Back to the gold standard
- Thread starter iheartaaron4life
- Start date
CloverfieldMonster
New member
- Apr 4, 2008
- 29
- 0
- 1
Can you rephrase that? I don't understand the question.
I would only accept payment in gold or Silver or another physical asset . The dollar is backed by what? last time I looked all the US had was $15 trillion dollars of bad debt and a burgeoning welfare system. Why would I want that type of risk? the dollar is only a promissory note, and given the way the authorities let MF global pilfer segregated accounts, I do not want that kind of counter party risk.
I think you're missing the point. But, to continue with your comment:
If you mean you're the guy on the island with the book, then fine; the producers can pay you with gold. It makes no difference, except that if a few more people move in, at some point, people may find it annoying to shave off little pieces of gold. You're in charge, so you won't print money. But, eventually someone's going to say to someone else, 'Hey, I'll take this pencil, and instead of figuring out how much gold dust it is, why don't I just write you an IUO for the next time you buy one of my sandwiches?' (If no more people come and you want to buy something from another country, you'll have to ship that gold there - which is expensive. Gold is heavy. And, you have to protect it from pirates and all of that.)
Eventually a lot of people will do this and several de facto currencies will circulate, all with different values and credit risks (which will be significant).
Some dude will figure this out and arb* the hell out of the market that wil come into being trading all the little currencies. His profit will be dead-weight cost to the economy because a centrally cleared (i.e. national) currency would immediately remove all the friction.
If you're the guys from Hollywood in this question, that's okay too. Someone else will just come and buy it. They don't have to hold the Island Money, they just buy enough to pay you. They get the book (worth tons of the currency units of their choice) and you end up with dollar reserves, which you can spend.
If you mean you're the guy on the island with the book, then fine; the producers can pay you with gold. It makes no difference, except that if a few more people move in, at some point, people may find it annoying to shave off little pieces of gold. You're in charge, so you won't print money. But, eventually someone's going to say to someone else, 'Hey, I'll take this pencil, and instead of figuring out how much gold dust it is, why don't I just write you an IUO for the next time you buy one of my sandwiches?' (If no more people come and you want to buy something from another country, you'll have to ship that gold there - which is expensive. Gold is heavy. And, you have to protect it from pirates and all of that.)
Eventually a lot of people will do this and several de facto currencies will circulate, all with different values and credit risks (which will be significant).
Some dude will figure this out and arb* the hell out of the market that wil come into being trading all the little currencies. His profit will be dead-weight cost to the economy because a centrally cleared (i.e. national) currency would immediately remove all the friction.
If you're the guys from Hollywood in this question, that's okay too. Someone else will just come and buy it. They don't have to hold the Island Money, they just buy enough to pay you. They get the book (worth tons of the currency units of their choice) and you end up with dollar reserves, which you can spend.
dancqeen95
New member
- Apr 6, 2008
- 25
- 0
- 1
Ok well this has happened before. We English wouldn't let you Americans use gold and silver so you used Mexican silver, and it was divided up into pieces of 8 hence the name, and yeah I was thinking about being the guy on the island..but I do understand your point, I just don't agree with it. We are currently in a debt/currency crisis.
If you look at Greece the banks are asset stripping the country to pay off the debt and as they carry on with austerity measures the people suffer. Yet the debt belongs to the banks and what they used to say until quite recently was the banks didn't want to take a "haircut". i.e. lose money
If you look at the housing crisis in the US. The people who took out the bad loans are blamed and yet the banks knew what they were getting into. They deliberately lent money to people who they must of known at some time wouldn't be able to pay, and yet they get bailed out and the people get blamed , what the banks were doing was taking a risk, if I did that by becoming a day trader and lost my money, no one would bail me out so why should we the people bail these guys out, and then on top of it give them huge bonuses for bad business practices that lose money.?
