OOTS #1089 - The Discussion Thread [Archive] - Page 2

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 08:25 AM

With fiat currency it is much easier to add more money to the existing money supply. Because of this inflation (decreased buying power) is built into the system.

Even if the rate of consumption and production of corn are stable, the price will go up.
The prices will go up regardless of what kind of currency you use. Inflation happens to gold-backed currencies. The problem for gold-backed currencies is that it cannot do anything about it, as I have told you several times already. Fiat currencies can adapt and compensate for inflation. Hard currencies - gold, abalone, giant stone wheels - can't. They either crash or debase.

Again, outside factors and inside corruption not withstanding. A government, and people of power, desire control. It is counter intuitive to horde all the money because then you have no structure for which to rule over. If the respective powers that be ignore the inherent balance within the intrinsic system, opting to conquer and acquire too fast, be too generous in allowing new people within their borders, or adding too much new money into the money supply at one time- they can break it.

In Romes case they had outside factors, inside corruption, AND they debased their currency. They swelled their money supply artificially by chipping coins and it aided in their demise.
Erys argument in a nutshell: when bad things like greed happen in a fiat currency, it's the currency's fault. When they happen to a gold-backed currency, it everything else's fault.

Suffice to say they are, of course, wrong about it. Rome economic policies run the full gamut of hard currency options: debase, leading to collapse of the economy. Do not debase, as seen after the Crisis of the Third Century, and end up with a coinage that is useless for everyday transaction, because there isn't enough of them, leading to barter (which worked surprisingly well, in a "it was terrible, but better than trying to find a gold coin" way). They even had mixed-backed currencies (worst of both worlds). Eventually they moved to effectively fiat currencies, and then finally their economy stopped being a source of issues.

Yeah, its great, till it crashes and a cup of coffee cost 10 grand.
What does that matter, as long as you make enough to afford it?

Literally, the only people hurt by inflation, as long as purchasing power is retained, are rich people with massive cash reserves. Nothing you have said so far denies this. Now, some people who are scared of large numbers and who remember a past that never was, seem to regret that things "cost more" even though they can still afford the same amount of those things. What does it matter if cofee today costs $5 when 50 years ago it cost $.5? As long as you are making more than 10 times as much (and you are), there is no actual issue other than "oh, big numbers are scary".

All this is, to be absolutely clear, unrelated to the actual problem of uneven wage growth (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/piketty-saez-zucman-income-growth-inequality-stagnation-chart). That issue happens regardless of currency type (again, Roman History: patronage during the Republic).

Saving does not automatically equal hoarding. People will still buy food, homes, cloths, TVs, computers, games, yachts, concert tickets, fast food, and the like. Just like today.
Demonstrably false. Rich people do run out of things to buy after a while. There is only so many yatchs and silk-carpeted private jets one can buy. After that, the money just accumulates.

While under certain circumstances intrinsic economies can experience hyper inflation and death. Fiat currencies always do.
That is one hell of a claim. Especially since every economy based on backing their currency to a thing has failed. Most economies based on fiat money have not.

Over time the amount of money in circulation will become too great and the cost of goods will skyrocket. There are many examples of the price of coffee being 10 grand, or bread costing 10 million (https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2008/0325/p06s02-woaf.html) units of that nations currency.
Hyperinflation happens to hard currencies too. Except they cannot do anything about it, while fiat currencies have options. Sometimes things fail anyway, but with hard currencies it is a certainty, not a possibility.

The amount of gold that can be taken from the earth at a time and how fast it can be refined limits how fast it can enter in circulation; its one of the main reasons gold and silver make great currencies.
No, as I have said several times now without you being able to counter it, it makes for crappy currencies that hold the economy back, because the economy can only grow as fast as the gold is mined. Want to buy a house/create a new business/etc? Sorry, you can't. There is literally not enough money in the economy for you to secure a loan, even if you could pay it back. Which is what lead to paper money and fractional banking (which I'm sure you also think is evil) in the first place, and to the rise of fiat currencies shortly thereafter.

Generally the only way an intrinsic economy sees inflation is when they conquer/claim new gold and immediately add it to the existing money supply.
False. Population growth is the primary cause of inflation.

Today, you produce 10 apples, and the other 9 members of your tribe can all purchase one from you, and everyone's happy. Tomorrow, there are three new mouth to feed, and now you, the apple seller, can raise prices of your ten apples. There we go, inflation.

Grey Wolf

Onyavar

2017-08-10, 08:54 AM

I think kinyoubi means "gold weekday" and kinsei means "gold star"

You know what I find weird? The five classical elements in East Asia are Wood, Earth, Water, Air and Fire, and four of those are present in both the planets and the days of the week, but they have skipped Air, or rather, replaced it with "Gold"...

My reply is late, but let me explain: You confused the classical four western elements (Fire, Water, Air, Earth) and the classical five chinese* elements (Fire, Earth, Metal, Water, Wood)... There is no air in there.
But you're also right: metal (金, chinese jin) means both "all kinds of metal" as a generic word, and also "gold".

For westerners, it's an easy mistake, I also was stumped for a minute until I noticed the mistake.

*edit: also other asian countries

littlebum2002

2017-08-10, 09:26 AM

The amount of gold that can be taken from the earth at a time and how fast it can be refined limits how fast it can enter in circulation; its one of the main reasons gold and silver make great currencies. Generally the only way an intrinsic economy sees inflation is when they conquer/claim new gold and immediately add it to the existing money supply.

I love how you're conveniently ignoring the fact that, with a gold standard, the government determines how much gold a dollar is worth. In 1900, a dollar was defined, through law, as "25.8 grains of gold at 90% purity". Whenever they wanted more money, they just lowered the amount of gold you could trade in for a dollar. So there is no arbitrary line between "gold standard" and "fiat currency". A nation which wants more money can just continuously lower the amount of gold you can get for a dollar, until it is effectively zero.

If you want a gold standard, we can have one! Let's use the same type of standard they had in 1900! Right now, you can get approximately half a grain of gold at 90% purity for $1. So I'm setting up a gold standard, right now! If you turn in any dollar bill to me, I will give you one quarter of a grain of gold at 90% purity. There! We have a gold standard!

See how arbitrary it is? The government can literally set the dollar to be worth any amount of gold they want. So basically you're saying "Having the dollar be worth 0.00000005 grains of gold is perfectly safe and acceptable, but don't you dare make it worth 0!!!"

sillymel

2017-08-10, 09:34 AM

False. Population growth is the primary cause of inflation.

Today, you produce 10 apples, and the other 9 members of your tribe can all purchase one from you, and everyone's happy. Tomorrow, there are three new mouth to feed, and now you, the apple seller, can raise prices of your ten apples. There we go, inflation.

That's not inflation. Inflation is when the value of a currency goes down for the entire economy for whatever reason. Your example has the value of an apple increasing due to supply and demand (specifically, demand increasing without an increase in supply).

EDIT: Punctuation

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 09:37 AM

I love how you're conveniently ignoring the fact that, with a gold standard, the government determines how much gold a dollar is worth. In 1900, a dollar was defined, through law, as "25.8 grains of gold at 90% purity". Whenever they wanted more money, they just lowered the amount of gold you could trade in for a dollar. So there is no arbitrary line between "gold standard" and "fiat currency". A nation which wants more money can just continuously lower the amount of gold you can get for a dollar, until it is effectively zero.

If you want a gold standard, we can have one! Let's use the same type of standard they had in 1900! Right now, you can get approximately half a grain of gold at 90% purity for $1. So I'm setting up a gold standard, right now! If you turn in any dollar bill to me, I will give you one quarter of a grain of gold at 90% purity. There! We have a gold standard!

See how arbitrary it is? The government can literally set the dollar to be worth any amount of gold they want. So basically you're saying "Having the dollar be worth 0.00000005 grains of gold is perfectly safe and acceptable, but don't you dare make it worth 0!!!"

