Here's one for people who are worried about Ron Paul's take on ID: are you going to use the issue to create unnecessary divisiveness? Because that's exactly what the religious right is trying to do with the issue.
Funny, that.
What bothers me is that Dr. Paul seems to not fully grasp the scientific method.He's a physician, not a researcher. Physicians, frankly, do not have a great record of being strict about the scientific method (and I am thinking about their standards of vetting pharmaceutical studies... any drug rep will tell you that a lot of doctors out there are pretty gullible).
Precisely speaking, it's a researcher's job to understand the nuances of the scientific method, I don't think the rest of us know it as well as we think, frankly.
Anyway, I don't see where anyone has shown that Ron Paul does not grasp the scientific method at a level commensurate with his profession, and I'm in with toxycycline regarding the relevance of RP's take on ID and evolution.
I really don't care if Paul personally believes if the moon is made of green cheese either. But any candidate running in 2012 needs to push for rebuilding the US's proficiency in science (and mathematics and literacy). Paul (and others) maintaining that the consensus is still undecided on evolution vs. creationism/ID/whatever, means he 1) doesn't understand how science works, 2) can't separate science from theology, 3) does not want to allow anything that "threatens" his religious beliefs, and/or 4) still wants to pander to religious elements on matters that don't concern them. None of these seem to particularly reassuring.
If (Roman Catholic) John Kerry was running in 2012 for PotUS, and he decided to push to allow states to teach alternatives to the "controversial" Copernican heliocentrism model, he'd be pretty widely called out on it... as he should. Or if some candidate was pushing to allow Pi to be rounded off as 3 in algebra classes, the same thing would occur. Either would also make many (if not a majority) Americans question that candidate's thinking and qualifications on other positions.
If Ron Paul or you or anyone else doesn't want to believe in evolution, that's fine with me. But evolution has passed and continues to pass the scientific model; that's why it's taught in science class. Creationism/ID isn't science because it doesn't pass the same rigorous models and testing... so it shouldn't be taught it in science class. If the school offers a Theology class, I think it'd be fine being taught there. A PotUS candidate or legislator calling it science when it clearly isn't concerns me.
Edit:
Here's one for people who are worried about Ron Paul's take on ID: are you going to use the issue to create unnecessary divisiveness? Because that's exactly what the religious right is trying to do with the issue.
Funny, that.
No. But I want to be well informed on all the candidates' positions, so I can get my best judgment on his/her character and mental fitness for the job. And I intend to do so for all the 2012 candidates, including the incumbent.
Still waiting for the esteemed senator from Naboo to throw his cowl into the ring.
Still waiting for the esteemed senator from Naboo to throw his cowl into the ring.
Still waiting for the esteemed senator from Naboo to throw his cowl into the ring.** spoiler omitted **
I'm either a supporter or abstainer assistant. Take your pick.
I just cannot forsee any scenario wherein someone says: "Mr President, sir! The Chinese have called and are threatening to launch unless we explain the scientific process, now!"
I can all too easily forsee a scenario wherein someone says: "Mr. President, sir! It's time to nuke the Middle East so that Jesus will come back and take us all to heaven!" And an ignorant but well-meaning zealot, not really understanding what nuclear weapons do (and probably not even able to pronounce the word), decides that presonal religious revelation is a good substitute for reality.
I just cannot forsee any scenario wherein someone says: "Mr President, sir! The Chinese have called and are threatening to launch unless we explain the scientific process, now!"I can all too easily forsee a scenario wherein someone says: "Mr. President, sir! It's time to nuke the Middle East so that Jesus will come back and take us all to heaven!" And an ignorant but well-meaning zealot, not really understanding what nuclear weapons do (and probably not even able to pronounce the word), decides that presonal religious revelation is a good substitute for reality.
That is a very very valid point. However given RP's general attitude toward war and the his crazy idea that war can only beclared by Congress, I really really could not forsee this happening.
I really don't care if Paul personally believes if the moon is made of green cheese either. But any candidate running in 2012 needs to push for rebuilding the US's proficiency in science (and mathematics and literacy). Paul (and others) maintaining that the consensus is still undecided on evolution vs. creationism/ID/whatever, means he 1) doesn't understand how science works, 2) can't separate science from theology, 3) does not want to allow anything that "threatens" his religious beliefs, and/or 4) still wants to pander to religious elements on matters that don't concern them. None of these seem to particularly reassuring.If (Roman Catholic) John Kerry was running in 2012 for PotUS, and he decided to push to allow states to teach alternatives to the "controversial" Copernican heliocentrism model, he'd be pretty widely called out on it... as he should. Or if some candidate was pushing to allow Pi to be rounded off as 3 in algebra classes, the same thing would occur. Either would also make many (if not a majority) Americans question that candidate's thinking and qualifications on other positions.
If Ron Paul or you or anyone else doesn't want to believe in evolution, that's fine with...
Which, I believe, is why he is trying to get the federal government out of pucblic schooling. Politicians are not scientists.
However given RP's general attitude toward war and the his crazy idea that war can only beclared by Congress, I really really could not forsee this happening.