If you look at Greece the banks are asset stripping the country to pay off the debt and as they carry on with austerity measures the people suffer. Yet the debt belongs to the banks and what they used to say until quite recently was the banks didn't want to take a "haircut". i.e. lose money
If you look at the housing crisis in the US. The people who took out the bad loans are blamed and yet the banks knew what they were getting into. They deliberately lent money to people who they must of known at some time wouldn't be able to pay, and yet they get bailed out and the people get blamed , what the banks were doing was taking a risk, if I did that by becoming a day trader and lost my money, no one would bail me out so why should we the people bail these guys out, and then on top of it give them huge bonuses for bad business practices that lose money.?
doubletgirl@sbcglobalenet
New member
- Feb 29, 2008
- 15
- 0
- 1
Sorry,
British, both the Union of Crowns and Act of Union were in effect, British not English k thanks.
Raz
British, both the Union of Crowns and Act of Union were in effect, British not English k thanks.
Raz
I don't disagree that there are problems with banking regulations. Our problems are more psychological than structural, so it's not likely to get better.
I was explaining why we have the sort of money that we have and how it's not based on 'nothing' and also (in previous posts) why pegging it to gold isn't any better.
It seems like you believe that the problems we're having are based on the fact that the currency isn't backed by a metal. I'm telling you that it has nothing to do with the problems, which are caused by other things entirely.
What part of my point don't you agree with?
I was explaining why we have the sort of money that we have and how it's not based on 'nothing' and also (in previous posts) why pegging it to gold isn't any better.
It seems like you believe that the problems we're having are based on the fact that the currency isn't backed by a metal. I'm telling you that it has nothing to do with the problems, which are caused by other things entirely.
What part of my point don't you agree with?
Quote
"What part of my point don't you agree with?"
I don't see a gold standard as a panacea for all economic woes, but I like it a lot more than a system that is based on something as Ephemeral as the "wealth of a country".
The Gold standard reigns in overspending governments, a silver standard is probably better, because it is cheaper than gold and is also an industrial metal, and we could not live today without silver.
I see the problem mainly as the merger of state and corporate finance ( also called fascism)....and the other problems are over lever-edging and out sourcing which really relates to the other two. In the US ( so I hear) big corporations pay less tax and have more tax breaks than small businesses, and political parties are basically bought ,Obama is a useless president IMHO but no less so than Bush it is the system that is at fault
When America was great it was because it had everything it needed, resources , and a good workforce, but now with out sourcing and cheap labor from abroad the only jobs Americans can find are in the service industries. Bankers don't produce anything and they are really irrelevant to the economy, so they shouldn't have the power that they do
"What part of my point don't you agree with?"
I don't see a gold standard as a panacea for all economic woes, but I like it a lot more than a system that is based on something as Ephemeral as the "wealth of a country".
The Gold standard reigns in overspending governments, a silver standard is probably better, because it is cheaper than gold and is also an industrial metal, and we could not live today without silver.
I see the problem mainly as the merger of state and corporate finance ( also called fascism)....and the other problems are over lever-edging and out sourcing which really relates to the other two. In the US ( so I hear) big corporations pay less tax and have more tax breaks than small businesses, and political parties are basically bought ,Obama is a useless president IMHO but no less so than Bush it is the system that is at fault
When America was great it was because it had everything it needed, resources , and a good workforce, but now with out sourcing and cheap labor from abroad the only jobs Americans can find are in the service industries. Bankers don't produce anything and they are really irrelevant to the economy, so they shouldn't have the power that they do
What about the fact that historically every single country/kingdom/whatever has debased their metal standard? If a government implements a metal standard there's no-one to hold them to it. I think that an overnight debasement or re-adjustment of the peg would have far greater effects than a slow inflation.
Gold is an industrial metal as well, but none of these things matter for a currency peg. Right now currencies are already indirectly pegged to commodities, and also other important things as well. Look at Canada or Australia, in particular. Mining is such a huge part of their economy that the commodities have an incredible effect on their currency. Essentially tying it to the price.
Anyway, the more something has an industrial use the less you want to drive the price up because you've got a large percentage of the worlds reserves sitting locked up in a vault collecting dust. That's a dead-weight loss on the economy.
Not to mention the 'eggs in one basket' problem. What happens if we find a way to transmute metals? It's not impossible. One could imagine at some point it could happen. The way it is now the value of the currency is diversified across the entire economy, which naturally grows and changes with the times, automatically using what is most important at the time as the basis of its value.
Even if a country were to adopt it, it's just a proxy anyway (and one that is constantly a drain on the wealth, as opposed to investment in stocks for example). The price of that gold in real terms will rise and fall with the rest of the economy. What most people fail to see is the interconnectedness of the system. It all works itself out whether or not you like the form. It's just a question of how much friction you introduce to the system, and friction - just like in mechanics is just wasted.
Well, there's a lot in this last paragraph. I agree that deposit holding banks shouldn't be trading prop if they are a certain size that renders them 'too big to fail'. If someone wants a bit of extra interest on their account to take a risk on someone smaller, that's okay.
Being against outsourcing is really just being economically racist (country-ist?), and it's much better for the global economy and therefore the US/UK and everyone else. People need to get over this notion of wealth as something that you can hold in your hand. Again, I ask: Is the "Mona Lisa" valuable? Are the works of Shakespeare valuable? Is the time you spend with your loved ones valuable? All of these things are wealth, and it's directly proven by the fact that people will pay for them.
The world economy has been moving and will continue to move towards information and knowledge being the basis of wealth. We'd better hope it does as well, because we're not going to be able to churn out zillions of widgets forever.
I know it's fashionable to say that people in finance don't contribute, but it's just wrong. For example, high frequency trading is labelled in the media as useless. What people don't see is that HFT saves anyone who has any sort contact with finance, from investments to mortgages - just fractions of a penny at a time. That savings adds up, but no one person is aware of it because of it's slow and steady nature.
Frankly, the 'average person' understands less than zero about how this all works, I mean not a lack of knowledge but actually holding harmful and inaccurate beliefs, and I'm not even talking about complicated philosophical questions, or even good tough debate about the hard questions. I mean stuff that they vocally complain and protest about: Want to join OWS, okay, how you explain to me first how the market works. I'm not asking for a well reasoned argument about its place in the world. Just a factual, 'this does that' explanation before some crappy argument that misses completely that it's all connected, 'second-order effects', 'the mechanics of change', etc...
Everyone thinks we can just change thiiiisssss liiittle bit, and everything else will stay the same. Doesn't work like that. Law of unintended consequences and all that.
I'm American, so I like the whole 'American Exceptionalism" myth. But, that's what it is. Is it beneficial for the States to have that view? Probably in small doses, studies have shown that a little overconfidence is actually a more successful strategy than full and accurate self-knowledge (which is impossible anyway). But, I also think that being left alone for a couple hundred years while the rest of Europe decided to spend a lot of their wealth killing each other, and having a internal waterway second to none probably also helped as well. The US banking system was able to grow in a way that Europe's couldn't because of the historical ties between monarchies and their treasuries.
Gold is an industrial metal as well, but none of these things matter for a currency peg. Right now currencies are already indirectly pegged to commodities, and also other important things as well. Look at Canada or Australia, in particular. Mining is such a huge part of their economy that the commodities have an incredible effect on their currency. Essentially tying it to the price.
Anyway, the more something has an industrial use the less you want to drive the price up because you've got a large percentage of the worlds reserves sitting locked up in a vault collecting dust. That's a dead-weight loss on the economy.
Not to mention the 'eggs in one basket' problem. What happens if we find a way to transmute metals? It's not impossible. One could imagine at some point it could happen. The way it is now the value of the currency is diversified across the entire economy, which naturally grows and changes with the times, automatically using what is most important at the time as the basis of its value.
Even if a country were to adopt it, it's just a proxy anyway (and one that is constantly a drain on the wealth, as opposed to investment in stocks for example). The price of that gold in real terms will rise and fall with the rest of the economy. What most people fail to see is the interconnectedness of the system. It all works itself out whether or not you like the form. It's just a question of how much friction you introduce to the system, and friction - just like in mechanics is just wasted.
Well, there's a lot in this last paragraph. I agree that deposit holding banks shouldn't be trading prop if they are a certain size that renders them 'too big to fail'. If someone wants a bit of extra interest on their account to take a risk on someone smaller, that's okay.
Being against outsourcing is really just being economically racist (country-ist?), and it's much better for the global economy and therefore the US/UK and everyone else. People need to get over this notion of wealth as something that you can hold in your hand. Again, I ask: Is the "Mona Lisa" valuable? Are the works of Shakespeare valuable? Is the time you spend with your loved ones valuable? All of these things are wealth, and it's directly proven by the fact that people will pay for them.