Well put. Back of the envelope calculations based on current world GDP and current gold reserves ($100 trillion and 165k tons, respectively) suggests that we could right now set the gold standard to $600 a gram, or just about a milligram and a half of gold per dollar. The one dollar bill (about a gram) would actually be heavier than the gold it would be tied to.

And then, next year, the economy would've liked to grow 3%... but would not be able to, because you wouldn't be able to get a loan since there simply isn't going to be a 3% increase of available gold.

That's not inflation. Inflation is when the value of a currency goes down for the entire economy for whatever reason. Your example has the value of an apple increasing due to supply and demand (specifically, demand increasing without an increase in supply).
So, the value of the currency - that today bought 1 apple, but tomorrow can't - went down for the entire economy due to increase population demand. Therefore, it does fit your definition of inflation.

Inflation is a measure of the rise of prices year over year. Prices can rise for many more reasons than those spoused by Erys, including but not limited to population growth. There is nothing in a hard currency that can stop inflation from happening.

Grey Wolf

Peelee

2017-08-10, 09:39 AM

Come for the silly comic about stick figures in a D&D world, stay for the economics class.

It's like that time I got to sit in on a presentation by E. O. Wilson. I have no desire to learn about that field, and I have no real understanding of what's being talked about, but damn if it isn't interesting.

littlebum2002

2017-08-10, 09:41 AM

Well put. Back of the envelope calculations based on current world GDP and current gold reserves ($100 trillion and 165k tons, respectively) suggests that we could right now set the gold standard to $600 a gram, or just about a milligram and a half of gold per dollar. The one dollar bill (about a gram) would actually be heavier than the gold it would be tied to.

And then, next year, the economy would've liked to grow 3%... but would not be able to, because you wouldn't be able to get a loan since there simply isn't going to be a 3% increase of available gold.

Grey Wolf

It's OK. Just lower the gold standard by 3%, and you can grow as usual! It's literally the exact same thing!

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 09:45 AM

It's OK. Just lower the gold standard by 3%, and you can grow as usual! It's literally the exact same thing!

Nononono... once set, you can't unset it. It's against the economic's gods wishes or something. How else are you going to hamstring your own economy otherwise?

(/sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious enough)

GW

Erys

2017-08-10, 09:52 AM

That's not the government punishing you though, that's the electric company refusing to take your money.

I am just saying the government isn't the bad guy in this scenario...

You must, by law, pay all debts in the US with FRNs.

Not sure why you are arguing this, it is the law.

So you give the barista two 6 grand coins, drop your 2 grand of change in the tip jar, take your coffee and go.

Again, that only happens to gold/silver in fringe scenario's.

All fiat currencies will eventually see this sort of situation.

(I'm British, by the way)

In the mid eighties I took a holiday in Italy. The exchange rate was about 2000 lira to a British pound. I knew this before I set off. What I didn't know is that the Lira symbol was sometimes written exactly the same as a British Pound symbol. Both of them are ornate letter L's. First time I looked at a menu and saw a simple mushroom pizza priced at £3500 I almost had a heart attack.

LOL!

I believe it.

Too funny.

***
Grey_Wolf_c, I am not going post by post. Don't have the time and half of your points are fraudulent. The reason most countries are fiat now isn't because they wanted to abandon their gold systems... its because they had too.

Bottom line: fiat money by design will fail. Sure, some systems have more intricate bells and whistles in them to last longer than the average (which is about 30 years); but they will always suffer the same fate. You literally give a government the power to create money from thin air they will- and the constant massive influx of new money will always wreck havoc over the long run.

If you want to deny reality, that is on you. I only speak the truth.

Fiat money is why people think they need 15 dollar minimum wages for no skill jobs; whereas if we were still at the least on a proper (non-fractional) gold standard people could very well be happy making just a few dollars an hour and the half penny would still have a purpose and be in circulation.

Gold/silver economic systems tend to last unless outside forces or inside corruption (or both) are at play (which are what happened in the two examples against intrinsic money). In such cases, just like any man made system, it can (and should) fail. But at least said failure is not built into the very framework of the currency system.

As much as you want to say otherwise; the history of fiat money is a damning one indeed, there are many modern day examples of the dangers of fiat money... If one chooses look and learn.

((Also, like many of your incorrect examples, and just because it offends me the most, I must point out: your last example is one of supply and demand- not inflation. It is not a case where buying power has faded- its a case where demand is higher than existing supply. It is important you understand these distinctions if you are going to debate me in this arena.))

Erys

2017-08-10, 09:56 AM

Oh, and littlebum2002, I am talking about gold/silver economies, not "gold standard" economies.

They are not actually the same.

georgie_leech

2017-08-10, 10:04 AM

You must, by law, pay all debts in the US with FRNs.

Not sure why you are arguing this, it is the law.)

Not so, the law is that you must accept them as payment for a debt. That is, if you owe someone for, say, a fancy meal that you agreed in advance to pay for, they can agree to be paid in lumps of gold if they want. Or in shoes, or a service to be performed at a later date, or in purple pipe cleaners if they were crazy. What they can't do is refuse to accept your FRN's.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 10:07 AM

Grey_Wolf_c, I am not going post by post. Don't have the time and half of your points are fraudulent. The reason most countries are fiat now isn't because they wanted to abandon their gold systems... its because they had too.
Yes, they had to, because there wasn't enough gold to match the economic growth.

AS for the rest, I'm tired of your baseless and literally "because I said so" claims. So I'll just put a nice [citation needed] every time you say something I know cannot be backed up by anything other than wish fulfillment fantasies of people yearning for a magical gold/abalone standard impervious to everything that cause the gold/abalone standard to fail the world over.

Bottom line: fiat money by design will fail.
[citation needed]

Sure, some systems have more intricate bells and whistles in them to last longer than the average (which is about 30 years);
[citation needed]

but they will always suffer the same fate. You literally give a government the power to create money from thin air they will- and the constant massive influx of new money will always wreck havoc over the long run.
[citation needed].

I only speak the truth.
[citation needed]

Fiat money is why people think they need 15 dollar minimum wages for no skill jobs;
[citation needed]

whereas if we were still at the least on a proper (non-fractional) gold standard people could very well be happy making just a few dollars an hour and the half penny would still have a purpose and be in circulation.
[citation needed] The half penny was abandoned 100 years before the US abandoned the gold standard.

But at least said failure is not built into the very framework of the currency system.
[citation needed]

As much as you want to say otherwise; the history of fiat money is a damning one indeed, there are many modern day examples of the dangers of fiat money... If one chooses look and learn.
[citation needed]
Also, one needs to close one's eyes to the dangers of hard money at the same time, as you do.

No-one is claiming that fiat money is without issues. It is simply less plagued by those issues than hard currency.

((Also, like many of your incorrect examples, and just because it offends me the most, I must point out: your last example is one of supply and demand- not inflation. It is not a case where buying power has faded- its a case where demand is higher than existing supply. It is important you understand these distinctions if you are going to debate me in this arena.))
Inflation is tied to supply and demand. Inflation is not a magical bugbear, it is a measure of the increase in prices year over year. I gave one example of inflation unconnected to your claim that inflation can only be caused, and I quote, by "conquer/claim new gold and immediately add it to the existing money supply."

Change the example to whatever you want: prices can go up even when you tie your currency to a rock, no matter how shiny. I gave you real world historical examples, which you chose to ignore. I have now given you a bare bone example with the hopes you would see that inflation cannot be constrained by a hard currency. Do with it what you will.

Grey Wolf

sillymel

2017-08-10, 10:13 AM

So, the value of the currency - that today bought 1 apple, but tomorrow can't - went down for the entire economy due to increase population demand. Therefore, it does fit your definition of inflation.