Yeah; too bad not everyone shares those views (like, no president since maybe Herbert Hoover) -- assuming of course that RP actually does, of course.
Really? It was a disaster because they saved ten of thousands of jobs here in the States alone? Not just for GM and Chrysler, but also the parts suppliers as well. As well as jobs overseas.
As for bailing out the auto industry, it had to be done. The unemployment rate would have been much higher if he hadn't. I wish there had been a larger penalty on the banks and Wall Street.
No, it did not have to be done. It was a disaster that it was done. It made most of us poorer because it was done. It even arbitrarily stole from some people in order to reward a few politically connected union workers because it was done.
Until most people realize and understand why this is bad economically, the economy will continue to decline and poverty will increase as more of these government interventions occur.
We can have 100% employment by rounding up everyone not working and have them dig ditches...but that will not help anyone nor revive the economy. Rewarding an industry that is failing results in more failure.
Rewarding failure is a disaster. If you pay for failure you will get more of it.
The US government took money it either collected in taxes or borrowed and used it to reward failure. It "saved" the jobs of people who could not produce cars that enough people wanted to buy at a price that could meet all salaries, expenses, pension obligations, etc, etc of the company.
In other words, these jobs produce a car for the cost of X but could not sell it for more than X, they would sell for less than X.
That is failure, inefficiency and waste. If I spend $300 of capital to produce $200 worth of goods I am destroying wealth every time I do it.
GM and Chrysler were destroying wealth for quite some time, and when bankruptcy loomed, which would finally end this wealth destruction, the government stepped in and intervened to make sure the wealth destruction continues. And it is. And that is making us all...
Well said, Dave.
What bothers me is that Dr. Paul seems to not fully grasp the scientific method.He's a physician, not a researcher. Physicians, frankly, do not have a great record of being strict about the scientific method (and I am thinking about their standards of vetting pharmaceutical studies... any drug rep will tell you that a lot of doctors out there are pretty gullible).
Precisely speaking, it's a researcher's job to understand the nuances of the scientific method, I don't think the rest of us know it as well as we think, frankly.
Anyway, I don't see where anyone has shown that Ron Paul does not grasp the scientific method at a level commensurate with his profession, and I'm in with toxycycline regarding the relevance of RP's take on ID and evolution.
I really don't care if Paul personally believes if the moon is made of green cheese either....
If (Roman Catholic) John Kerry was running in 2012 for PotUS, and he decided to push to allow states to teach alternatives to the "controversial" Copernican heliocentrism model, he'd be pretty widely called out on it... as he should. Or if some candidate was pushing to allow Pi to be rounded off as 3 in algebra classes, the same thing would occur. Either would also make many (if not a majority) Americans question that candidate's thinking and qualifications on other positions.
Your choice of analogies is totally far fetched. I don't really see any point in engaging on this with someone purposefully trying to distort the issue.
Good luck in deciding who you think is best qualified for the job.
Some folks don't know much about Ron Paul so I thought I'd post the link to one of his sites. I would also point out that there are lots of fan sites and pages that may reflect the fans policies more that Ron Paul's.
Some folks don't know much about Ron Paul so I thought I'd post the link to one of his sites. I would also point out that there are lots of fan sites and pages that may reflect the fans policies more that Ron Paul's.
hnn. Thanks for the disclaimer, i do believe there is quite the cult of personality around ron paul, and there are a lot of things attributed to him by overenthusiastic fans that he did not say.
|
hnn. Thanks for the disclaimer, i do believe there is quite the cult of personality around ron paul, and there are a lot of things attributed to him by overenthusiastic fans that he did not say.Some folks don't know much about Ron Paul so I thought I'd post the link to one of his sites. I would also point out that there are lots of fan sites and pages that may reflect the fans policies more that Ron Paul's.
I would almost bet that most of the PotUS elections in my life time have been nothing more than a cult of personality. We just get luckier at one election than we do at some of the others.
I also expect that this year will be worse. For we have people campaigning specifically to drum up their individual cult.
hnn. Thanks for the disclaimer, i do believe there is quite the cult of personality around ron paul, and there are a lot of things attributed to him by overenthusiastic fans that he did not say.Some folks don't know much about Ron Paul so I thought I'd post the link to one of his sites. I would also point out that there are lots of fan sites and pages that may reflect the fans policies more that Ron Paul's.
There is some truth to that.
It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. -Samuel Adams
If Ron Paul is such a great leader why hasn't he managed anything in his time in office already?
Normally when you spend 21 years on a job you expect to have something to show for it.
This is a valid point. I agree with about 90, 91 percent of what he says. But that minority of items I don't agree with, its pretty damn big things. I like having a large military, even if it costs us lots of cash. They'll at least keep projected military power in the face of people who would rather repeat 9/11 or a ryder truck bombing in NYC.
I do like the idea of putting more money to guarding our borders. I also like the idea of our border agents being able to unload clips on those that fire on them. We give them a job to do, might as well earn the paycheck and skip the spouses death benefit, right?
... They'll at least keep projected military power in the face of people who would rather repeat 9/11 or a ryder truck bombing in NYC.