The world economy has been moving and will continue to move towards information and knowledge being the basis of wealth. We'd better hope it does as well, because we're not going to be able to churn out zillions of widgets forever.
I know it's fashionable to say that people in finance don't contribute, but it's just wrong. For example, high frequency trading is labelled in the media as useless. What people don't see is that HFT saves anyone who has any sort contact with finance, from investments to mortgages - just fractions of a penny at a time. That savings adds up, but no one person is aware of it because of it's slow and steady nature.
Frankly, the 'average person' understands less than zero about how this all works, I mean not a lack of knowledge but actually holding harmful and inaccurate beliefs, and I'm not even talking about complicated philosophical questions, or even good tough debate about the hard questions. I mean stuff that they vocally complain and protest about: Want to join OWS, okay, how you explain to me first how the market works. I'm not asking for a well reasoned argument about its place in the world. Just a factual, 'this does that' explanation before some crappy argument that misses completely that it's all connected, 'second-order effects', 'the mechanics of change', etc...
Everyone thinks we can just change thiiiisssss liiittle bit, and everything else will stay the same. Doesn't work like that. Law of unintended consequences and all that.
I'm American, so I like the whole 'American Exceptionalism" myth. But, that's what it is. Is it beneficial for the States to have that view? Probably in small doses, studies have shown that a little overconfidence is actually a more successful strategy than full and accurate self-knowledge (which is impossible anyway). But, I also think that being left alone for a couple hundred years while the rest of Europe decided to spend a lot of their wealth killing each other, and having a internal waterway second to none probably also helped as well. The US banking system was able to grow in a way that Europe's couldn't because of the historical ties between monarchies and their treasuries.
shadowman1994
New member
- Apr 7, 2008
- 25
- 0
- 1
No, it doesn't work like that. I don't write careful, polite explanations and then go running to prove it at your behest after a one-liner. If you take issue with one of my points, please note it and construct a counter-argument. Perhaps then I might need to further support my position. But really, really...really? If it's not pretty clear that I have a slightly greater than 'Joe Bloggs' understanding of this stuff than I probably can't help you. As I said, I'm happy to talk at length about it. I enjoy econ, it's what I've done in one way or another for over half my life.
But, I've done my homework already, got the sheepskin. However, I did study a bit of Latin as well, the Prof was exceedingly hot. In fact she just broke up the Uni President's marriage and snagged him after she had a long drawn out public fight with her banker ex-husband over who'd get the dog (it was on the news!). Ahhh, yes, well north of the Hot/Crazy divide. But, as a 20 yo used to sitting in classes by guys like Steve Levitt (I have no idea how they made him look that not-nerdy on the book jacket) and Rob Lucas, well you could imagine. Did I mention she rode a Harley to school.....
Oh, yeah here's the point: A little history of the Roman Empire could be a fun read. Third Century Crisis stuff.
(And @Jorvik (in slightly politer way): You may also want to look into some Roman history for a perspective on gold and silver based monies. Actually, it's a really, really, bad idea to have both at the same time because of that whole 'it's not really the basis of money thing' I was talking about. They still have relative values that fluctuate. Look into "Gresham's Law".)
But, I've done my homework already, got the sheepskin. However, I did study a bit of Latin as well, the Prof was exceedingly hot. In fact she just broke up the Uni President's marriage and snagged him after she had a long drawn out public fight with her banker ex-husband over who'd get the dog (it was on the news!). Ahhh, yes, well north of the Hot/Crazy divide. But, as a 20 yo used to sitting in classes by guys like Steve Levitt (I have no idea how they made him look that not-nerdy on the book jacket) and Rob Lucas, well you could imagine. Did I mention she rode a Harley to school.....
Oh, yeah here's the point: A little history of the Roman Empire could be a fun read. Third Century Crisis stuff.
(And @Jorvik (in slightly politer way): You may also want to look into some Roman history for a perspective on gold and silver based monies. Actually, it's a really, really, bad idea to have both at the same time because of that whole 'it's not really the basis of money thing' I was talking about. They still have relative values that fluctuate. Look into "Gresham's Law".)
