High Gas Prices

Tegger > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
>>
>> The problem with the gold standard is that there is zero inflation,
>> combined with a relatively small amount of cash in circulation. This
>> sure sounds like a good thing, until you actually try it.
>
>It was used for many decades, up to 1913, with stunningly successful
>results.

It had good results and bad results both. That thing in 1873 for instance.
And if you look at income distribution in the 19th century you'll notice
interesting patterns, definitely a lot more concentration of wealth than
we'd consider reasonable today. Some of the folks with money did in fact
decide to do something about that; philanthropy was a big deal.

>> inflation. When there is no inflation at all, people have a tendency
>> to hoard money rather than investing it, because they know it will
>> keep value.
>
>Which is precisely what did NOT happen when we were on a true gold
>standard. Where do you think credit comes from? Hint: it's not the Fed!

But it did. The amount of private credit today far exceeds the amount
in the 19th century. (You can argue this is a bad thing, actually, that
there is in fact too much credit in circulation. You'd probably be right
about that, but limiting it by limiting the total currency is cutting off
your head to cure a headache.)

>You don't know much about the Depression, do you?
>
>Government employees (and activists) caused the Depression by screwing
>with a system that was working very well indeed. They though they had a
>better idea, but they had a worse one instead.

Where did you get this notion?

For a really good introduction to what caused the depression, get a copy
of "Confessions of a Stock Market Operator." It's from 1906, but it
demonstrates a lot of the practices that eventually caused disaster. It's
also a really interesting introduction to market manipulation; pretty much
all of the techniques it describes are unusable today because we have
protections against them, but it's a nice introduction to why totally
free markets aren't necessarily such a great idea.

>> Who are you going to trust to manage a currency, then? The IMF?
>> Credit-Suisse?
>
>The people who ran it best prior to 1913.

That would be Mellon and Morgan. You have a lot more confidence than
I do in such folks.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>> This is much of why the Great Depression came out so badly. Money got
>> concentrated in the hands of a relatively few number of people, and when
>> the stock market burst they all decided (fairly wisely) that they didn't
>> want to invest their money for a while. The end consequences were bad
>> for everybody else.
>
>You don't have to go back to the depression. You are describing exactly
>what is happening currently and for the last 2.5 years. The private
>sector has suddenly decided to pay down debt and rebuild savings. The
>total private debt of US was 3 times the GDP and has dropped like a rock
>in the last couple of years. If it weren't for the massive influx of new
>money by the govt. and Federal Reserve this would make the panic of the
>great depression look like a picnic.

Yup. And if we were on the gold standard, that influx wouldn't be
possible.

The current concentration of wealth is a really bad thing. Limiting
circulation of currency makes it worse, not better.

>So far the mindset of the great depression that led people to stuffing
>their money into Mason jars has not taken hold, but it has come very
>close and may still get there.

I agree completely. Now, what do you propose to prevent that?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> >> This is much of why the Great Depression came out so badly. Money got
> >> concentrated in the hands of a relatively few number of people, and when
> >> the stock market burst they all decided (fairly wisely) that they didn't
> >> want to invest their money for a while. The end consequences were bad
> >> for everybody else.
> >
> >You don't have to go back to the depression. You are describing exactly
> >what is happening currently and for the last 2.5 years. The private
> >sector has suddenly decided to pay down debt and rebuild savings. The
> >total private debt of US was 3 times the GDP and has dropped like a rock
> >in the last couple of years. If it weren't for the massive influx of new
> >money by the govt. and Federal Reserve this would make the panic of the
> >great depression look like a picnic.
>
> Yup. And if we were on the gold standard, that influx wouldn't be
> possible.
>
> The current concentration of wealth is a really bad thing. Limiting
> circulation of currency makes it worse, not better.

Concentration of wealth is really bad
only for those who are not among the wealthy

Concentration of wealth is necessary for free markets to work
It is what keeps markets from behaving irrationally
and it is the natural consequence of free markets
However it leads to decadence because eventually
the people who created the wealth die
and then the wealth is left in the hands
of those who did nothing to deserve it

The wealth becomes concentrated in the winners of
random lotteries
birth is the lottery that produces most of the big winners



>
> >So far the mindset of the great depression that led people to stuffing
> >their money into Mason jars has not taken hold, but it has come very
> >close and may still get there.
>
> I agree completely. Now, what do you propose to prevent that?

Hey man... its not my job.

There is nothing really wrong with the system
unless you are Amish and it doesn't appeal to you

The problem is there is weak spot - and that is petroleum
Every time the price of oil goes up the whole thing unravels
If that isn't addressed it will fall apart

Well it is being addressed - that is what Iraq is about
but it's being addressed in a way that it will doom us
later rather than sooner

-jim


> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>>
>> The current concentration of wealth is a really bad thing. Limiting
>> circulation of currency makes it worse, not better.
>
>Concentration of wealth is really bad
>only for those who are not among the wealthy

Which would be almost everyone.

>Concentration of wealth is necessary for free markets to work
>It is what keeps markets from behaving irrationally
>and it is the natural consequence of free markets
>However it leads to decadence because eventually
>the people who created the wealth die
>and then the wealth is left in the hands
>of those who did nothing to deserve it

Yes, this is true. An even distribution of wealth would be as bad as
a huge concentration of wealth among a small number of people.

>The wealth becomes concentrated in the winners of
> random lotteries
>birth is the lottery that produces most of the big winners

Inheritance tax helps prevent this sort of dynastic succession, and
it also helps keep currency in circulation.

There's nothing wrong with being rich... the prospect of becoming rich
is a great motivator. But when there is a tiny number of extremely rich
people and a huge number of very poor people who see no possibility of
moving up the ladder, that motivation isn't effective.

There will always be rich people and poor people and that is a good thing,
but currency needs to circulate from one to the other and back or there
will be stagnation.

>There is nothing really wrong with the system
>unless you are Amish and it doesn't appeal to you

I agree that the system is generally a good one but I think it needs a little
tweaking. On top of this, people have become used to cheap and easy credit
and that's an unrealistic expectation. It will take some time for people to
realize that it's unrealistic.

>The problem is there is weak spot - and that is petroleum
>Every time the price of oil goes up the whole thing unravels
>If that isn't addressed it will fall apart
>
>Well it is being addressed - that is what Iraq is about
>but it's being addressed in a way that it will doom us
>later rather than sooner

I think the petroleum problem is only one of many problems, but I do
think that if you're forced to use a commodity standard for currency you're
better off using oil as a standard than gold right now.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."