 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> and until someone demanded to "see" the gold, no one would have a clue
>> anything had changed.
>
> Right. And with some 300 million people in the country, using gold to
> transfer value between banks, shipping too much of the gold elsewhere
> leads to you getting caught.
>
Actually... not likely. Shipping the stuff would be too risky, which is
another reason not even the banks probably *want* to have to do it.
Moving data is a lot less costly, harder to steal, and, well, you get
the point. Even back when there "was" a gold standard, we **still**
opted to keep it all safely locked in a central location, and just trade
slips of paper around, which specified who "owned" it.
> (This, basically, is exactly what FDR did when they set up the federal
> reserve.)
>
Yep. And, again, if you never move it, all you have is the "keepers"
promise that it still exists, and a bit of paper claiming you can come
and get it, if you need to.
>> Such a standard, as I have tried to point out, is meaningless on its
>> face, since you are still trusting someone to "honestly" have what
>> they claim is being used to back it,
>
> Yes. Except if it's the government doing it, you don't have to trust
> them to honestly have what they claim. They can just say "No, we decided
> to give away all your gold. Tough crap."
>
There is a quote, which dealt with dictatorships vs democracies, from
the Heinlein novels, which I think I will paraphrase and mangle a bit to
illustrate the futility of this idea:
Centralized banking = The presumption that who ever holds the "central"
depositor is honest, won't cheat, and no one can steal anything from
them. Oh, sure, that's going to work...
Private vaults = The presumption that 5,000 independent places won't
ever collude to steal, personally steal, cheat, get robbed, or otherwise
"lose" the valuable thing their entire solvency is supposed to be based
on. Come again?
>> The very idea that they *is* a real difference between these in terms
>> of how the money itself gets used, and what ever trust is placed in
>> it, is, I am sorry, but... delusional.
>
> So you're happy taking corporate stocks as payment for your salary
> instead of cash? The company you work for will pay you in corporate
> stocks, but they won't buy them back from you for actual cash. Instead,
> they just say "Trust us, the value is actually there." That works for you?
>
> Cause it's the same thing.
>
Umm. Cash can't "lose" value, but it also can't **gain** any either.
Yes, if things go bad, and you had $500 to start with, you might only
have $100, but if things go well, you might start with $500 and end up
with $5,000. If you opt for cash, you **only** get $500, and you might
as well just eat the money, because its going to be worth shit by the
time you actually need to use it to buy food. And, just to be clear,
even if I had $500 and it was still "worth" $500 when I retired, it
might be worth nothing the next day, for **precisely** the same reason
the stock would be, because the "backing" for it, no matter what that
"is", fell in a hole.
Or, to put it another way, it doesn't matter whether the "money" I have
says Franklin, or Starbuck's, if people don't want to take it, or value
it as what it says on the damn paper, both are ***just as worthless***.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Actually... not likely. Shipping the stuff would be too risky,
Um, have you looked at the logo for Wells Fargo lately?
> which is
> another reason not even the banks probably *want* to have to do it.
Of course not. And I don't want to have to pay my taxes, either.
> Moving data is a lot less costly, harder to steal,
Easier to steal.
> Even back when there "was" a gold standard, we **still**
> opted to keep it all safely locked in a central location, and just trade
> slips of paper around, which specified who "owned" it.
No, that's the point. It wasn't in a central location. It was in banks,
which were all indepdenent.
>> (This, basically, is exactly what FDR did when they set up the federal
>> reserve.)
>>
> Yep. And, again, if you never move it, all you have is the "keepers"
> promise that it still exists, and a bit of paper claiming you can come
> and get it, if you need to.
Except that each individual bank was independent. So if you wanted to
change banks, they *had* to give you the gold.
> Private vaults = The presumption that 5,000 independent places won't
> ever collude to steal, personally steal, cheat, get robbed, or otherwise
> "lose" the valuable thing their entire solvency is supposed to be based
> on. Come again?
Except that puts them out of business, so they have an incentive to
avoid it, just like companies nowadays have an incentive in general to
avoid having all their assets stolen at the cost of the stockholders.
>> Cause it's the same thing.
>>
> Umm. Cash can't "lose" value,
See Iceland. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it's happening,
right now, what you keep saying can't happen.
Plus, have you heard of "inflation"? See Zimbabwe.
> Or, to put it another way, it doesn't matter whether the "money" I have
> says Franklin, or Starbuck's, if people don't want to take it, or value
> it as what it says on the damn paper, both are ***just as worthless***.
Yep. That's just my point. Except people have been taking gold and
silver since like before the roman empire. You can dig up roman coins
and they're still worth a lot of money even if you melt them down into a
puddle.
Name me one fiat currency that has lasted over 1000 years and retained
its value, and I'll believe you when you say it works. The only reason
people value Franklins is because people will come with guns and beat
you up if you don't.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>>> Cause it's the same thing.
>>>
>> Umm. Cash can't "lose" value,
>
> See Iceland. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it's happening,
> right now, what you keep saying can't happen.
>
> Plus, have you heard of "inflation"? See Zimbabwe.
>
Not the definition of "lose" I meant. What I meant was that it doesn't
rise or fall based on stock value. The key point being, while it gets
more worthless over time, in terms of general inflation, it will never
get **more** valuable **ever** (Well, unless people stop printing it at
all, and someone thinks its worth collecting, but you got a long damn
wait before that value goes "up" in that case. Some confederate money,
while "collectable" in theory, is worth less than what replaced it, even
now.).
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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, and
exaggerating your own point by, well, pointing out something so
pointless. Yeah, it would be worthless to try, but... guess what! 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, so its meaningless to suggest
that "backing" currency with something the banks will simply refuse to
give back to you, if they stop printing/accepting the bills, means its
somehow "more" trustworthy than something backed by just a promise of
value. In the end, if the country collapsed, and they stop accepting
your money, its not going to matter if you have 500 pounds of gold, or
500 pounds of pocket lint in the bank, or just a bit of paper saying,
"You have $500 in the account", in the end, you still got jack when the
bank stops accepting the bit of paper its on. Why don't you get this?
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.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Not the definition of "lose" I meant. What I meant was that it doesn't
> rise or fall based on stock value.
It rises and falls based on the "stock value" of the country.
> The key point being, while it gets
> more worthless over time, in terms of general inflation, it will never
> get **more** valuable **ever**
Of course it will. Why do you think there are commodity markets in
currencies? Do you think the value of Canadian money hasn't gone up in
America, for example? Did you ever put off a holiday trip to Europe
because the Euro was so much more expensive than the Dollar nowadays?
Don't you think the Chinese Yuan buys more today than it did 40 years ago?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The key point being, while it gets more worthless over time, in terms
>> of general inflation, it will never get **more** valuable **ever**
>
> Of course it will. Why do you think there are commodity markets in
> currencies? Do you think the value of Canadian money hasn't gone up in
> America, for example? Did you ever put off a holiday trip to Europe
> because the Euro was so much more expensive than the Dollar nowadays?
> Don't you think the Chinese Yuan buys more today than it did 40 years ago?
>
Given that I don't "generally" go running to some foreign country to
exchange my money to make it worth more, like a stock certificate, and
most other people don't either, its not something I or most people would
count as "gaining" or "losing" value.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Given that I don't "generally" go running to some foreign country
But *countries* do. I generally don't go run to some foreign country to
make my employment worth more or less, but companies "outsource" (or
"sweatshop") for exactly that reason all the time. That you don't
participate doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