Inflation is a measure of the rise of prices year over year. Prices can rise for many more reasons than those spoused by Erys, including but not limited to population growth. There is nothing in a hard currency that can stop inflation from happening.

Grey Wolf
What I was trying to say was that the price of one specific good (or more generally, consumable goods) rising is not enough to show inflation. Also, I was mainly concerned with the meaning of inflation, not whether hard or fiat currency is better.

EDIT: Inflation is a measure the rise of general prices, not specific prices.

Cazero

2017-08-10, 10:19 AM

Oh, and littlebum2002, I am talking about gold/silver economies, not "gold standard" economies.

They are not actually the same.
What's the difference? And what's the difference with "fiat money" economies?

The very nature of trading means adjudicating an arbitrary value (aka applying the underlying principle of fiat money) will happen at some point, and that value will change based on circumstances. How many dollars for a burger? Fiat and variable. How many euros for a coffee? Fiat and variable. How many pounds for housing? Fiat and variable.
Even without money, the questions and answer don't change. How many chickens for a cow? Fiat and variable. How many sticks for a bucket? Fiat and variable. How many jagged rocks for a piece of leather? Fiat and variable.

What exactly does gold/silver/whatever bring on the table?

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 10:19 AM

What I was trying to say was that the price of one specific good (or more generally, consumable goods) rising is not enough to show inflation. Also, I was mainly concerned with the meaning of inflation, not whether hard or fiat currency is better.

Well, yes, but you can't devoid my example from context. It is of course a silly example - no tribe will actually only have apples to eat.

ETA:

EDIT: Inflation is a measure the rise of general prices, not specific prices.

In this example, they are one and the same, since in this silly example only apples have prices (everyone else is, presumably, mining gold to pay for said apples). We can complicate the example by adding more society output (fish! grain! wood!) and more nuance, but in the end, as population grows, so does demand, and therefore so do prices, which is measured as inflation.

GW

Snails

2017-08-10, 10:24 AM

While under certain circumstances intrinsic economies can experience hyper inflation and death. Fiat currencies always do. Over time the amount of money in circulation will become too great and the cost of goods will skyrocket. There are many examples of the price of coffee being 10 grand, or bread costing 10 million (https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2008/0325/p06s02-woaf.html) units of that nations currency.

Cherry picking data over the whole world means nothing, because doing so undermines your own argument about "fiat currencies always do". If you actually believed in your inevitability argument, you could demonstrate your point with the full historical data from, say, the USA. The reason gold bugs do not so is because, overall, the historical data in the USA argues against their point. Thus it is necessary to change the subject to a carefully cherry-picked far flung corner of the world the moment people who are genuinely knowledgeable start discussing the matter.

littlebum2002

2017-08-10, 10:25 AM

Fiat money is why people think they need 15 dollar minimum wages for no skill jobs; whereas if we were still at the least on a proper (non-fractional) gold standard people could very well be happy making just a few dollars an hour and the half penny would still have a purpose and be in circulation.

So what you're saying is you think an economy can work where the amount of money (gold) stays constant and the price of goods and services stays constant. Let’s see how this would work.

There are 10 people and they have 20 pieces of gold. They each sell different goods, and each good costs 1 piece of gold. Therefore, each person can buy 2 “things”.
The population increases to 20 people. Now each person can only buy 1 “thing”.

If the amount of money is constant, and the price of goods is constant, then as the population increases each person will be able to buy less goods. That’s just basic math.

Snails

2017-08-10, 10:28 AM

What exactly does gold/silver/whatever bring on the table?

It brings a certain specific kind of stability at the cost of decreased other kinds of stability. The specific kind of stability here is a very low risk of significant commodity price inflation. Why we must value that kind of stability above and beyond all other measures of economic stability is never ever explained beyond emotional arguments and gold idolatry.

[typo fixed]

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 10:30 AM

It brings a certain specific kind of stability at the cost of increased other kinds of stability.

(I think you mean decreased there)

GW

Rogar Demonblud

2017-08-10, 10:41 AM

Or increasing other instability.

Cazero

2017-08-10, 10:45 AM

It brings a certain specific kind of stability at the cost of increased other kinds of stability. The specific kind of stability here is a very low risk of significant commodity price inflation.
How does gold do that?
And what stops bank bills from doing the same?

KorvinStarmast

2017-08-10, 10:46 AM

For the sake of the collective sanity of this thread, can we assume this was deadpan satire? Let's say that it wasn't totally serious, and that I prefer not to use blue text. :smallwink:

hen I was a little kid, in the1970's, one of my classmates saw that they had an old bill that read "Redeemable in gold on demand at the United States Treasury, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank"... I had two five-dollar-bills that had the red seal. (Silver Certificates). I eventually deposited them in my savings bank, but I got one in change at a drug store later in life that I kept simply to have. Sadly, it was stolen in 1988 when my apartment got broken into, along with my very small collection of silver dimes, quarters, and half dollars. *grr* And my college class ring.

I don't believe that you're able to spend Canadian currency in the States, I may be wrong, though. IN some places you can, although vending machines won't take most Canadian coins.

I'm so glad I don't like coffee, because I couldn't tip a barista. Our whole tipping culture has gotten a bit out of hand, I think. I only tip a barista somewhere other than Starbucks. I will not tip a Starbucks barista. (Reasons utterly OT so not going there).

Come for the silly comic about stick figures in a D&D world, stay for the economics class.
Yeah, and how to name days of the week. :smallbiggrin:

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 10:50 AM

Yeah, and how to name days of the week. :smallbiggrin:

To this day, my favourite not-quite-OT digression of this forum was the time when the MitD thread spent a few days discussing medieval carpentry materials and techniques.

GW

sillymel

2017-08-10, 10:51 AM

In this example, they are one and the same, since in this silly example only apples have prices (everyone else is, presumably, mining gold to pay for said apples). We can complicate the example by adding more society output (fish! grain! wood!) and more nuance, but in the end, as population grows, so does demand, and therefore so do prices, which is measured as inflation.

GW
The problem is, food is generally excluded from inflation calculations because it's prices are volatile.
EDIT: Basically, could I please have another example that doesn't involve food?

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 11:00 AM

The problem is, food is generally excluded from inflation calculations because it's prices are volatile.

Again: simplified example. If it bothers you so much, come up with your own example of how population growth (or indeed, anything other than "conquer/claim new gold and immediately add it to the existing money supply") can raise prices, unless you are actually trying to claim it cannot?

GW

Keltest

2017-08-10, 11:04 AM

Again: simplified example. If it bothers you so much, come up with your own example of how population growth (or indeed, anything other than "conquer/claim new gold and immediately add it to the existing money supply") can raise prices, unless you are actually trying to claim it cannot?

GW

Frankly, I think your example is so oversimplified that it doesn't actually prove your point. For example, you've inadvertently started with a scenario where currency is useless because there is only one product of any value.

sillymel

2017-08-10, 11:16 AM

Again: simplified example. If it bothers you so much, come up with your own example of how population growth (or indeed, anything other than "conquer/claim new gold and immediately add it to the existing money supply") can raise prices, unless you are actually trying to claim it cannot?

GW
What I was trying to say that in order for population growth to cause inflation, it would have to increase the price of all goods and services (all other things being equal). I believe that, assuming we're talking about normal population growth, it doesn't cause inflation.

Pampukin

2017-08-10, 11:35 AM

Man all I came here for was wild speculations on Durkon's plan. Each more convoluted than the previous one. Got an economics/Western mythology lesson. From guys on the other side of the world. Sometimes you just have to stop and wonder at the internet.
Edit: Man is my english rusty

littlebum2002

2017-08-10, 11:37 AM

Clistenes

2017-08-10, 11:37 AM

My reply is late, but let me explain: You confused the classical four western elements (Fire, Water, Air, Earth) and the classical five chinese* elements (Fire, Earth, Metal, Water, Wood)... There is no air in there.
But you're also right: metal (金, chinese jin) means both "all kinds of metal" as a generic word, and also "gold".

