/lit/ - Literature

>moral philosophy
Stopped reading there.

>>2505043
>a rationalization of status quo US liberalism.

well I guess there had to be someone to do it

We can see where liberalism has led today, not sure how anyone can continue to espouse it

>>2505043

Rawls is a genius. Have you even read his work?

Utilitarianism is a good system it just needs a marginal update (which he provided)

his politics are implications of his exemplary moral insight

the whole veil of ignorance is a perfect metaphor/tool for coming up with political decisions

>>2505045
>stirner told me that nihilism is cool and edgy

>>2505058
It's not genius though, it's just a cute metaphor that anyone could have come up with in 10 minutes. It's not like his work is stupid, it's just incredibly uninteresting and barely original. It's just the tired old liberal arguments you could lift from an Obama speech.

>>2505068

Writing doesn't have to be complex and confusing to be useful. I think the veil of ignorance concept is a pretty good standard to apply when deciding on how a society should function.

>>2505064
>Stirner
>Nihilist

>utilitarianism is a good system

sure is China in here

>>2505329
>sure is China in here
Oh, you mean that one country that's going to dominate the world economy 50 years from now?

>>2505336
economics =! ethics

>>2505360
Charlatan detected.

>>2505360

>capitalism

>>2505052
>>2505068

it's not a matter of liberalism, liberal and conservative are irrelevant

rawls is concerned with morality, ethics and appropriate politics

so what that ethics and facts lead to liberal ideas? that's irrelevant...

name anyone of the same caliber as Rawls with opposing views from the "other side?"

>>2505464
>implying that my problem with Rawls is that he wasn't conservative

Rawls didn't criticize the basic structural constraints of 20th century america (statism, capitalism), and neither do conservatives. That's why they are stupid.

>>2505048
Well said, poster.

>>2505048
Yep, pretty much this.

Which is not stopping me from finding Rawls boring as hell.

rawls' shit presupposes too much for me to find it interesting

>>2505471
>>2505471

>Rawls didn't criticize the basic structural constraints of 20th century america (statism, capitalism), and neither do conservatives. That's why they are stupid.

>hurr durr everything should be free, democracy is oppressive and we should go back to the gold standard, hurrr Marx and Hegel please rape my brain

Rawls = a first philosophy for 'Last Men'

Whether you like it or not, the left will always have a monopoly on the smartest subset in society, and thus academia and philosophy as well.

>>2505618
da fuq

do you even understand why we left the gold standard?
Can you even grasp why a gold standard is a good thing?

>>2505999

>do you even understand why we left the gold standard?

sorry I study real economics not retarded austrian ideology.

It isn't viable, it was never viable, hence why every country went off it. Hence why during WW1 and WW2 it was unstable as shit and would bankrupt a country if they remained on it. Hence why the first countries to leave the gold standard recovered quickest during the Great Depression.

It can't be viable anymore either, in theory, if world governments were to unite and pledge all of their gold reserves to the U.S., based on current market prices, there would still be a deficit of gold to support the amount of USDs in the economy, based even on a narrow measure of money supply (M1: $2 trillion; World Gold: $1.8 trillion). It's even worse if you compare M2. Etc..

What would this mean? A new equilibrium would have to be reached assuming no material changes in current fiscal and monetary policies, a state of equilibrium between the two media of exchange would be restored at a gold price of about $7,800 per ounce (an increase of over 330%)....based on M2 it would be like $37,000 per ounce.

Of course this is unlikely, what would actually happen is the USD gets devalued to fucken hell, and the Fed is forced to increase interest rates, to stem the rapid loss of value in the USD.


Think about this. There isn't enough gold in the world to support USD currency.
You realize if your currency is gold backed you only trade for gold backed currency? If America somehow manages to back their currency with gold, who the fuck do they trade with?

GOD DAMN IT YOU"RE A MORON

>>2506044

>>2506044

[ ] Told
[ ] Tim Geithtold
[ ] Ben Bertoldke
[X] Klondike Told Rush

we left the gold standard because of vietnam yall

thats what happens when you run a war without actually raising taxes to pay for it (see also: iraq)

>>2506054
>[X] Klondike Told Rush

lmao

>>2506044
What about the Martian gold deposits?

