Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erys
Of course.
The value between items is always relative, more gold - less worth - less cost in FRNs. FRNs have, in fact, gained on gold. Too much so and you'd call it deflation.
Fortunately(?) that very rarely happens over the long haul. After all, the very nature of fiat money is to rapidly expand. It does so because it can. And it starts in two places.
Then I think you'll find this interesting then. Here is a list of gold prices since the 70's. Note how from the 80's to the 90's the price of gold dropped fairly steadily. Note also that those prices are all the price at the time; when you take inflation into account, and shift those dollars to prices now, the drop becomes quite obvious:
Spoiler: To avoid taking up the whole page
Show
So which is it? Is this the value of gold unstable, counter to your claims, or is the buying power of the FRN increasing, counter to your claims?
Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
woweedd
And what happens when buying power doesn't stay stable? Because, you know, gold is finite and that means it can't keep pace with the growth of a large economy.
Gold can handle any size economy, its just going to be a slower, more stable economy.
Govenments can only spend what they have, instead of what they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
martianmister
So? Non-Fiat money, too, requires faith and confidence of the people using it. It's just shiny rocks without it.
The only times in history people 'lost faith' in gold/silver was when governments debased their currency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
georgie_leech
Then I think you'll find this interesting then.
Here is a list of gold prices since the 70's. Note how from the 80's to the 90's the price of gold dropped fairly steadily. Note also that those prices are all the price at the time; when you take inflation into account, and shift those dollars to prices now, the drop becomes quite obvious:
Spoiler: To avoid taking up the whole page
Show
So which is it? Is this the value of gold unstable, counter to your claims, or is the buying power of the FRN increasing, counter to your claims?
Already answered.
The value between items is always relative, more gold - less worth - less cost in FRNs. FRNs have, in fact, gained on gold. Too much so and you'd call it deflation.
Remember, when new money is first injected into the money supply inflation doesn't happen immediately. It takes a little time to disseminate the money, swell the supply, and realize loss of buying power.
Fiat might work wonders and seem like it is strong at first (remember, we didn't go full fiat until the 1970s)- but now, merely one generation later- how are things?
Have we ever seen buying power return to the FRN in any meaningful way? Or have we just seen 450% inflation since 1973?
Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erys
Gold can handle any size economy, its just going to be a slower, more stable economy.
No, gold restricts the growth of an economy, thus increasing all sorts of societal problems, the most prominent of which is unemployment, as seen in pre-fiat economies throughout of history. As has been pointed out repeatedly, to no answer from you, gold cannot keep up with population growth or economic growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erys
Govenments can only spend what they have, instead of what they want.
What about what they need? What about sensible investments that will pay off, but that there isn't enough money to pay for?
Do you know how gold dealt with deflation periods? By letting the economy crash into full-blown depressions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erys
The only times in history people 'lost faith' in gold/silver was when governments debased their currency.
False. When governments stuck to their guns and refused to debase, instead they simply ran out of money and forced the economy to regress into barter. As I have already pointed out, as seen in the Roman attempt to go back to the gold standard.
Also, still waiting on this magical example of an gold-backed economy that lasted for 100 years without debasing, crashing, etc. Please include proof of inflation 0. Because the more you dither on this, the clearer it is that no such example exists, and this is all a castle-in-the-sky idea that has never worked in reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erys
Fiat might work wonders and seem like it is strong at first (remember, we didn't go full fiat until the 1970s)- but now, merely one generation later- how are things?
First, who is this "we" you speak of? I'm guessing you are one of those parochial Americans that think that outside your borders there is nothing?
Second, The British Pound has been effectively fiat for the last 400 years. Your prediction of doom seems to have been lost in the mail.
Third, once again, double standard: the US has been using FRB since its inception. You don't get to call the pre-1970s "gold standard" and then decry the FRB in the next breath. The dollar was never the kind of "gold backed" currency you spouse.
Fourth, the economy is much, much, much better now than it was in the 1970s, and anyone that thinks otherwise has really rose-coloured glasses on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erys
Have we ever seen buying power return to the FRN in any meaningful way? Or have we just seen 450% inflation since 1973?
What has been the increase in purchasing power in the same period, I wonder? Do you even know?