I do like the idea of putting more money to guarding our borders. I also like the idea of our border agents being able to unload clips on those that fire on them. We give them a job to do, might as well earn the paycheck and skip the spouses death benefit, right?
"Lots of cash"?
Gah! No worries, just print more.
... They'll at least keep projected military power in the face of people who would rather repeat 9/11 or a ryder truck bombing in NYC.
I do like the idea of putting more money to guarding our borders. I also like the idea of our border agents being able to unload clips on those that fire on them. We give them a job to do, might as well earn the paycheck and skip the spouses death benefit, right?
"Lots of cash"?
Gah! No worries, just print more.
A stronger dollar and we wouldn't have to use the monopoly stuff anymore! I shudder to think, otherwise.
A stronger dollar and we wouldn't have to use the monopoly stuff anymore! I shudder to think, otherwise.... They'll at least keep projected military power in the face of people who would rather repeat 9/11 or a ryder truck bombing in NYC.
I do like the idea of putting more money to guarding our borders. I also like the idea of our border agents being able to unload clips on those that fire on them. We give them a job to do, might as well earn the paycheck and skip the spouses death benefit, right?
"Lots of cash"?
Gah! No worries, just print more.
Weak dollar is good for your balance of trade. Probably good to let it fall for awhile.
Weak dollar is good for your balance of trade. Probably good to let it fall for awhile.A stronger dollar and we wouldn't have to use the monopoly stuff anymore! I shudder to think, otherwise.... They'll at least keep projected military power in the face of people who would rather repeat 9/11 or a ryder truck bombing in NYC.
I do like the idea of putting more money to guarding our borders. I also like the idea of our border agents being able to unload clips on those that fire on them. We give them a job to do, might as well earn the paycheck and skip the spouses death benefit, right?
"Lots of cash"?
Gah! No worries, just print more.
The working poor and middle class may disagree. The combination of contracting wages and hours and inflation on necessities like food, fuel, housing, and utilities is just hammering a lot of families who were already living paycheck to paycheck. A lot of retired folks are struggling too as real inflation hurts the buying power of their savings and pensions. The feds policy of deliberate inflation takes a huge toll on real people.
The working poor and middle class may disagree. The combination of contracting wages and hours and inflation on necessities like food, fuel, housing, and utilities is just hammering a lot of families who were already living paycheck to paycheck. A lot of retired folks are struggling too as real inflation hurts the buying power of their savings and pensions. The feds policy of deliberate inflation takes a huge toll on real people.
The US is at the very top of the food chain in this regard. Its just not a sustainable situation. Truth is if you keep your dollar artificially strong, and at this point some of that value is artificial, the rest of the world will be pleased as punch because selling to US consumers is what most of them want to do.
However the current situation, where American consumers buy far more from the rest of the world then they sell to the rest of the world and its financed by the rest of the world lending you their profits so that you can keep buying is ultimately completely unsustainable.
An argument that economic fundamentals do not apply to you because your the USA only works for so long...eventually the economic fundamentals in terms of balance of trade will reassert themselves. At the moment pretty much every investor in the world thinks the US treasury is the worlds biggest mattress and that is where they want to stuff their money...people still crave and covet US dollars. This means that you can spend more of them - many you issue to pay for things end up under a smaller mattress in Bolivia or Hungary...its like being able to write cheques knowing that some significant number of people that you give the cheques too won't redeem them but you still get to keep the goods you bought with the cheques.
The result has been that the US really has been able to defy economic reality and for more then half a century to boot. Nonetheless it can't forever continue. If you start winding the dollar down and dealing with some of these fundamental issues now while times are still good (but in the distance there are some clouds on the horizon) you might well get off scott free - you got to have you good times and never really had to pay for the party. If you refuse to deal with the issue now then, eventually, economic reality will reassert itself but it'll probably be set off by some other crisis like a big oil shock or some such and overnight the US dollar will plummet in value by a huge margin with drastic consequences.
Take measures to wind it down, slowly, now and enjoy the side benefits of increased employment in America. Sure not everyone benefits but there are many that do and its likely a wash when comparing those that do benefit with those that do not. You can bet that should the fundamentals instead reassert themselves during some other economic crisis in a dramatic way then very few will benefit and a great many will suffer.
The US is at the very top of the food chain in this regard. Its just not a sustainable situation. Truth is if you keep your dollar artificially strong, and at this point some of that value is artificial, the rest of the world will be pleased as punch because selling to US consumers is what most of them want to do.
However the current situation, where American consumers buy far more from the rest of the world then they sell to the rest of the world and its financed by the rest of the world lending you their profits so that you can keep buying is ultimately completely unsustainable.
An argument that economic fundamentals do not apply to you because your the USA only works for so long...eventually the economic fundamentals in terms of balance of trade will reassert themselves. At the moment pretty much every investor in the world thinks the US treasury is the worlds biggest mattress and that is where they want to stuff their money...people still crave and covet US dollars. This means that you can spend more of them - many you issue to pay for things end up under a smaller mattress in Bolivia or Hungary...its like being able to write cheques knowing that some significant number of people that you give the cheques too won't redeem them but you still get to keep the goods you bought with the cheques.
