but there is always the possibility that the 1% already has turned its back on America as anything but a source of cheap labor [via "race to the bottom"] to supply emerging foreign middle-class markets.
Blabby, your comments are very astute. In fact, the elites turned their backs on their own countries long ago in favor of what some have called a "new world order" of free trade and open borders. Things like nationalism and local customs put a crimp in their profits, and therefore must go. This is why we have an EU and WTO.
and none dare call it treason.
Blabby, I agree. Then, it is not difficult to obey the law when you are the one making the laws.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
12 Oct 2013, 5:06 pm
them that's not, shall lose-
that the bible says,
yet it still is news....
papa may have-
and mama may have-
but god bless the child,
that's got his own,
that's got his own."
Yes, then the Bible has little good to say about money or those who have it. Liberalism, on the other hand, positively celebrates predatory human conduct by calling it "freedom".
12 Oct 2013, 8:30 pm
Zac, had you read that article on the Latin Monetary Union you would know that it was exactly what you describe. The essence of this union was a gold coin weighing 0.1867 oz, though they all had the markings of the country of issue.
Nor would a gold standard with non-denominated coins for trade even be possible. Gold is so scarce, and the modern economy is so large, that gold would be worth at least twenty-five thousand dollars an ounce--which is hardly something we could use to buy milk and bread--or even pay our rent. So, we would find ourselves having to use paper to represent such miniscule amounts of gold, which would put us right back on the road to what we have now.
What happens if entire countries don't wish to participate in this international gold scheme? The only way it could be made to work would be to have libertarians, such as the Austrian school, behaving like authoritarians in order to promote liberty. It's another example of the insanity of liberalism.
As far as the deflation in the cost of electronics goes, it is very different from the deflation of money. As with other things, the costs of electronics have gone down--or deflated--due to massive increases in productivity and efficiency. Monetary deflation occurs when there is a lack of money, which benefits those who already have it at the expense of those who don't, but would be willing to work hard to get it; the gold standard ensures the rich remain rich while everybody else remains poor. This is one of the reasons socialism has followed capitalism like white on rice.
As far as honest weights and measures go, it is more than a biblical injunction; congress is mandated by the Constitution to provide for standard weights and measures. As far as inflation goes, it is obviously an erosion of the measure of money, but has been deemed a lesser evil than the gold standard deflation that keeps the rich rich and everybody else poor. I would further add that inflation is a direct result of the myriad problems inherent in the modern liberal managerial state, of which a mandatory international gold standard would be the worst manifestation yet. The system you advocate is far too full of what the Deconstructionists call "internal contradictions" ever to be viable. It's the reason this system went out a hundred years ago.
Would it be fair to call you a Monetarist? Or more Keynsian? Sorry for not reading the link. What I meant by a gold standard, just for the US, and fix it at one one thousandth of an ounce , or whateve rit is now. I think a better solution would be a silver standard. In all actuality, I think a free market in currency would make sense, and I think Rothbard was a tad statist in this regard. I think Hayek wa sbetter in terms of monetary affiars. I find something my dad somewhat interesting, that being they used to be more mass buying, an dnow it is more individualize. While I do think that efficiency has improved, I think that a large purchasing power was key. We can disagree on schematics, but I think we can both agree that we need to preserving the saving and purchasing powe rof the poor and middle class, since that is where the growth of a vibrant economy comes from. In that regard, Reagan and Volcker were better than most in monetary affairs, although spending was questionable. I am by no means a Reagannite, but give credit where credit is do.
I would actually term myself an economic nationalist, meaning the economy should be set up to benefit an entire nation rather than those at the top. This position makes good sense with two considerations:
1. Economics is the study of how EVERYBODY attempts to satisfy unlimited wants and needs with very limited means. An economy that only serves the most wealthy and powerful among us, which is increasingly what we have, does violence to the very concept of economics.
2. I am an old-school conservative, meaning I wish to conserve a particular people and their culture, in a particular time and place. And the most basic element of conserving a people is providing them with means for their sustenance.
Liberal economics suffers from the same erroneous assumption as Marxist economics, namely that the managerial state can create the culture, which naturally includes the economy, when all the empirical evidence screams out that just the opposite is the case.
