• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rand Paul 2010

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
First said:
^ I haven't had a conversation with you before so I can't impart my wisdom upon you. 🙄
Click to expand...

He'd probably just smack you over the head with a jar of pickles and carry on his way.

BTW, the link in your sig is funny, for two reasons. One, it's an obvious straw man. Two, the main argument the author uses is the same argument used by fiat money opponents. Obviously the author has zero understanding of what he's talking about, and it being "sig-worthy" in your mind says the same about you.
 
bamacre said:
Just start after this post...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29404523&postcount=62

Probably page 3 of the thread for you. BTW, if that link doesn't work, and it didn't for me, then here is google's cache.
Click to expand...

Yeah I got the gist of their argument, but they never show anything backing the low interest rates -> malinvestment argument. I've seen all those charts in my RE finance classes in Grad school (the RE prices in real dollars sticks in my mind). That number in particular didn't take off until the very late 90s, which further weakens their argument.

The prices didn't really begin to take off until you had the mass packing of garbage (subprime, alt-a) due to lax regulation and behavioral stupidness. We still own some RMBS and the senior tranches are still performing decent. Alt-A on the other hand...
 
bamacre said:
He'd probably just smack you over the head with a jar of pickles and carry on his way.

BTW, the link in your sig is funny, for two reasons. One, it's an obvious straw man. Two, the main argument the author uses is the same argument used by fiat money opponents. Obviously the author has zero understanding of what he's talking about, and it being "sig-worthy" in your mind says the same about you.
Click to expand...

I like how you claim it's straw man but can't actually point out what the straw man is. Gold isn’t any different than fiat in a sense because it can be manipulated and abused like fiat, but also greatly restrict money supply and therefore loaning and therefore growth unlike fiat which is far more flexible in that regard. It’s not straw man, it’s reality, and as usual you will not come up with your own retort but merely link to other people's (i.e. Rothbard nuttiness) work.
 
First said:
I like how you claim it's straw man but can't actually point out what the straw man is. Gold isn’t any different than fiat in a sense because it can be manipulated and abused like fiat, but also greatly restrict money supply and therefore loaning and therefore growth unlike fiat which is far more flexible in that regard. It’s not straw man, it’s reality, and as usual you will not come up with your own retort but merely link to other people's (i.e. Rothbard nuttiness) work.
Click to expand...

I think it's absolutely hilarious that Gold is a de facto fiat at this point. Just like paper money, its value is based on its purchasing power rather than utility (ok besides the small fraction being used for jewelry).

If all bullion has 1% chance of having tungsten core and detection is cost-prohibitive, does it change its value? If your giant stone wheel is sitting on the bottom of the sea, can you still use it to buy things?
 
Last edited:
halik said:
Yeah I got the gist of their argument, but they never show anything backing the low interest rates -> malinvestment argument. I've seen all those charts in my RE finance classes in Grad school (the RE prices in real dollars sticks in my mind). That number in particular didn't take off until the very late 90s, which further weakens their argument.

The prices didn't really begin to take off until you had the mass packing of garbage (subprime, alt-a) due to lax regulation and behavioral stupidness. We still own some RMBS and the senior tranches are still performing decent. Alt-A on the other hand...
Click to expand...

I don't think we are really in too much of a disagreement here. Like I said earlier, or maybe it was in a different thread, given other aspects of our financial system, the deregulation was irresponsible, and was a cause of economic collapse. But even crooks like Geithner can admit the low interest rates were the primary cause. As for "low interest rates -> malinvestment," I don't think that's too hard to understand, even for Keynesians.
 
First said:
I like how you claim it's straw man but can't actually point out what the straw man is.
Click to expand...

LOL, because I chose not to does not equate to an inability to do so. 😀

Gold isn’t any different than fiat in a sense because it can be manipulated and abused like fiat, but also greatly restrict money supply and therefore loaning and therefore growth unlike fiat which is far more flexible in that regard. It’s not straw man, it’s reality, and as usual you will not come up with your own retort but merely link to other people's (i.e. Rothbard nuttiness) work.
Click to expand...

See, I didn't have to point out the staw man, because you just did. 😉

A gold standard (or any hard backed dollar standard) by itself doesn't help solve our problems. You are equating the historical uses (and abuses) of the gold standard to what gold standard advocates support. That's wrong, and that's exactly where the straw man is.

But beyond that, where the author gets really comical, his opposition includes the government's ability to devalue its gold-backed currency, which is quite ironic for someone glorifying fiat money, don't you think? :awe:
 
bamacre said:
LOL, because I chose not to does not equate to an inability to do so. 😀
Click to expand...

Your record speaks for itself.

See, I didn't have to point out the staw man, because you just did. 😉

A gold standard (or any hard backed dollar standard) by itself doesn't help solve our problems. You are equating the historical uses (and abuses) of the gold standard to what gold standard advocates support. That's wrong, and that's exactly where the straw man is.
Click to expand...

Please explain in detail what you would change about prior gold standards that isn't a direct copy and paste of someone else's ideas or at the very least something you actually understand because, frankly, I've read plenty of gold standard kookiness and the vast majority do not mention or even hint that they'd significantly alter prior gold-backed fixed exchange rate systems. They say "gold standard > fiat" and little else substantive.