The result has been that the US really has been able to defy economic reality and for more then half a century to boot. Nonetheless it can't forever continue. If you start winding the dollar down and dealing with some of these fundamental issues now while times are still good (but in the distance there are some clouds on the horizon) you might well get off scott free - you got to have you good times and never really had to pay for the party. If you refuse to deal with the issue now then, eventually, economic reality will reassert itself but it'll probably be set off by some other crisis like a big oil shock or some such and overnight the US dollar will plummet in value by a huge margin with drastic consequences.
Take measures to wind it down, slowly, now and enjoy the side benefits of increased employment in America. Sure not everyone benefits but there are many that do and its likely a wash when comparing those that do benefit with those that do not. You can bet that should the fundamentals instead reassert themselves during some other economic crisis in a dramatic way then very few will benefit and a great many will suffer.
I think a caveat monetary system is entirely artificial. I favor a commodity based currency.
I think an economy based on borrowing and spending is a house of cards waiting to fall down. I think destroying the value of the dollar through inflation is not the solution. Rather I think we should borrow far less, save far more, and produce more of value. I think our obscene levels of public and personal debt are unsustainable.
I completely disagree with inflation as the solution to what I agree are serious problems. I think those serious problems are going to hit us very hard, and whatever party is in power will have the temerity to act surprised, but I think inflation is the worst way to try to manipulate our trade and debt problems.
*caveat monetary system = fiat monetary system.
whoops, thanks!
...The US is at the very top of the food chain in this regard. Its just not a sustainable situation. Truth is if you keep your dollar artificially strong, and at this point some of that value is artificial, the rest of the world will be pleased as punch because selling to US consumers is what most of them want to do.
However the current situation, where American consumers buy far more from the rest of the world then they sell to the rest of the world and its financed by the rest of the world lending you their profits so that you can keep buying is ultimately completely unsustainable.
An argument that economic fundamentals do not apply to you because your the USA only works for so long...eventually the economic fundamentals in terms of balance of trade will reassert themselves. At the moment pretty much every investor in the world thinks the US treasury is the worlds biggest mattress and that is where they want to stuff their money...people still crave and covet US dollars. This means that you can spend more of them - many you issue to pay for things end up under a smaller mattress in Bolivia or Hungary...its like being able to write cheques knowing that some significant number of people that you give the cheques too won't redeem them but you still get to keep the goods you bought with the cheques.
The result has been that the US really has been able to defy economic reality and for more then half a century to boot. Nonetheless it can't forever continue. If you start winding the dollar down and dealing with some of these fundamental issues now while times are still good (but in the distance there are some clouds on the horizon) you might well get off scott free - you got to have you good times and never really had to pay for the party. If you refuse to deal with the issue now then, eventually, economic reality will reassert itself but it'll probably be set off by some other crisis like a big oil shock or some such and overnight the US dollar will plummet in value by a huge margin
BT, there was an idea upthread on the fact that you can still purchase a dollar's worth of gold as it were. I'm still not sure what a switch back to gold based economy would mean for us, and I simply was not around when we had a gold based economy. What are the strengths and weaknesses?
BT, there was an idea upthread on the fact that you can still purchase a dollar's worth of gold as it were. I'm still not sure what a switch back to gold based economy would mean for us, and I simply was not around when we had a gold based economy. What are the strengths and weaknesses?
Some of the strengths if it's done correctly are its counter inflation effects, limiting the Feds power to manipulate the currency and credit markets, and it means that our currency is actually worth something. I think the full faith and credit of the US government is worth less and less every year.
I'll start posting some links.
Fiat Paper Money by Rep. Ron Paul, MD 11-12-2003
This should help.
The Political and Economic Agenda for a Real Gold Standard by Ron Paul
BT, there was an idea upthread on the fact that you can still purchase a dollar's worth of gold as it were. I'm still not sure what a switch back to gold based economy would mean for us, and I simply was not around when we had a gold based economy. What are the strengths and weaknesses?Some of the strengths if it's done correctly are its counter inflation effects, limiting the Feds power to manipulate the currency and credit markets, and it means that our currency is actually worth something. I think the full faith and credit of the US government is worth less and less every year.
I'll start posting some links.
Fiat Paper Money by Rep. Ron Paul, MD 11-12-2003
This should help.
The Political and Economic Agenda for a Real Gold Standard by Ron Paul
This is just not a viable option anymore that ship has sailed.
We could advocate a coinage of $50.00 denominations, about one-eleventh of an ounce, or $100.00 denominations, about one-fifth ounce; but that would start the process of rebuilding the gold monetary system at the wrong end. It would require, first, a majority in Congress to vote to establish a new par value for the dollar.
Currently a gold coin the size of a nickel goes for about $400. I have a hard time imagining coins much smaller then a nickel. Even here their use is severely limited - I mean I loose nickels all the time but they are not worth $400 bucks.
