Thread: Gold is worhless in a fallen society... (Part 2)

Continued from here:
Gold is worhless in a fallen society...

Originally Posted by dujac

that's really funny considering how you cite kooks like g edward griffin, the guy that says noah's ark was discovered on mt judi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Originally Posted by septimine

The problem is that those scenarios only work when there is a functional government through which to sue you if you don't pay them back.

Not quite. Lenders make money from good loans, so even without an effective government they will continue to do so to people with "good credit." The option to sue in court merely encourages lenders to engage in riskier or even predatory lending. Debt would continue to function as a tool for progress even without a government around to impose legal penalties on defaulters.

Well, again, in a situation where the government guarentees that the $100 bill has value, people prefer them.

How do you think the government "guarantees" the dollar? What does that mean?

Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

just admit you agree with g edward griffin

Originally Posted by dujac

just admit you agree with g edward griffin

Just admit that you're relying on ad hominems and straw mans to make your points.

Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous

Not necessarily. You'd have to prove that the reason real GDP per capita continuously increased was due to central economic planning putting upward pressure on it. Which it doesn't, because central economic planning doesn't create wealth - it only shifts it.

Already prove. I showed you the data. If central economic planning was bad for the economy, the economy would not grow 800%. It would have decreased. So now you are left with an argument about "it didn't grow enough". That's gonna be realllly hard to prove considering that you have absolutely no examples of any country out there that you can point to that took a different route that produced better results than America. So we can safely say that the Fed and central planning didn't make the country worse off though? I'm glad we got that out of the way.

Next what in the world do you mean central planning shifts wealth? Are you talking about inflation? Or what silly reasoning do have behind that statement?

I agree that it didn't make us worse off in the long run. The question is, did it impede our progress? Should we be even better off now than we are?
Ever since the dollar was totally delinked from gold in 1971, the rate of growth of real GDP per capita has been about half of what it was before the dollar was totally de-linked from gold. We can see a correlation between fiat currency and slower economic growth.

So your entire argument comes down to someone having to prove that we would be "better off" with out the Fed yet you can't even yourself prove we would be "better off" with out the Fed. So what is the point? Your argument comes down to proving a negative.

And I don't know the correct mathematical definition for it, but it's much easier for growth to occur at the beginning stages of an economy, compared to an economy that has grown to the size ours has.

As for your argument... not a single country took your approach. Every developed and large economy has followed in America's footsteps. Yet you still think the entire world is wrong and that gold would magically make us all better?

Originally Posted by dujac

you're wrong, the answer is yes and it was in the usa


1:44 - "throughout much of the 1800's almost any organization that wanted could print its own money"

1:54 - "at one time there were over 30,000 different varieties of currency in circulation"

So it is your contention that there were only 30,000 people in the United States during the 19th century? 30,000 certainly isn't everyone. Akphidelt said "everyone", not just some people.


Lots of people issue currency even today. The Walt Disney Co. is probably one of the most famous currency circulators. A coupone redeemable for an item or service is a form of currency. Even postage stamps are used as a form of currency.

Money is a unit of account, and can also be used as a currency. Most currencies are not used as units of account and are not money.

Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous

Just admit that you're relying on ad hominems and straw mans to make your points.

what i'm doing is telling the truth

what you're doing is trying to avoid addressing the unreliability of a reference you've cited

specifically, g edward griffin

Originally Posted by akphidelt2007

And I don't know the correct mathematical definition for it, but it's much easier for growth to occur at the beginning stages of an economy, compared to an economy that has grown to the size ours has.

Speculation and likely unsupportable. "Easier" is highly subjective. If you mean that an economny unburdened by the heavy regulation of a powerful central government is more likely to grow than one that is burdened, then I'd agree with you that it's much "easier" for people to create wealth when the avenues to wealth creation aren't blocked by bureaucracy. However, I don't think you can support your argument that there is some magical limit to the amount or rate of growth. As the means of production advance, and people become more productive with their labor, the economy will grow, probably faster than it did at the "beginning". As labor is diverted to non-productive uses, or anti-productive uses, or prevented from producing by regulation, then growth will be harder to obtain.

Originally Posted by dujac

i was studying science long before you were born

You obviously failed to comprehend the subject matter.

so you're saying that the social sciences are not science?

I am saying that monetary policy as conducted by the central bank is not a science and never will be a science. They do not use the scientific method, period.