>implying status quo liberalism doesn't borrow from Rawls and not the other way around


Clearly don't understand the man's influence, OP.

>>2505381
it got you the computer your typing on.

>>2506044
fuck your economic theory the one my professor taught me is correct my professor had no biases and the books I studied didn't either you're an idiot if you don't subscribe to my theories.

>>2506044
>> impyling the real reason America does not have the gold standard is so they can continuously print more money to make up for their export deficit, which is what has been causing every major economic breakdown since Bretton Woods.

>>2506044

You didn't contribute much to your actual argument. What you elaborated on here was merely an exaggerated claim that you made on behalf of your opponent. The fact that he attempted to defend it does not mean that the side of the problem which he seems to advocate is in any way disproven.

>>2506044

great points actually.
specially the problem of international trade and the devaluation of the gold-backed currency.

>>2507250

>What you elaborated on here was merely an exaggerated claim that you made on behalf of your opponent.

Exaggerated in what way? My point is that even if all the nations gave their gold to America, America would still not be able to reach a stable equilibrium between the USD and Gold.

If they simply used what gold reserves they have (valued at ~$500billion), to back up their $9.61 Trillion (M2 supply) currency well you're going to have to either devalue the fuck out of your 9.61 trillion, or gold will have to sky-rocket in value.

it's never going to happen, and if it did the USD would be worth nothing and America would be in something worse than the great depression.

THe problem is, the doofus who said "gold standard is good" doesn't actually know how pricing works and how commodities influence the value of your currency when they "back it up"

I think he imagines you just arbitrary set some value and say 1 dollar = x gold...which is absurd and comical...but I don't understand how he could make his claim any other way...he must have a child's understanding of economics.

>>2507315

I know what your point was, thank you. What I was saying, on the other hand, was that you were the one who put him in the position of advocating gold. It followed from an exaggeration present in >>2505618 . Specifically, this:

>hurr durr everything should be free, democracy is oppressive and we should go back to the gold standard, hurrr Marx and Hegel please rape my brain

He replied and defended it, ignorant of that you obviously had knowledge he did not have. This is all well and fine, but it isn't a refutation of what he was originally saying, which can be seen at >>2505471 .

You brought something into his argument that wasn't actually part of it, and then you punished him entirely on the basis of that. You attacked your own strawman and received praise, despite the fact that you never did address his original point.

That was what I was saying.

>>2507339

Oh, I see, I totally forgot about Rawls. Sure he might have a point there and I didn't really address it.

But I randomly assumed he was pro-gold (which he was) and knew I could win an argument there since I haven't read Rawls in a really long time but I'm familiar with currencies etc, lol.

>>2507345

I approve of your honesty. Very admirable.

>>2506044
>it was unstable as shit and would bankrupt a country if they remained on it.

YOU MISS THE POINT
IT WAS UNSTABLE BECAUSE THEY WERE PRINTING MONEY, HENCE HAD TO GO OFF THE GOLD STANDARD SO THEY COULD CONTINUE TO PRINT MONEY AND DEFICIT SPEND!
The whole world went off because the jews like their control of the monetary supply.

>and the Fed is forced to increase interest rates,

da fuq, interest rates are supposed to be set by the MARKET, not by a goddamn fed.

>You realize if your currency is gold backed you only trade for gold backed currency?
This is nonsense, why can't you trade with anyone else?

The whole point of gold backed currency is that the government is prevented from endlessly counterfeiting new money making everyone massively poorer.
First of all the whole reason that the M1's and M2's and w/e are so fucking high is because they've been printing it for 100 years, obviously we would have to deflate the currency to some rational point.

You obviously don't understand the process of gold backing anyways.

>>2507315
>I think he imagines you just arbitrary set some value and say 1 dollar = x gold...which is absurd and comical.

How is it comical? That's exactly how it would be done. How do you think the gold backed currency was ever done before?

The point of a currency is that it is supposed to HOLD value, so you can trade in it.
The government has disagreed, they feel they can magically enhance the economy by encouraging people to spend. They do this because the keynesians have rejected say's law.

It's doubtful that the government will ever willingly abandon a fiat currency, because its too beneficial for them and the bankers.
And then the liberals wonder why the rich seem to be making more money.

