Topic: What if a Country go back to Gold (bitcoin) standard? (Read 3911 times)
Bitcon simply has the 'features' required. I think its more a matter of when society is ready for something like it, this bicoin crypto tech offers a true opportunity away from centralization. I made a more humorous post around similar thoughts. http://servanlog.blogspot.com/... Also the loss issue you point out with a paper equivalent is still present with bitcoin. If people loose a wallet or their key in some way , those bitcoins and gone forever. But thats ok as they are not sitting anywhere in the physical world to be seen and claimed, i dont think anyone would ever know there is no owner to those lost coins, but there will forever be a growing proportion of the final 21million coins issued that is 'lost'.
Does anyone have an idea on what happen if a country decide to go back to a Gold standard?
Imagine that there is no threat to this country come from the others. It's a middle sized economy.
Its economy would become strong. It would not be able to inflate there currency for obvious reason.
What are the pros and cons? A fly solo like this is even possible/imaginable?
I'm just curious to know what you guys think it might happens.
Imagine that there is no threat to this country come from the others. It's a middle sized economy.
Its economy would become strong. It would not be able to inflate there currency for obvious reason.
What are the pros and cons? A fly solo like this is even possible/imaginable?
I'm just curious to know what you guys think it might happens.
Weapons of mass destruction or terrorist training camps will be found and the country will be liberated, what else?
If it were the case I would not debate.
I suggest you just try to sell one cheeseburger on your doorstep without breaking a law. I am waiting.
If you never tried to build a business and secure your income from tax payers, then sure you are in pony land. (Either that or your business is protected from competitor by the state)
I suggest you just try to sell one cheeseburger on your doorstep without breaking a law. I am waiting.
If you never tried to build a business and secure your income from tax payers, then sure you are in pony land. (Either that or your business is protected from competitor by the state)
Ive had a business for 18 years. No problems here. And a lot of business sell cheeseburgers. Where is your problem exactly?
Because you can't do that with licence of government and paying them fees up front.
If you can't do business on the doorstep of your own house, then don't talk about any freedom to choose and non aggression.
I know that lot of business sell cheeseburger, but it is ridiculously complicated and impossible to do it in your own house legally.
This is the tip of the iceberg of liberty broken.
If you made the kind of business that can survive thanks to his customer, and not with special privilege, licence, and subsidies protecting your from competition, then kudo.
You are the only honest businessman I have seen defending the state.
Im not defending the state. I just acknowledge that a state is there. The state never hindered my business. The competition however, hinders my business greatly. Haha
BTW im pretty sure its pretty cheap and easy to register as a sole proprietorship. So I dont know what complications you are talking about.
I prefer pizza or French fries actually. But it still applies ! :p
If it were the case I would not debate.
I suggest you just try to sell one cheeseburger on your doorstep without breaking a law. I am waiting.
If you never tried to build a business and secure your income from tax payers, then sure you are in pony land. (Either that or your business is protected from competitor by the state)
I suggest you just try to sell one cheeseburger on your doorstep without breaking a law. I am waiting.
If you never tried to build a business and secure your income from tax payers, then sure you are in pony land. (Either that or your business is protected from competitor by the state)
Ive had a business for 18 years. No problems here. And a lot of business sell cheeseburgers. Where is your problem exactly?
Because you can't do that with licence of government and paying them fees up front.
If you can't do business on the doorstep of your own house, then don't talk about any freedom to choose and non aggression.
I know that lot of business sell cheeseburger, but it is ridiculously complicated and impossible to do it in your own house legally.
This is the tip of the iceberg of liberty broken.
If you made the kind of business that can survive thanks to his customer, and not with special privilege, licence, and subsidies protecting your from competition, then kudo.
You are the only honest businessman I have seen defending the state.
I think your overall argument is great, just that the example of cheeseburgers wasn't the best.
If it were the case I would not debate.
I suggest you just try to sell one cheeseburger on your doorstep without breaking a law. I am waiting.