Well first, there have been loads of little one liners all the throughout this thread, and I think this has been my first one. I can understand your frustration if im assuming correctly, those who have a differing view to yourself (vice Jorvik) seem to run out of steam very fast, thinking Bear etc, when confronted with the arguments you have put over.
My mantra has been pro-free market, anti gold standard current on current market conditions.
On the first page I had quoted Milton Friedman were he referred to Britain as socialist in its economic policies, to which some very smart cookie posted
"if you think Britain is socialist your deluded" sigh
This post
Ah the great lie. No the problem is that the market should not be allowed to decide anything. The people should determine the shape and form of society including commerce, government and law. If you leave these things to market forces you place all power in to the hands of the most ruthless and you get the perpetual bang and bust cycles. Modern politicians do not represent the people who elected them. They represent the people who funded them. Who are the major donors. Big Business. Who wants less laws controlling business. Big Business. Why does the media keep telling you that government interference destroys the economy, well, because it is owned by Big Business. Big Business is only looking out for the interests of it's shareholders. It doesn't care about society, human rights or environment. It cares about it's stock price and how happy it's shareholders are and quite rightly too. However, you don't want to allow that view to shape the rest of your society because business is not life. In fact the way we are doing business now it fundamentally anti-life.
The Bear.
Which was the most "liked" single post was shown to be nothing but populist dribble, by many posts of argument on economics that is, including yours, but the responses have dried up once it gets passed populist quips.
Second my point was at Jorvik not you, but thats my fault for not using the quote function. So sorry there
Raz
My mantra has been pro-free market, anti gold standard current on current market conditions.
On the first page I had quoted Milton Friedman were he referred to Britain as socialist in its economic policies, to which some very smart cookie posted
"if you think Britain is socialist your deluded" sigh
This post
Ah the great lie. No the problem is that the market should not be allowed to decide anything. The people should determine the shape and form of society including commerce, government and law. If you leave these things to market forces you place all power in to the hands of the most ruthless and you get the perpetual bang and bust cycles. Modern politicians do not represent the people who elected them. They represent the people who funded them. Who are the major donors. Big Business. Who wants less laws controlling business. Big Business. Why does the media keep telling you that government interference destroys the economy, well, because it is owned by Big Business. Big Business is only looking out for the interests of it's shareholders. It doesn't care about society, human rights or environment. It cares about it's stock price and how happy it's shareholders are and quite rightly too. However, you don't want to allow that view to shape the rest of your society because business is not life. In fact the way we are doing business now it fundamentally anti-life.
The Bear.
Which was the most "liked" single post was shown to be nothing but populist dribble, by many posts of argument on economics that is, including yours, but the responses have dried up once it gets passed populist quips.
Second my point was at Jorvik not you, but thats my fault for not using the quote function. So sorry there
Raz
Bookworm12
New member
- Feb 19, 2008
- 25
- 0
- 1
You clearly didn't read my posts carefully. I agree with most of Bear's post above. Which I detailed here: http://www.ihav.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1074664883&postcount=40
I haven't made any 'arguments' yet for what I believe the economy should look like, I've explained how a market economy works.
All the things that were mentioned in the post above about being negative aspects of a market economy are not actually features of a market economy. Re-read the post on externalities.
I'm meaning to get back to his thought on organizing the economy, but that one's a bit more tricky to write clearly. In brief, when looking at those sorts of solutions you're not actually bypassing the market. A market still exists. A market isn't just a thing with a big US flag out front on Wall St.
Even in a coofftopicnd economy there are still prices. I'm not talking about the historically semi-communist states like China or Russia, I mean even in the most extreme 'Democratic Socialist' hypothetical state where everyone votes on everything, and for that matter even in North Korea. Prices still exist. The question becomes, who decides what they are? i that person sets them incorrectly then that economy suffers. Wealth just disappears from the Earth. Wealth is the reverse of entropy and everything moves to entropy naturally. Even gold that sits in a vault decays. Not physically, but the value does as you pay storage costs and the like.
