What is money? Where does our money come from?

duc,

Another excellent post. But I get the feeling your time and labour will be a dead investment here. People will focus on the fact that they have an iPad and conclude that fiat money made it possible, not a gold standard. It's a circular argument that you will never win.

Possibly. Those with an entrenched ideology, those immune to logic, unable to reason will remain true to their ideology. I suggest that we are not really aiming at them at all, rather, we aim to educate the 'neutrals' who are as yet undecided, but are looking for the correct theory.

The 'opponents' are providing nothing of substance. Their rhetorical arguments contain zero theory, heuristic generalizations, logical fallacies. All they provide is an opportunity to explode their ideological position through failure to respond with theory, concrete examples and generally evading the issues raised. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will see through the evasions.

jog on
duc
 
mg


Well, how can a very general statement be factually incorrect? Surely that is more of a contradiction than what I said (which, actually, isn't a logical contradiction, no matter what n_t highlights).

Generalizations are always factually incorrect. Generalizations are heuristics. Heuristics are not designed to provide rigor, they are designed to aid in fast, reactive action, when and if, there is a threat.

That you resort to heuristics as your argument with relation to the theory of money demonstrates just how insufficient is your argument.




Still, let me make my point even more clear and transparent. As I have said before, "fiat money" and the "gold standard" each possess distinct advantages, as well as flaws.

That's good, because to date, you have provided very little other than very general statements.




By replacing "fiat money" with the "gold standard", you will be covering one tail risk (to use trading terminology). Namely, the possibility of abuse by the Central Bank. However, it's important to realize that this tail risk protection isn't free. Instead of the 'CB abuse' tail, you will now be short the other tail. Specifically, no domestic agency will have the ability to control money supply at the time of stress, when this ability is normally most needed.

Even now, you avoid specifying the conditions upon which your argument relies. When you say "in time of stress" that is a general statement. I can name a 'time of stress' when there is no requirement for any agencies to manipulate the money supply. By way of example, the Italian World Cup play-offs where England faced elimination, or advancement to the semi-finals: the country was embroiled in 'stress' but there was no requirement for monetary intervention. Now of course I'm being trite, and I realise that you are referring to economic stress - but you have to be specific.




We should all choose what tail we want to be short. To me, the choice is relatively clear. This is the sole point I have been repeatedly making in this thread.


Well until you commit yourself to a position, you simply seek to sit-on-the-sidelines and claim that you have been misunderstood.

jog on
duc
 
mg

This has me all confused... I am not sure what the QED is all about. There's nothing in the above that actually responds to the point that I have made. It's, again, a whole lot of words, but I fail to see any substance whatsoever. When did I say anything about 'ants and grasshoppers', 'saving vs consumption', 'inductive' vs 'deductive' or the factors of production or any of this other stuff? Are you sure you're actually talking to me? I don't want to accuse you of anything, but it looks like it's been cut and pasted from somewhere. Maybe I am missing something...

I'm only really using you as a sounding board. The post addresses a number of issues that are important for anyone who is undecided as to the correct theory of money actually is.

As I have already stated, your unwillingness to commit to anything specific, and provide argument in support, would leave the thread rather bereft, so, I'll simply use some of your general statements of opinion as an opportunity to provide the correct theory.

jog on
duc
 
mg

I have 'bolded' your contributions to differentiate between all the various quotes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ducati998

You're basically eschewing economic progress for lower government control.


Through this sentence you state that government is causative of economic progress. If that were true, then Socialism, taken to it's logical conclusion would provide the greatest economic progress of any system.

As this is categorically false, your premise is simply nonsense.

This is very poor logic, indeed...

The original statement to which I was referring and my response at the time:

Quote:
You're basically eschewing economic progress for lower government control.

Through this sentence you state that government is causative of economic progress. If that were true, then Socialism, taken to it's logical conclusion would provide the greatest economic progress of any system.

As this is categorically false, your premise is simply nonsense.