If you never tried to build a business and secure your income from tax payers, then sure you are in pony land. (Either that or your business is protected from competitor by the state)
I suggest you just try to sell one cheeseburger on your doorstep without breaking a law. I am waiting.
If you never tried to build a business and secure your income from tax payers, then sure you are in pony land. (Either that or your business is protected from competitor by the state)
Ive had a business for 18 years. No problems here. And a lot of business sell cheeseburgers. Where is your problem exactly?
Because you can't do that with licence of government and paying them fees up front.
If you can't do business on the doorstep of your own house, then don't talk about any freedom to choose and non aggression.
I know that lot of business sell cheeseburger, but it is ridiculously complicated and impossible to do it in your own house legally.
This is the tip of the iceberg of liberty broken.
If you made the kind of business that can survive thanks to his customer, and not with special privilege, licence, and subsidies protecting your from competition, then kudo.
You are the only honest businessman I have seen defending the state.
If it were the case I would not debate.
I suggest you just try to sell one cheeseburger on your doorstep without breaking a law. I am waiting.
If you never tried to build a business and secure your income from tax payers, then sure you are in pony land. (Either that or your business is protected from competitor by the state)
I suggest you just try to sell one cheeseburger on your doorstep without breaking a law. I am waiting.
If you never tried to build a business and secure your income from tax payers, then sure you are in pony land. (Either that or your business is protected from competitor by the state)
Ive had a business for 18 years. No problems here. And a lot of business sell cheeseburgers. Where is your problem exactly?
If it were the case I would not debate.
I suggest you just try to sell one cheeseburger on your doorstep without breaking a law. I am waiting.
If you never tried to build a business and secure your income from tax payers, then sure you are in pony land. (Either that or your business is protected from competitor by the state)
I suggest you just try to sell one cheeseburger on your doorstep without breaking a law. I am waiting.
If you never tried to build a business and secure your income from tax payers, then sure you are in pony land. (Either that or your business is protected from competitor by the state)
Quote
That is naive. You cant just say "oh you dont want liberty?" That's a strawman argument. Of course everyone wants liberty. Marx wanted liberty, Keynes wanted liberty.
If liberty is so blurry concept, the liberty of rothbard is the freedom to choose without stepping on someone else property. This is very specific definition, not a blurry one.We already have that.
Quote
That is naive. You cant just say "oh you dont want liberty?" That's a strawman argument. Of course everyone wants liberty. Marx wanted liberty, Keynes wanted liberty.
If liberty is so blurry concept, the liberty of rothbard is the freedom to choose without stepping on someone else property. This is very specific definition, not a blurry one. Quote
But just because something is logical doesn't mean its true.
The thing is either you reject his end goal : maximizing liberty, and can trash what he said.
Either you don't reject this goal, and good luck with finding a flaw in the reasoning.
Nowadays economists, find the right statistics that support policies of the elites. (by tweaking GDP calculation methods, or finding metrics that favor particular policy)
Thinking elites make policies to improve statistics is wishful thinking.
The reality is not really different from the pope granting the holy power to the king.
This is not to say I did not appreciate monetary history of the US of Friedman, which opened my eyes about the history of money and its meaning.
But judging on principles, not on faith (of god power, of stats), is the only way each of us can evaluate if a policy goes for or against it without being manipulated.
This is what I like about Rothbard.
Right now, if you have policy A, you will have 50% economists for and 50% against, each with their own data and stats justifying both side.
Then the policy maker just pick the stats he needs to make it pass.
When you follow Rothbard reasoning, he will explain why policy A is better or worse, only based on the single NA principle. There is no "maybe right, maybe wrong", only clear cut.
But an anarcho capitalist, don't have to read what Rothbard to reach the same conclusion. With only NAP, he will walk on the exact same steps.
I need some time to digest what I read from him, so I am not yet anarcho capitalist, but he definitively opened my eyes on what I did not think could exist.
That is naive. You cant just say "oh you dont want liberty?" That's a strawman argument. Of course everyone wants liberty. Marx wanted liberty, Keynes wanted liberty.