>>2507384
>This is nonsense, why can't you trade with anyone else?
For the same reason you couldn't go to your bank and give them foreign paper currency in exchange for real gold.

The only way they could buy your goods is with a gold-backed currency, or buy gold and exchange it for your goods. But since America is the only country on the gold standard in this example the other country is forced to first buy gold on the market, and then use gold to buy your goods
This increases transaction costs immensely, and it also pushes the value of gold up even more, which in turn devalues America's currency since there is a huge difference in USD supply to Gold value, they won't move in parity, etc.

Next theres the problem of a limited supply of gold, world trade between the US and other countries is in the trillions (1.4trillion export / 2.3trillion exports), there just simply isn't enough gold to facilitate trade between the US and other countries, so what would happen? Think about it.

>>2507397
>How is it comical? That's exactly how it would be done. How do you think the gold backed currency was ever done before?

but this isn't the past, our money supply is astronomically different...

if you begin by backing your gold with money, and your money supply value is similar to gold value, then its feasible...the problem is we've printed so much money, it isn't feasible anymore

plus there has been so much economic growth and world-wide money supply growth that the amount of gold on the planet can't facilitate trade between nations if everyone went back to a gold standard....it can't facilitate trade between America and the world anymore....

it's not feasible now. It also wasn't feasible in the past, hence why they kept switching off it, but that's a different issue

>>2507399
>For the same reason you couldn't go to your bank and give them foreign paper currency in exchange for real gold.

What? Are you trying to tell me that you couldn't purchase something in america with say, euro's?

I don't think you understand the purpose of a gold backed currency, or the process of it. It doesn't change anything except the currency is interchangeable with gold.
You can still convert it to foreign/domestic fiat currencies, you can still purchase shit, etc.
It is still a currency, you don't have to convert it to gold first, it has a value and you exchange things at that value.

>the other country is forced to first buy gold on the market, and then use gold to buy your goods
Where did you arrive at this conclusion?
That is not how it has ever worked.

>>2507397

>That's exactly how it would be done. How do you think the gold backed currency was ever done before?


LOL

Tying currency back to gold is a great idea. I've long thought monetary wealth should be limited by how much of it we can dig out of the ground.

>>2507405
>our money supply is astronomically different...

The money supply is irrelevant, gold doesn't facilitate trade, gold is there so if people think the government is printing extra money, they can demand payment in gold, rather then in fiat dollars.
That's the point, so the government cannot just print money and pay their bills with that.

>the problem is we've printed so much money,
What is not feasible? If it was 100,000 dollars per ounce of gold, it would still be fine, it's just a fucking ratio. Hell, maybe we could add silver coins in there too, with fixed values for smaller transactions.

The benefit of having a non-fiat currency should be obvious to anyone.

>>2507422
>currency
>wealth
pick one retard

>>2507415
So when FDR made gold possession illegal and then pegged it to be 35 dollars an ounce, he wasn't actually just arbitrarily pegging it at a value, he was magically.... what?

>>2507433
If currency doesn't represent wealth what does? The whole point of currency is that it is liquid wealth, facilitating trade.

>>2507433
>The money supply is irrelevant

Lol.

>If it was 100,000 dollars per ounce of gold, it would still be fine

Yep, I'm sure it would be fine. Americans who make 100k a year would have a purchasing power of an ounce of gold ($1800 dollars).

Seems legit to me, you really thought this through.

>>2507441
currency facilitates trade... OF WEALTH

wealth is physical goods, currency is currency, the amount of currency in existence is irrelevant, since its just being traded around in circles.

When the government comes out of nowhere to print more money they fuck with the whole cycle of wealth production, so there is more currency, and less wealth.

But currency does not "represent wealth", that is nonsense. If you have 50 dollars in your pocket and thats all the currency you have, does it represent all the wealth you own?

>>2507443
>Americans who make 100k a year would have a purchasing power of an ounce of gold ($1800 dollars).

are you really this retarded?

>>2507448

What makes you think this?
You said yourself 100,000 USD equals one ounce of gold.

Explain my mistake?

>>2507433
>>If it was 100,000 dollars per ounce of gold, it would still be fine

Yep seems fine.
I have 100k today, I can buy 55 ounces of gold on the market today.
Tomorrow gov says we're on gold standard, and my 100k can buy 1 ounce of gold. Sweet.