Divvying up the economy in this way or that is implicitly setting prices because decisions about the relative importance and scarcity of resources are being made. Just by one person or a collective, who aren't, in those cases, forced to back it up with with any personal risk. It's like being anonymous on the internet, there's no consequences so people tend to behave badly.
Rules do need to be made to control externalities, but that's not moving away from a free market, it's moving to a more free market. We don't normally think of the word free to mean that you can randomly kill people on the street, and in the same way markets require rules of the road. Which are the sorts of structures which are called positive externalities. As I said before, the real debate, although most don't understand this, is about what those externalities are and their cost. Once that's understood the whole system makes a lot more sense. The thing is there has to be a rational discussion about this stuff rather than a bunch of screaming people on both sides of the aisle.
I agree that there needs to be campaign finance reform and stricter controls on lobbying. This would all take care of itself if there were strict term limits, but it's a fat chance the politicians are going to vote to end they're careers.
The plain facts are that for some reason everyone thinks they're an expert on economic matters, yet those same people probably wouldn't have a similar conversation with their doctor or accountant.
If you believe I've made a mistake in my account of the way it works, please point it out, or if you'd like more color on something, I'm happy to do so. I'll clearly label my opinions rather than the facts I've been stating. They are facts, and not everyone's opinion is of equal validity. Everyone's arguments are, based on the merit of that argument - but, not their opinions.
I haven't made any 'arguments' yet for what I believe the economy should look like, I've explained how a market economy works.
All the things that were mentioned in the post above about being negative aspects of a market economy are not actually features of a market economy. Re-read the post on externalities.
I'm meaning to get back to his thought on organizing the economy, but that one's a bit more tricky to write clearly. In brief, when looking at those sorts of solutions you're not actually bypassing the market. A market still exists. A market isn't just a thing with a big US flag out front on Wall St.
Even in a coofftopicnd economy there are still prices. I'm not talking about the historically semi-communist states like China or Russia, I mean even in the most extreme 'Democratic Socialist' hypothetical state where everyone votes on everything, and for that matter even in North Korea. Prices still exist. The question becomes, who decides what they are? i that person sets them incorrectly then that economy suffers. Wealth just disappears from the Earth. Wealth is the reverse of entropy and everything moves to entropy naturally. Even gold that sits in a vault decays. Not physically, but the value does as you pay storage costs and the like.
Divvying up the economy in this way or that is implicitly setting prices because decisions about the relative importance and scarcity of resources are being made. Just by one person or a collective, who aren't, in those cases, forced to back it up with with any personal risk. It's like being anonymous on the internet, there's no consequences so people tend to behave badly.
Rules do need to be made to control externalities, but that's not moving away from a free market, it's moving to a more free market. We don't normally think of the word free to mean that you can randomly kill people on the street, and in the same way markets require rules of the road. Which are the sorts of structures which are called positive externalities. As I said before, the real debate, although most don't understand this, is about what those externalities are and their cost. Once that's understood the whole system makes a lot more sense. The thing is there has to be a rational discussion about this stuff rather than a bunch of screaming people on both sides of the aisle.
I agree that there needs to be campaign finance reform and stricter controls on lobbying. This would all take care of itself if there were strict term limits, but it's a fat chance the politicians are going to vote to end they're careers.
The plain facts are that for some reason everyone thinks they're an expert on economic matters, yet those same people probably wouldn't have a similar conversation with their doctor or accountant.
If you believe I've made a mistake in my account of the way it works, please point it out, or if you'd like more color on something, I'm happy to do so. I'll clearly label my opinions rather than the facts I've been stating. They are facts, and not everyone's opinion is of equal validity. Everyone's arguments are, based on the merit of that argument - but, not their opinions.
veryconfused
Member
- Mar 3, 2008
- 33
- 0
- 6
Well I apologize if I misunderstood your context/opinion.
Could I ask if you were to name a current or recent history country you would label as "the right way forward" set up, what it would be?
In which you would want the current to strive towards.
For me I read the works of Hayek, Sowell,Keynes,Taleb and a few others, but no formal education on economics though I trade futures on the CME and spend a lot of time talking with other traders and back office guys. Self claimed market experts I guess.