What you should consider is if he understands economics or not. Does his theory support what is observable. Is there data support his theory?
Praxeology is logical deduction. You cant get useful answers from praxeology. At worst you fool yourself into tautological arguments
Quote
But just because something is logical doesn't mean its true.
The thing is either you reject his end goal : maximizing liberty, and can trash what he said.
Either you don't reject this goal, and good luck with finding a flaw in the reasoning.
Nowadays economists, find the right statistics that support policies of the elites. (by tweaking GDP calculation methods, or finding metrics that favor particular policy)
Thinking elites make policies to improve statistics is wishful thinking.
The reality is not really different from the pope granting the holy power to the king.
This is not to say I did not appreciate monetary history of the US of Friedman, which opened my eyes about the history of money and its meaning.
But judging on principles, not on faith (of god power, of stats), is the only way each of us can evaluate if a policy goes for or against it without being manipulated.
This is what I like about Rothbard.
Right now, if you have policy A, you will have 50% economists for and 50% against, each with their own data and stats justifying both side.
Then the policy maker just pick the stats he needs to make it pass.
When you follow Rothbard reasoning, he will explain why policy A is better or worse, only based on the single NA principle. There is no "maybe right, maybe wrong", only clear cut.
But an anarcho capitalist, don't have to read what Rothbard to reach the same conclusion. With only NAP, he will walk on the exact same steps.
I need some time to digest what I read from him, so I am not yet anarcho capitalist, but he definitively opened my eyes on what I did not think could exist.
Great summary erdogan
You made me want to shut down computer and go back reviewing my mises and rothbard books.
You made me want to shut down computer and go back reviewing my mises and rothbard books.
Dude stick to Friedman. At least he's a real economist.
His summary is whack cause post-bubble Japan has exactly the Paradox of Thrift problem for decades. And FYI, Friedman did think QE was the correct policy. However, QE didn't work in that Japan situation because monetarists are wrong about how to get out of recession. Monetary policies only arrest the deflationary spiral, but it can't increase AD. Monetary policies worked for 70's stagflation because its easier to impose discipline on inflation than it is to stimulate spending. "Pushing on a string" is what they call it
This is the only thing that is odd to me (and rothbard talk about it), is that Friedman make an exception for the monopoly of monetary policy.
Rothbard have a highly negative view on Friedman because of such incoherence. (and the negative income tax idea)
I'm not sure what is a "real economist". I'm not anarcho capitalist yet, but from what I read in Rothbard's book, his arguments and conclusions are coherent and logical.
Rothbard starts from the non aggression principle, and explain how to fix whatever domestic or foreign matter within those bounds. Most of the time referring to successful instance in history.
We might say that Rothbard is not real economist, but we can't say that he is incoherent and illogical.
However any compromise on the non aggression principle, and you'll end up with different conclusions.
For Rothbard, a QE would violate the principle, because it transfer wealth from savers to stock holders.
Its not odd. Friedman is the founder of monetarism. He sees economics as money supply. So all problems can be fixed via monetary policy.
Also Friedman is not what you call a modern American libertarian. He's more an admirer of Adam Smith.
Rothbard is big into logical deduction via praxeology. But just because something is logical doesn't mean its true. He reaches conclusion w/o finding empirical or statistical evidence
I say not 'real' because he neither uses modelling or statistics or facts, the common tools of economists
For Rothbard, a QE would violate the principle, because it transfer wealth from savers to stock holders.
For Rothbard, any type of money printing (not only a QE) and legal tender law would violate the NAP.
Great summary erdogan
You made me want to shut down computer and go back reviewing my mises and rothbard books.
You made me want to shut down computer and go back reviewing my mises and rothbard books.
Dude stick to Friedman. At least he's a real economist.
His summary is whack cause post-bubble Japan has exactly the Paradox of Thrift problem for decades. And FYI, Friedman did think QE was the correct policy. However, QE didn't work in that Japan situation because monetarists are wrong about how to get out of recession. Monetary policies only arrest the deflationary spiral, but it can't increase AD. Monetary policies worked for 70's stagflation because its easier to impose discipline on inflation than it is to stimulate spending. "Pushing on a string" is what they call it
This is the only thing that is odd to me (and rothbard talk about it), is that Friedman make an exception for the monopoly of monetary policy.