A pure Socialism, as already defined, viz. 100% ownership by the State of the factors of production, land, labour & capital, would, and must preclude any economic calculation, money per se would be redundant in any case. Without economic calculation, allocation of the factors of production would be arbitrary. An authority, comprised in any manner you chose, would have to coordinate all allocations.

The Soviet Union couldn't even manage it, and they still had access to the prices generated on the free market. Remove all prices generated by a free market and you simply cannot calculate economically, thus, the factors of production are impossible to coordinate.



You have directly stated that higher government intervention is causative of economic progress. I have demonstrated, that this is incorrect.

You state that my logic is poor. If that is the case, prove it. Demonstrate where my reasoning is incorrect.

jog on
duc
 
Last edited:
.............Simply it is to obtain goods/services without actually earning the money through an exchange of legally owned property by oneself. What is that called? It is called theft.

Government arrogated to itself the money monopoly, for the simple reason, government grossly exceeds the revenues that it can directly and nakedly steal through taxation. By creating new money it can practice its theft under cover of darkness...............

jog on
duc

ducky

So now you have added taxation to the grand larceny. I dare say it would be futile to say that taxation is but payment for goods and services provided to its citizens by the State.

You have continued to give me a lot of clever theory whilst, at the same time, accusing those who argue against you of being empty vessels. As I said to NT earlier - The facts of life are against you. For all the figures and the theory I know one thing with absolute certainty. My tangible economic well-being, standard of living, "wealth" (call it what you will) is incomparably better than that enjoyed by my parents and has got better and better throughout my adult life. That is not theory or supposition - it is fact.

jon
 
ducky

So now you have added taxation to the grand larceny. I dare say it would be futile to say that taxation is but payment for goods and services provided to its citizens by the State.

You have continued to give me a lot of clever theory whilst, at the same time, accusing those who argue against you of being empty vessels. As I said to NT earlier - The facts of life are against you. For all the figures and the theory I know one thing with absolute certainty. My tangible economic well-being, standard of living, "wealth" (call it what you will) is incomparably better than that enjoyed by my parents and has got better and better throughout my adult life. That is not theory or supposition - it is fact.

jon

With regard to your objective fact, I have not sought to dispute this 'fact'. Rather, I have step-by-step described the process by which there is an increase in material well-being. Far from it being caused by fiat money, it becomes apparent that it is productivity, of quantity & quality that is causative.

The 'empty vessels' are empty vessels simply by dint of not actually providing any argument, simply generalizations. Of course, if I am incorrect in this assertion either point me to the argument that I have obviously missed, or reproduce it, either way, I will address it.

As to taxation: taxation is not a free choice. In case that actually needs explaining, take any government service that you purport taxation purchases: if I were to purchase that service of my own free volition, then I would agree that government has provided a good/service, and earned their revenue.

When a bundle of goods/services are provided and payment is coercively extracted - can you spot the difference? Government has not earned its revenue, it has simply extracted it at the point of a gun.

Simple, no?

jog on
duc
 
ducky

So now you have added taxation to the grand larceny. I dare say it would be futile to say that taxation is but payment for goods and services provided to its citizens by the State.

You have continued to give me a lot of clever theory whilst, at the same time, accusing those who argue against you of being empty vessels. As I said to NT earlier - The facts of life are against you. For all the figures and the theory I know one thing with absolute certainty. My tangible economic well-being, standard of living, "wealth" (call it what you will) is incomparably better than that enjoyed by my parents and has got better and better throughout my adult life. That is not theory or supposition - it is fact.

jon

Jon,

I thought duc made it clear in a previous post but I will now make an attempt:
We are dealing with 2 separate and independent issues:

1)That your standard of living is better than that of your parents
2)Fiat money Vs Sound money

Issue 1)

Productivity and Capitalism

Remove money entirely from the equation, look around you and then explain why your standard of living is better than that enjoyed by your parents. Eg/ Is it because you have Internet, computers, colour TV, Central heating, a house, a mobile phone? How many material things that you own which contribute to your standard of living came directly from Government? I would say few to none, they almost entirely came from entrepreneurs who took risks with their own capital to produce a product that they believed would make everyone’s life better. As duc pointed out, where the capital comes from is irrelevant (Whether it is gold, fiat, clothing or food) the important point is that the entrepreneur gets what s/he needs to produce the product that they want to provide to consumers at an affordable price.

Issue 2)

Fiat money Vs Sound money

Now this is the main issue:

How much cheaper would the products and services that improved your standard of living be if we were using sound money instead of fiat money?

How much extra leisure time would you be enjoying compared to your parents in order to have the same standard of living they had. In other words, because of all the productivity improvements in manufacturing and all the labour saving inventions we should all be working fewer and fewer hours. As observed with modern consumer electronics, everything should get cheaper with time as production and manufacturing techniques improve.

I don’t know when you were born Jon, but I find it impossible to believe that the following inventions only became affordable since 1971. Not only your parents but I would guess that your grandparents had access to the following inventions which I would say contributed to the greatest improvements in standards of living.

●The first electric powered washing machine was invented in 1907. This labour saving device gave people more leisure time because clothes didn’t need to be washed by hand

●In terms of the lives of average people, there is little doubt that the automobile is the most revolutionary invention in the history of transportation since the wheel. The first automobile to be produced in quantity was the 1901 Curved Dash Oldsmobile, which was built in the United States by Ransom E. Olds. Modern automobile mass production, and its use of the modern industrial assembly line, is credited to Henry Ford of Detroit, Michigan, who had built his first gasoline-powered car in 1896. Ford began producing his Model T in 1908

●The modern world is an electrified world. The light bulb, in particular, profoundly changed human existence by illuminating the night and making it hospitable to a wide range of human activity. The electric light, one of the everyday conveniences that most affects our lives, was invented in 1879 by Thomas Alva Edison

1919: Passenger service across the English Channel introduced. Britain and France introduce passenger service across the English Channel, flying initially between London and Paris. 1919 the first nonstop transatlantic flight, from Newfoundland to Ireland.

●Willis Carrier invented air conditioning in 1902

1927- Bell Telephone and the U.S. Department of Commerce conduct the first long distance use of television that took place between Washington D.C. and New York City on April 9th. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover commented, “Today we have, in a sense, the transmission of sight for the first time in the world’s history. Human genius has now destroyed the impediment of distance in a new respect, and in a manner hitherto unknown.”

●FM Radio Edwin Howard Armstrong invented frequency-modulated or FM radio in 1933. FM improved the audio signal of radio by controlling the noise static caused by electrical equipment and the earth's atmosphere. Until 1936, all American transatlantic telephone communication had to be routed through England. In that year, a direct radiotelephone circuit was opened to Paris. Telephone connection by radio and cable is now accessible with 187 foreign points.



From the Baltimore Sun in 1991:

Playing politics as our standard of living declines

The MEDIA have begun to focus on America's standard of living.

●Recession news aside, these stories emphasize long-run income trends: the rising fraction of adult children who live with their parents, the yuppies' conversion to prudent spenders, the slow growth in income that apparently will extend beyond recession's end

●The root economic problem -- the collapse of productivity growth and the stagnation of wages -- began in 1973(Ring any bells Jon?) and has been known for some time.

In the 1960s productivity growth was strong. The problem was insufficient demand to purchase all that the economy could produce. The solution was the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts in 1962 and 1964, a solution only Congress could implement. Since the early '70s, demand has been sufficient, but productivity growth has been weak. (Ding, ding! Creating money, not stuff...money for who...ding ding!)
 
Ron Paul could see what was coming in advance, because he understands economics. The above article was written in 1991, Ron Paul wrote this in 1982:

The money supply since 1971 has been growing at unprecedented rates. Since inflation is an increase in the supply of money and credit,this is of critical importance. It tells us what many economic historians knew even before 1971, that when government is granted an unlimited power to create money out of thin air as the Federal Reserve has, that power is always abused. For various political reasons, excessive money is always created, bringing only trouble to the innocent citizens not receiving the "benefits" of inflation. It is tempting to pursue inflationary policies, since during all stages of inflation special interest groups benefit at the expense of others. History shows this temptation has never been resisted and the record of the money growth of the past decade confirms this to still be the case.