Grey Wolf
Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread
What did anything in my post have to do with injecting new money? I am directly attacking two of your points: That gold remains stable, and that Fiat currency always decreases in buying power. You previously argued that gold rising in price was the buying power of the FRN decreasing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erys
Quote:
Originally Posted by
georgie_leech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erys
Because your chart shows the FRN value of gold during a period of time.
To fairly answer it, you need to see the price of other goods in relation to the FRNs buying power. If you do that, you will see most, of not all, goods value rose when golds did... Likely in fairly close relations to each other.
Why?
Because what you think is the value of gold rising -> is actually your buying power lowering.
So to be clear, under the FRN system, if the value of gold lowers that's your buying power increasing then?
Of course.
The value between items is always relative, more gold - less worth - less cost in FRNs. FRNs have, in fact, gained on gold. Too much so and you'd call it deflation.
Fortunately(?) that very rarely happens over the long haul. After all, the very nature of fiat money is to rapidly expand. It does so because it can. And it starts in two places.
I then showed you the same sort of data showing the price of gold dropping.
"If X then Y?"
"Yes."
"X."
"Not Y."
Your argument isn't even consistent with itself, let alone reality.
EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
What has been the increase in purchasing power in the same period, I wonder? Do you even know?
Grey Wolf
I showed him the median income values 10-ish pages ago; he ignored it as meaningless. For Posterity
Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread
Gang, please stop feeding the troll. No one is going to convince anyone of anything at this point.
Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
No, gold restricts the growth of an economy, thus increasing all sorts of societal problems, the most prominent of which is unemployment, as seen in pre-fiat economies throughout of history. As has been pointed out repeatedly, to no answer from you, gold cannot keep up with population growth or economic growth.
What about what they need? What about sensible investments that will pay off, but that there isn't enough money to pay for?
Do you know how gold dealt with deflation periods? By letting the economy crash into full-blown depressions.
False. When governments stuck to their guns and refused to debase, instead they simply ran out of money and forced the economy to regress into barter. As I have already pointed out, as seen in the Roman attempt to go back to the gold standard.
Also, still waiting on this magical example of an gold-backed economy that lasted for 100 years without debasing, crashing, etc. Please include proof of inflation 0. Because the more you dither on this, the clearer it is that no such example exists, and this is all a castle-in-the-sky idea that has never worked in reality.
First, who is this "we" you speak of? I'm guessing you are one of those parochial Americans that think that outside your borders there is nothing?
Second, The British Pound has been effectively fiat for the last 400 years. Your prediction of doom seems to have been lost in the mail.
Third, once again, double standard: the US has been using FRB since its inception. You don't get to call the pre-1970s "gold standard" and then decry the FRB in the next breath. The dollar was never the kind of "gold backed" currency you spouse.
Fourth, the economy is much, much, much better now than it was in the 1970s, and anyone that thinks otherwise has really rose-coloured glasses on.
What has been the increase in purchasing power in the same period, I wonder? Do you even know?
Grey Wolf
There is a lot of nonsense here (highlighted for your convenience). Like Britain being "fiat" since the 1600's. Its been fractional since then, but even that is limited to the physical gold on hand. It's only been fully fiat for about as long as the Dollar has.
I refuse to go point for point; because- as always- you are not being honest, and I don't have the desire to correct that many brazenly false claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
georgie_leech
What did anything in my post have to do with injecting new money? I am directly attacking two of your points: That gold remains stable, and that Fiat currency always decreases in buying power.
I showed him the median income values 10-ish pages ago; he ignored it as meaningless.
For Posterity
If you can only look at the short game, you will be blind sided by the long term.
Gold, historically, has been stable. Sure, in the short term there are fluctuation, but in the long term there is a stable trend.
Fiat, historically, is not stable. Sure, in the short term there are benefits, but in the long term it will always devalue.
If you want to hold onto the idea that as long as you create more money and raise wages to keep up with inflation then everything is fine... so be it. I feel you are ignoring those who are poor and those on fixed incomes- as neither of which will get 'raises to keep up with inflation'. But, who cares about them...
For that matter, who cares about small business, competition between businesses, rampart corruption, or growing cronyism... these things clearly are OK, because fiat is so wonderful. Right?
