Gold has little intrinsic value either. It is back by our faith that other people want it and its scarce.
I did read your comment, and my point is that just because people lived under something in the past does not mean that it would work well now. We used to have virtually no army or defense spending, so should we do that now? We used to rely on horses for transportation, should we now? Of course we CAN live under the gold standard, just like we can live using crawfish as currency... Just not well. Your point that "well we lived under the gold standard before" is flawed and irrelevant to whether we would thrive under the gold standard NOW.
We aren't 'living well' (whatever that's suppose to mean) now. We have loads of debt, wasteful spending, and too much inflation. When did I say because we lived under the Gold Standard before that we would thrive under it now? That makes no sense. I never made that point/claim. Don't put words in my mouth. I was responding to thadeus's claim that living-on-the-gold-standard-is-impossible-and-anyone-who-thinks-otherwise-is-irrational (an incredibly moronic statement by thadeus). Again go read the post I was responding to. You are very confused.
Are you dense?? #1 Because we lived under a particular condition in the past does not mean we can or should now. #2 Do you lacking any obstract understanding? Thaddeus knows we can technically live under the gold standard or the dog **** standard or any other standard. I am pretty sure that his point is that it would be a horrendous disaster. Congratulations!! You are correct we could hypothetically live under the gold standard just likely we could live under the twinkie standard.... Yet you have yet to provide ANY evidence of how the gold standard is a viable option other than "well we used it before", which is meaningless.
I like this way of thinking. It's like going up to a poor person and shoot his leg, then tell him: "You are living a crappy life, so I'm not really hurting you by making you one-legged. Who knows, it might even help!"
Nobody has made this argument. Why can't you understand this? Neither Thaddeus nor you has made a point yet. I did actually. Go watch the video posted on page 1. It makes many points. And again stop putting words in my mouth I never said we should be on the Gold Standard because we were before. Stop lying. You make no arguments why it would be worse.
#1 Yes, you did say it is better, I don't think you posted your video just for hell of it. #2 I came to this thread after a number of points were expressed explaining the flaws of the gold standard. Would you like me to cut and paste them and take credit for them, since they are the well established critiques of the gold standard? #3 Your "video" suffers from the same lack of logic you seem to be afflicted with. Comeon you are smarter than this, you know what Thaddeus mean't. If you want him to expand on his reasoning, just ask him, but this nonsense "well we had it before", doesn't mean a damn thing, it is like buying into a FOX or E headline going no further.
What I said: thaddeus is wrong about humans not being able to live under the gold standard because humans have lived under the Gold Standard before. What you keep dishonestly claiming I said: We would thrive under the Gold Standard because we have lived under the Gold Standard before. All you had to say was 'oops, I didn't read what you were responding to' I am not gonna respond to you anymore and am gonna put you on ignore because I find you to be a lying scumbag.
This is not really a problem now that we have more or less a good angle on how many gold deposits there are at any given moment; I mean, just like with oil, it's hard to see a massive gold deposit come out of nowhere when we have a finger on most of it. Amusing to note that the flood of gold was responsible for hyperinflation for many of the New World powers back in the exploring days though. The real problem is that the gold standard leaves your discretion in monetary policy off the table. Tallanvor, for why this is a terrible idea, I submit to you the following thesis---what if the United States Federal Reserve had gone off its' rocker and contracted monetary supply in 2008? Under the gold standard, it might not have had a choice. Do we have a case study for if this happened? Oh, yes, we do.
Using coeffecient of varience to show volatility in this means is really misleading, because the averages are so different. By your numbers, the standard deviation of the inflation rate from 1880 to 1914 was 1.7%, and from 1946 to 1990 was approximately 3.6% (assuming that the inflation rate from adding the last 13 years in there doesn't change the average inflation much). So the pre-Federal Reserve inflation rate had half as much variance as compared to the last 60 years, but because the average inflation rate was essentially zero, the author of the statistics makes it sound like it's orders of magnitude more.
Okay, then what's your argument? Humans have lived under the gold standard before. I concede that. I'm sure Thadeus would concede that. However, the title of the thread is "Does Paul's Gold Standard have any merit?" And the answer is no, and the fact that we've lived under a gold standard does not give it any merit any more than the fact that we once lived without vaccines or petroleum.
What is your argument? The only person I have seen make a point why we can't live under a Gold Standard is brantoli24. The rest of you haven't ever said anything. That is now 3 of you who have argued against this straw-man. Nobody in the history of mankind has every made the argument we should live under the Gold Standard because we have before. Why do you keep arguing against this point that nobody has ever made? AS for the arguments for living under the Gold Standard, I alrdy posted a video that makes the points just fine.
Have you just ignored my posts? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6831033&postcount=50 I'll sum it up for you nicely; the removal of discretion from monetary policy is dangerous, and stupid.
I'm disappointed that no poster has made an argument for the gold standard. I already know why it's stupid. I just need some insight into the mind that thinks it has merit. The gold standard stuff was Paul's achilles heel as far as I was concerned. I actually like him. He seems very honest and principled and idealist. But, espousing the gold standard just sends up red flags all over the place.
That's such a wikipedia argument. Gold as a currency isn't "backed" by anything either. Aside from being an excellent conductor, it has limited utility as a commodity. Anyone (that's not a wire manufacturer) who accepts gold as payment is only doing so because they believe it's tradeable for other goods/services. Fiat is backed by more than just a government's promise. It's backed by the $15 trillion domestic economy's willingness to accept it as a form of payment. Does it take a little bit more faith to accept paper as something "valuable"? Perhaps, but conceptually it's no different from using seashells or shiny metal as a medium of exchange. If you truly believe gold is "worth" something, I challenge you to try to transact your daily purchases in physical gold. Sure, there'll be plenty of business owners willing to accept it as payment, but I guarantee you'll find several that won't (for whatever reason). How many merchants will refuse cash? None.