The money supply in the space of 10 years (1971 - 1981) has more than doubled, as measured by three of the five standard statistical series produced by the Federal Reserve. This is all the more significant, for neither the population nor American productivity increased by anything approaching that rate over the same period. Since increases in productivity and population are traditionally mentioned as reasons for increasing the money supply, neither of these factors can be used as the excuse for the massive creation of new money and credit of the Federal Reserve over the past decade. In April 1970, our population was approximately 203,000,000. By April 1980, it was 226,500,000, a 12 percent increase. Using the lowest of the money supply statistics, our money supply increased by 58 percent over the same period. Using the largest of the money supply money figures, the money supply increased by 184 percent. Neither figure is commensurate with a 12 percent increase in population over the decade. As for the real growth of the Gross National Product, in 1971, GNP was $1,107.5 billion; during 1981, it was $1,509.06 billion, an increase of 36 percent. Again that figure does not even remotely approach the growth of the money supply over the same decade.


- Ron Paul - "The Case for Gold" published in 1982
 
.............As to taxation: taxation is not a free choice. In case that actually needs explaining, take any government service that you purport taxation purchases: if I were to purchase that service of my own free volition, then I would agree that government has provided a good/service, and earned their revenue.

When a bundle of goods/services are provided and payment is coercively extracted - can you spot the difference? Government has not earned its revenue, it has simply extracted it at the point of a gun.

Simple, no?

jog on
duc

ducky

Whilst I agree that taxation is coercive and not a free choice it does stem from your initial choice to live in the State exerting the tax. I accept that is not exactly a free choice for many people.

Many commercial services have the same feature. For example, if I choose to stay in an hotel I must pay for the services it provides whether I want to use them or not. I am thus "coerced" into paying for things I neither use nor want.

You have indeed explained how I have become steadily more "wealthy". I have never suggested that fiat money has caused it. What I have suggested is that Government has had a role to play in it by encouraging, stimulating and facilitating the "productivity, of quantity & quality" that you say is causative. They would say that fiat money has helped them in that endeavour - it may have, it may not.

Certainly, however, they have not robbed me of my increasing "prosperity" and I am content to believe that they have no agenda to do so.

jon
 
.......................when government is granted an unlimited power to create money out of thin air as the Federal Reserve has, that POWER IS ALWAYS ABUSED............

nt

thx for your replies - excuse me for picking up on this one point since it is central to what I have been trying to argue about gold money vs fiat money.

I have argued that they are both just money systems and both workable. It is not the fiat system itself that is at fault, but the ABUSE of it.

Now you may argue that a gold system cannot be abused, but can't it? After all, you could fiddle the books if you were so minded and never have enough gold in the vaults to meet the promises on your notes.

You may similarly argue that abuse is inherent in a fiat system, but is it? After all you can provide accounting checks and balances if you are prepared to obey them.

I have also argued that, whatever system you have, it comes down to peoples TRUST in it. I would hazard a guess that if you and ducky pooled your gold resources and issued notes backed by that gold you would not get many shopkeepers prepared to accept your money in exchange for goods because they would not trust it (ignoring legalities). You could print whatever promises you liked on your notes and have the fact that you had the gold certified by the most eminent figures in the land and your money still wouldn't be accepted until people came to trust it.

jon
 
Certainly, however, they have not robbed me of my increasing "prosperity" and I am content to believe that they have no agenda to do so.

jon

So Jon, simply put, you don't have a case against the gold standard or in favour of fiat money?

You believe Government has encouraged, stimulated and facilitated the "productivity?

1) How many products (in %) do you think the average person in the U.K buys or uses that are not, I repeat not produced in the U.K?

2) How many of the products in the last 40 years used to be produced in the U.K?