Ya I see no devaluation here. From 55 to 1. No big deal.

>>2507433

Are you this stupid?

>>2507461
and so 1 ounce of gold equals 100,000 dollars

that would be the new value of gold.

in that theoretical example.

>>2507477
>Ya I see no devaluation here. From 55 to 1. No big deal.
correct, it is no big deal.

>>2505471
>making a structuralist critique
>2012

>>2507491
>that would be the new value of gold.

No. That isn't the new value of gold. You don't decide the value of gold.
What you meant to say is "that would be the new value of the USD currency in relation to gold."

Every other currency is still buying and selling gold at the market value. Canadians are buying one ounce of gold for $1800 CAD.

But your American currency is now devalued to where it takes $100,000 USD to buy one ounce of gold.

This means in terms of purchasing power, Americans with $100,000USD in the bank have the equivalent of $1800CAD.
Seems fine to you?

The world decides the value of Gold. Not you or the Fed or the President. A massive devaluation would occur since America does not have enough Gold reserves to back up the value of US currency in circulation. So if everyone holding US dollars went to exchange their US currency for gold, the banks would be short $8.7trillion in gold. In fact there isn't enough gold on the planet to reimburse all the US dollars in circulation.

So basically there is a shortage of supply of gold. Either the value of gold would skyrocket (unlikely) or the value of the US dollar would crumble to even worse than 55x loss of purchasing power.

>>2507511
You are an idiot.

>>2507511

Well formed argument, seems plausible and concise. Uses examples to illustrate points.
Lets see the rebuttal.

>>2507513
>you are an idiot

>>2507520
The argument is nonsense, so I'm not even going to respond.

>>2507520
>expecting any more from an anonymous imageboard

There's your problem.

>>2507526

>I don't even know what money is.

Ok fair enough.

>>2507511
>The world decides the value of Gold.
By this of course you meant the scarcity of gold determines the value of gold.

>>2507446
Everything you own is represented by currency. If you have 50 dollars in your pocket, you have 50 dollars in your pocket. If you own a house, you own a house worth 500,000 dollars, or however much that is.

Fuck the gold standard, lets go back to the cowrie shell standard.

>>2507530

sure scarcity is one prime factor, as well as group psychology, future expectations, demand for the good, etc...

but ya, actual physical supply is a key factor

>>2507534
Do you seriously have this much trouble grasping the basics of exchange?

There will never be enough "currency" in existence to represent all the material wealth. There doesn't have to be, because currency only comes into play when you are TRADING it.

>>2507538
So in your mind, how did the gold standard work for all of history if it supposedly destroys currencies?

>>2507534

NO. WRONG. If I own a house it is worth house. If I have 500,000 dollars it is worth house.

>>2507540
That 50 dollars in your pocket, or infinity digital dollars on your asset sheet or in your bank account exist whether you're trading them or not.

>>2507549
hence the point of physical currency like gold which can't be infinitely inflated making your wage/savings worthless

>>2507540
>So in your mind, how did the gold standard work for all of history if it supposedly destroys currencies?

>implying it worked
>implying the 1900s+ aren't the most prosperous times in history

It worked haphazardly. Kings and bankers would use various tricks to devalue their currency when gold supply was wearing thin, at the expense of their citizenry. They'd also experiment with silver and copper standards, but eventually massive supplies of silver/copper would be found and this would threaten the value of their currencies.

And economics was much different back then. Trade was seen as War between nations; since gold was a scare resource the point of trade was to acquire foreign gold in exchange for your goods, thereby making your nation stronger, more gold meant bigger armies bigger weapons and more power for the ruling monarchs.

>>2507574
>Kings and bankers would use various tricks to devalue their currency when gold supply was wearing thin, at the expense of their citizenry.

ya they used FIAT CURRENCY LOL
HAH HAHA HAHA

>And economics was much different back then.
No it wasn't.
>Trade was seen as War between nations
And it isn't now? What do you think china is doing?

>since gold was a scare resource the point of trade was to acquire foreign gold in exchange for your goods,

Instead now they can just print money to finance their war machines. Progress!

