This is Going to be an Adventure...

[East Coast Hustle]

The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.

Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.

- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars.  that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.

-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth.  flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible?  that seems absurdly short sighted, no?

maybe if we stop making people. As long as everyone is still popping out little bastards like they're going out of style, I don't see why growth wouldn't be able to continue indefinitely.

[Disco Pickle]

and Reason.com is trollable..  so very trollable..

-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth.  flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible?  that seems absurdly short sighted, no?

continuous growth with no checks sounds like a dominant life form with no natural predators continuing to expand forever.

that always ends well in other species, why not primates?

Actually, that was possible, before America pussed out after going to the moon a few times.

There weren't any Indians, you see, so we went back to Earth to pound on smudgy people some more.

Roger, you're telling me you're a Leary "colonize other planets" guy?

not that I don't think it's possible.  I just haven't seen any other planets in this SS that would support the eerily locust like nature of homo  sapiens sapiens..

no oil.  no water.  no oxygen.

mostly the first one though.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars.  that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.

Yeah, it's good for making electronics with, and monkeys will pay ridiculous amounts of their labor to obtain it, for no apparent gain.

[Disco Pickle]

we could just be disagreeing on what it means, but as I understand it, it's more truly demand based currency, and people are allowed to enter into private contracts where they can charge and be payed in something like silver and gold, something you can't do right now.

I can do that right this minute.  And it's legal as hell.

privately, yes.   As a business that has to put on a public face, contracts have to be valued in dollars.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

and Reason.com is trollable..  so very trollable..

-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth.  flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible?  that seems absurdly short sighted, no?

continuous growth with no checks sounds like a dominant life form with no natural predators continuing to expand forever.

that always ends well in other species, why not primates?

Actually, that was possible, before America pussed out after going to the moon a few times.

There weren't any Indians, you see, so we went back to Earth to pound on smudgy people some more.

Roger, you're telling me you're a Leary "colonize other planets" guy?

not that I don't think it's possible.  I just haven't seen any other planets in this SS that would support the eerily locust like nature of homo  sapiens sapiens..

no oil.  no water.  no oxygen.

mostly the first one though.

No, I'm a "stay here and drown in our own shit" kinda guy.

And there's plenty of all of those things, especially water and hydrocarbons.  Water is plentiful as hell.  You just have to give up the idea of living on a planet.

But it's better we stay here, and die like God wants us to.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

we could just be disagreeing on what it means, but as I understand it, it's more truly demand based currency, and people are allowed to enter into private contracts where they can charge and be payed in something like silver and gold, something you can't do right now.

I can do that right this minute.  And it's legal as hell.

privately, yes.   As a business that has to put on a public face, contracts have to be valued in dollars.

Oh?  If my company (I work for a multinational oil company) decides to buy gold, or shares in a gold mine, the currency used can be anything from dollars to rands to ounces of gold.  The contract used is legally binding in the United States.  We use Euros more than dollars, for example, in purely American transactions.  It isn't legal tender, but it isn't required to be legal tender to be binding, if the contract is entered so.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.

Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.

- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars.  that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.

-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth.  flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible?  that seems absurdly short sighted, no?

maybe if we stop making people. As long as everyone is still popping out little bastards like they're going out of style, I don't see why growth wouldn't be able to continue indefinitely.

No reason at all.

Population

An estimated 11 percent of the planet's land surface-4.6 million square miles, an area larger than the United States and Mexico combined-has suffered moderate to severe land degradation since 1945, diminishing its capacity to grow crops and other vegetation. Every year farmers are forced to abandon up to 27,000 square miles of farmland, enough to equal West Virginia, because they cannot make a living on it. About one fourth of the world's population depends on fuelwood that is cut faster than it can grow back.

Water is increasingly scarce in certain regions of the world, as populations that are doubling within two or three decades must share finite supplies of renewable water resources. Based on the generally accepted standard that a country needs a bare minimum of 654 cubic yards per inhabitant per year to develop economically, 11 nations faced such scarcity in 1990. By the year 2025, the UN projects, that number will nearly double.