I can't find stats yet on the UK, but looking at the U.S, I think it's obvious what impact coming off the gold standard had on productivity:

The US had a positive balance of payment every year up until 1971, and it has been increasingly growing negative every year since then with the exception of 1973 & 1975. I doubt the U.K is any different.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.txt
 
So Jon, simply put, you don't have a case against the gold standard or in favour of fiat money?

You believe Government has encouraged, stimulated and facilitated the "productivity?

1) How many products (in %) do you think the average person in the U.K buys or uses that are not, I repeat not produced in the U.K?

2) How many of the products in the last 40 years used to be produced in the U.K?

I can't find stats yet on the UK, but looking at the U.S, I think it's obvious what impact coming off the gold standard had on productivity:

The US had a positive balance of payment every year up until 1971, and it has been increasingly growing negative every year since then with the exception of 1973 & 1975. I doubt the U.K is any different.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.txt

nt

Exactly - they are both just money systems.

"Productivity" was duc's word not mine. Perhaps I would would use GDP instead which covers more than the production of goods.

I regret as much as you the demise of manufacturing in UK. I also remember the importance placed on the balance of payments. Indeed I was personally responsible in my younger days for Harold Wilson standing up in Parliament and crowing about a sharp improvement in the balance of payments. It hadn't really improved - I'd just forgotten to send all the details of a monthsworth of oil imports to the Statistical Office :eek:.

Whether you can properly lay this fairly dramatic change in circumstances both here and in the US at the door of coming off the gold standard is doubtful though.

jon
 
I have argued that they are both just money systems and both workable. It is not the fiat system itself that is at fault, but the ABUSE of it.

Jon,

You miss the essential elements of money and this is why you still argue the way you do:

●Money is chosen by the free market first. This involves millions of individuals seeking to satisfy their own needs and wants over a long period of time. ie/Money evolves slowly over time, it does not appear instantaneously like fiat.

●Before it becomes widely used as money it is a widely used and useful commodity therefore it has intrinsic value. ie/ 'trust' is an inherent, tangible, visible quality of the money itself therefore it does not require reliance on an individual or Government promise for the money to retain its value.

●You use the word 'trust' in relation to whether someone has the money or gold in store. That is not the way trust in money is defined. As I explained above, trust in money is more a function of whether it retains its purchasing power and whether it can be used as a medium of exchange at some time in future. It's not about whether someone really has it in their shoebox under their bed like they say they do.

I would gladly accept an ounce of gold from anyone, from anywhere in the world in exchange for something of value that I have. I would not do the same for any paper money. Someone could offer me 10,000 lilangeni for something I have and I would refuse to exchange, but if that same person gave me 1 ounce of gold, I'd gladly exchange. This isn't hypothetical, that is what I would do. You can hypothesize all you want about trust, but I'd say 9/10ths of the worlds population would act the same way I would on that exchange. Exchange something for paper money that you've never seen and have no idea what it is worth? Every 3rd moron in the world knows that gold has value even if they can't quote today's exact spot price.


Form the B.O.E website:

In the 16th century the goldsmith-bankers began to accept deposits, make loans and transfer funds. They also gave receipts for cash, that is to say gold coins, deposited with them. These receipts, known as “running cash notes”, were made out in the name of the depositor and promised to pay him on demand.

Many also carried the words “or bearer” after the name of the depositor, which allowed them to circulate in a limited way. In 1694 the Bank of England was established in order to raise money for King William III’s war against France. Almost immediately the Bank started to issue notes in return for deposits. Like the goldsmiths’ notes, the crucial feature that made Bank of England notes a means of exchange was the promise to pay the bearer the sum of the note on demand. This meant that the note could be redeemed at the Bank for gold or coinage by anyone presenting it for payment; if it was not redeemed in full, it was endorsed with the amount withdrawn. These notes were initially handwritten on Bank paper and signed by one of the Bank’s cashiers. They were made out for the precise sum deposited in pounds, shillings and pence. However, after the recoinage of 1696 reduced the need for small denomination notes, it was decided not to issue any notes for sums of less than £50. Since the average income in this period was less than £20 a year, most people went through life without ever coming into contact with banknotes.
 
