Paper money

[eflatminor]

Your facts are questionable. From 1780 to 1913 the US most certainly tried to control prices through controlling trade. One of the reasons there was a civil war was the Federal manipulation of money.

Disagree. Tariffs and trade have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Further, I disagree Federal money manipulation, which was practically non existent compared to the Federal Reserve of today, was at all a significant factor that led to civil war. That war was about states nullifying Supreme Court orders to return property (slaves) to their owners. Good for them, but we're talking about sound money, not the civil war.

You then compare GDP growth of the past to today. The US conquered or took control over massive amounts of land during that time period. It was also a period of industrialization and massive immigration. Irrelevant The two time periods are not even remotely comparable for a lot of reasons but to claim that the gold standard worked then so it would work now is not established. Disagree. The time periods are absolutely comparable, especially with regard to debt and inflation, neither of which got out of control because we had a sound money policy. There is terribly weak causation for the time period itself let alone today. Disagree...strongly.

The equivocation of inflation to a tax is not established. It is a bad assumption. Awe come on! Who exactly is hurt most by relentless inflation? Rich guys or the poor? Call it what you want, inflation is death blow to the poor. That is absolutely undeniable.

The swings have been less and the worse swing of all, (The Great Depression) was largely caused because of a limited money supply. One of the major problems with a gold standard. I disagree that "the swings have been less". Fewer swings? Sure, but absolutely more severe in terms of extended periods of growth, severe retractions and overly-prolonged recessions. The earlier period saw market driven swings that were less severe AND we saw flat inflation.

Further I strongly disagree that the Great Depression was caused by sound money policy. No frickin' way!!! Historians lack consensus in determining the causal relationship between government economic policy in causing the Depression, but hell, even the Keynesians believe it was caused by underconsumption and over investment, causing a bubble. Sorry, there is no way you can blame GD on sound money. NO WAY!

Our civilization has improved greatly from what it was in the 1800's or the early 1900's. Technological advancements, which have nothing to do with sound money Those improvements do cost money. Private capital...red herring alert! The fundamental premise of your argument is so flawed that it is unredeemable and you have said little to nothing about the gold standard itself.

We're just going to have to disagree on this one!

Government manipulation of the economy is relevant. Relevant to another discussion, sure. But let's stick with that point at hand, m'kay?

Conquering land, immigration, and industrialization are most certainly relevant to growth. As are many other things that distinguish one age to another. But have nothing to do with economic prosperity experienced due to sound money vs fiat currency. Sorry, you can't just attribute that which has been accounted for in countless economic comparisons.

Inflation is not a deathblow to the poor. Tell that to the guy seeing his purchasing power eroded.

The GDP growth of the past is under vastly different circumstances which you refuse to even consider relevant because you are trying desperately to assume that the gold standard had something to do with it. Wrong, I'm saying growth was fine under both circumstances only that now we deal with the debt, unfunded liabilities and inflation made possible by all this funny money.

The Great Depression was made significantly worse by effectively decreasing the money supply. This can happen when gold is the basis of your money supply because the speed of money slows down effectively lowering the money supply and making the recession/depression worse. You have ZERO evidence of this. That the economic community is unable to reach a consensus about the causes and exacerbations of the GP, but you're just SURE you have the answer speaks volumes about your arrogance and unreliability. You go with that.

You have said little to nothing substantial concerning money supply. You have described a period of time that was massively different than today Ah yes, the "modern times" argument...how tired that one is...and made a huge leap by simply assuming that all of the things that you consider to be good about the past and bad about the present are somehow due to the gold standard with absolutely zero evidence or logical reasoning that would suggest it had anything to do with the gold standard. And what exactly to you attribute to the relentless inflation that just happen to coincide with the formation of the Fed? How exactly do you think we were able to build this tremendous pile of debt and unfunded liabilities?

It is not that we are disagreeing Ah but we are , it is that you have not even started to approach the issue in a meaningful way.

Wrong again.

 

[SayMyName]

In the end, cash is king!