>>2507570
>hence the point of physical currency like gold which can't be infinitely inflated making your wage/savings worthless

But if your country were to go on the gold standard now your wages/savings would immediately be worthless.

For reasons mentioned by:
>>2507511
>>2507315
>>2506044

>>2507570 hence the point of physical currency like gold which can't be infinitely inflated making your wage/savings worthless

You'll have to explain that one to me, because if there is an increasing demand for gold currency in order to facilitate exponentially-growing trade and represent increasing wealth, but a decelerating supply of actual gold, isn't gold going to be subject to even worse deflation than floating currency?

>>2507594

Gold is magically stable in value because it is produced by leprechauns.

>>2507594

Yes. The price of gold would skyrocket, or the currencies which it backs would be devalued.

Either way the outcome isn't feasible anymore.

>>2507582

>they used fiat

They stripped their coins of gold/silver, when they had to.
They did resort to fiat when gold became unstable.

>economics wasn't different, its the same today
Look up Mercantilism.

>china is waging war using trade
No.

>>2507549
>That 50 dollars in your pocket, or infinity digital dollars on your asset sheet or in your bank account exist whether you're trading them or not.
Ugh, not exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money

>>2507600 Either way the outcome isn't feasible anymore.

No wonder you fags hate the gold standard. You honestly think the world economy shouldn't fail because it is too big to fail!

Well the world economy is going to fail and fail hard and it makes more sense to fail on the gold standard than not because at least with the gold standard we'll be left with some gold instead of lots of paper.

>>2507609
>Well the world economy is going to fail and fail hard and it makes more sense to fail on the gold standard than not because at least with the gold standard we'll be left with some gold instead of lots of paper.
Also, fuck you mom.

>>2507590
Your reasons were meaningless and stupid. The price of gold would be 100k in the USA, and foreign countries would jump to exchange their gold for 100k US dollars. It wouldn't "obliterate our purchasing power" or some such stupid outcome like that.

>>2507594
deflation is a good thing and makes saving more valuable.
Why would the supply be decreasing anyways?

>>2507600
>or the currencies which it backs would be devalued.
You know they are being devalued constantly by the central banks, right?
Why is it not feasible to increase the value of gold?

>>2507601
>They stripped their coins of gold/silver, when they had to.
It's the same thing, they are "printing" money, expanding the monetary supply.
>They did resort to fiat when gold became unstable.
It's not so much as they resort to fiat, its that people recognize fiat is inherently worthless and wouldn't use it when gold was an alternative. Hence in the USA they made private gold ownership illegal.

>Look up Mercantilism.
It's not meaningfully different from what we were doing, there is at no point a drastic change in the laws of economics and in economic realities.
>No.
you are very naive if you think people/other countries don't view trade as akin to "war".

i agree that rawls is overrated.

>>2507609
>Well the world economy is going to fail and fail hard

[citation needed]

>at least with the gold standard we'll be hurp derp diggity i dunno wtf im talking about anymore

Ok.

>>2507602
The velocity of money creates more trade per existing dollar which means more goods or services which in turn means more dollars represented on the asset sheet, thus why I used the term "infinity digital dollars," because liquid currency is a multiplier if not an exponent in the math of economics.

I've never seen an argument so solid in defense of fiat currency, or so flimsy in defense of gold

it's like NY Giants vs. Miami Dolphins in here

>>2507609
is worried his investment in an underground bunker system will not appreciate if there is no zombie holocaust.

>gold standard discussion in rawls thread
oh dear

>>2507612
>deflation is a good thing and makes saving more valuable.
No. It shrinks the economy since no one borrows and everyone hoards. It also tends to create higher deflation.

>>2507619
You know that the thread was never about Rawls.

>>2507612
>deflation is a good thing and makes saving more valuable.

Oh my god. Go back to Economics 101.

>>2507623
keynesian spotted

Saving(hoarding) is the key part of the economy, its how growth/investment occurs.

That is not to say GOVERNMENT DIRECTED AND CAUSED deflation is a good thing, neither is inflation.

The "deflationary spiral" is a fictitious concept with no basis in reality.

>>2507625
That's the common economic wisdom, it is wrong.

Easily disproven too, has the computer industry been eviscerated by "deflation" ? The prices keep dropping right? So why don't people just wait and "horde" their money forever?

Oh because say's law exists and people want to spend NOW, not later.

>>2507627

>Saving(hoarding) is the key part of the economy, its how growth/investment occurs.

Elaborate on this. It's like watching you play Twister.

>>2507627
>keynesian spotted

>Saving(hoarding) is the key part of the economy, its how growth/investment occurs.
It isn't Keynesian, it's every economist ever, even those Austrians or Chicagoans you think you like so much. Saving can be good, but not in deflation, and it's the opposite of how investment occurs.

>>2507630
http://mises.org/document/6784/The-Pure-TimePreference-Theory-of-Interest

>>2507634
http://mises.org/daily/4623

>and it's the opposite of how investment occurs.
How does investment occur then? Besides people saving money and using that to invest?

>>2507627 the computer industry been eviscerated by "deflation" ?

I can think of few industries that have been more ravaged by the boom/bust cycles that accompany monetary deflation. If not for venture capital pouring in from other parts of the economy this sector would be a smoking crater.

If we financed our food the same way we produce our computer technology, 5% of the people would starve every 10 years.

>>2507638
>How does investment occur then? Besides people saving money and using that to invest?
>How does investment occur if people save money and then for some reason stop saving and start spending on investments?
If you only had a brain...

>>2507612
>The price of gold would be 100k in the USA,


A US engineer making $100k/year is essentially working for one ounce of gold per year, or $1800 canadian dollars, or a used car worth $1800 US dollars today...do you follow?

How is this reasonable to you?

>foreign countries would jump to exchange their gold for 100k US dollars.

Huh? Why? 100k US dollars would be equivalent to $1800 dollars canadian (the price of broken down shitty used car)

Do you understand what you're even talking about? Seriously...

>>2507641 If we financed our food the same way we produce our computer technology, 5% of the people would starve every 10 years.
And nothing of value was lost.

>>2507612

Literally the dumbest person on this board.
No discernible intelligence at all.

>>2507641
>by the boom/bust cycles that accompany monetary deflation

what? You have this mixed up, its the INFLATION which causes the unnatural boom and malinvestment, eventually the pyramid of debts and credit collapses and "deflation" occurs. Deflation is the good thing which speeds up the fixing of the economy.

>>2507643
da fuq
do you think people horde money under their bed or something? Investing will ALWAYS produce income regardless of whether inflation or deflation is happening.

>>2507648
>do you follow?
No i don't follow, how do you think it will work like that?
>Do you understand what you're even talking about?
Do you?

>>2507638
>>2507643
http://hayekcenter.org/?p=3057

>On the first issue — whether to use one’s money or whether to hoard it — there is no important difference between us. It is agreed that hording money, whether in cash or in idle balances, is deflationary in its effects. No one thinks that deflation is in itself desirable.

As far as I can see, Hulsmann likes deflation in so far as it causes bankruptcy.

>>2507651
>people starving to death

That's where you're wrong. People in the US don't starve, they turn to crime. If anything, the middle class and the rich would be the ones most to suffer.

>>2507659
>2012
>still believing that "poverty" turns people to crime

>>2507662
mtbi.asu.edu/downloads/Document8.pdf

Are you mad?
Are you mad?

>>2505336
>He doesn't know China is more dependent on the US than vice versa, is also unaware their population or economy will eventually lead to their downfall

How dumb are you?

>>2507665
>everything we use, made in china
>not being totally dependent on them

are you retarded?

>>2507655

>No i don't follow, how do you think it will work like that?

Imagine today you have 100,000 in your bank. Today you can buy 55 ounces of gold at the market price, or you can buy a $100k Mercedes.

Tomorrow the Gov decrees the gold standard is back and you can redeem your cash for gold, if you like.

US currency will devalue in order to reach an equilibrium with their current short gold supply, there isn't enough gold in America to give people 1 OUNCE PER 1800 dollars. (The assumption we made is 100k US dollars gives you back one ounce of gold at an American bank).

You go to your bank, and you redeem your 100k dollars for one ounce of Gold, instead of 55. You can't buy a fancy Mercedes anymore, you can only buy a broken down piece of shit car which is valued at 1 ounce of gold.

Your 100k can only buy one ounce of Gold. So your wage is now shit and your savings are gone. Millionaires are wiped out, there are no more billionaires either. America turns into zimbabwe

>>2507655
Moderate long-term inflation was the rule of the 20th century, excepting the Great Depression, which was deflationary.

Moderate long-term deflation was the rule of the 19th century, excepting the Civil war, which was inflationary.

Which century was known for constant boom/busts and which for general prosperity?

God dammit you fuckers I made a rawls thread not a gold standard thread

>>2507668
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/topcurmon.html

>China
>1/3 of total imports
>"everything"

way to hyperbole there faggot

>>2507679
sorry op

>>2507669
They are increasing the value of the gold to make it work out.

Are you really this dumb? Gold will now be traded at 1 ounce per 100k.

>>2507674
Ah yes because monetary policy is the cause of everything right?

If America went on the Gold standard, it would have to do so secretly, overnight, and instantly.

Because their currency would be devalued by a factor of 18.

So if people know they're going on a gold standard what will they do? They will buy other currencies, or buy gold.

They could literally buy 18x more gold now, than they will when they go on the gold standard by redeeming their money at an American bank.

There's 9 trillion US dollars in circulation and ~500 billion dollars worth of Gold in America's reserves.

The math isn't hard lol...of course consumer psychology would enter the equation and this could be even worse...much worse than a loss of 18x value

>>2507689
>Because their currency would be devalued by a factor of 18.

WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THIS WHEN IT ISN'T TRUE?

HOLY FUCKING SHIT, THE GOVERNMENT CAN SET WHATEVER VALUE OF THE CURRENCY IT WANTS, ITS TOTALLY ARBITRARY.

>~500 billion dollars worth of Gold in America's reserves.

500 billion AT CURRENT VALUES WHEN NOONE USES IT AS A CURRENCY.

>>2507688
>They are increasing the value of the gold to make it work out.

How are they increasing the value of Gold? Who decides this? Ron Paul? The Fed? You realize a gold standard isn't fiat money?


>Are you really this dumb? Gold will now be traded at 1 ounce per 100k.

America goes on the Gold standard not the rest of the world.
American currency gets pegged to Gold, not Canadian or Japanese.

American's lose value of their currency, not the rest of the world.

1800 Canadian dollars still buys 1 ounce of gold on the market.

The only people who get screwed are Americans.
They require 100,000 dollars to buy 1 ounce of gold, whereas yesterday they could buy one ounce of gold for $1800.

>>2507696
>HOLY FUCKING SHIT, THE GOVERNMENT CAN SET WHATEVER VALUE OF THE CURRENCY IT WANTS, ITS TOTALLY ARBITRARY.

So you have no idea what the difference is between fiat money and gold?

In your magical world gold seems to be even more arbitrary than fiat...go figure.

>>2507688 Ah yes because monetary policy is the cause of everything right?

Just kill yourself already.

>instability is the natural outcome of going off the gold standard and correlates with long-term inflation!
100 posts later
>if instability correlates with long-term deflation, that must mean the cause of instability lies beyond monetary policy!

>>2507688
they increase the value of gold, and millions if not billions of people will suffer because their current wealth (in dollars/euros/fiat) is now practically worthless because it's not tied to amorphous wealth but to a very limited resource

>>2507707

Gold is magic.

We've been over this.

>>2507716
if it wasn't magic, why have people used it as currency for thousands of years, HUH?

>>2507721
Hard to counterfeit. Though the alchemists tried.

>>2507696
>500 billion AT CURRENT VALUES WHEN NOONE USES IT AS A CURRENCY.

America doesn't decide the value of gold.

America doesn't decide the value of oil.

America doesn't decide the value of any commodity.

Commodities get their value by being traded on the market, supply vs demand, speculation, etc.

American can CHOOSE to peg their currency to a commodity, which means their currency moves in relation to the world value of that commodity.

The problem is the initial shift from fiat to commodity. Either the US dollar will devalue 18x (likely)...or world price of gold will appreciate 18x (unlikely)...or a mixture of both.

Either way its not feasible

>>2505058

>Utilitarianism is a good system it just needs a marginal update (which he provided)

...rawls isnt a utilitarian. actually he took care to make sure that his "justice as fairness" was not tied to any comprehensive moral theories and their implications(hence "overarching consensus"). this is why the public realm can be in agreement while private realm maintains their diversity and disagreement. utilitarianism is a comprehensive moral theory. justice as fairness is merely the structure for a constitutional democracy. (at least this is how Rawls viewed it, but despite his disclaimers, justice as fairness is still riddled with hidden moral dogma.)

>>2507726
to say nothing of the peripheral effects, like the electronics market being totally destroyed.

>The most important industrial use of gold is in the manufacture of electronics. Solid state electronic devices use very low voltages and currents which are easily interrupted by corrosion or tarnish at the contact points. Gold is the highly efficient conductor that can carry these tiny currents and remain free of corrosion. Electronic components made with gold are highly reliable. Gold is used in connectors, switch and relay contacts, soldered joints, connecting wires and connection strips.

>A small amount of gold is used in almost every sophisticated electronic device. This includes: cell phones, calculators, personal digital assistants, global positioning system units and other small electronic devices. Most large electronic appliances such as television sets also contain gold.

>>2507726
>Either way its not feasible

Yes because gold standard has never happened before right?
Your argument is stupid, you are preaching how it must be done, and telling us what you think the inevitable results must be, and then based on that, its impossible to occur.

>>2507732
Yes because cell phones costing a few dollars more will completely destroy the industry, and alternatives do not exist in the slightest...

>>2507732

yep.

Rather not spend 30,000 dollars for an Ipod. lol

>>2507733
I'm going to start a transportation company based on stagecoaches.
>That's not feasible.
What do you mean that's not feasible? It's happened before! It's not impossible!

>>2507733
why use cellphones anyways? We've got telephone lines!

You don't even have an argument anymore. You got so many strawmen coming out, I should invest in grain futures

>>2507733

>Yes because gold standard has never happened before right?

It happened in a different time, with different monetary conditions.

We've basically printed so much money and developed so much economically that it would be insane to go on the gold standard...


>Your argument is stupid

This remains to be shown.

Rawls was a good dude. I knew his granddaughter at Princeton.

>hurp derp i read ron paul and mises and they said gold is good

>huehuehuehuehue just set the value of gold to whatever lol the government can do anything, I dunno wtf Im talking about

>>2507748
>We've basically printed so much money and developed so much economically

These are unrelated things.
there would be absolutely no issue in making a new currency which has has the new dollar being 100 old dollars, and this new dollar would be pegged to gold as well.

>it would be insane to go on the gold standard...

Fiat currency is the insane thing.

>>2507755
Um, you are aware that the government can set prices at whatever they want, and they do it all throughout the economy, right?

>>2507758
name a commodity traded on the world market whose price is set by the US

>>2507758

>there would be absolutely no issue in making a new currency which has has the new dollar being 100 old dollars, and this new dollar would be pegged to gold as well.

So in your magical world where the government decides the value of things you would have no problem when your 100 dollars in the bank turns to 1 dollar?

What matters is the underlying value and purchasing power of your currency, and if you back it up by Gold, your currency will become devalued to nothing. The government doesn't decide values.

>you are aware that the government can set prices at whatever they want, and they do it all throughout the economy, right?

They don't set prices, the market sets the price. They can influence prices using things like taxation and quotas.

And for goods that are internationally traded it literally doesn't matter what your "government" says...The value of gold is determined by the international supply/demand of gold, not what America wants.

>>2507758
>>2507758

>I HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMICS BUT I WILL VOICE MY OPINION FURIOUSLY BECAUSE IM LITERALLY RETARDED

>>2507758

Explain how the american dollar won't lose value if America decides to go back to the gold standard, take into account the fact that America's supply of gold isn't sufficient for their current supply of money--which means banks literally CAN'T exchange gold for USD at the current market values

>>2507794
All there are is opinions. There is no right and wrong way to "understand" an issue. An opinion is only good so far as you are willing to hold and express it.

You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist. — Neitzsche

>>2507818
>As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

That is not correct, or right.

>>2507818
I think we can all agree that you're retarded, so, being that most of us are of that opinion, that opinion is more valid. Next.

So in conclusion, its best to leave your savings and currency at the whims of international jewry.