For westerners, it's an easy mistake, I also was stumped for a minute until I noticed the mistake.

*edit: also other asian countries

Mmmm... it seems that the japanese didn't always used the Chinese taoist-inspired five elements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Xing) (Earth, Metal, Wood, Water and Fire), but another, buddhist-inspired set of five elements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_elements_(Japanese_philosophy)) (Earth, Water, Air, Fire and Void). I guess I was mixing both systems...

The MunchKING

2017-08-10, 11:41 AM

You must, by law, pay all debts in the US with FRNs.

Not sure why you are arguing this, it is the law.

Because I've always heard it the other way around. That a US note IS legal tender for debts in the US, but not that anything else isn't.

So... *Citation needed*?

Grey_Wolf_c, I am not going post by post.

Awe. That's the FUN part.

Don't have the time and half of your points are fraudulent. The reason most countries are fiat now isn't because they wanted to abandon their gold systems... its because they had too.

Because there wasn't enough gold. That was his point too.

Bottom line: fiat money by design will fail. Sure, some systems have more intricate bells and whistles in them to last longer than the average (which is about 30 years);

30 Years? Psh!! USD have been going for 7x that long. And show no signs of slowing down.

If you want to deny reality, that is on you. I only speak the truth.

*Citation needed*

In such cases, just like any man made system, it can (and should) fail.

Gold Standard isn't Man-made? So who DID make it? God? Aliens??

Why are you ascribing infallibility to the gold standard?

EDIT:

Oh, and littlebum2002, I am talking about gold/silver economies, not "gold standard" economies.

They are not actually the same.

Alright, my bad on that one, amend the previous statement to say "Gold Currency" is still man made.

As much as you want to say otherwise; the history of fiat money is a damning one indeed, there are many modern day examples of the dangers of fiat money... If one chooses look and learn.

Except you know, how it's in play pretty much everywhere and the world economy is doing better than ever.

But other than literally everything about it, yes damning history, right there.

Peelee

2017-08-10, 11:46 AM

You must, by law, pay all debts in the US with FRNs.

Not sure why you are arguing this, it is the law.

Fun fact: the law.

The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

The MunchKING

2017-08-10, 11:50 AM

Fun fact: the law.

Well there you go. Someone knows how to cite sources. :p

Doug Lampert

2017-08-10, 11:52 AM

What I was trying to say that in order for population growth to cause inflation, it would have to increase the price of all goods and services (all other things being equal). I believe that, assuming we're talking about normal population growth, it doesn't cause inflation.

With constant currency amounts population growth is strongly deflationary. More people have the same money chasing more goods because more people both make and use more stuff.

Inflation is caused by more currency chasing fewer goods, deflation by less currency chasing more goods.

Precious metal backed currency tends to be deflationary, as the money supply can't be substantially increased and reasonably stable economies tend to grow over time (aka, right up till something like deflation crashes the economy). The fact that money is getting more valuable over time (so you get paid to hoard it), and the quite common practice of debasing coinage (which also encourages hoarding of old coin, see Gresham's law), means that economies with a precious metal currency can easily fall into a deflationary depression.

Note that 181,881 tons of gold (current known reserves) is ~$8.2 TRILLION (not billion), you can google this. Total circulating currency in the world is handily less than that (about 4 trillion, ditto google). There is more value in gold than in all the bills currently in the world. You could convert to gold, this doesn't make it a good idea.

Depressions are worse than recessions, and the USA suffered multiple depressions prior to going to fiat currency.

Fiat currency is typically highly inflationary over time (as mentioned, all it really takes is a government that decides to print money to keep taxes down or reduce its debts). But inflation of fiat currency is survivable as long as prices stay "reasonably" stable over the mid-term. I don't care that I'll need twice as many dollars as my parents to retire, because I'll HAVE more than twice as many dollars as they needed. Hyperinflation is bad, and could happen to us, but it hasn't, even the Civil War inflation wasn't that bad ("Not worth a Continental" OTOH is still a rarely used phrase, it can happen here, it just isn't all that common).

Ruck

2017-08-10, 12:17 PM

I'm so glad I don't like coffee, because I couldn't tip a barista. Our whole tipping culture has gotten a bit out of hand, I think.
If you don't want to tip service workers, fight for them to get better wages. As it stands, they depend on that income. It's not "culture" to many of them, it's the difference between a living wage and the legally allowed minimum of $2.13 an hour for service workers who receive tips.

Keltest

2017-08-10, 12:22 PM

Peelee

2017-08-10, 12:31 PM

2D8HP

2017-08-10, 12:46 PM

Come for the silly comic about stick figures in a D&D world, stay for the economics class.

Also folklore and mythology! (which I enjoy more than "the dismal science")

...some people who are scared of large numbers and who remember a past that never was, seem to regret that things "cost more" even though they can still afford the same amount of those things....

Grey Wolf

As someone who actually remembers the high inflation of '79 (really 1973 to '81), and had a grandfather (born in 1917) who remembered the deflation of the 1930's and the inflation of the '40's, I so very much agree with....

...Grey Wolf

1932, '82 and '08 were worse.

I prefer inflation.

To this day, my favourite not-quite-OT digression of this forum was the time when the MitD thread spent a few days discussing medieval carpentry materials and techniques.

GW

Oh that sounds awesome!

"Days of the week", "Which Germanic god is the equivalent of which Greco-Roman god" and "The elements" in this thread are good too.

:smile:

woweedd

2017-08-10, 01:14 PM

Also folklore and mythology! (which I enjoy more than "the dismal science")

As someone who actually remembers the high inflation of '79 (really 1973 to '81), and had a grandfather (born in 1917) who remembered the deflation of the 1930's and the inflation of the '40's, I so very much agree with....

...Grey Wolf

1932, '82 and '08 were worse.

I prefer inflation.

Oh that sounds awesome!

"Days of the week", "Which Germanic god is the equivalent of which Greco-Roman god" and "The elements" in this thread are good too.

:smile:
To quote XKCD:
(https://www.xkcd.com/1052/)"By dubbing econ "dismal science" adherents exaggerate;

The "dismal"'s fine—it's "science" where they patently prevaricate."

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 01:17 PM

If you don't want to tip service workers, fight for them to get better wages. As it stands, they depend on that income. It's not "culture" to many of them, it's the difference between a living wage and the legally allowed minimum of $2.13 an hour for service workers who receive tips.

As a non-US person, I have to say that I agree with Peelee. The tipping industry of the US is freaking weird. From my outsider perspective, it comes across as false advertisement of the worst kind: the restaurant gets to advertise falsely low prices because they aren't paying their workers, they expect the patrons to do so for them.

As seen on twitter (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG2IwxFVYAAKWyi.jpg:large) moments ago: a bar pretending they "support" minimum wage increases by hiding the fact they just raised all their prices 4%. It's BS - they need to be honest, put their workers on the payroll, and adjust their prices accordingly, and not expect me to have to take the fact they don't pay their workers into consideration when I am patronizing their establishment (oh, and they should also include the bloody taxes as well. Not sure* why they expect me to know what tax rates are in each state I'm in).

It is so annoying, in fact, that when I am stateside, I do not go to any restaurant or venue that requires me to tip.

Grey Wolf

*who am I kidding. I know it is also a form of false advertisement. I believe it was so ruled in my own country when it came up in our courts.

Jasdoif

2017-08-10, 01:57 PM

As a non-US person, I have to say that I agree with Peelee. The tipping industry of the US is freaking weird. From my outsider perspective, it comes across as false advertisement of the worst kind: the restaurant gets to advertise falsely low prices because they aren't paying their workers, they expect the patrons to do so for them. ...it's a business. The customers are paying for the workers wages, whether tips are involved or not.