I can can honestly see what you mean and have been guilty of this to
"The plain facts are that for some reason everyone thinks they're an expert on economic matters,"
I will try and do more reading and less writing for now
Raz
Could I ask if you were to name a current or recent history country you would label as "the right way forward" set up, what it would be?
In which you would want the current to strive towards.
For me I read the works of Hayek, Sowell,Keynes,Taleb and a few others, but no formal education on economics though I trade futures on the CME and spend a lot of time talking with other traders and back office guys. Self claimed market experts I guess.
I can can honestly see what you mean and have been guilty of this to
"The plain facts are that for some reason everyone thinks they're an expert on economic matters,"
I will try and do more reading and less writing for now
Raz
You are getting more into the realms of politics than economics. Socialism and fascism are not opposite, they are cousins. Some people say that if you are right wing you are a capitalist and if you are extremely right wing then you are a fascist, this is simply not true. The basis for all these different systems is how much the individual has control of his life. I believe that what we have now is a form of totalitarianism, I’ve heard it referred to as reverse totalitarianism, or corporate capitalism. Where government and big business work together and screw the little guys. In the United States the advisors to presidents are ex employees of Wall street firms such as Goldman Sachs or J P Morgan. In Europe it’s the same.
I’m looking out for the little guy, in this case me. LOL.
What we have now is worthless fiat currency. The central banks just print more money, but they don’t value this themselves either, because they have been buying up gold .
What is the definition of currency . Well it has to be ,A unit of account, a medium of exchange, fungible ( each unit is interchangeable ), divisible, portable and durable. Money has to have all this and also be a store of value. The dollar is not a store of value therefore it is currency not money
So as Ron Paul pointed out, if , as recently happened , you find an old shipwreck, full of gold or silver. What is it worth? And the answer is lots of money, because it is a store of value. What would happen if you found a chest of old paper currency , what would that be worth, probably less than toilet paper because you couldn’t even use it for that. Now I’m not saying we should necessarily have a gold standard , but it’s better than just letting folks print as much currency as they want. Look what is happening now. We have zero rate interest rates and inflation, it helps the banks and the ex politicians who work for them , like Tony Bliar but retired people lose all their savings or are forced to speculate to keep their money. The people at the bottom are the ones that suffer..
As to the Roman Empire. I have read a lot about it. The fall of Rome was preceded by these events. First they had good money, then they introduced Social programmes, then military spending, then war, the introduction of fiat currency ( they debased their silver by adding base metals) inflation then wealth transfer.
Sounds a lot like what’s going on in the western world. today
Oh and if you don't believe that empires can collapse, create inflation etc a recent example is the USSR
I’m looking out for the little guy, in this case me. LOL.
What we have now is worthless fiat currency. The central banks just print more money, but they don’t value this themselves either, because they have been buying up gold .
What is the definition of currency . Well it has to be ,A unit of account, a medium of exchange, fungible ( each unit is interchangeable ), divisible, portable and durable. Money has to have all this and also be a store of value. The dollar is not a store of value therefore it is currency not money
So as Ron Paul pointed out, if , as recently happened , you find an old shipwreck, full of gold or silver. What is it worth? And the answer is lots of money, because it is a store of value. What would happen if you found a chest of old paper currency , what would that be worth, probably less than toilet paper because you couldn’t even use it for that. Now I’m not saying we should necessarily have a gold standard , but it’s better than just letting folks print as much currency as they want. Look what is happening now. We have zero rate interest rates and inflation, it helps the banks and the ex politicians who work for them , like Tony Bliar but retired people lose all their savings or are forced to speculate to keep their money. The people at the bottom are the ones that suffer..
As to the Roman Empire. I have read a lot about it. The fall of Rome was preceded by these events. First they had good money, then they introduced Social programmes, then military spending, then war, the introduction of fiat currency ( they debased their silver by adding base metals) inflation then wealth transfer.
Sounds a lot like what’s going on in the western world. today
Oh and if you don't believe that empires can collapse, create inflation etc a recent example is the USSR
jacklovesaudrey
New member
- Feb 15, 2008
- 22
- 0
- 1
I was on the floor of the CME for a few years. Options. Fun stuff. Got upstairs before all the volume went to Globex, it's sorta sad down there now. Although I did try to talk my way onto the floor a few years ago. Turns out the membership I had, even though I had an acronym and everything didn't give me 'floor privileges'... Great education though..Nothing like being in a crowd of 1000 screaming dudes getting yelled at all day!