But beyond that, where the author gets really comical, his opposition includes the government's ability to devalue its gold-backed currency, which is quite ironic for someone glorifying fiat money, don't you think? :awe:
Click to expand...

What's ironically sad is that you don't realize he had already talked (insinuated) the deflationary pressures of gold which devalues currency. The Great Depression was a deflationary depression.
 
First said:
What's ironically sad is that you don't realize he had already talked (insinuated) the deflationary pressures of gold which devalues currency. The Great Depression was a deflationary depression.
Click to expand...

I think you have this worded backward. Deflationary means the value goes up. Gold goes up in value, so your best interest is to stockpile it. This is bad because our economy somewhat relies on buying useless garbage and not saving anything. Stockpiling money means there's no money circulating. People literally did not have any money during the US depression. Germany's depression was the opposite; people had tons of money and it wasn't worth anything.

I don't feel like hunting down links but Ben Franklin wrote in his autobiography, in very clear terms, that tying America's currency to gold and silver was a direct cause of the American Revolution. Before that they were using fake money like we have now, called Colonial Script. Those were good times. Switching to hard currency caused a major recession.
 
ShawnD1 said:
I think you have this worded backward. Deflationary means the value goes up. Gold goes up in value, so your best interest is to stockpile it. This is bad because our economy somewhat relies on buying useless garbage and not saving anything. Stockpiling money means there's no money circulating. People literally did not have any money during the US depression. Germany's depression was the opposite; people had tons of money and it wasn't worth anything.

I don't feel like hunting down links but Ben Franklin wrote in his autobiography, in very clear terms, that tying America's currency to gold and silver was a direct cause of the American Revolution. Before that they were using fake money like we have now, called Colonial Script. Those were good times. Switching to hard currency caused a major recession.
Click to expand...

No, all else equal, deflation is like inflation in reverse and in both cases your currency is devalued if the magnitudes of the moves are the same relative to other currencies (sort of different practically speaking but theoretically that's accurate). The real value of the currency is devalued with deflation and inflation, while the nominal value that most Americans concern themselves with goes up with inflation and down with deflation. Purchasing power is what matters here and both types of currency devaluation adversely affect that power.
 
I've heard Ron Paul himself say the old gold standard was "deeply flawed" and that he would favor a new approach.. I can understand the criticisms pointed out in First's sig above.. I'm wondering for you Austrian econ folks here, what would a new gold standard look like? What specifically could we do to make a hard currency manageable and to prevent government from abusing/ignoring it?
 
OH my God, somehow Rand Paul may win a congressional seat and be exactly as influential as his father.

If Rand Paul wins, we can expect the reinsurance of the Paul bots come 2012, but with some luck, Rand will lose, and we will get Ron Paul for Prez yet again.

Somehow I more enjoyed Harold Stassen for Prez.

Where is Saint Jude when the Paul bots need him, someone has to be the patron Saint of lost causes, but hope springs eternal. Harold Stassen for President.
 
^ Senate is definitely a whole different ball game and it would be quite a coup for Libertarians if Rand got the seat. That's 6 years, it's no House term.
 
totalnoob said:
What specifically could we do to make a hard currency manageable and to prevent government from abusing/ignoring it?
Click to expand...

Not possible. Back when Europe was run by kings, kings would often borrow gold and go into deficit spending. I'm not saying deficits are bad, but using gold coins didn't do a damn thing when it came to putting a limit on how much money could be spent on cooky projects.

If you're trying to fight inflation, then it seems like a waste of effort. Most people are not affected by inflation. Bonds are already adjusted to account for inflation, stocks don't change because they represent a percentage of ownership, your wage goes up with inflation. The only thing that's seriously affected by inflation is if you're sitting on a big pile of money that isn't collecting any interest, and that doesn't apply to most people since I posted a link in another thread showing that something like 2/3 of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and do not have savings of any kind.
 
Paul raises $200,000 in one day. Also Cheney has endorsed Greyson. Palin endorses Paul.

http://www.wkrg.com/raw_news/articl...200000_in_one_day/805221/Mar-23-2010_7-26-pm/

Frankfort, Kentucky - Republican Rand Paul has raised more than $200,000 in a matter of hours through an Internet fundraiser for his U.S. Senate campaign.

The Bowling Green physician's campaign, which has banked more than $2 million since entering the race, called on supporters to contribute during a one-day fund drive on Tuesday.

Campaign manager David Adams said he was unsure how much larger the one-day total would grow before the so-called "money bomb" ends at midnight.

Paul, son of former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, has been using the same Web-based fundraising tactics used by his father during his 2008 campaign. It has paid off handsomely for the younger Paul, who faces several GOP candidates in the Senate race, including Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson.

Grayson reported that he has raised $2 million.
Click to expand...
 
Nothing against Rand Paul, but I just can't see the country that elected the Messiah barely a year ago embracing the concept of limited government in any significant fashion. Americans are no longer the people we once were; the majority of us demand that government fill the role that our parents once played.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top