Nonetheless this is nit picking...the real problem is setting the value. The proposal makes no real recommendation on setting that value but some vague 'the market will decide'. How will it decide and who will benefit from that decision becomes key here.
Here is the fundamental problem underlying this transition:
All the gold that has ever been mined amounts to roughly 162,000 tons.
In today's prices the US gold holdings represent about 1/20th of all the money in the US. So how the heck is the correct value of a unit of currency to be determined?
Does the government just pretend that its the actual value today? If so the real value is going to rise dramatically and it makes sense for big time investors to immediately trade out their dollars for Gold. Almost overnight the total gold reserves in the US will be in the hands of a handful of the super wealthy and you won't be able to exchange your money for gold anymore. Historically its been huge demands on the gold reserves that have caused governments to go off the Gold Standard in the first place. The only other alternative is to protect the money by raising interest rates but at this differential you'd need an interest rate of something like 50% to defend it...I kind of think home owners might get unhappy when their interest rates rise (to meet the value of holding the dollars) to something in excess of 50%. Its hyper deflation.
Alternatively the government picks some number that is much higher then the market thinks gold is worth. Today gold is worth about $1500 per troy ounce so the government should pick a number between $1500 and $30,000 and mandate that from now on that is what Gold is worth.
What in the world gives us any confidence the government can pick the right number? I mean no economist agrees on this number and they are widely all over the place - we might as well call up the local psychics hotline to make the determination. Next big problem is what about the rest of the world? I mean most of the Gold holdings in the planet are not in the US. Won't they immediately cash in their gold for this hugely artificially increased value of gold in order to snag up massive numbers of US dollars. They then try and cash that money in for US goods and inflation explodes as huge amounts of excess money pour into the market. You'd get massive hyperinflation overnight.
So which would you rather have, hyper deflation or hyper inflation?
Let me quote the rest of the section that you quoted which acknowledges many of your concerns. I would also point out that gold is not the only commodity that could back currency.
In particular:
"By starting with the necessity for a congressional majority to decide on the sizes and weights of gold coins, we must presume in advance that we know the "correct" par value for the dollar. We must presume that a majority of the public already supports the restoration of a gold standard. The political task becomes a gigantic educational problem. Before anything constructive could be accomplished, millions of people who understand nothing about the causes of inflation or the advantage of a free-market monetary system would have to be persuaded to join a political movement. All the misconceptions that are propounded today by academic economists, all the mysticism of the central bankers, all the objections of the politicians would have to be expunged from the popular mind. I do not believe this would be an efficient way to approach the problem."
The heart of Mises's proposal to restore gold to our monetary system is a gold coinage. He wrote,
Gold must be in the cash holdings of everyone. Everybody must see gold coins changing hands, must be used to having gold coins in his pockets, to receiving gold coins when he cashes his paycheck, and to spending gold coins when he buys in a store.[7]
In this one detail — the critical importance of the gold coinage — I believe lies the key to establishing a new gold standard.
We should make no mistake about it: the more progress we make toward reestablishing the gold standard, the more aggressive our opposition will become. Some vested interests, as you know, have a lot to lose if we succeed in getting the monetary system reconstructed on a gold basis. The first political step is, therefore, to get the coinage into circulation.
One objective might be to aim for every American to become a gold owner. We must encourage a broader base of political support for gold ownership and the availability of gold for personal economic objectives. Certainly a broader base of gold ownership in the country would help to reduce the threats of discriminatory taxation or regulation of gold ownership and gold coin transactions, which are seriously favored in Congress today.
Ludwig von Mises and most advocates of a gold-coin standard have understood the coinage as something similar to what we had in the 19th century, until 1933. Under this concept, coins would be various sizes, with face values in "dollars" but not exact sizes in any system of weights. We could advocate a coinage of $50.00 denominations, about one-eleventh of an ounce, or $100.00 denominations, about one-fifth ounce; but that would start the process of rebuilding the gold monetary system at the wrong end. It would require, first, a majority in Congress to vote to establish a new par value for the dollar.
By starting with the necessity for a congressional majority to decide on the sizes and weights of gold coins, we must presume in advance that we know the "correct" par value for the dollar. We must presume that a majority of the public already supports the restoration of a gold standard. The political task becomes a gigantic educational problem. Before anything constructive could be accomplished, millions of people who understand nothing about the causes of inflation or the advantage of a free-market monetary system would have to be persuaded to join a political movement. All the misconceptions that are propounded today by academic economists, all the mysticism of the central bankers, all the objections of the politicians would have to be expunged from the popular mind. I do not believe this would be an efficient way to approach the problem.
What we must first do is get the coinage into circulation, and then build the political base to lock the government's fiscal folly with golden handcuffs. People have always understood the tangible value of gold coins in circulation. They don't need to agree or even understand the fine points of monetary theory to own gold coins, trade gold coins, or use gold coins to satisfy part of their marginal-utility demand for cash balances.
Most people understand very little about economics or monetary theory. When they see supposed experts in disagreement, the status quo wins by default, because nobody with the power to change it has the courage of conviction. The majority of voters see the debate among experts and hesitate to support any leaders with comprehensive reform schemes. This is why all efforts to rebuild a gold monetary system have met with frustration and stalemate in the past.