There's no perfect system right now, just differing degrees in different directions. It's not even a good - bad continuum, it's a continuum that goes in many directions. Sure some are much worse than others, but politics ultimately controls what the laws are, and as it's been rightly pointed out. Politicians are politicians. Which isn't really their fault, I suppose, it's structural. Their job is to get elected, not to make good law.
If I could wave a magic wand I would impose strict term limits on politicians, which would immediately and significantly business and special interest in politics. They'd have to re-bribe a new guy every few years and that would get expensive. Since people wouldn't be career politicians you'd also probably get more people who were harder to bribe to begin with.
I would force banks who are 'too large to fail' to severely curtail their operations. Which would encourage them to spin off into smaller banks so that they could engage in the more risky things again, but that would be okay as people would have a lot of choice and no one would be a systemic risk.
And, finally, I'd stop my hair loss.
(BTW, what kind of traders do you talk to? Are you in Chi/NY/or London?)
There's no perfect system right now, just differing degrees in different directions. It's not even a good - bad continuum, it's a continuum that goes in many directions. Sure some are much worse than others, but politics ultimately controls what the laws are, and as it's been rightly pointed out. Politicians are politicians. Which isn't really their fault, I suppose, it's structural. Their job is to get elected, not to make good law.
If I could wave a magic wand I would impose strict term limits on politicians, which would immediately and significantly business and special interest in politics. They'd have to re-bribe a new guy every few years and that would get expensive. Since people wouldn't be career politicians you'd also probably get more people who were harder to bribe to begin with.
I would force banks who are 'too large to fail' to severely curtail their operations. Which would encourage them to spin off into smaller banks so that they could engage in the more risky things again, but that would be okay as people would have a lot of choice and no one would be a systemic risk.
And, finally, I'd stop my hair loss.
(BTW, what kind of traders do you talk to? Are you in Chi/NY/or London?)
Doing 2 replies, this one first taking your post in reverse order.
Mostly E mini and Euro traders, and most of which are at home trading on the screen.
At 18 I started dabbling in forex, then now at 21 im just trading the e-mini.
As far as on the floor goes, Im friends/know Danny Riley, Martin Schwartz, and a few others.
I know a bunch of guys in The City but most of them on the LME.
Raz
Mostly E mini and Euro traders, and most of which are at home trading on the screen.
At 18 I started dabbling in forex, then now at 21 im just trading the e-mini.
As far as on the floor goes, Im friends/know Danny Riley, Martin Schwartz, and a few others.
I know a bunch of guys in The City but most of them on the LME.
Raz
Have you seen 'Floored'? It's pretty good, but a bit sad. Well, me and my friends who were on the floor together (12 years ago!) think it's sad, the new kids who've never worn a colorful jacket, learned to talk with their hands, or how to yell louder than anyone else just think it's funny.
I trade those too, among other things.
I trade those too, among other things.
You know I meant to re-watch that first time It was when i was just getting into trading.
I would love to work in the CME, though being in the UK provides a distance barrier also the starting funds needed for an independent
My Mentor as it were is someone who worked at E.F Hutton back in "the day" we focus mainly in order flow etc,
----------------------------------
For the life of me I can't remember who said it or the actual quote but it was along the lines of politicians working for free, and you would have different results. I'm thinking it was one of the Greek's or Jefferson,Payne types.
Are you in favour of separating investing and private banking operations of banks?
Raz
I would love to work in the CME, though being in the UK provides a distance barrier also the starting funds needed for an independent
My Mentor as it were is someone who worked at E.F Hutton back in "the day" we focus mainly in order flow etc,
----------------------------------
For the life of me I can't remember who said it or the actual quote but it was along the lines of politicians working for free, and you would have different results. I'm thinking it was one of the Greek's or Jefferson,Payne types.
Are you in favour of separating investing and private banking operations of banks?
Raz
JustinKnapplDrummer
New member
- Apr 3, 2008
- 13
- 0
- 1
From my post above: