Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I still don't understand the appeal of the gold standard and why so many people want it back.

Ignorance and misinformation.


Ironically, I think a large number of his internet supporters lack fundamental economic knowledge. 

Even lack fundamental knowledge of how the government of the country works, and the impossibility of sweeping governmental change without a catastrophic event spurring it.

I ascribe to it a mindset where any asset is "imaginary" unless it has intrinsic physical value.

But then again, some people here are pro-gold. Hank, I think ... could be wrong on that one.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I ascribe to it a mindset where any asset is "imaginary" unless it has intrinsic physical value.

If I understood him, I think his reasons for it are based on the fact that the price of gold is steady and always has been. So in effect, it would stabilize the dollar and prevent the Fed from magically increasing the money supply causing inflation. Am I on the right track?

niggs0026 wrote:

Anybody willing to get into these reasons with me or at least link me to some material? Is it stupid in theory or is it stupid because at this point it's too late to go back? Is he wrong when he talks about the Fed pumping money and it artificially causing inflation among other things? Is he wrong that the market should decide interest rates and other things?

Start here.

niggs0026 wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I ascribe to it a mindset where any asset is "imaginary" unless it has intrinsic physical value.

If I understood him, I think his reasons for it are based on the fact that the price of gold is steady and always has been. So in effect, it would stabilize the dollar and prevent the Fed from magically increasing the money supply causing inflation. Am I on the right track?

Gold is not steady. Its controlled by market forces like the trust-based dollar is today, as well as having the added control of having to be mined.

Just because our dollar does not have a actual backing, does not mean that the fed can magically raise and lower the value of it. They try to control it, just like they would with gold, by manipulating the market.

Chickenhawk wrote:

niggs0026 wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I ascribe to it a mindset where any asset is "imaginary" unless it has intrinsic physical value.

If I understood him, I think his reasons for it are based on the fact that the price of gold is steady and always has been. So in effect, it would stabilize the dollar and prevent the Fed from magically increasing the money supply causing inflation. Am I on the right track?

Gold is not steady. Its controlled by market forces like the trust-based dollar is today, as well as having the added control of having to be mined.

Just because our dollar does not have a actual backing, does not mean that the fed can magically raise and lower the value of it. They try to control it, just like they would with gold, by manipulating the market.

Alright, thanks for the response. I must've misunderstood his talking point about the price of gold. I think he said with respect to something else. I'll try to find the video.

I don't know if it makes any difference, but I meant increasing the money supply, not the actual value of the dollar itself. Doesn't increasing the money supply by printing money to account for all the governmental spending lower the value of the dollar? Is that inevitable?

Tallgeese wrote:

What you mean is that our dollar does not have physical backing. It is backed by the strong U.S. economy.

My bad, I meant to say 'tangible'

Get out the mold spray.

This is the last thing guys and then I'll go away with these questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj9KHJRRUbQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldETRlhiXk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbi-0Tg1b_g

Can anyone help me with these grillings of Bernanke by Paul? He comes off as a man who know economics. Is he just plain off? I mean, Bernanke doesn't appear to be able to tell him.

Btw, please ignore some of the stupid titles and lead-ins

Last edited by niggs0026 (2008-07-14 12:54 pm)

ephemeron wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I ascribe to it a mindset where any asset is "imaginary" unless it has intrinsic physical value.

I've never quite understood why the value of gold is any less arbitrary than the value of anything else.  Okay, it's shiny and rare, but why should that make it more valuable than metals you can make tools or other directly usful things from?

You can make quite a few useful things from gold, actually. It's an excellent conductor, and is used in low-resistance cabling and connectors, for example.

That said, there are almost always other cheaper materials available.

Ultimately, it's the same as diamonds. Much of the perceived value is a result of humanity's psychological faults.

niggs0026 wrote:

Ron Paul's stance on the gold standard, is that enough to debunk him as a legitimate candidate? He could still work to cut spending, scale back foreign policy, and give us back some of our civil liberties that were taken away regardless. That still might be more than we can say for anyone else. I'm sure the other candidates have their questionable platform policies.

The practical problem with Paul as a candidate is that his principles keep him from getting anything done -- he has a long and consistent record of voting against federal spending of all kinds (including things like disaster relief), but Congress works through collegiality and dealmaking, and he's actively uninterested in anything of the sort.  So, his record suggests that as President, he wouldn't so much work toward anything as chide people for doing things like regulating pollutants and testing medicines for safety (the third page of this article has the story of him telling a Rotarian luncheon that the EPA and FDA should be abolished).

I am a strong Ron Paul supporter for president.  I know he has some whacky ideas, but I also realize that we have a congress to moderate things out, as in if he were to implement an idea which would seem "crazy", then congress simply wouldn't approve it.

What really strikes me about Ron Paul is that he would probably do something against this stupid overly huge buildup of government that was not part of the "original intent" of the founders, along w/this stupid Mommy generation which feels the need to ban everything.  He also represents an end to this extreme political correctness bullsmurf.  Along w/a whole bunch of other stuff he's said.  I really like him, and I think he, or someone like him, would be a good idea for president every once in a while.

All I need to know is if the guy's wife is a smurf or not.