The demonstrated popularity in the United States of Krugerrand coins, and all the imitators of the Krugerrand (Maple Leaf, Panda, Onza, and the US Gold medallions) have shown us that it is possible to adopt another tactic, that of getting gold coins into circulation prior to setting a new par value for the dollar. Indeed, the only affirmative recommendation of the Gold Commission was to create a new US gold coinage in units of weight.
I would love to see a purely private, free-market monetary system with any honest manufacturer able to produce coins, as Americans saw in California from 1849 to 1864. There must certainly be no restrictions on the private production of coins, but I believe that getting the US Mint further into the act, producing a gold coinage with some of the mystique of the government, will be useful in the further political stages of monetary reform. Honest money, after all, is a political objective; it is fitting that people should demand honesty from their government, as well as an economic policy that permits individuals to compete honestly. An official coinage that reflects honest bullion weights is a powerful symbol of the gold standard we support.
Making massive changes while trying to minimize pain is a truly immense challenge, but I think it's a better approach than waiting for the inevitable disaster and imposing very sudden and very harsh austerity in the midst of that disaster. We agree that many of our economic practices are unsustainable, but we disagree entirely about the cause and solutions. The central planners in both parties like to tell us that they will get it right the next time around if we let them have more power and money. I don't trust them, and I don't believe them.
Let me quote the rest of the section that you quoted which acknowledges many of your concerns. I would also point out that gold is not the only commodity that could back currency.
In particular:
"By starting with the necessity for a congressional majority to decide on the sizes and weights of gold coins, we must presume in advance that we know the "correct" par value for the dollar....
And here specifically is the problem...you don't know the value - no one knows the value and whatever value is picked it will almost certianly be wrong.
Furthermore the whole thing presumes America is a closed society...that wrong value will be exacerbated by the fact that the rest of the world has commodities like gold too and they just got incentivised to take advantage of your wrong value one way or another (either buying up your gold or dumping gold on you).
The idea that the people will be using gold coins is insane - they are far too valuable for people to be walking around with. All the money currently in actual circulation only amounts to $3000 per person in the US (explicitly this excludes bank accounts etc. I'm talking cash). People don't meander around with tiny coins worth thousands of dollars.
The problems are most clear cut with gold but it does not matter what commodity you pick - all of them have the same problem in the sense that no commodity comes close to the value of all the money in US (or held by foreigners). Fiat money is based on the perceived value of everything in a country (including intangibles like its stability) divided by its money supply while any given commodity only represents a fraction of that value.
Worst yet being on the Gold Standard did not, historically, make economic crisis any less frequent. Your talking about going through a great deal of pain to try and get to a unit of account that has 'real' value but it never really does - its maybe a little more stable then fiat money but potentially comes with a whole host of its own issues.
Thing is I don't even see trying to lock the money down does not really help Adam Smiths invisible hand. Sure Fiat money is volatile but then our perceptions of the value of country change every day for all sorts of reasons and that gets reflected in the fiat money. Gold standards and their ilk where not really about Adam Smiths invisible hand in the first place - they part of an older Mercantilist system that happened to survive long past their due date. As crazy as it is Adam Smiths invisible hand is all about our beliefs and that gets reflected well in fiat money. Trying to hold that in check actually hurts capitalism more then it helps.
I would also add that the amount of gold or what have you that exists in the world is finite. Eventually, we will run out. That said, bt, id really like some down sides of the switch to gold standard, from your point of view. What are some of the weaknesses you see personally?
|
My problem with the "libertarians" here in Texas is that they tend to mouth the words "Small government, individual liberty," but act towards "corporate overlords, authoritarian theocracy."
Find me one (1) "libertarian" who believes that public nudity, marijuana, and atheism should be legal, and I'll change my views immediately. Until then, "personal freedom" seems to mean strictly the ones they want to grant, that don't conflict with some sort of Biblical mandate.
When you say find me one libertarian who believes that marijuana, atheism and public nudity should all be legal I imagiune you meant one running for an office? Libertarians by definitions should beleive in all those things. Which I do. Now I don't want the guy making my sandwich nude behind the counter, nor my bus driver taking my kids to school smoking pot while on the job. As for atheism; freedom of religion is important even if there is a lack of organised religion it is a choice and should be allowed.
I am pro guns for the same reason I am pro choice. I go to church but don't expect others to follow the same religion as mine. I don't smoke pot myself but I think if we legalized it and have rules much like alchohol having a certian age limit we could go a long way in regulating it making it safer and removing crime elements from it. The tax the hell out of it like we do Alchohol and tobacco and the government has a great source of revenue. Not sure all the pot smokers out there like the last idea but yeah it is a luxury.
|
Weak dollar is good for your balance of trade. Probably good to let it fall for awhile.A stronger dollar and we wouldn't have to use the monopoly stuff anymore! I shudder to think, otherwise.... They'll at least keep projected military power in the face of people who would rather repeat 9/11 or a ryder truck bombing in NYC.