Quebbster

2017-08-10, 02:06 PM

As a non-US person, I have to say that I agree with Peelee. The tipping industry of the US is freaking weird.
As a fellow non-US person, I can only agree. Recently I read something about tipping only became widespread in the US when it became illegal to pay different people different salaries for the same job - basically restaurant owners said "you are supposed to get some of your wage in tips, it's not my fault if the customers pay some of you less".
I have no idea how accurate this is, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.

Peelee

2017-08-10, 02:09 PM

...it's a business. The customers are paying for the workers wages, whether tips are involved or not.

Tips are just a silly and convoluted way of doing it, though.

Especially for jobs that aren't usually tipped. There's a fee for pizza delivery, and I still have to tip? Why? I actually paid for the delivery option, why do I then have to pay even more? Cab driver got me to where I want to go? Great, that's why I pay him the fare, because that's the end-all, be-all of his job.

Bartenders are the one exception to my issues with tipping, because I'm pretty sure tipping the bartender is an attempt to bribe them into giving slightly more alcohol. It's a stupid bribe attempt, but I ain't gonna judge.

ETA: I also think taxes should be included in prices listed on store shelves, because why the hell not! It's so much easier to immediately track what I'm getting.

woweedd

2017-08-10, 02:15 PM

I gotta say, watching Europeans first be introduced to the concept of Sales Tax is always funny.:smalltongue:

Jasdoif

2017-08-10, 02:16 PM

Tips are just a silly and convoluted way of doing it, though.Generally yes. (I make an exception for those states where garnishing tips is in fact illegal, and the waiters get 100% of their tips in addition to their normal wages...assuming there are still any such states today)

I also think taxes should be included in prices listed on store shelves, because why the hell not! It's so much easier to immediately track what I'm getting.I lucked out there, Oregon's never had a sales tax (as least that I can recall) so the price on the shelf is the price I pay.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 02:17 PM

...it's a business. The customers are paying for the workers wages, whether tips are involved or not.

That's not how every other business works, now, does it? When you go to the bank to withdraw money, are you supposed to pay the teller for its 10 minutes of attention to you? No, they get paid, whether there is business on a given day or not.

It is also patently unfair, because payment for work should reflect ability. Tips instead are luck of the draw - you may get the people willing to order the most expensive stuff, while the much better server gets the table that only wants water and the cheapest thing on the menu. I as a consumer are not qualify to determine if my server deserves a raise, especially given that my entire interaction with them is giving them a list of things, and them bringing it. Can't judge them on food quality since they didn't prepare it, nor speed, since they can't control the kitchen.

Finally, your argument does nothing to address that it is hiding the true cost of the meal from the consumer by artificially posting false prices that do not take into account now about 20% of what you are expected to pay. Because I understand that it is not, in fact, optional to tip, is it? What does happen if I go to a restaurant and pay exactly what was advertised in the menu, and not a penny more? I have heard stories of people being denied exit until they tip. There is certainly a lot of shaming when someone does get away with leaving a fake bill with some nonsense written on the back instead of actual cash.

I gotta say, watching Europeans first be introduced to the concept of Sales Tax is always funny.:smalltongue:

Ermmm... hate to brake it to you, but Europe does have sales tax (or rather, VAT and similar, but twelve of one...). What they do not have is hidden taxes that only pop up at the register.

Grey Wolf

Quebbster

2017-08-10, 02:21 PM

I gotta say, watching Europeans first be introduced to the concept of Sales Tax is always funny.:smalltongue:

Where I am from that stuff is usually included in the sales price. So I suppose I would be surprised if I had to pay more than the price that was listed on the shelf.

The MunchKING

2017-08-10, 02:24 PM

It is also patently unfair, because payment for work should reflect ability. Tips instead are luck of the draw - you may get the people willing to order the most expensive stuff, while the much better server gets the table that only wants water and the cheapest thing on the menu. I as a consumer are not qualify to determine if my server deserves a raise.

The idea is they do. If the Better server is nicer/more efficient/whatever, the people will leave a bigger tip. If the waiter at the table ordering more expensive things is rude, slow, or in otherways bad he won't get as much of a tip.

Now people who think 10% is mandatory or something mess with the idea, but the principle is sound.

a.) They must make the state's minimum wage at the end of the day. If the tips don't make up for it, the employer must.

Legally, yes. But from what I've heard, telling your boss you aren't making tips is a good way to be accused of being bad at your job and fired.

Kish

2017-08-10, 02:25 PM

Legally, nothing can happen to you if you don't tip. Other than that your server has just paid for the privilege of serving you (they will be taxed on their "expected" tips, without regard for the fact that they did not actually get a tip, and people in "tipping expected" jobs can be legally paid below minimum wage because they're expected to make it up in tips).

In other words: yes, the tipping system is abusive, but to the servers, and it specifically exists because some customers value being able to decide casually that a waiter's service has not been exemplary enough for them to deserve to make a living that night.

woweedd

2017-08-10, 02:26 PM

That's not how every other business works, now, does it? When you go to the bank to withdraw money, are you supposed to pay the teller for its 10 minutes of attention to you? No, they get paid, whether there is business on a given day or not.

It is also patently unfair, because payment for work should reflect ability. Tips instead are luck of the draw - you may get the people willing to order the most expensive stuff, while the much better server gets the table that only wants water and the cheapest thing on the menu. I as a consumer are not qualify to determine if my server deserves a raise.

Finally, your argument does nothing to address that it is hiding the true cost of the meal from the consumer by artificially posting false prices that do not take into account now about 20% of what you are expected to pay. Because I understand that it is not, in fact, optional to tip, is it? What does happen if I go to a restaurant and pay exactly what was advertised in the menu, and not a penny more? I have heard stories of people being denied exit until they tip. There is certainly a lot of shaming when someone does get away with leaving a fake bill with some nonsense written on the back instead of actual cash.

Ermmm... hate to brake it to you, but Europe does have sales tax (or rather, VAT and similar, but twelve of one...). What they do not have is hidden taxes that only pop up at the register.

Grey Wolf
Point made. Also, watch this.(Warning:Very NSFW language.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_vivC7c_1k

The MunchKING

2017-08-10, 02:27 PM

(they will be taxed on their "expected" tips, without regard for the fact that they did not actually get a tip).

I don't think THAT'S actually legal. If anything it's usually the otherway around. Service people claim they make a lot less in tips than they do and pocket the difference in untaxed income.

Peelee

2017-08-10, 02:29 PM

Finally, your argument does nothing to address that it is hiding the true cost of the meal from the consumer by artificially posting false prices that do not take into account now about 20% of what you are expected to pay. Because I understand that it is not, in fact, optional to tip, is it? What does happen if I go to a restaurant and pay exactly what was advertised in the menu, and not a penny more? I have heard stories of people being denied exit until they tip. There is certainly a lot of shaming when someone does get away with leaving a fake bill with some nonsense written on the back instead of actual cash.

No, tipping is purely optional in all tipped jobs. If you don't tip, however, society in general (and the server in particular) will look down on you as a cheap jerk. Also, 15%. 20 is for excellent service. The only thing I like about tipping is that it scales with inflation, since it's always a set percentage. And screw people who try to claim that 20% is the new average because no it's not because it's a percent and it scales with inflation

Oh, also, they refill your drinks, so there's more than just that interaction. Free refills are a big, big thing here (and we don't realize how big until we go somewhere without that).

The idea is they do. If the Better server is nicer/more efficient/whatever, the people will leave a bigger tip. If the waiter at the table ordering more expensive things is rude, slow, or in otherways bad he won't get as much of a tip.
Other jobs also have a check and balance built in for this. Though they just call it "being fired because you're a crappy worker."