Rothbard have a highly negative view on Friedman because of such incoherence. (and the negative income tax idea)
I'm not sure what is a "real economist". I'm not anarcho capitalist yet, but from what I read in Rothbard's book, his arguments and conclusions are coherent and logical.
Rothbard starts from the non aggression principle, and explain how to fix whatever domestic or foreign matter within those bounds. Most of the time referring to successful instance in history.
We might say that Rothbard is not real economist, but we can't say that he is incoherent and illogical.
However any compromise on the non aggression principle, and you'll end up with different conclusions.
For Rothbard, a QE would violate the principle, because it transfer wealth from savers to stock holders.
Great summary erdogan
You made me want to shut down computer and go back reviewing my mises and rothbard books.
You made me want to shut down computer and go back reviewing my mises and rothbard books.
Dude stick to Friedman. At least he's a real economist.
His summary is whack cause post-bubble Japan has exactly the Paradox of Thrift problem for decades. And FYI, Friedman did think QE was the correct policy. However, QE didn't work in that Japan situation because monetarists are wrong about how to get out of recession. Monetary policies only arrest the deflationary spiral, but it can't increase AD. Monetary policies worked for 70's stagflation because its easier to impose discipline on inflation than it is to stimulate spending. "Pushing on a string" is what they call it
How can they have it, when it doesn't exist?
What Japan do, is exactly the third, monetarist response. It was done before they declaimed the last QE.
I call it double harakiri. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/harakiri
Great summary erdogan
You made me want to shut down computer and go back reviewing my mises and rothbard books.
You made me want to shut down computer and go back reviewing my mises and rothbard books.
Dude stick to Friedman. At least he's a real economist.
His summary is whack cause post-bubble Japan has exactly the Paradox of Thrift problem for decades. And FYI, Friedman did think QE was the correct policy. However, QE didn't work in that Japan situation because monetarists are wrong about how to get out of recession. Monetary policies only arrest the deflationary spiral, but it can't increase AD. Monetary policies worked for 70's stagflation because its easier to impose discipline on inflation than it is to stimulate spending. "Pushing on a string" is what they call it
They would have to fix the price of their currency in gold very carefully. This is always the hard part, especially if you are going alone.
Assuming they got that part right, their currency would generally be strong. This would result in lower inflation for their citizens as imports would be relatively inexpensive but potentially hurt their exports as their goods would be more expensive in the marketplace. This is the irony of strong currencies, countries often don't want them as they hurt exports, hence China's capital controls and very tight management of the RMB.
Also, countries are in no way like families. It's counter intuitive but has been shown many times, e.g. paradox of thrift.
All they would need to do is declare that "n" units of their currency is redeemable for "x" ounces of gold and to not issue more currency then it has in gold reserves. Assuming they got that part right, their currency would generally be strong. This would result in lower inflation for their citizens as imports would be relatively inexpensive but potentially hurt their exports as their goods would be more expensive in the marketplace. This is the irony of strong currencies, countries often don't want them as they hurt exports, hence China's capital controls and very tight management of the RMB.
Also, countries are in no way like families. It's counter intuitive but has been shown many times, e.g. paradox of thrift.
The reason a country would potentially want it's currency to be "strong" is because confidence in the economy/government is low enough such that it's currency has little/no value on the foreign exchange market
Great summary erdogan
You made me want to shut down computer and go back reviewing my mises and rothbard books.
You made me want to shut down computer and go back reviewing my mises and rothbard books.
There was a really good Tom Woods podcast recently, called
"The Truth about the Crash of '08" - October 24, 2014
Great summary erdogan
You made me want to shut down computer and go back reviewing my mises and rothbard books.
You made me want to shut down computer and go back reviewing my mises and rothbard books.
Jump to: