Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:When a country says its currency is based on a gold standard, this only means that gold backs a small portion of its currency, since all the gold in the world couldn't equal the currency's total value. Again, the only proper currency is one that is backed 100% by the property it represents, and not one dollar more. In case you haven't already figured it out, my friend, I am a prophet of political economics.

In 1844 the Bank Charter Act established that Bank of England notes, fully backed by gold, became the legal standard. According to the strict interpretation of the gold standard, this 1844 act marks the establishment of a full gold standard for British money.

If you think the entire population of England at any time in its history could turn in 100% of its currency and get gold at its current market price, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

Why are you such an idiot?

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:In 1844 the Bank Charter Act established that Bank of England notes, fully backed by gold, became the legal standard. According to the strict interpretation of the gold standard, this 1844 act marks the establishment of a full gold standard for British money.

If you think the entire population of England at any time in its history could turn in 100% of its currency and get gold at its current market price, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

chaz wyman wrote:Why are you such an idiot?

Oh, I'm sorry, did I hit a nerve?

chaz wyman wrote:
Try to image a world where the money was based on gold.
One day South Africa opens up a massive mine, and within 6months they double the amount of gold in the economy.
This would be a disaster. Across the whole world the value of money would be cut in half.
At first the local economy would not be affected, but soon prices would have to double as demand would outstrip supply. South Africa would have unprecedented spending power and would drain other economies until they would be forced to double prices.
Result: Inflation 100%.

China today has savings of dollars able to do the same thing south africa could have done with gold and cause the same inflation , but they never done it and never will because the Chinese export to the U.S , Europe and other markets would be badly affected due to that inflation , un-employment would increase in China when export reduces , blah blah blah .

What I want to say is , policies and economics are always integrated as they sensitively affect each other , so there would be some way to restrict South African production of gold or at-least flooding the markets with it . But look now to the world finance secured by paper money .

Khalid wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
Try to image a world where the money was based on gold.
One day South Africa opens up a massive mine, and within 6months they double the amount of gold in the economy.
This would be a disaster. Across the whole world the value of money would be cut in half.
At first the local economy would not be affected, but soon prices would have to double as demand would outstrip supply. South Africa would have unprecedented spending power and would drain other economies until they would be forced to double prices.
Result: Inflation 100%.

China today has savings of dollars able to do the same thing south africa could have done with gold and cause the same inflation , but they never done it and never will because the Chinese export to the U.S , Europe and other markets would be badly affected due to that inflation , un-employment would increase in China when export reduces , blah blah blah .

And yet they are powerless to stop the US printing more money that makes their dollars worth less. The US could not do this if they had to rely on a gold standard.

What I want to say is , policies and economics are always integrated as they sensitively affect each other , so there would be some way to restrict South African production of gold or at-least flooding the markets with it . But look now to the world finance secured by paper money .

The world's current financial problems are not due to the existence of paper money. They are due to a lack of respect with buying and trading invisible promises. A gold standard is not related to this problem

Paper money is a bet on how much a country thinks it real wealth is worth. Gold prices are not stable and never will be. If we had to rely on gold prices the economies would not be able to keep up with the changes.
Listen carefully; THERE IS NOT COMMODITY SO STABLE THAT ADOPTING IT AS STANDARD WOULD MAKE ANY SENSE. Nothing had pure intrinsic value.



The money supply is a judgement about what the market can stand. It is the means by which nations are able to modify their import/export relationship with the rest of the world.

chaz wyman wrote:The money supply is a judgement about what the market can stand.

That's the biggest crock of shit I've heard in a long, long time. Congratulations!

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:The money supply is a judgement about what the market can stand.

That's the biggest crock of shit I've heard in a long, long time. Congratulations!

Straight out of the doxa of your best friend Milton Friedman: Money is a commodity like any other.
Your ignorance and stupidity is limitless and legion.

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:The money supply is a judgement about what the market can stand.

That's the biggest crock of shit I've heard in a long, long time. Congratulations!

Straight out of the doxa of your best friend Milton Friedman: Money is a commodity like any other.
Your ignorance and stupidity is limitless and legion.

You damned fool, how dare you blaspheme the memory of Milton Friedman! Money is not a product or a commodity, but merely a medium of exchange. To give you an example, a gold coin can be considered counterfeit money to the extent that it has the intrinsic value of gold. A $100 bill on the other hand is 100% money because it has no intrinsic value at all beyond its paper and ink. Why is it that you persist with your lunacy?

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
Straight out of the doxa of your best friend Milton Friedman: Money is a commodity like any other.
Your ignorance and stupidity is limitless and legion.

You damned fool, how dare you blaspheme the memory of Milton Friedman! Money is not a product or a commodity, but merely a medium of exchange. To give you an example, a gold coin can be considered counterfeit money to the degree that it has the intrinsic value of gold. A $100 bill on the other hand is is 100% money because it has no intrinsic value at all beyond its paper and ink. Why is it that you persist with your lunacy?

Why don't you get on your knees like a Muslim and worship him? You'd do better to take your thumb out of your arse and actually read something. Getting economics off the back of a Cornflake packet does not count.

Any commodity can be a medium of exchange numb-nuts, and all media of exchange are by definition types of commodity. Maybe you've never heard of a currency market?

chaz wyman wrote:Why don't you get on your knees like a Muslim and worship him?

one day you gonna wish you were a muslim getting on your knees for your creator .

chaz wyman wrote:Getting economics off the back of a Cornflake packet does not count.

As you may recall if you're not already in the early stages of dementia as you appear to be, the chairman of the department of economics at the University of Memphis, TN, USA, didn't seem to think my economics came off a package of cornflakes. Can you provide similar certification of your own understanding of economics?

chaz wyman wrote:You'd do better to actually read something.

I don't need to read anything since I'm a prophet of political economics. It's the rest of the world that needs to listen to what I say!

Khalid wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Why don't you get on your knees like a Muslim and worship him?

one day you gonna wish you were a muslim getting on your knees for your creator .

Why - so I can take it up the jacksy like you do?

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:You'd do better to actually read something.

I don't need to read anything since I'm a prophet of political economics.

This explains why you are pig ignorant.

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Getting economics off the back of a Cornflake packet does not count.

As you may recall if you're not already in the early stages of dementia as you appear to be, the chairman of the department of economics at the University of Memphis, TN, USA, didn't seem to think my economics came off a package of cornflakes. Can you provide similar certification of your own understanding of economics?

Mentioning a third rate university does not count as "certification".

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Getting economics off the back of a Cornflake packet does not count.

As you may recall if you're not already in the early stages of dementia as you appear to be, the chairman of the department of economics at the University of Memphis, TN, USA, didn't seem to think my economics came off a package of cornflakes. Can you provide similar certification of your own understanding of economics?

Mentioning a third rate university does not count as "certification".

OK, give me a third-rate (or fourth-rate or fifth-rate or any rate) economics certification of you!