Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> Because, you don't have to worry about people "refusing" money at 
>>>> their banks, 
>>>
>>> Have you tried to cash in a German Dutchmark lately?
>>>
>> Why do you persist in ignoring the general sense I mean things,
> 
> Because you're not being clear.  I'm trying to understand the way in 
> which you intend your statements to be interpreted, and I'm being 
> hindered by the fact that every statement you make is prima facia false.
> 
>> No one that has any of those is going to be able to *get* the gold, 
>> silver, or what ever they where valued to anyway, 
> 
> That's exactly my point, tho. They *weren't* valued to any gold. They 
> were valued to the german government insisting that germans accept it.
> 
> If they *were* valued to gold, you could get the gold back.
> 
>> so its meaningless to suggest that "backing" currency with something 
>> the banks will simply refuse to give back to you, 
> 
> It's not backed by gold if the banks won't give you the gold back. 
> That's pretty much the definition.
> 
>> you still got jack when the bank stops accepting the bit of paper its 
>> on. Why don't you get this?
> 
> You're again assuming that if money is backed by gold, there's only one 
> paper currency and only one bank. Sure. But that's not how it works when 
> money is actually gold.
> 
> If someone won't take your bank's note, you go to the bank, get gold, 
> and give them the gold. If the bank doesn't have the gold, then you 
> arrest whoever stole it.
> 
>> It doesn't matter what is "behind" the money, because if they stop 
>> accepting the money, no matter what is behind it, ****you****, at that 
>> point, don't have anything anyway.
> 
> You diversify. You put your gold in 20 different banks, and then when 
> the first one or two refuses to give it back, you take out your gold 
> from the rest.  Just like you diversify stocks.
> 
> The paper from the bank is *exactly* the stock of the bank. (Well, not 
> exactly, of course, but close enough.) When the country has only one 
> bank, and the government controls it, and the government is willing to 
> use force to make you accept promises from the bank, then you're pretty 
> screwed when the government bank stops honoring their promises.
> 
> If you have a gold standard, you can take your gold to a different bank.
> 
Umm. All of which kind of misses the main point, and I am getting tired 
of this anyway, so this is my last post on the subject, but.. even under 
a gold standard ***most people*** never traded the cold, just the 
certificates, such that they basically just ended up being like money we 
have now anyway.

Oh, and this is also typical gibberish you get from the, "why not let 
doctors not treat people if they don't like giving out the treatment?", 
"Why not let pharmacists not give out X, Y or Z, if they object to it?", 
etc. It **presumes** something that is "not" in any way shape or form 
valid, which is that "everyone" will either a) want to, b) bother to, or 
c) be able to, diversify to 20 different banks to "guard" a deposit, 
especially when the first thing they are going to ask is, "Why can't 
someone, like the government, promise me that I won't lose my money, if 
all 20 of them, by some odd coincidence, go broke?" Or, in other words, 
it becomes a "who watches the watchmen" situation, where, how ever bad 
it may be to trust the government, it "does" have the interest in 
keeping things stable, since the way the banks go, so does the 
government, and anything *it* wants to accomplish. Failing to guard the 
banks is the same as cutting their own throats. While, individual 
banks.. well, sorry, but the people screwed if one bank decided to rob 
itself, flee the country and leave people without any means to recover 
their "gold", or what ever, would be the employees, and the people that 
deposited the money there. While it would be nice to imagine catching 
the person, in reality, its less than certain they wouldn't get away 
free and clear, with **no one** higher up to either blame, or recover 
loses from.

Using 20 banks, which make no guarantees that they won't lose every dime 
you have with them, is **just like** playing the stocks, far more so 
than a single currency, since at least if everyone, including the people 
holding the printers, all use the same currency, there is a natural 
incentive for **all of them** to make sure it remains solvent, they will 
loose as much, and likely **far more** than you will.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message