I do like the idea of putting more money to guarding our borders. I also like the idea of our border agents being able to unload clips on those that fire on them. We give them a job to do, might as well earn the paycheck and skip the spouses death benefit, right?
"Lots of cash"?
Gah! No worries, just print more.
Not for guys like me it isn't. When you're pulling in $9,000 - $10,000 annually, spending $150 weekly on gas and groceries alone is no joke. And I shudder to think about people in my tax bracket who have families to feed.
EDIT: Ninjaed by Bitter Thorn.
|
|
I would also add that the amount of gold or what have you that exists in the world is finite. Eventually, we will run out. That said, bt, id really like some down sides of the switch to gold standard, from your point of view. What are some of the weaknesses you see personally?
I got nothing. All I see are super-rich Wall Street types losing money. I'm strangely comfortable with this.
|
|
As the conversation seems to be going in the direction of currency standards, inflation, and biophysical economics, I think it's about the right time to ask:
Have you ever checked out what this guy has to say?
"What's left of the American economy is a web of financial rackets divorced from the production of real wealth, dependent on an elaborate computerized three-card-monte edifice of swindling."
- James Howard Kunstler
I would also add that the amount of gold or what have you that exists in the world is finite. Eventually, we will run out. That said, bt, id really like some down sides of the switch to gold standard, from your point of view. What are some of the weaknesses you see personally?I got nothing. All I see are super-rich Wall Street types losing money. I'm strangely comfortable with this.
not exactly. As pointed out above, the wealthy would be quick to exchange cash for gold, i am not sure when it would run out but i am sure it would be long before you and I saw as much as a clipped copper.
|
|
not exactly. As pointed out above, the wealthy would be quick to exchange cash for gold, i am not sure when it would run out but i am sure it would be long before you and I saw as much as a clipped copper.I would also add that the amount of gold or what have you that exists in the world is finite. Eventually, we will run out. That said, bt, id really like some down sides of the switch to gold standard, from your point of view. What are some of the weaknesses you see personally?I got nothing. All I see are super-rich Wall Street types losing money. I'm strangely comfortable with this.
From what I've heard (admittedly, about half of the jargon goes over my head), it would be pretty hit-and-miss for all levels of income. A lot of the "gold" (even that held by banks) in circulation isn't actually there, which is starting to become a problem.
I would also add that the amount of gold or what have you that exists in the world is finite. Eventually, we will run out. That said, bt, id really like some down sides of the switch to gold standard, from your point of view. What are some of the weaknesses you see personally?
I'll try to combine a reply to you and Jeremy. Let me start by acknowledging that Jeremy's position is solidly in the mainstream of current economic thought. Austrian economics is very much a minority view. Unfortunately current mainstream economics is dominated by a central planning, command and control kind of mindset which I think is a tremendous failure. This is a profound philosophical gulf that extends to many policy issues. It seems to me that the mindset that believes that a group of highly educated presumably smart people are better qualified to manage the economy from DC is the same kind of mindset that believes in central planning for health care, education, drugs, infrastructure, and virtually everything else. This by no means indicates that individual choice is perfect, but I deeply believe that you are the most qualified person to make choices for your life as long as you aren't directly hurting someone else. My belief in this isn't perfect. I recognize its limitations in some obvious areas like strategic nuclear policy and other things that I can't see a pure free market managing well.
All that said I personally tend to refer to a commodity based currency rather than the gold standard because of the limited amount of gold. Commodities could include gold and silver and even other assets like petroleum. I'm not sure now I would sort out the details of cashing in dollars for oil but the point is that currency is worth something tangible beyond the nebulous full faith and credit of the US.
There are very real pitfalls particularly in transition. Just serious discussion of this policy would result in massive fluctuations in commodity markets. Speculators would try to game the system as would other nations. I don't think that this is a process that would happen rapidly, and I suspect without some global financial calamity it would be very challenging. Setting the value of the dollar relative to the commodity would also be a serious challenge, and it would be subject to the same pitfalls that trouble everything congress does including self interest, crony capitalism, rent seeking, and general stupidity, but this is a power that the constitution gives to congress.
Deflation is a legitimate objection as well. I find deflation less odious and regressive than inflation, but it would be foolish to ignore the potential depressive effects of deflation. I don't see hyper deflation as a serious threat, but the money supply would almost certainly contract.
I hope that helps some. It's not a simple issue, but I'm pleased that Ron Paul's candidacy has brought this and other issues that don't lend themselves to sexy sound bites into the national dialogue. Ten years ago was there the slightest mention of monetary policy or holding the Federal Reserve accountable in the presidential debates? Not that I recall.
Not for guys like me it isn't. When you're pulling in $9,000 - $10,000 annually, spending $150 weekly on gas and groceries alone is no joke. And I shudder to think about people in my tax bracket who have families to feed.EDIT: Ninjaed by Bitter Thorn.
Letting the dollar fall hurts you in terms of the price of oil because you pretty much have to import it. Food increases should only get reflected in food types not produced in the USA. Your dollar falls relative to other currencies around the world - making it more expensive for you to import their goods and making your goods more competitive in foreign markets.
The net result is its less and less profitable to offshore your production and more production returns to the United States. Depending on what kind of a job you have it can help - increased production in the United States means more workers are necessary to do that production so more employees are needed and therefore the demand for employees goes up increasing the competition by company's for employees which raises their value and hence their pay.
Not to derail the economic debate, but I thought this was a great speech.
I am truly baffled. I was always taught that the US government worked only because of the checks and balances between the 3 branches of government. Why does it seem more and more like 2 of those branches are ceding the balance to the third branch?
Edit-Thats not a rhetorical question either. I really want to know, because I dont understand. If I was a congressman, I would want the power to make war to only reside with my colleagues and me. If I was a judge, I would want the power to authorize a police search or wiretap to reside with only my colleagues and me.
Not to derail the economic debate, but I thought this was a great speech.
+1
Not to derail the economic debate, but I thought this was a great speech.
I am truly baffled. I was always taught that the US government worked only because of the checks and balances between the 3 branches of government. Why does it seem more and more like 2 of those branches are ceding the balance to the third branch?
Edit-Thats not a rhetorical question either. I really want to know, because I dont understand. If I was a congressman, I would want the power to make war to only reside with my colleagues and me. If I was a judge, I would want the power to authorize a police search or wiretap to reside with only my colleagues and me.
Fair point.
Not to derail the economic debate, but I thought this was a great speech.+1
+2
Not for guys like me it isn't. When you're pulling in $9,000 - $10,000 annually, spending $150 weekly on gas and groceries alone is no joke. And I shudder to think about people in my tax bracket who have families to feed.EDIT: Ninjaed by Bitter Thorn.
Letting the dollar fall hurts you in terms of the price of oil because you pretty much have to import it. Food increases should only get reflected in food types not produced in the USA. Your dollar falls relative to other currencies around the world - making it more expensive for you to import their goods and making your goods more competitive in foreign markets.
The net result is its less and less profitable to offshore your production and more production returns to the United States. Depending on what kind of a job you have it can help - increased production in the United States means more workers are necessary to do that production so more employees are needed and therefore the demand for employees goes up increasing the competition by company's for employees which raises their value and hence their pay.
Again this falls within the current main stream of economic though but with a larger number of dissenters.
I think it won't have anywhere near the benefit you think it will.
Oil prices drive agriculture prices. In recent history increases in oil prices have contributed to larger spikes in food prices than expected. Increases in agriculture chemical, fuel, and transportation prices immediately impact the agriculture and commodities futures markets so the price spike immediately hits domestically produced food hard also.
In terms of manufacturing the lag time between rising import cost and a recovery of any kind in manufacturing is likely to be at least a year or two depending on the industry. As I understand manufacturers worldwide still tend to believe they have significant excess manufacturing capacity. This tends to result in multinational operations closing facilities in countries that are more costly to do business in. Non-multinationals also tend to take advantage of excess global capacity by outsourcing off shore to reduce costs. Also US manufacturing capacity isn't just mothballed; to a significant degree it is literally demolished. The manufacturing equipment has been sold and shipped overseas and the buildings have been sold or demolished. In some fields like IC wafer fab building a brand new state of the art fab takes years and billions of dollars. In addition to facility, financing, building, and sustainable capacity issues you also run into the fact that modern manufacturing is increasingly efficient and productive and automated. Manufacturing can still generate jobs that pay well, but it would be far less than it was historically even if we had a resurgence in manufacturing. I hope manufacturing comes back for a number of reasons, but it will be slow and painful if ever.
I think the most likely outcome of our current policy of devaluing the dollar will be a lot more pain for the people who are least well equipped to handle it. I maintain that inflation is brutally regressive. Food and fuel prices will continue to rise significantly faster than the most commonly used CPI (which factors out food and fuel prices). Other consumer goods will have inflationary pressure as well, and consumers will have less and less disposable income. Consumer and government debt are also at very very high levels. A weaker dollar will also drive world wide oil prices higher because oil is priced globally in US dollars. This will also create global inflationary pressure as global shipping costs rise. I don't think this is a path to recovery.
Of course nations that are deeply in debt have historically used inflation as a way of devaluing that debt, but I think the results in our case would be a disaster.
Not to derail the economic debate, but I thought this was a great speech.
I am truly baffled. I was always taught that the US government worked only because of the checks and balances between the 3 branches of government. Why does it seem more and more like 2 of those branches are ceding the balance to the third branch?
Edit-Thats not a rhetorical question either. I really want to know, because I dont understand. If I was a congressman, I would want the power to make war to only reside with my colleagues and me. If I was a judge, I would want the power to authorize a police search or wiretap to reside with only my colleagues and me.
Congress is amazingly spineless for a bunch of narcissistic power whores. I am amazed that this is being all but ignored.
Obama doesn't ask for approval on the Libya war; Congress declines to act
Congress is amazingly spineless for a bunch of narcissistic power whores. I am amazed that this is being all but ignored.
Obama doesn't ask for approval on the Libya war; Congress declines to act
The outrage! The outrage!