A possible major flaw with the gold standard?

[fsk]

Yes, I flipped an inequality sign there.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Is this your stock answer when you find yourself on the losing end of a debate?

Jon, seriously, you are more than irritating since you either fail to understand our answers or, more likely, are a troll purposefully obfuscating. The only thing you're winning is more votes getting kicked off the island.

 

[jon_perez]

Jon, seriously, you are more than irritating since you either fail to understand our answers or, more likely, are a troll purposefully obfuscating. The only thing you're winning is more votes getting kicked off the island.

You seem to want to give the impression that you have more authority here than the forum administrator himself who has said that "there are no trolls in this forum", Bradley.

Asking difficult (for you, at least) questions is NOT trolling. Your explanations and clarifications are welcome but your fascistic streak absolutely contradicts the spirit of Ron Paul's campaign.

 

[Bradley in DC]

You seem to want to give the impression that you have more authority here than the forum administrator himself who has said that "there are no trolls in this forum", Bradley.

Asking difficult (for you, at least) questions is NOT trolling. Your explanations and clarifications are welcome but your fascistic streak absolutely contradicts the spirit of Ron Paul's campaign.

Jon, I love a good discussion of ideas, but I and the others on the subforum are exasperated by your antics starting with your SOP of saying we say things we don't then claiming victory by refuting your straw man. If you want to continue your arguments with yourself, please take it somewhere else. If you don't understand our explanations, ask, rather than telling us what you misunderstand.

 

[jon_perez]

Jon, I love a good discussion of ideas, but I and the others on the subforum are exasperated by your antics starting with your SOP of saying we say things we don't then claiming victory by refuting your straw man. If you want to continue your arguments with yourself, please take it somewhere else. If you don't understand our explanations, ask, rather than telling us what you misunderstand.

Man, all I can say is stop the condescension and stop the posing.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Man, all I can say is stop the condescension and stop the posing.

If that's all you'll say from now on, color me happy.

 

[nexalacer]

jon_perez, bradley just said the same thing I said to you before in kinder words:

1. Accept your opponents argument,
2. Disprove your opponents argument,
3. Or GTFO of the debate!

These are the basics of debate. If you can't handle it, then just don't enter.

 

[jeffhenderson]

I'll answer the original question. In a truly free market, if someone is monopolizing gold and interest rates are getting too high, then people will start using other forms of money. People would start using silver or copper or aluminum. If there really was a shortage of metal, people would start using other goods.

The point is that money has to be backed by SOMETHING tangible. Metal coins have withstood the test of time, until the government started interfering with money.

Bingo. In a free market, people only continue to use something as money if they are benefited by using it as such. If they are somehow screwed by a small group of people cornering the market, they will switch away.

 

[jon_perez]

jon_perez, bradley just said the same thing I said to you before in kinder words:

1. Accept your opponents argument,
2. Disprove your opponents argument,
3. Or GTFO of the debate!

These are the basics of debate. If you can't handle it, then just don't enter.

I can say the same thing about you, nexalacer, if you have nothing relevant to contribute to the subject of the debate, just STFU. All you've done so far is lurk in the sidelines and then throw a low blow when you think the time is right, like what you're doing right now.

Your first response to a post of mine was to call me names and since then you haven't really replied with anything besides posts of that nature.

 

[nexalacer]

I can say the same thing about you, nexalacer, if you have nothing relevant to contribute to the subject of the debate, just STFU. All you've done so far is lurk in the sidelines and then throw a low blow when you think the time is right, like what you're doing right now.

Your first response to a post of mine was to call me names and since then you haven't really replied with anything besides posts of that nature.

I could contribute to this debate, but I chose not to because you never told me how you determine truth from falsehood. If you don't have a valid means of making that distinction, then there is no point in debating. I'm not saying you don't, I'm just saying from your posts I haven't been able to observe one, and you have not made that clear.

As for my first reply to yours, I did use a couple of ad hominem questions, and for those I apologize, but that was already deep in the debate, and your line of reasoning was specious to say the least. I assumed a troll. Again, out of line, no excuse, but I stand by my rules for the debate. Accept, disprove, or get out. You've yet to do the first two, due to strawman arguments like bradley mentioned.

 

[LeonardK]

Jon, I love a good discussion of ideas, but I and the others on the subforum are exasperated by your antics starting with your SOP of saying we say things we don't then claiming victory by refuting your straw man. If you want to continue your arguments with yourself, please take it somewhere else. If you don't understand our explanations, ask, rather than telling us what you misunderstand.

Well I'm not exasperated. Let Jon speak. His answers may not be to your liking but they're intelligent.

 

[fsk]

Actually, I get the impression that jon_perez was merely reciting mainstream false economic theory, rather than actually actually thinking.

I do find it amusing to see jon_perez being strongly defending by people who recently created a new account.

I'm ready to declare this forum property of trolls and move to greener pastures.

 

[enter`name`here]

If an economy were operating on the gold standard and banks loaned out the gold at an interest rate higher than the rate increase of the total gold supply, what's to prevent the bankers from eventually owning all the gold?

They would spend their money, just like anyone else, thus the money would re-enter circulation. Also a higher interest rate doesn't necessarily mean the bank will make more money.

 

[jon_perez]

Actually, I get the impression that jon_perez was merely reciting mainstream false economic theory, rather than actually actually thinking.

Wrong. I have stated time and again that I am trying to maintain an open mind and that means one has to look at the assumptions of 'mainstream' economic theory. Unfortunately, instead of rebutting the arguments head on, you choose to make a dogmatic pronouncement of them being false.

I can appreciate many of the monetary arguments of Classical/Austrian economics, but those of Keynesianism make a lot of sense as well. Historically speaking, there is evidence to support both views.

While I'm more on the side of the laissez faire point of view sentiment-wise, I find that, from a rational point of view, I cannot honestly dismiss many of the "socialists'" arguments. I have essentially been playing devil's advocate and asking for help in how to rebut these socialist arguments, and all I have gotten so far are cop-out replies, being asked believe in certain views, as if they were religion or accusations that I am trying to disrupt 'debate' (this last one is the MOST laughable).

I'm ready to declare this forum property of trolls and move to greener pastures.

Copping out, I guess?