(from Compton's Deluxe 3D World Atlas CD Rom.)

Humans are a self-correcting problem.

[Requia ☣]

There is not enough gold to return to a gold backed currency.  It's too late, get over it.

which, if you had read the thread, you'd already know that the idea of doing that was dispensed with as an option.

Pretty sure that's exactly what he's talking about.

Im pretty sure that's exacty NOT what he's talking about.  

we could just be disagreeing on what it means, but as I understand it, it's more truly demand based currency, and people are allowed to enter into private contracts where they can charge and be payed in something like silver and gold, something you can't do right now.

the inflation created by the Fed would, of course, become very glaring very quickly were this option allowed, which is the point really.

it's truly a giant drop of chaos that would force people to pay attention to the current illusion called "money" and really, this board above most I would think, would endorse it simply for the entropy if spawns.

In order for a currency to be legal tender, you have to be able to exchange it for an equivalent value of other forms of legal tender.

This requires:

1) Government fiat price of Gold.  Gold must have a fixed relationship with the Dollar.

2) Enough gold that people who want gold can have it, if demand outstrips supply then gold becomes more valuable than cash, and you risk losing control of the above,

You also need large enough reserves of Gold in order to guarantee that your currency stays fixed to the global Gold price.  Otherwise all kinds of nasty things can be done via foreign currency exchange.

When you have these things, you have a gold backed currency.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Everyone IS, of course, aware that we've begun another Libertarian/Goldbug thread, and within the next 2 pages, we'll be screeching about intellectual property/how musicians should play just for the sheer joy of it, right?



Okay, as long as we all know, carry on.

[East Coast Hustle]

The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.

Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.

- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars.  that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.

-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth.  flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible?  that seems absurdly short sighted, no?

maybe if we stop making people. As long as everyone is still popping out little bastards like they're going out of style, I don't see why growth wouldn't be able to continue indefinitely.

No reason at all.

Population

An estimated 11 percent of the planet's land surface-4.6 million square miles, an area larger than the United States and Mexico combined-has suffered moderate to severe land degradation since 1945, diminishing its capacity to grow crops and other vegetation. Every year farmers are forced to abandon up to 27,000 square miles of farmland, enough to equal West Virginia, because they cannot make a living on it. About one fourth of the world's population depends on fuelwood that is cut faster than it can grow back.

Water is increasingly scarce in certain regions of the world, as populations that are doubling within two or three decades must share finite supplies of renewable water resources. Based on the generally accepted standard that a country needs a bare minimum of 654 cubic yards per inhabitant per year to develop economically, 11 nations faced such scarcity in 1990. By the year 2025, the UN projects, that number will nearly double.

(from Compton's Deluxe 3D World Atlas CD Rom.)

Humans are a self-correcting problem.

as there are +/- 180 countries, that's a pretty small percentage.

Also, I don't give a shit what inevitably happens after I die as long as what's happening now can be sustained for the course of my lifetime.

[East Coast Hustle]

Everyone IS, of course, aware that we've begun another Libertarian/Goldbug thread, and within the next 2 pages, we'll be screeching about intellectual property/how musicians should play just for the sheer joy of it, right?



Okay, as long as we all know, carry on.

I'm only posting ITT because I want to be right about it reaching 30 pages.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The thing about the gold standard is, at least from my knowledge, is that it has the same issue as fiat money. You can always fiddle with the value of gold one way or another. "An ounce of gold is now worth $2,000" or "an ounce of gold is now worth three dollars." Either way, you now can shift how much money you can print.

Edit: I also see issues with it in terms of growing an economy. There's only so much gold, and economies need to be more flexible. But that's a semi-uneducated comment. I'd have to do more research (which I don't have time to), but from what I remember that was a criticism.

- you can fiddle with the price of gold in dollars by fiddling with the dollars.  that doesn't effect the value of gold.
it's value stays pretty even keeled.