 

[eflatminor]

Gold created a back up standard to currency and it had been that way for a very long time.

Without anything of value to back up PAPER currency the sky's the limit. And let the printing presses go hog wild. Which is why Gold is so high now, and why our money is growing more worthless every day. It also gave the Gov't unlimited borrowing power to print paper beyond the ability to pay it back.

Since going off the standard our CPI's have increased dramatically as has our debt and spending.

We shouldn't spend more than we take in and should actually limit money in circulation to increase the dollars worth. But alas, the countries in this world try to PURPOSELY lower their currencies values to increase their exports, and so it goes on until the next bubble explodes.

 

[Bombur]

We're just going to have to disagree on this one!

Government manipulation of the economy is relevant. Relevant to another discussion, sure. But let's stick with that point at hand, m'kay?

Conquering land, immigration, and industrialization are most certainly relevant to growth. As are many other things that distinguish one age to another. But have nothing to do with economic prosperity experienced due to sound money vs fiat currency. Sorry, you can't just attribute that which has been accounted for in countless economic comparisons.

Inflation is not a deathblow to the poor. Tell that to the guy seeing his purchasing power eroded.

The GDP growth of the past is under vastly different circumstances which you refuse to even consider relevant because you are trying desperately to assume that the gold standard had something to do with it. Wrong, I'm saying growth was fine under both circumstances only that now we deal with the debt, unfunded liabilities and inflation made possible by all this funny money.

The Great Depression was made significantly worse by effectively decreasing the money supply. This can happen when gold is the basis of your money supply because the speed of money slows down effectively lowering the money supply and making the recession/depression worse. You have ZERO evidence of this. That the economic community is unable to reach a consensus about the causes and exacerbations of the GP, but you're just SURE you have the answer speaks volumes about your arrogance and unreliability. You go with that.

You have said little to nothing substantial concerning money supply. You have described a period of time that was massively different than today Ah yes, the "modern times" argument...how tired that one is...and made a huge leap by simply assuming that all of the things that you consider to be good about the past and bad about the present are somehow due to the gold standard with absolutely zero evidence or logical reasoning that would suggest it had anything to do with the gold standard. And what exactly to you attribute to the relentless inflation that just happen to coincide with the formation of the Fed? How exactly do you think we were able to build this tremendous pile of debt and unfunded liabilities?

It is not that we are disagreeing Ah but we are , it is that you have not even started to approach the issue in a meaningful way.

Wrong again.

If you want a serious discussion I am all for it but you have given me no reason to take you seriously. Your argument is basically a string of unfounded assumptions that you take as truth based on faith. I have already pointed out serious problems with your analysis and you just ignore them.

You are comparing two vastly different time period. In economics this means you have to account for all of the factors in play. This makes the analysis you are trying to do very difficult but you have zero understanding of what sound economic analysis is so you just ignore that.

I am willing to debate but what you provided isn't a debate.

 

[eflatminor]

Government manipulation of the economy is relevant. Relevant to another discussion, sure. But let's stick with that point at hand, m'kay?

Conquering land, immigration, and industrialization are most certainly relevant to growth. As are many other things that distinguish one age to another. But have nothing to do with economic prosperity experienced due to sound money vs fiat currency. Sorry, you can't just attribute that which has been accounted for in countless economic comparisons.

Inflation is not a deathblow to the poor. Tell that to the guy seeing his purchasing power eroded.

The GDP growth of the past is under vastly different circumstances which you refuse to even consider relevant because you are trying desperately to assume that the gold standard had something to do with it. Wrong, I'm saying growth was fine under both circumstances only that now we deal with the debt, unfunded liabilities and inflation made possible by all this funny money.

The Great Depression was made significantly worse by effectively decreasing the money supply. This can happen when gold is the basis of your money supply because the speed of money slows down effectively lowering the money supply and making the recession/depression worse. You have ZERO evidence of this. That the economic community is unable to reach a consensus about the causes and exacerbations of the GP, but you're just SURE you have the answer speaks volumes about your arrogance and unreliability. You go with that.