Whether you can properly lay this fairly dramatic change in circumstances both here and in the US at the door of coming off the gold standard is doubtful though.

jon

Ahh, now I think I'm getting somewhere, at least you agree there has been a fairly dramatic change in circumstances since coming off the gold standard! :clap:

I might leave this one for the duc!
 
Ahh, now I think I'm getting somewhere, at least you agree there has been a fairly dramatic change in circumstances since coming off the gold standard! :clap:

I might leave this one for the duc!

More quality from Ron Paul, the gold standard in politics and economics (y)

Before examining the critical decade of the 1890s, it is well to point out in some detail the excellent record of the first decade after the return to gold, 1879-1889. America went off the gold standard in 1861 and remained off after the war's end. Arguments between hard-money advocates who wanted to eliminate unbacked greenbacks and soft-money men who wanted to increase them raged through the 1870s until the Grant administration decided in 1875 to resume redemption of paper dollars into gold at prewar value on the first day of 1879. At the time (1875) greenbacks were trading at a discount of roughly 17 percent against the pre-war gold dollar. A combination of outright paper-money deflation and increase in official gold holdings enabled a return to gold four years later, which set the scene for a decade of tremendous economic growth. Economic recordkeeping a century ago was not nearly as well developed as today, but a clear picture comes through nonetheless. The Encyclopedia of American Economic History calls the period under review "one of the most expansive in American history. Capital investment was high;. . .there was little unemployment; and the real costs of production declined rapidly' This is shown most graphically with a look at wages and prices during the decade before and after convertibility. While prices fell during the 1870s and 1880s, wages fell only during the greenback period, and rose from 1879 to 1889.These figures tell a remarkable story. Both consumer prices and nominal wages fell about 30 percent during the last decade of green-backs. But from 1879-1889, while prices kept falling, wages rose 23 percent. So real wages, after taking inflation—or the lack of it—into effect, soared. No decade before or since produced such a sustainable rise in real wages. Two possible exceptions are the period from 1909-1919 (when the index rose from 99 to 140) and 1929-1939 (134-194). But during the first decade real wages plummeted the next year—to 129 in 1920, and did not reach 1919's level until 1934. And during the 1930s real wages also soared, for those fortunate enough to have jobs. In any event, the contrast to this past decade is astonishing. And while there are many reasons why real wages increase, three necessary conditions must be present. Foremost, an absence of sustained inflation. This contributes to the second condition, a rise in savings and capital formation.

People will not save if they believe their money will be worth less in the future. Finally, technological advancement is obviously important.But it is not enough. The 1970s saw this third factor present, but the absence of the first two caused real wages to fall.


As the duc explained, entrepreneurs need capital in order to turn their ideas into tangible products. If money is continually being debased, as it is under a fiat system, people won't save and there won't be a pool of capital to borrow from. Therefore manufacturers must either find cheaper and cheaper ways to manufacture their products, not manufacture them at all, or manufacture them somewhere else.
 
Possibly. Those with an entrenched ideology, those immune to logic, unable to reason will remain true to their ideology. I suggest that we are not really aiming at them at all, rather, we aim to educate the 'neutrals' who are as yet undecided, but are looking for the correct theory.

The 'opponents' are providing nothing of substance. Their rhetorical arguments contain zero theory, heuristic generalizations, logical fallacies. All they provide is an opportunity to explode their ideological position through failure to respond with theory, concrete examples and generally evading the issues raised. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will see through the evasions.

jog on
duc

I have found your posts very interesting, please continue.
 
jon

Whilst I agree that taxation is coercive and not a free choice it does stem from your initial choice to live in the State exerting the tax. I accept that is not exactly a free choice for many people.

So if you are not free to choose an economic area that is 'tax free', and that you accept that taxation is coercive, then you have no argument.





Many commercial services have the same feature. For example, if I choose to stay in an hotel I must pay for the services it provides whether I want to use them or not. I am thus "coerced" into paying for things I neither use nor want.