-we need to learn how to make a sustainable economy that doesn't require continuous growth.  flexibility is good, and that is why a strict gold standard doesn't really make great sense, but an economy based on the assumption that continuous growth indefinitely is possible?  that seems absurdly short sighted, no?

maybe if we stop making people. As long as everyone is still popping out little bastards like they're going out of style, I don't see why growth wouldn't be able to continue indefinitely.

No reason at all.

Population

An estimated 11 percent of the planet's land surface-4.6 million square miles, an area larger than the United States and Mexico combined-has suffered moderate to severe land degradation since 1945, diminishing its capacity to grow crops and other vegetation. Every year farmers are forced to abandon up to 27,000 square miles of farmland, enough to equal West Virginia, because they cannot make a living on it. About one fourth of the world's population depends on fuelwood that is cut faster than it can grow back.

Water is increasingly scarce in certain regions of the world, as populations that are doubling within two or three decades must share finite supplies of renewable water resources. Based on the generally accepted standard that a country needs a bare minimum of 654 cubic yards per inhabitant per year to develop economically, 11 nations faced such scarcity in 1990. By the year 2025, the UN projects, that number will nearly double.

(from Compton's Deluxe 3D World Atlas CD Rom.)

Humans are a self-correcting problem.

as there are +/- 180 countries, that's a pretty small percentage.

Also, I don't give a shit what inevitably happens after I die as long as what's happening now can be sustained for the course of my lifetime.

It can't, according to most estimates.  You may not live long enough to go blazing after Lord Humongous with an AK47 and a Honda full of silver, but your quality of life will definitely degrade.  Desertification is matched in hilarity only by the increase of population exceeding the increase of the means to transport food.  Hell, Beijing will be under sand in 17 years, and if you think a billion and a half people are going to sit and starve quietly, I have some Ocean front property in Casa Grande to sell you.

Not trying to be a downer, here.  Facts are facts.

[East Coast Hustle]

I know, but what's horrible for 98% of humanity is a windfall to me.

[Disco Pickle]

we could just be disagreeing on what it means, but as I understand it, it's more truly demand based currency, and people are allowed to enter into private contracts where they can charge and be payed in something like silver and gold, something you can't do right now.

I can do that right this minute.  And it's legal as hell.

privately, yes.   As a business that has to put on a public face, contracts have to be valued in dollars.

Oh?  If my company (I work for a multinational oil company) decides to buy gold, or shares in a gold mine, the currency used can be anything from dollars to rands to ounces of gold.  The contract used is legally binding in the United States.  We use Euros more than dollars, for example, in purely American transactions.  It isn't legal tender, but it isn't required to be legal tender to be binding, if the contract is entered so.

ok, they decide to buy gold, or shares in a gold mine..  what are they buying it with?  euros would make sense when exchanging it back to the states, the same way it's very benificial to me to send money to mexico every month because the exchange rate is always faster than the country can raise prices to balance it against their import costs for the same goods.

it fucks you the other way around i.e. dollar to euro, pesos to dollar.

we might be able to end this entire thread by agreeing that money  is really only worth the value of the collective delusion of the people who exchange it.

Anything has value based on just how much someone is willing to "pay" for it.  The collectors market comes to mind.  The housing market as well.  

I'm going to press post now and reread this and make sure It sound just as confusing to me now.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Everyone IS, of course, aware that we've begun another Libertarian/Goldbug thread, and within the next 2 pages, we'll be screeching about intellectual property/how musicians should play just for the sheer joy of it, right?



Okay, as long as we all know, carry on.

I'm only posting ITT because I want to be right about it reaching 30 pages.

It will.  It's one of the PD laws of physics.

I believe the equation goes F = ((L_i+G_b)*D_a)², where F = the quantity of fail (measured in posts), L_i = the number of libertarians, G_b = the number of goldbugs, and D_a = the number of other dumbasses willing to participate (myself, for example).