As an old-school conservative, I am properly horrified by all ideologies, including those of libertarianism. The difference is that as a traditionalist, I subscribe to ideas and policies with a time-tested track record--to the collected wisdom of the past--something that is anathema to modernism, which is one of the primary assumptions of all liberal movements, including libertarianism.
I can't blame you to a certain extent. There are some ways I think nationalism is better, and certain ways internationalism is better, but regardless, my goal is individualism, so whatever lets me reach that is the way I go. I prefer local government to the maximum amount possible, but economically internationalist. I think accepting blank gold or silver coins would be a step in the right direction, so I guess that would be internationalist, but things like the Amero or Euro are bad ideas, since you shift responsibility for poor areas to rich ones. One area I don't like about nationalism is the amount of war that comes about because of it. This is not always the case, but happens to often with ultranationalism.
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
13 Oct 2013, 9:14 am
"I can't blame you to a certain extent. There are some ways I think nationalism is better, and certain ways internationalism is better, but regardless, my goal is individualism, so whatever lets me reach that is the way I go. I prefer local government to the maximum amount possible, but economically internationalist. I think accepting blank gold or silver coins would be a step in the right direction, so I guess that would be internationalist, but things like the Amero or Euro are bad ideas, since you shift responsibility for poor areas to rich ones. One area I don't like about nationalism is the amount of war that comes about because of it. This is not always the case, but happens to often with ultranationalism."
It is admittedly counter-intuitive, but isolationist policies are actually best for peace. Please consider that Switzerland hasn't been involved in a war in centuries. Spain and Portugal have also not been involved in many wars in recent centuries. What all have in common is that they avoid entangling alliances. It is also worth noting that this country had its longest stretch of peacetime between the Mexican war of 1848 and the Spanish war of 1898 (the Civil War as a domestic affair, though it should not have happened). I don't think it is coincidence that the more this country becomes enmeshed in international intrigues, the more wars we become involved in.
Actually, I think the reason the people of the world aren't trying to kill each other with the same alacrity as in the past is that we have largely escaped the Malthusian trap, though world trade is rapidly putting us back into it.
13 Oct 2013, 12:11 pm
I agree at least on the foreign policy bit. While I do think there were positive aspects to NAFTA, I do think that overall it is no better than regular trade. Heck, prior to NAFTA and 9/11, you did not even need a passport to get into NAFTA areas, now you do. Is that really free trade? I would beg to differ. I think I get what you are saying though about isolationism. So you would be more Pat Buchanan than Theo Roosevelt? But back on NAFTA. I think that in between all the restrictions the place on trade, the EXIM Bank, along with other things, I think it would be wise to shred up NAFTA and start from scratch. But on the other hand, I think we should be leery of protectionist tariffs, ala 1870's inflation and Smoot Hawley Act. But I think that regardless of protectionism or not, manufacturing as we know it won't come back, due to advances in tech and 3D printing. Heck, China alone has lost 45 million jobs due to automation, jobs that will never come back. So while I do think that the class divide needs dealt with, I don't think tariffs will do it, since it will hurt efficiency. But Good point on military isolationism.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas
13 Oct 2013, 12:15 pm
due to technological developments which displace human workers, if current trends continue there will be legions of the unemployed and unemployable, and if governments want peace they will either have to go medieval or go in the opposite direction towards ancient rome's "bread and circuses."
13 Oct 2013, 3:11 pm
I think it is more a switch in the type of workers that benefit from technology, from the peasant class to the artisan class, like prior to the industrial revolution. I think there will be jobs, but people will be more free agents than anything. I think that since people don't need as many of something, that that will affect employment all over, not just the US. Overall, I think this will be the age of assets.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas
13 Oct 2013, 3:15 pm
I think it is more a switch in the type of workers that benefit from technology, from the peasant class to the artisan class, like prior to the industrial revolution. I think there will be jobs, but people will be more free agents than anything. I think that since people don't need as many of something, that that will affect employment all over, not just the US. Overall, I think this will be the age of assets.
it will be "assets" only for those with natural assets [exceptional intelligence or talent]. regular joes will starve, be culled or be enslaved. either that, or "bread and circuses."
13 Oct 2013, 3:18 pm
I think it is more a switch in the type of workers that benefit from technology, from the peasant class to the artisan class, like prior to the industrial revolution. I think there will be jobs, but people will be more free agents than anything. I think that since people don't need as many of something, that that will affect employment all over, not just the US. Overall, I think this will be the age of assets.
