Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1112131415161718192021
Results 601 to 611 of 611
  1. - Top - End - #601
    Troll in the Playground
     
    georgie_leech's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Erys View Post
    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?
    Last edited by georgie_leech; 2017-08-17 at 08:13 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    We should try to make that a thing; I think it might help civility. Hey, GitP, let's try to make this a thing: when you're arguing optimization strategies, RAW-logic, and similar such things that you'd never actually use in a game, tag your post [THEORETICAL] and/or use green text
    Quote Originally Posted by Lvl 2 Expert View Post
    So a ranger is like a Bachelor of Applied Druidology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Jake View Post
    What's the word for 'fear of being eaten by a mounted bear in half-plate' again? Because that's the one I have.

  2. - Top - End - #602
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Erys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by woweedd View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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?

  3. - Top - End - #603
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Erys View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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
    My Motto:
    Forum Motto:
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant & Yendor View Post
    GIANT IN THE PLAYGROUND: On a saner forum,
    there wouldn't have been such speculation.
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    Scientia est similis fluminis te capere non possunt in perpetuum
    (Knowledge, like a river, cannot be constrained forever)

  4. - Top - End - #604
    Troll in the Playground
     
    georgie_leech's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Gender
    Male

    Default 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 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Erys View Post
    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 View Post

    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
    Last edited by georgie_leech; 2017-08-17 at 10:48 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    We should try to make that a thing; I think it might help civility. Hey, GitP, let's try to make this a thing: when you're arguing optimization strategies, RAW-logic, and similar such things that you'd never actually use in a game, tag your post [THEORETICAL] and/or use green text
    Quote Originally Posted by Lvl 2 Expert View Post
    So a ranger is like a Bachelor of Applied Druidology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Jake View Post
    What's the word for 'fear of being eaten by a mounted bear in half-plate' again? Because that's the one I have.

  5. - Top - End - #605
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2013

    Default Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread

    Gang, please stop feeding the troll. No one is going to convince anyone of anything at this point.

  6. - Top - End - #606
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Erys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    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 View Post
    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.

    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 View Post
    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.


  7. - Top - End - #607
    Troll in the Playground
     
    georgie_leech's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Erys View Post

    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?

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by georgie_leech; 2017-08-17 at 06:00 PM. Reason: their vs there is bugging me
    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    We should try to make that a thing; I think it might help civility. Hey, GitP, let's try to make this a thing: when you're arguing optimization strategies, RAW-logic, and similar such things that you'd never actually use in a game, tag your post [THEORETICAL] and/or use green text
    Quote Originally Posted by Lvl 2 Expert View Post
    So a ranger is like a Bachelor of Applied Druidology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Jake View Post
    What's the word for 'fear of being eaten by a mounted bear in half-plate' again? Because that's the one I have.

  8. - Top - End - #608
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Erys View Post
    There is a lot of....

    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.
    Grim specter of noogie hangs like shroud over us all


    Extended Sig
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja_Prawn View Post
    You're an NPC stat block."I remember when your race was your class you damned whippersnappers"
    Quote Originally Posted by YossarianLives View Post
    Stop destroying western civilization 2D8HP!!!.

  9. - Top - End - #609
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Erys View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Peelee; 2017-08-17 at 06:48 PM.
    Cuthalion makes great avatars. Like my Silver Dragon.
    Quote Originally Posted by littlebum2002 View Post
    It would be nice to just change the title of this thread to be "stuff about Jedi"

  10. - Top - End - #610
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Erys View Post
    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 View Post
    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
    My Motto:
    Forum Motto:
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant & Yendor View Post
    GIANT IN THE PLAYGROUND: On a saner forum,
    there wouldn't have been such speculation.
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    Scientia est similis fluminis te capere non possunt in perpetuum
    (Knowledge, like a river, cannot be constrained forever)

  11. - Top - End - #611
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Erys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2016

    Default Re: OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •