Topic: Gold is worse than fiat - page 2. (Read 5401 times)

The Worgl experiment never lasted long enough to be a good test case. Just like when the Fed inflates the currency there is often a temporary boost to the economy, it actually does long term harm to the system; and the same probably would have been true in the Worgl case if it had run long enough.

Let people freely decide what they want to use, and let the market sort it out. That's the only fair way, and the only logical way. Go ahead and try using stuff like freicoin if you want, but I am going to stay as far away from that as I can because I personally want my money to work for me, not for someone's twisted idea of "the good of society".

Interesting, I read some articles about wörgl experiment, it seems that was exactly what FED is doing right now, provide inflative money to stimulate spending, but the result is totally different

There could be many reasons, but I think the biggest difference is: At the beginning of the wörgl experiment, the mayor had 40,000 schilling to start with (he only need to prevent these money to be hoarded by people after he spend them), but now government have nothing to start with, even worse, they have to cut spending

Where was that 40,000 schilling came from? Through saving

Who says that you can't?

There was a really nice experiment in austria about money which looses its worth quickly the longer you hoard! The experiment was called miracle of wörgl or the wörgl experiment!
What was the result? Unemployment began to sink drastically! The country got rhich! Not the government, nor the banks, but PEOPLE got HAPPY!

But this experiment has been stopped from a bank! HAHAHA!
What a miracle, guess why!

So my point is, if you can generate a system with a currency which loses its worth the longer you have it, people will automaticly use the money instead of hoarding and DAMAGING the economic system
The qualityloss system is NOT touched by any human manipulation! It must be a natural phenomenom! NOR the worth does not sink ABOSOLUTELY, its only on the behavior of the hoarder himself, by using money the money gets its usual worth!

You can't force people to NOT hoard, there is a demand for saving due to safety concern. Of course, people will be less likely to hoard a currency that is losing value constantly, that is the design principle behind today's inflative fiat money system

But, did fiat money really solve the hoarding problem? No, after financial crisis, people all started to hoard money so that even FED printed 4x more money, they all get hoarded, even with 0 interest

So, to have a stable economy, you must first fullfil the demand for hoarding, if everyone had enough saving, the spending will be much more stable

Money was made to represent value.  What I do with that value that I accumulate is my business.  If an economic system cannot withstand people accumulating value to spend during a time of need or to pass to another generation then it is a bad economic system IMHO.

One side argues that spending makes the world go around, until we leverage ourselves so far that we have to contract.  The other side argues for austerity to the point where people are starving so governments can pay back pension loans.  I say you are all throwing shit at a wall and expecting it to stick.

So much bullshit in one thread!

First: Growth was and is and will be never infinite! It was never, it is not and it won't never! But some people try to look like that growth is infinite.

The only reason Gold/Silver and so on (rare metals) are not a good idea atm are those stupid Speculators, who try to manipulate prices by hoarding! We don't have 3,4,5 or 6 people, we have whole stupid goverments with tons of gold/rare metalls manipulating the price! I mean 80/90% of gold hoarders are not private consumers lol!
Hoarding is an enemy of an economic system!
NO system with hoarding does function properly (tell me one) and this is why any kind of investment fails and will fail! Gold WAS stable but after allowing any kind of usury, speculation even gold/silver were attacked so they got unstable.

ANYONE remeber the tragedy with the silver speculation and about the story about a bank who manipulated it that hard? It was ONLY silver, but this is proof enough for any inteligent guy to see that nothing is stable as long as manipulation from usury, speculation, daytrading, short sell is possible!
The only kind of investment is investment for your life and not for your economy! [House, Energy ressource(earth,water,solarenergie), etc.]
Therefore people would not use money or any kind of currency to hoard, but instead any other ressource which does not break/stop/nerv the economic system! The money must flow, like a river , and hoarding or some kind of stupid bank stops the flow and this creates a cause for a currency beeing unstable!
Money was NOT made to be hoarded but to be used for changing! For trade, so goods can be assigned to another identity! With hoarding you break all the good rules of an economic system ,thats it!

Don't make it more complicated 

We can agree that backhoe driver has a different salary when compared with the shovel guy, he uses a more advanced tool hence is more efficient doing the same work in less time = greater pay. This is valid when comparing CPU, GPU and ASIC in bitcoin mining too.

It would take 1 minute to dig a hole with a backhoe that would take an hour to dig with a shovel. The amount of labor is different but the result is the same. Furthermore, the value of the hole does not depend on how much labor it took to dig it.

Money represents the result of labor in a determined lapse of time which equals purchasing power.

We're not very far from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)

Likewise, money can exist without debt.

But I agree with you. Money is a poor representative of labor because it represents the result of the labor and not the labor itself.

Exactly; coins' values is not worth their overhead (storage, safekeeping, protection from theft and loss, etc).  A penny isn't worth picking up because it's relative value in society. A dime just barely so.  But if your dime is worth $2.00, it becomes much more valuable and worth the trouble.

I don't dispute that labor (along with nature-given capitol) is the source of ALL PRODUCTION.  But this dose not mean that the sources of production need to ever be transacted at all.  As I said in my example if the good produced are traded but no one works for a wage then you have no labor market even though people LABOR as an action, they do not SELL LABOR.  Your entire response missed the point in trying to argue a something I am not disagreeing with and which is irreverent to my criticism.  The proper defining quality of money is that it is a universal extinguisher of debt, IF a labor market exists then by the universal provision it is used their, but labor markets are not necessary for money to exist.

Well that has developed into a "GDP/NX dynamics theory" of BOTH the classical and monetarist schools of thought that leads to an entirely different misinterpretation than what it rather clumsily attempts to point out. The problem comes from mis-stating it's deeply flawed temporal and qualitative false assumptions. It would do better to scientifically restate their flawed notions in this way:

aggregate past/potential incomes =< (tend to limit or "kinda must be sorta" less than or equal to) aggregate past/potential expenditures

On the surface you may rationalize such a weak premise to be somewhat generally true, but in fact even stated in this far more refined manner it is still not only a temporally false assumption, it totally ignores the entirely separate commodity-resource class of savings wealths.

A non-income or a non-expenditure that is drawn from or placed into reserve or pool of savings-wealth presents a huge surplus or defect that falls entirely outside of it's temporally myopic suppositions. Ergo any "snapshot" of "aggregation" is merely a "fly by survey" of only what newly or recently appears to be blowing around on the surface, ignoring all that is in the vaults.


This arises from both theories (ironically Smith and Keynes) hypothetical avoidance of not only the distinction between a wealth and a money, it also reflects their failure to distinguish a Labour from a Saving or an Investment. Keynes at least tried to distinguish an (only public) Investment from the three.

Leaning on the supply or the demand side of the income or expenditure aggregation potentials is based entirely on the false assumption of the "limits" supposedly imposed by not properly differentiating savings-wealths, investment-wealths and (labour-exchange)money-wealths. That confusion arose from bankers alone falsely claiming to have a "monopoly on the current savings component" of the "aggregate's" data.

People save Labour Exchange Tokens in mattresses and cookie jars as well as in fine art, antiques, collectables, emeralds, fast cars, big boats, fried chicken recipes and even gold. Not just in bigger taxed palaces or bank accounts.

As a "money" is a Labour Exchange Medium because labours are the Prime Resource it's exchange-valuation represents, that aggregate valuation must be "elastic" to a market driven supply/demand price.

As a "rare commodity resource" is a Savings Medium because it's rare components are ever-rarer diminishing supplies with regard to the ever expanding demands of the Prime Resources, it's aggregate's valuations are always certain to increase.

As a "general commodity resource" is a speculative Investment Medium because it's supplies and demands are valued by other supplies and demands it's past present nor future aggregate values are never certain nor stable.  

( aggregate potential incomes &&|| (and/or) aggregate potential expenditures ) <= (tend to limit or are always less than or equal to) aggregate real wealths

Since nobody really knows or can honestly guesstimate the "aggregate sums" of all "real" reserved, illiquid, liquid or borrowed/borrowable wealths there is essentially no "hard" limit to either of the other two "contained potential aggregates".

It all depends upon the applications and ingenuities of the flourishing (or atrophying) of the Prime Resources, which means "are you empowering or enslaving people?".

People hate coins because they have so little value and not because of their form. Who would prefer paper pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters over coins?

That is the misconception I was talking about, it is the other way round

It is true that "my valuable efforts are all that is needed to back the value of the Medium of Labour Exchange token", but that is when I issue that token, not receive the token

Can you see the difference? When I issue money, I own both money and my product. When I receive money, I own money but lose my product

A money issued by me should be no different than the money issued by any other workers, they all backed by valueable efforts, just like gold always value the same no matter who mined it

But if I receive a government issued money which is backed by nothing, then it becomes a "find the next fool" game, I hope the next guy that I pay using this money will believe that paper holds value (indeed most of them believe). So the exchange value of fiat money is purely backed by belief and consensus

Under a gold standard, this belief have some fundamental support: you can always exchange gold with paper money at central bank. But now, if people lose the belief of it, it worth nothing. So wise people try to spend it as fast as they can, they even take a loan to keep the cash balance negative

For the average person, perhaps. But what about folks with poor hand/eye coordination or arthritis? And then there's the whole problem of how to carry them. Sure, you can toss a few in the wallet with your paper, but if you don't hold the wallet upright they can fall out - you never hear of people finding dollar bills in couches, but finding coins is a common theme.

People hate coins so much that there's entire industries built on it. March of Dimes and other charities can collect a lot of donations in retail settings because people would rather give a dime away then have to deal with change.

I think dimes and quarters are pretty easy to handle and sufficiently small for everyday transactions.

I'm not sure this is exactly what you guys are talking about (since i just glanced through)but one of the interesting things I learned in econ class was aggregate income = aggregate expenditure
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_expenditure

It took me some time to wrap my head around when I first learned it

I didn't either until I sat back and considered that the hypothesis of labour is the foundation of all economic activities. Without it alone, nothing ever "happens".

Your butcher must obtain handle and store carcasses, carve cuts of meats from them, sell them and package them for his customers and pay his store's bills etc, regardless of wether it's just his name over the door or not. Bakers and Candle makers are no different. Hiring somebody to do your job is labour too, just like shopping for a house or a car is. Not all "labours" are rewarded and certainly few are "equal" but that does not impact on their "values". Indeed the costs of all labours needed to produce a product are not and often need not be reflected in it's price, as when a Cadillac AC system finds it's way into a cheap Chevy

Doesn't a great stock pick "cost you more" because you had to do more labours finding out about it? Even pushing a button, firing a bum, selling a BTCitcoin or finding a fishing lure is a labour. Most labourers have to do 5 or 10 labours a day before they can even get out of the house to go off and slavishly "bruncheon" in their boardrooms.

Indeed many labours are not actually even "productive" in most any regard. Most tank and ICBM and bomb makers still nonetheless produce outputs that have intrinsic, utilitarian and most definitely value-added "exchange" values regardless of the market demands of those who depend upon or "benefit" from their uses...


The sort of tax-money you speak of was already invented by King Henry 1st back in the 1100 it was done to foil the counterfeiting bankster-goldsmiths and built Britain until the Rothschild bankster coup in 1826 finally pushed it back into abject economic "counterfeit rented-gold-debt receipt" slavery.



Henry was the first dude to figure out the best reason to "also" make a "money" represent something else that it was not.

...And he was no doubt greatly pleased to see "his slaves" spending all those "tax receipts" of His, too.  

In every part and aspect of all economic activities you will find and/or exploit the hidden values of past, present and/or future labours.

The PRIME RESOURCE of "all labours" is what an "economy" is. All else is just "stuff labours bring or do with them".


Even writing you this answer is a labour, but you certainly earned it  LOL