If you are one of those who is making 5 times what you did 45 years ago your doing a little better than you did back then. After all, the national median income is up about 6 times... per your link.
Quote:
From 1978 to 2013, CEO compensation, inflation-adjusted, increased 937 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.2 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.
source
If the 'typical worker' has only seen about 10.2 percent growth... that seems a bit behind that 257.3% inflation uptick for that same period of time.
Its almost like these households are requiring more people working within them to keep up.
Do you disagree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rogar Demonblud
Gang, please stop feeding the troll. No one is going to convince anyone of anything at this point.
Wow, never been called a troll before. Since its been many against one... I can only assume you are accusing me of being a troll for expressing a different point of view.
:smallmad:
Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erys
If you can only look at the short game, you will be blind sided by the long term.
Gold, historically, has been stable. Sure, in the short term there are fluctuation, but in the long term there is a stable trend.
Fiat, historically, is not stable. Sure, in the short term there are benefits, but in the long term it will always devalue.
What is long term to you? 50 Years? 100? Longer?
Quote:
If you want to hold onto the idea that as long as you create more money and raise wages to keep up with inflation then everything is fine... so be it. I feel you are ignoring those who are poor and those on fixed incomes- as neither of which will get 'raises to keep up with inflation'. But, who cares about them...
For that matter, who cares about small business, competition between businesses, rampart corruption, or growing cronyism... these things clearly are OK, because fiat is so wonderful. Right?
If you are one of those who is making 5 times what you did 45 years ago your doing a little better than you did back then. After all, the national median income is up about 6 times... per your link.
In point of fact, that data was based on Social Security benefits; that is, the people on the fixed incomes. Given how diverse the economy is, it seemed an easier estimation of incomes than going industry by industry and calculating median incomes.
But you are putting words in my mouth. I do not agree with corruption or cronyism; what I fail to see is how gold prevents it or fiat exacerbates it, given that the enriched people aren't generally those that have the ability to actually create money. Bankers aside, and I fully agree that they tend to be a corrupt lot at best.
Quote:
If the 'typical worker' has only seen about 10.2 percent growth... that seems a bit behind that 257.3% inflation uptick for that same period of time.
Its almost like these households are requiring more people working within them to keep up.
Do you disagree?
That certainly is troubling. Mind you, I fail to see how gold solves this problem?
EDIT: And after some further reading another article on the site has the wages of production and non-supervisory workers (i.e. not CEO's or other executives) generally rising higher than inflation (Ctrl+F "Figure D") from 2000 to 2014. This indicates to me there is either conflicting data, analyses, or both. I would be interested in seeing the data for both articles, and particularly if there was data on wage growth for the 80's and 90's (not just compensation), rather than just assuming one or the other was more correct.
Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erys
There is a lot of....
:smallmad:
Okay, Erys I agree with you that they were aspects of the USA's economy that were better in the 1970's (I also agree with Grey_Wolf_c, that the world is more prosperous now). Let me try to explain why I guess you're walking into the wind here.
Most "goldbugs" favor the gold standard because they believe it will limit inflation (or, as I think in your case Federal spending), in this thread while I remember the "gaslines" of 1979, and all the complaints about inflation, only KorvinStarmast has real memories of when the USA shed the vestiges of the gold standard in '71 (I was only three years-old at the time).
But most of us while we have heard of the hyper-inflation in 1920's Germany, we also have learned of the world-wide depression of the 1930's.
I remember the unemployment of the 1980's as a worse event than the inflation of the '70's, and most of us have fresh memories of the deflation of 2008 and '09.
You fear inflation and your money being "de-valued", but I think most of us have other economic worries (joblessness and income loss for one, i.e. getting money in the first place) that are bigger priorities for us.
When you try to convince people to make a change, it's not enough to tell them how you think something can fix something you are scared of, if they're not.
Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erys
Huh?
...Its what happened...
What am I rebutting?
You're rebutting everyone who brings up Spain as irrelevant, despite that you just agreed that mining a lot and taking a lot from a sudden source are virtually identical. So "outside source" is meaningless, and gold as a currency has a basic flaw.
Sorry about the timing, I was out and about the state today. Got some good hiking in.
Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erys
you are not being honest
I grow tired of you having to insult me every time you don't have an actual counter argument against my points. I will leave you to the mods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erys
Wow, never been called a troll before. Since its been many against one... I can only assume you are accusing me of being a troll for expressing a different point of view.
Yes, since that is what you do when you have no arguments, that seems to be the position you'd jump to.
Grey Wolf
Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
You're rebutting everyone who brings up Spain as irrelevant, despite that you just agreed that mining a lot and taking a lot from a sudden source are virtually identical. So "outside source" is meaningless, and gold as a currency has a basic flaw.
Sorry about the timing, I was out and about the state today. Got some good hiking in.
You are misunderstanding me then.
Spain looting America is on par with finding a new mine that has the means to double your gold supply in a short amount of time. Both will have the same detrimental effects on an economy. Hence why I said 'hopefully we would have learned from Spain if we found such a mine- its not like we have to mine as fast as possible.'
Fiat or intrinsic, adding new money too fast will always kill buying power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
georgie_leech
What is long term to you? 50 Years? 100? Longer?
In point of fact, that data was based on Social Security benefits; that is, the people
on the fixed incomes. Given how diverse the economy is, it seemed an easier estimation of incomes than going industry by industry and calculating median incomes.
But you are putting words in my mouth. I do not agree with corruption or cronyism; what I fail to see is how gold prevents it or fiat exacerbates it, given that the enriched people aren't generally those that have the ability to actually create money. Bankers aside, and I fully agree that they tend to be a corrupt lot at best.
That certainly is troubling. Mind you, I fail to see how gold solves this problem?
EDIT: And after some further reading
another article on the site has the wages of production and non-supervisory workers (i.e. not CEO's or other executives) generally rising higher than inflation (Ctrl+F "Figure D") from 2000 to 2014. This indicates to me there is either conflicting data, analyses, or both. I would be interested in seeing the data for both articles, and particularly if there was data on wage growth for the 80's and 90's (not just compensation), rather than just assuming one or the other was more correct.
Fifty to a hundred years seems reasonable. We have 45 years worth of data for the US now, and arguably the US has the best fiat mechanisms ever invented.
My belief, simplified, men of wealth/power will always want more wealth/power. If there are physical constraints to that process it is better for all people in the long run. If there are no constraints it will be worse.
And I agree, there are a lot of articles both for and against either type of currency that should have better data trails presented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
2D8HP
Okay, Erys I agree with you that they were aspects of the USA's economy that were better in the 1970's (I also agree with Grey_Wolf_c, that the world is more prosperous now). Let me try to explain why I guess you're walking into the wind here.
Most "goldbugs" favor the gold standard because they believe it will limit inflation (or, as I think in your case Federal spending), in this thread while I remember the "gaslines" of 1979, and all the complaints about inflation, only KorvinStarmast has real memories of when the USA shed the vestiges of the gold standard in '71 (I was only three years-old at the time).
But most of us while we have heard of the hyper-inflation in 1920's Germany, we also have learned of the world-wide depression of the 1930's.
I remember the unemployment of the 1980's as a worse event than the inflation of the '70's, and most of us have fresh memories of the deflation of 2008 and '09.
You fear inflation and your money being "de-valued", but I think most of us have other economic worries (joblessness and income loss for one, i.e. getting money in the first place) that are bigger priorities for us.
When you try to convince people to make a change, it's not enough to tell them how you think something can fix something you are scared of, if they're not.
Its not that I "fear" inflation. I just prefer (a lot) less of it, and the only way to do that is to rein in spending. Intrinsic money has natural caps on what you can spend, fiat doesn't. What I "fear" is all the things we are spending this money on, because we can. A lot can be done with a trillion a year, including massive spying on our own people, multitudes of new government offices, agencies, and beuracracies, the MIC, PPIC, the consilidations of choices and the rise of monopolies in all areas of life that matter most- like the food supply, news media, and even internet availability (to name a few).
Its not that any of this couldn't happen with gold currency, it just couldn't happen as fast.
All that said: you are not wrong. If people don't see an issue, they will not understand another persons warnings about said 'issue'. Honestly, as I said at the very beginning when I accidentally started this monster- this is probably a discussion best for another day, on another forum.