You have said little to nothing substantial concerning money supply. You have described a period of time that was massively different than today Ah yes, the "modern times" argument...how tired that one is...and made a huge leap by simply assuming that all of the things that you consider to be good about the past and bad about the present are somehow due to the gold standard with absolutely zero evidence or logical reasoning that would suggest it had anything to do with the gold standard. And what exactly to you attribute to the relentless inflation that just happen to coincide with the formation of the Fed? How exactly do you think we were able to build this tremendous pile of debt and unfunded liabilities?

It is not that we are disagreeing Ah but we are , it is that you have not even started to approach the issue in a meaningful way.

Wrong again.

If you want a serious discussion I am all for it but you have given me no reason to take you seriously. Your argument is basically a string of unfounded assumptions that you take as truth based on faith. I have already pointed out serious problems with your analysis and you just ignore them.

You are comparing two vastly different time period. In economics this means you have to account for all of the factors in play. This makes the analysis you are trying to do very difficult but you have zero understanding of what sound economic analysis is so you just ignore that.

I am willing to debate but what you provided isn't a debate.

Of course, I vehemently disagree with your assessment and argue those 'factors' have in fact been accounted for in numerous economic studies. Perhaps you'd answer the one question I've been asking: What exactly to you attribute to the relentless inflation that just happen to coincide with the formation of the Fed? How exactly do you think we were able to build this tremendous pile of debt and unfunded liabilities?

You know damn well we'd have none of this we be hanging over our heads with a sound money policy. But you're apparently arguing that such is required because things are just SO different post 1913 than before...with no evidence beyond pictures of poor people.

You go with that.

 

[Bombur]

Wrong again.

If you want a serious discussion I am all for it but you have given me no reason to take you seriously. Your argument is basically a string of unfounded assumptions that you take as truth based on faith. I have already pointed out serious problems with your analysis and you just ignore them.

You are comparing two vastly different time period. In economics this means you have to account for all of the factors in play. This makes the analysis you are trying to do very difficult but you have zero understanding of what sound economic analysis is so you just ignore that.

I am willing to debate but what you provided isn't a debate.

Of course, I vehemently disagree with your assessment and argue those 'factors' have in fact been accounted for in numerous economic studies. Perhaps you'd answer the one question I've been asking: What exactly to you attribute to the relentless inflation that just happen to coincide with the formation of the Fed? How exactly do you think we were able to build this tremendous pile of debt and unfunded liabilities?

You know damn well we'd have none of this we be hanging over our heads with a sound money policy. But you're apparently arguing that such is required because things are just SO different post 1913 than before...with no evidence beyond pictures of poor people.

You go with that.

I have no problem with the inflation we have had for the most part.

 

[eflatminor]

If you want a serious discussion I am all for it but you have given me no reason to take you seriously. Your argument is basically a string of unfounded assumptions that you take as truth based on faith. I have already pointed out serious problems with your analysis and you just ignore them.

You are comparing two vastly different time period. In economics this means you have to account for all of the factors in play. This makes the analysis you are trying to do very difficult but you have zero understanding of what sound economic analysis is so you just ignore that.

I am willing to debate but what you provided isn't a debate.

Of course, I vehemently disagree with your assessment and argue those 'factors' have in fact been accounted for in numerous economic studies. Perhaps you'd answer the one question I've been asking: What exactly to you attribute to the relentless inflation that just happen to coincide with the formation of the Fed? How exactly do you think we were able to build this tremendous pile of debt and unfunded liabilities?

You know damn well we'd have none of this we be hanging over our heads with a sound money policy. But you're apparently arguing that such is required because things are just SO different post 1913 than before...with no evidence beyond pictures of poor people.

You go with that.

I have no problem with the inflation we have had for the most part.

2,500%...I sure as hell do.

And the debt? Cool with that too?

How about the unfunded liabilities, now well over $100 trillion?

 

[Rshermr]

And step is useing crazy numbers to express how bad he would like to say things have become since going off the gold standard. What you forget is that 1913 to 2013 is a long time. So, yeah, the inflation has been a big number. Not 2500%, of course. But over 2200%. Here are actual numbers: +

 

[eflatminor]

And step is useing crazy numbers to express how bad he would like to say things have become since going off the gold standard. What you forget is that 1913 to 2013 is a long time. So, yeah, the inflation has been a big number. Not 2500%, of course. But over 2200%. Here are actual numbers: +View attachment 29454

Mea Culpa. 2,263% from 1913 until today.

Of course, the point is that from 1780 until 1913...0%. No loss of purchasing power.

Inflation is particularly devastating to the poor since they require so much of their income to survive. There is little left over to save and invest in assets that might keep pace with inflation. The wealthy are not forced to spend all of their income on everyday living expenses. Plus, they tend to own the businesses and the real estate and the other assets that benefit from inflation. The purchasing power of the wealthy does not decline near as much as the purchasing power of the poor.

The result is that the gap between the poor and rich widens...something the central planner/collectivist types are constantly bitching about...while supporting the very institutions that ensure that will happen. I find that rather ironic.

 

[Bombur]

Of course, I vehemently disagree with your assessment and argue those 'factors' have in fact been accounted for in numerous economic studies. Perhaps you'd answer the one question I've been asking: What exactly to you attribute to the relentless inflation that just happen to coincide with the formation of the Fed? How exactly do you think we were able to build this tremendous pile of debt and unfunded liabilities?

You know damn well we'd have none of this we be hanging over our heads with a sound money policy. But you're apparently arguing that such is required because things are just SO different post 1913 than before...with no evidence beyond pictures of poor people.

You go with that.

I have no problem with the inflation we have had for the most part.

2,500%...I sure as hell do.

And the debt? Cool with that too?

How about the unfunded liabilities, now well over $100 trillion?

Anyone who understands basic math understands why the % number is so large.

Everything else is just you continuing to assume your argument is fact and repeating it over and over.

 

[Rshermr]

Step acts as though compounding of rates is a mystery. Here is a chart and link to what the interest rates have been over time. And, in fact, what he says is a lie. There WAS indeed inflation prior to 1913 just as after, at quite similar rates.

 

[Norman]

Step acts as though compounding of rates is a mystery. Here is a chart and link to what the interest rates have been over time. And, in fact, what he says is a lie. There WAS indeed inflation prior to 1913 just as after, at quite similar rates.

View attachment 29456

 

[eflatminor]

I have no problem with the inflation we have had for the most part.

2,500%...I sure as hell do.

And the debt? Cool with that too?

How about the unfunded liabilities, now well over $100 trillion?

Anyone who understands basic math understands why the % number is so large.

Correct, the Federal Reserve.

Everything else is just you continuing to assume your argument is fact and repeating it over and over.

So you got nothing. Got it.

 

[Bombur]

2,500%...I sure as hell do.

And the debt? Cool with that too?

How about the unfunded liabilities, now well over $100 trillion?

Anyone who understands basic math understands why the % number is so large.

Correct, the Federal Reserve.

Everything else is just you continuing to assume your argument is fact and repeating it over and over.

So you got nothing. Got it.

Thanks for once again demonstrating that you are simply incapable of making an argument that supports your position with facts and reason. If you have an actual argument I will respond to it but if this is all you can offer I will just continue to point and laugh at your foolishness.

 

[eflatminor]

Anyone who understands basic math understands why the % number is so large.

Correct, the Federal Reserve.

Everything else is just you continuing to assume your argument is fact and repeating it over and over.

So you got nothing. Got it.

Thanks for once again demonstrating that you are simply incapable of making an argument that supports your position with facts and reason. If you have an actual argument I will respond to it but if this is all you can offer I will just continue to point and laugh at your foolishness.

Translated: You still got nothing.

Still got it.

 

[Rshermr]

Step acts as though compounding of rates is a mystery. Here is a chart and link to what the interest rates have been over time. And, in fact, what he says is a lie. There WAS indeed inflation prior to 1913 just as after, at quite similar rates.

View attachment 29456