Let me accept this statement as correct. You do however have the factor of competition, where, you can choose an alternative hotel/motel/bed breakfast.

But let's assume that the establishment is out in the boonies, and there is no competition: then indeed, they posssess a functional monopoly, and you will have to accept being coerced, if you have no alternatives.




You have indeed explained how I have become steadily more "wealthy". I have never suggested that fiat money has caused it. What I have suggested is that Government has had a role to play in it by encouraging, stimulating and facilitating the "productivity, of quantity & quality" that you say is causative. They would say that fiat money has helped them in that endeavour - it may have, it may not.

I can see from your various responses on this thread that you have difficulty with abstract theory. That is understandable, it is a problem for many. Let me then take a different approach.

The abstract theory that both NT and myself have been posting states that government intervention reduces the productivity of an economy, I think that is a fairly non-controversial statement that will be accepted as true.

If then we move to your preferred style of empiricism, viz. empirical data. I have attached the data from the Federal Reserve with regard to 'Capacity Utilization'

Capacity utilization gives a statistical measure of the % of fixed capital plant that is being used for productive purposes. The data runs from the mid 1960's.

If capital had been allocated productively, then the 'trend' would be up, or flat, as the capital plant would be profitable through most of the business cycle.

What we in point of fact see is a downward trend. This is the result of less capital plant being, or recovering profitability after each of the major economic downturns.

As NT has stated later in the thread, coming out of WWII, through the 1950-1960 period, the US was highly productive and profitable. After 1971, when Nixon abrogated the gold exchange, and the US entered an increasing inflationary policy era, their productivity started its decline.




Certainly, however, they have not robbed me of my increasing "prosperity" and I am content to believe that they have no agenda to do so.

And of course therein lies the answer.

You are a man of faith. Just like any religion, you cleave to your faith and belief in government. They are your safety blanket. Many are willing to exchange their liberty for security, or perceived security.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who had a couple of pithy quotes:

The Way to see by Faith, is to shut the Eye of Reason:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

jog on
duc
 

Attachments

  • TCU_Max_630_378.png
    TCU_Max_630_378.png
    17.7 KB · Views: 216
Jon

I have also argued that, whatever system you have, it comes down to peoples TRUST in it. I would hazard a guess that if you and ducky pooled your gold resources and issued notes backed by that gold you would not get many shopkeepers prepared to accept your money in exchange for goods because they would not trust it (ignoring legalities). You could print whatever promises you liked on your notes and have the fact that you had the gold certified by the most eminent figures in the land and your money still wouldn't be accepted until people came to trust it
.

Your lack of historical knowledge is lamentable.

This of course is exactly how paper money certificates, the precursor of fiat money, came into existence.

Goldsmiths, provided secure storage for gold deposited, charging a small fee, and issued paper deposit certificates that would later be redeemed in gold upon demand.

jog on
duc
 
Last edited:
Jon,


Exactly - they are both just money systems.

Incorrect. One is a money, t'other is a fiduciary media.



"Productivity" was duc's word not mine. Perhaps I would would use GDP instead which covers more than the production of goods.

GDP = Goods/Services sold * price.

Obviously, or not, depending I guess, GDP rising is a function of higher prices as much as it is a function of increased production. GDP therefore is simply not a viable statistical measure of the phenomena it purports to measure.




I regret as much as you the demise of manufacturing in UK. I also remember the importance placed on the balance of payments. Indeed I was personally responsible in my younger days for Harold Wilson standing up in Parliament and crowing about a sharp improvement in the balance of payments. It hadn't really improved - I'd just forgotten to send all the details of a monthsworth of oil imports to the Statistical Office :eek:.

That just explains so much. You are a bureaucrat. Your entire existence was predicated upon sucking at the government tit.




Whether you can properly lay this fairly dramatic change in circumstances both here and in the US at the door of coming off the gold standard is doubtful though.

See previous post with regard to Capacity Utilization.

jog on
duc
 
Top