Gold standard is an unworkable fantasy

[Dr.3D]

but I'm willing to tell that to the losers in this recession, those who lost jobs, wages, and houses, are you?

The economy can expand without an increase in the money supply.
I think those who have some money in savings would welcome the idea that their money would buy more. Those who lost are the ones who were fooled by the lack of a sound monetary system. I believe they would be happy to hear there is a better system available to them.

The current recession would not have happened if fiat currency had not been in use. Fluctuations in the value of the money would have been much more stable and fake inflated prices (bubbles) wouldn't have happened to the extent they have with the fiat currency we are now using.

 

[Optatron]

So do you advocate for automation and robotics to spread the wealth and do all the jobs for us?

absolutely.

 

[Optatron]

The economy can expand without an increase in the money supply.

i know, not sure how attractive the candy would be to some.

I think those who have some money in savings would welcome the idea that their money would buy more. Those who lost are the ones who were fooled by the lack of a sound monetary system. I believe they would be happy to hear there is a better system available to them.

Not if they're not willing to change their addicted habits. Why were they stupid enough to fall for the trap in the first place?

The current recession would not have happened if fiat currency had not been in use. Fluctuations in the value of the money would have been much more stable and fake inflated prices (bubbles) wouldn't have happened to the extent they have with the fiat currency we are now using.

the current recession would've been a big win, or wouldn't be a recession at all if the market were of thinking people.

 

[muh_roads]

reduced prices means reduced profits, reduced wages...somebody wins, somebody loses.

that's why I'm not against anything, as long as its benefits me.

Wouldn't a fixed money supply with jobs expanding require the money people aquire to become more valuable over time because there is continually less and less to go around?

If that is the case then I don't see how profits could reduce. They just would stay flat or not grow quickly?

Maybe I'm missing something there.

 

[muh_roads]

absolutely.

You would agree with Zeitgeist Part 2 Addendum then. I think many here disagree with it.

I have no opinion but would it be wrong to have those profits go to a singular boss who bought those machines instead of spreading the wealth?

Reaching into socialist territory now...lol

 

[Optatron]

You would agree with Zeitgeist Part 2 Addendum then. I think many here disagree with it.

I have more tolerance for it than they do.

They only oppose it because they believe
1. it's unrealistic
2. human nature would demand otherwise

I don't think anybody in principle disagrees with sitting on their asses if they could afford to.

people who oppose robots should ask themselves why they're using computers.

I have no opinion but would it be wrong to have those profits go to a singular boss who bought those machines instead of spreading the wealth?

nope

why do we need wealth? only as a means to an end, if we had the ends we wanted, what then?

Reaching into socialist territory now...lol

so what?

 

[muh_roads]

I have more tolerance for it than they do.

They only oppose it because they believe
1. it's unrealistic
2. human nature would demand otherwise

I don't think anybody in principle disagrees with sitting on their asses if they could afford to.

people who oppose robots should ask themselves why they're using computers.




nope

why do we need wealth? only as a means to an end, if we had the ends we wanted, what then?



so what?

You said nope..don't you mean yes? If one man is allowed to acquire the fruits of all that machinery labor then others would go hungry. I imagine you can't have the socialist utopia if that was the case...?

Maybe I'm the one getting confused now...lol

 

[Optatron]

Wouldn't a fixed money supply with jobs expanding require the money people aquire to become more valuable over time because there is continually less and less to go around?

Yes, or, if birth rate increases, there will be less money to go around.

Which means money will be worth more.

If that is the case then I don't see how profits could reduce. They just would stay flat or not grow quickly?

Maybe I'm missing something there.

profits reduce, because like you said, money is the numeric amount to supply the people becomes less.

remember, MONEY IS FIXED, so any increase in population means less money to go around.

 

[Optatron]

You said nope..

Nope, there's nothing wrong with it.

don't you mean yes? If one man is allowed to acquire the fruits of all that machinery labor then others would go hungry. I imagine you can't have the socialist utopia if that was the case...?

Maybe I'm the one getting confused now...lol

it would be neither socialist nor utopia, just a nice world for people to sit on their asses, not everybody would necessarily be happy though.

 

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Hi,

To simplify the question, how would we share 10,000 bars of gold amongst one million people? At that point, wouldn't we just switch to a "cheaper metal" in order to conduct common transactions--because gold would be so rare?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

 

[Optatron]

Hi,

To simplify the question, how would we share 10,000 bars of gold amongst one million people? At that point, wouldn't we just switch to a "cheaper metal" in order to conduct common transactions--because gold would be so rare?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

yes we would.

or it would incentivize mining for more.

but the point is, as long as we fix the money supply, we'll have certain "problems" (or benefits)

 

[Bman]

What one needs to understand about the Gold standard is completely part of the argument that was given to you against the gold standard.

That is....


That we need to trade things that have actual VALUE!!!

With a gold standard the guy could go trade his plane for some wheat if he wanted to. The gold standard is the idea that gold is easy to transport and trade. But, if he doesn't want to trade gold there is nothing stopping him from sticking a 747 in his pants and carrying it around trying to make a trade with it.... well I guess physics would prevent that but the dude you are arguing with is absolutely clueless.

 

[Optatron]

What one needs to understand about the Gold standard is completely part of the argument that was given to you against the gold standard.

That is....


That we need to trade things that have actual VALUE!!!

With a gold standard the guy could go trade his plane for some wheat if he wanted to. The gold standard is the idea that gold is easy to transport and trade. But, if he doesn't want to trade gold there is nothing stopping him from sticking a 747 in his pants and carrying it around trying to make a trade with it.... well I guess physics would prevent that but the dude you are arguing with is absolutely clueless.

sounds easy, say that again when babies start popping up, tell me you're willing to trade humans like commodities.

we're all about responsbility and honesty until we have mouths to feed, then our emotions get to us and we can't help but be less logical about math.

 

[Bman]

sounds easy, say that again when babies start popping up, tell me you're willing to trade humans like commodities.

Isn't this what we already do?

we're all about responsbility and honesty until we have mouths to feed, then our emotions get to us and we can't help but be less logical about math.

I always just assumed that most people don't know how to think logically about math. I've always advocated certain levels of Government. I just have little faith in people, especially ones most often seeking political office. I'd never ask Government to help feed any mouths I may produce, however I get the point, my wife may not agree.

 

[yoshimaroka]

Is the conversation about a centralized gold standard? No competing currencies?

 

[DAaaMan64]

convenience is the opposite of safety.

You SIR, work for the TSA.

 

[jclay2]

How about, we just let the free market decide what they want to use as currency. If competing currencies were alloud, how many businesses that you know of would take frn's over gold, silver, or any other commodity? If these doubters are so sure, why don't they just take the release off of their monopoly of money?

 

[Zeeder]

So we had an "unworkable fantasy" up until 1971?

And since then we've had what exactly? How's the the current fantasy of infinite paper working for you?



When the current dollar fails completely this response would work even better

 

[fatjohn]

The money supply should not be seen as a number or a quantity, but as a value. And as the value of gold can rise, so would the money supply.

 

[tmosley]

uhhh, maybe you should consider, it WORKED before we recognized human rights, before we condemned racism, and before we had strict laws against murder and lynching.

Umm, there were once countries other than the US on the gold standard, many of which achieved all of the things you are talking about. Also, non sequitur.