Legally, yes. But from what I've heard, telling your boss you aren't making tips is a good way to be accused of being bad at your job and fired.
If a server is consistently tipped poorly to the point of needing it made up, that probably is an indication that they are bad at their job and should be fired. Though I know that's an ideal world, and a lot of restaurants likely have a very low threshhold for this, which is patently unfair to the workers. I totally agree with that. It could also be solved by getting rid of tipping.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 02:29 PM

The idea is they do. If the Better server is nicer/more efficient/whatever, the people will leave a bigger tip. If the waiter at the table ordering more expensive things is rude, slow, or in otherways bad he won't get as much of a tip.

Now people who think 10% is mandatory or something mess with the idea, but the principle is sound.

No, it is not "sound". Nowhere except the US has this absurd system of paying servers that requires the consumer to make a salary decision based on minimal interaction. If the guy running the business can't tell which servers are good or bad at their jobs, he should not be in the business, just like every other employer in the world should be able to weed out bad employees from good.

Literally, not a single other business I can think of forces the customer to decide on the spot how much an employee's salary, before being allowed to leave (although i do hear that in the US, it is starting to catch? Something about having to tip Uber drivers, since they don't get paid minimum wage either?). The whole system is ridiculous.

Grey Wolf

Jasdoif

2017-08-10, 02:31 PM

That's not how every other business works, now, does it?That the customer gives money to the business and the business gives money to their workers? Yes. :smalltongue: (If you're wondering why I'm not saying that tipping isn't weird, it's because tipping is weird. The notion that the money businesses pay to their employees ultimately comes from their customers is critical enough that I think it needs to be pointed out, though)

Because I understand that it is not, in fact, optional to tip, is it?I don't go to such places often, at all, but I've never been required to, no. The closest I remember was a place where a 15% gratuity is added onto the bill for a party of eight or more; it was whatever we felt like adding (since we never had that many people). I suspect the legality of requiring it varies from state to state.

georgie_leech

2017-08-10, 02:33 PM

Point made. Also, watch this.(Warning:Very NSFW language.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_vivC7c_1k

Eh, that's going a bit far I think. I mean, you don't have to tip in a lot of European places, but you still can if you want. Like, don't have it be quasi-mandatory, a but ban is a bit strong :smalltongue:

Peelee

2017-08-10, 02:35 PM

I don't go to such places often, at all, but I've never been required to, no. The closest I remember was a place where a 15% gratuity is added onto the bill for a party of eight or more; it was whatever we felt like adding (since we never had that many people). I suspect the legality of requiring it varies from state to state.

Huh.

To non-US people, large parties do usually have gratuities automatically added to their checks (though I'm surprised you got 15, it's always been 18% here). And honestly, I never even thought to wonder if it was legal or not.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 02:40 PM

Also, 15%.
The "suggested tipping" in the screenshot I posted earlier is 18, 20 or 22%

Oh, also, they refill your drinks, so there's more than just that interaction. Free refills are a big, big thing here (and we don't realize how big until we go somewhere without that).

Total interaction time with a server might be 5 minutes across an entire meal. I would not determine someone's ability to do their job in less than 30 minutes of proper interviewing. How on Earth would I determine what the wage for the guy should be based on the fact that they were capable of writing what I said down and then keep a glass full? The job of a waiter is the ability to serve multiple tables at once - the customers are the least capable of measuring their performance. Which is why they tend to base tip on food quality, which makes sense but breaks down in America, where the tips - as far as I know - don't go to the cook or the restaurant as a whole.

That the customer gives money to the business and the business gives money to their workers? Yes. :smalltongue:
No, that's not it, even when you strip out my main complaint of "how should I decide his wage". The middle man of the business is cut out of this interaction. It means that a bad business pushes the risk of lack of customers on its workers, rather than having to absorb the blow against its bottom line. A bank/supermarket/office/etc. can't not pay its workers on the days business was slow.

Grey Wolf

woweedd

2017-08-10, 02:50 PM

Eh, that's going a bit far I think. I mean, you don't have to tip in a lot of European places, but you still can if you want. Like, don't have it be quasi-mandatory, a but ban is a bit strong :smalltongue:
Title is a bit clickbaity, i'll admit, but watch the video. It's actually quite nuanced on the issue.

georgie_leech

2017-08-10, 02:55 PM

Titel is a bit clickbaity, i'll admit, but watch the video. It's actually quite nuanced on the issue.

Oh yeah, I've seen it before, hence the :smalltongue: I agree that the North American (while it isn't quite as abusive as it can be in some parts of the states, we have something similar up here in Canada) tipping system is weird and backwards from a customer or employee perspective.

Peelee

2017-08-10, 02:59 PM

The "suggested tipping" in the screenshot I posted earlier is 18, 20 or 22%
Hootinany and shenanigans. Lies and falsehoods by the tipping industry. Live 15 or die.

Total interaction time with a server might be 5 minutes across an entire meal. I would not determine someone's ability to do their job in less than 30 minutes of proper interviewing. How on Earth would I determine what the wage for the guy should be based on the fact that they were capable of writing what I said down and then keep a glass full? The job of a waiter is the ability to serve multiple tables at once - the customers are the least capable of measuring their performance. Which is why they tend to base tip on food quality, which makes sense but breaks down in America, where the tips - as far as I know - don't go to the cook or the restaurant as a whole.
Preaching to the choir.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 03:05 PM

Preaching to the choir.

I know (after all, I started with "I agree with Peelee..."), but I'm also preaching to the peanut gallery, one would hope.

GW

Jasdoif

2017-08-10, 03:10 PM

The job of a waiter is the ability to serve multiple tables at once - the customers are the least capable of measuring their performance.Alternatively, the customers are the most independent indicator of a waiter's performance at individual tables at any given time. While the tipping framework is a legion of maladies, I can at least see where voluntary tips could be construed as a quantitative performance metric.

The middle man of the business is cut out of this interaction.That would be what makes it so weird, yes. That my point of "businesses get their money from their customers" doesn't conflict with your "tipping makes no sense" point is neither here nor there.

I also wonder if we're having different specific complaints with tipping; my biggest objection is scenarios where the business counts tips as wages they've already paid to the waiters etc. and only cuts them a paycheck for the difference between their tips and their normal wages. That's just not right even if tips are completely optional.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 03:18 PM

Alternatively, the customers are the most independent indicator of a waiter's performance at individual tables at any given time. While the tipping framework is a legion of maladies, I can at least see where voluntary tips could be construed as a quantitative performance metric.
It would be a poor metric, since as far as I know, tips are strongly correlated to how happy the customer is with the food, more than the service itself. I've been to countries with what I could call "traditional" tipping practices, and the tip is a form of performance metric on the whole meal, incorporating service, yes, but also food quality, time use, etc. But those places tend to be mom-and-pop restaurants, where tips are added to the restaurants' bottom line, not a Damocles' sword where I'm being held hostage for the wages of the server.

I also wonder if we're having different specific complaints with tipping; my biggest objection is scenarios where the business counts tips as wages they've already paid to the waiters etc. and only cuts them a paycheck for the difference between their tips and their normal wages. That's just not right even if tips are completely optional.

Your point does feel different from mine, yes. You seem concerned with slightly improving a clearly broken system to make it less broken, while I wonder, given that many non-broken forms of compensation practices exist, why a first world country would allow something as ridiculous as the US tipping-based wages.

I'm also intrigued (and slightly horrified) by the mindset of people who don't see anything wrong about the US-Canada tipping system.

Grey Wolf

littlebum2002

2017-08-10, 03:20 PM

Rogar Demonblud

2017-08-10, 03:25 PM

Around here, at least, tips cannot be considered for payroll decisions. You have to pay minimum, period, and tips are a performance bonus.

Of course, the whole mess is also why some chains are pushing "don't tip the staff"; it makes their life simpler (and they don't have to bother with filing a Form 8027 for each employee and one for the company as a whole).

The MunchKING

2017-08-10, 03:26 PM

Oh, also, they refill your drinks, so there's more than just that interaction. Free refills are a big, big thing here (and we don't realize how big until we go somewhere without that).

There are places WITHOUT Free Refills? Why? I mean the cost of the soda is tiny compared to the value of keeping the customers happy.

Other jobs also have a check and balance built in for this. Though they just call it "being fired because you're a crappy worker."[\quote]

Well yes, but it is harder for the customers to directly influence that. There's loads of stories on Notalwaysright.com (IIRC, I might have messed up the site name) about employees who were jerks and managers either couldn't or wouldn't fire them.

[quote]. It could also be solved by getting rid of tipping.

It wouldn't get rid of poor service, it would just get rid of them getting tipped poorly.

Total interaction time with a server might be 5 minutes across an entire meal. I would not determine someone's ability to do their job in less than 30 minutes of proper interviewing. How on Earth would I determine what the wage for the guy should be based on the fact that they were capable of writing what I said down and then keep a glass full?

*sigh* You are not determining their wage or how good they are at handling multiple tables. You are just determining how well they did for you specifically.

A bank/supermarket/office/etc. can't not pay its workers on the days business was slow.

Grey Wolf

And neither can a restaurant. Anywhere that was actually like "We will only pay you 2.00 an hour because no one came in" would soon find itself without workers.

Huh.

To non-US people, large parties do usually have gratuities automatically added to their checks (though I'm surprised you got 15, it's always been 18% here). And honestly, I never even thought to wonder if it was legal or not.

If it's a gratuity then it should be gratuitous. If they force you to pay, then it's just more cost.

It probably IS legal though, because so many places do it and no one ever gets in trouble.

And even though I'm saying tipping isn't irrational, I would like to say that I think every restaurant SHOULD pay their employees a living wage, and tips should be extra from the customer for good service.

The MunchKING

2017-08-10, 03:31 PM

my biggest objection is scenarios where the business counts tips as wages they've already paid to the waiters etc. and only cuts them a paycheck for the difference between their tips and their normal wages. That's just not right even if tips are completely optional.

I am not sure that is legal, and it's DEFINITELY not standard practice. You get an hourly wage in addition to tips in pretty much any situation involving an actual company.

Peelee

2017-08-10, 03:31 PM

It would work better, though, if servers were paid a decent wage and you could tip 0-5% on top of the bill for excellent service.

I would have no problem with this system, and can think of a few times when I would have gladly used it (since I do tip above the standard 15% those times anyway, it'd be silly to do otherwise)

There are places WITHOUT Free Refills? Why? I mean the cost of the soda is tiny compared to the value of keeping the customers happy.
Usually more upscale places, or more downscale Chinese places (like the really good mom n pop ones). Texas de Brazil is one I can think of off the top of my head.

Other jobs also have a check and balance built in for this. Though they just call it "being fired because you're a crappy worker."

Well yes, but it is harder for the customers to directly influence that. There's loads of stories on Notalwaysright.com (IIRC, I might have messed up the site name) about employees who were jerks and managers either couldn't or wouldn't fire them.

It wouldn't get rid of poor service, it would just get rid of them getting tipped poorly.
It would incentivize the managers just as much as any other business. And if the servers are still there and treating you badly, you could simply stop going (or, if you love the place, ask to not be in their section. I've never been to a restaurant that wouldn't accomodate that, though I'll admit I've only needed to ask rarely, and it was usually to be in a specific someone's section, rather than in anyone else's)

woweedd

2017-08-10, 03:31 PM

There are places WITHOUT Free Refills? Why? I mean the cost of the soda is tiny compared to the value of keeping the customers happy.

[quote]Other jobs also have a check and balance built in for this. Though they just call it "being fired because you're a crappy worker."[\quote]

Well yes, but it is harder for the customers to directly influence that. There's loads of stories on Notalwaysright.com (IIRC, I might have messed up the site name) about employees who were jerks and managers either couldn't or wouldn't fire them.

It wouldn't get rid of poor service, it would just get rid of them getting tipped poorly.

*sigh* You are not determining their wage or how good they are at handling multiple tables. You are just determining how well they did for you specifically.

And neither can a restaurant. Anywhere that was actually like "We will only pay you 2.00 an hour because no one came in" would soon find itself without workers.

If it's a gratuity then it should be gratuitous. If they force you to pay, then it's just more cost.

It probably IS legal though, because so many places do it and no one ever gets in trouble.

And even though I'm saying tipping isn't irrational, I would like to say that I think every restaurant SHOULD pay their employees a living wage, and tips should be extra from the customer for good service.
Dude, you'd think that food service workers are able to just quit any job that treats them poorly? Their options tend to be limited in regards to places of employment.

Ruck

2017-08-10, 03:32 PM

The MunchKING

2017-08-10, 03:35 PM

Dude, you'd think that food service workers are able to just quit any job that treats them poorly? Their options tend to be limited in regards to places of employment.

If they were being treated as badly as the others seem to think? Yes. 'The Restaurant up the street requires just as many skills and doesn't screw people over' would be all they need to hear.

Peelee

2017-08-10, 03:38 PM

I mean, it would be great if the culture and the service economy in America were changed so that tipping wasn't necessary for service workers to earn a living... but in the meantime, if you're not tipping them, you're not doing anything to move us closer to that goal; you're just stiffing some working people.

-signed, your friendly neighborhood bartender (among other things)

A.) Who said I don't tip? I've confirmed several times that I do tip, and tip over the standard if I get particularly good service. Just because I think the system is a steaming pile of crap doesn't mean I'm going to shaft the people affected by it.
2.) Bartenders were the one profession I said I didn't mind tipping being customary regardless of anything else.

ETA: Obligatory "I'm sorry if this is coming off as abrasive, I don't intend it to" disclaimer.

littlebum2002

2017-08-10, 03:40 PM

I am not sure that is legal, and it's DEFINITELY not standard practice. You get an hourly wage in addition to tips in pretty much any situation involving an actual company.

I think what this poster meant is that if a server doesn't make enough (from wages +tips) to equal minimum wage, their employer is required to make up the difference.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-10, 03:42 PM

*sigh* You are not determining their wage or how good they are at handling multiple tables. You are just determining how well they did for you specifically.
So I, who know nothing of the restaurant business, decide how much they should be payed, based on a partial knowledge of their job? Do you get paid based on how well people walking along the street think you parked your car in the mornings when you get to work?

And neither can a restaurant. Anywhere that was actually like "We will only pay you 2.00 an hour because no one came in" would soon find itself without workers.
On top of what woweedd said, the difference is that a restaurant that did decide to do that and lost a few workers could simply keep going and hire a new bunch. If any other business did do that, they'd be sued out of existence for wage theft. The situations are not comparable at all.

I mean, it would be great if the culture and the service economy in America were changed so that tipping wasn't necessary for service workers to earn a living... but in the meantime, if you're not tipping them, you're not doing anything to move us closer to that goal; you're just stiffing some working people.
I'm sorry, but I cannot morally give any of my money to such a scam. I simply chose not to go to any such business. Hopefully you can understand my position in the matter.

Grey Wolf

Jasdoif

2017-08-10, 03:46 PM

Your point does feel different from mine, yes. You seem concerned with slightly improving a clearly broken system to make it less broken, while I wonder, given that many non-broken forms of compensation practices exist, why a first world country would allow something as ridiculous as the US tipping-based wages.Well basing wages on tipping is pretty stupid, so I think we're in agreement there. As to that last, I suspect the usual case: It was popular enough at one point that it was legalized to streamline it, and side-effects of repealing the law (which tend to increase as time goes on) would involve more effort than the legislature is willing to commit to.

I would like to say that I think every restaurant SHOULD pay their employees a living wage, and tips should be extra from the customer for good service.This, assuming of course tips are in fact legally optional.

I am not sure that is legal, and it's DEFINITELY not standard practice. You get an hourly wage in addition to tips in pretty much any situation involving an actual company.I had an informal "history of tipping" data hunt several years back, so while I can't recall details clearly I'm fairly sure it was legal (or happened illegally on a wide basis) at one point.

...in fact, I just now noticed that it's apparently "tipped employees can be paid well below minimum wage" these days. That's even worse! I mean, if you're going to have an arbitrary minimum wage you should actually have it as a minimum....

georgie_leech

2017-08-10, 03:46 PM

If they were being treated as badly as the others seem to think? Yes. 'The Restaurant up the street requires just as many skills and doesn't screw people over' would be all they need to hear.

Assuming said restaurant has the capacity and funds to hire all those people, instead of already employing the people they can and need to manage their customer base. It's usually a better idea to try and get better employment before you quit, after all.

Peelee

2017-08-10, 03:49 PM

I'm sorry, but I cannot morally give any of my money to such a scam. I simply chose not to go to any such business. Hopefully you can understand my position in the matter.

Grey Wolf

I totally understand, but that's difficult to do in the US. I'm able to avoid coffee shops and bars because I hate coffee and rarely drink, cabs because I have a car (and, again, rarely drink), but there are times when I either don't have the time or energy to cook, get invited out to special events with friends, or have congratulatory events that warrant something better than even the best I can knock out in the kitchen. I have to swallow the necessary evil sometimes. It's great that you don't.

Imean, I don't have to, but it's nowhere near as easy.

The MunchKING

2017-08-10, 03:52 PM

So I, who know nothing of the restaurant business, decide how much they should be payed, based on a partial knowledge of their job? Do you get paid based on how well people walking along the street think you parked your car in the mornings when you get to work?

Well, as a landlord, I do get paid directly by my "customers" who tend to know nothing about the expenses or job of landlording. But they do know if they have a problem and how well I fix it, so I see similarities in the argument.

On top of what woweedd said, the difference is that a restaurant that did decide to do that and lost a few workers could simply keep going and hire a new bunch. If any other business did do that, they'd be sued out of existence for wage theft. The situations are not comparable at all.

Well, if they don't pay, then no one else will work for them either.

But yeah if they stuck to the "if you get tips" minimum wage rather than the default minimum, they would get sued into oblivion here too.

I'm sorry, but I cannot morally give any of my money to such a scam. I simply chose not to go to any such business. Hopefully you can understand my position in the matter.

Grey Wolf

Well then, if you go to America that will pretty much limit you to fast-food.

The MunchKING

2017-08-10, 03:59 PM

This, assuming of course tips are in fact legally optional.

As far as I know, the only laws regarding tipping is the ones that say the restaurants can be held to a lower minimum wage standard.

Nothing says you must or cannot tip.

...in fact, I just now noticed that it's apparently "tipped employees can be paid well below minimum wage" these days. That's even worse! I mean, if you're going to have an arbitrary minimum wage you should actually have it as a minimum....

Oh yeah, if that's what you meant. You get an hourly wage, that can legally be below minimum wage, and are expected to make more in tips.

It's usually a better idea to try and get better employment before you quit, after all.

Oh, well yes. I assumed little details like that went without saying.

2D8HP

2017-08-10, 04:30 PM

Why Tip? (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12tipping-t.html?pagewanted=all&referer=)

Peelee

2017-08-10, 04:57 PM

Why Tip? (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12tipping-t.html?pagewanted=all&referer=)

Restaurant thinks about getting rid of tipping in lieu of a set gratuity.
Americans polled prefer tipping to a service fee.

....yeah, no kidding. "Would you rather choose how much extra money you spend, or have it set and called a "fee" or "set gratuity"?" is a loaded question, of course you'll get responses like that. Would you rather die by drowning or getting shot? Headline: AMERICANS WANT TO GET SHOT.

Jasdoif

2017-08-10, 05:12 PM

Restaurant thinks about getting rid of tipping in lieu of a set gratuity.
Americans polled prefer tipping to a service fee.

....yeah, no kidding. "Would you rather choose how much extra money you spend, or have it set and called a "fee" or "set gratuity"?" is a loaded question, of course you'll get responses like that. Would you rather die by drowning or getting shot? Headline: AMERICANS WANT TO GET SHOT.Sounds a lot like the occasional sales tax vs property tax things here. They don't commit to lowering property tax, so it amounts to "would you rather pay a sales tax, or not pay a sales tax"? Results are predictable.

littlebum2002

2017-08-10, 05:43 PM

Oh yeah, if that's what you meant. You get an hourly wage, that can legally be below minimum wage, and are expected to make more in tips.

As I mentioned, though, if your hourly wage + tips don't equal the minimum wage, the employer is required to pay you the difference.

Erys

2017-08-10, 06:32 PM

Man, so many posts... Almost not worth adding my 2 cents anymore. BUT, here it goes anyway.

Change the example to whatever you want: prices can go up even when you tie your currency to a rock, no matter how shiny. I gave you real world historical examples, which you chose to ignore. I have now given you a bare bone example with the hopes you would see that inflation cannot be constrained by a hard currency. Do with it what you will.

Grey Wolf

You prove over and over you don't really know what you are talking about. Like right here.

Inflation is not the same as prices rising to supply and demand.

What's the difference? And what's the difference with "fiat money" economies?

The very nature of trading means adjudicating an arbitrary value (aka applying the underlying principle of fiat money) will happen at some point, and that value will change based on circumstances. How many dollars for a burger? Fiat and variable. How many euros for a coffee? Fiat and variable. How many pounds for housing? Fiat and variable.
Even without money, the questions and answer don't change. How many chickens for a cow? Fiat and variable. How many sticks for a bucket? Fiat and variable. How many jagged rocks for a piece of leather? Fiat and variable.

What exactly does gold/silver/whatever bring on the table?

In a nutshell: because you can only add small amounts new money to the over all supply it is more stable and fairly resistant to inflation (outside forces and internal greed notwithstanding). With fiat money, you have a government that can create new money at a whim, and the constant additional monies added cause the purchasing power of every other note to decrease.

Inflation = loss of buying power.

Chickens, cows, buckets, rocks, and leather... none of which are fiat. These are real intrinsic items. Their value may start somewhat arbitrary- but equilibrium is easily attained. If you sell chickens for a silver piece and your neighbor thinks his chickens are worth 3 silver pieces- people will come for the cheap ones... but if they come to fast and you have no chickens to make new eggs and new chickens... oops! You learn quick to raise your rates, while your neighbor learns to lower his if he wants to sell chickens at all.

Cherry picking data over the whole world means nothing, because doing so undermines your own argument about "fiat currencies always do". If you actually believed in your inevitability argument, you could demonstrate your point with the full historical data from, say, the USA. The reason gold bugs do not so is because, overall, the historical data in the USA argues against their point. Thus it is necessary to change the subject to a carefully cherry-picked far flung corner of the world the moment people who are genuinely knowledgeable start discussing the matter.

Hardly cherry picking on my part. There are many areas in South America, Europe, and Africa suffering from their fiat currencies.

The USA hasn't had their currency collapse- but they also have unique mechanisms to keep their currency afloat longer than average. Unfortunately, to really delve into this means to violate forum rules, but the somewhat non-political reasons are:

Most of the world is required, due to contracts between OPEC and the USA, have and hold US dollars to buy their oil. The world currently runs on oil... so the US has enjoyed bit of a special monopoly that has allowed us to not only sustain a fiat currency for much longer than average, but also rack up ridiculous amounts of debt in the process. (Honestly, I wish people understood this aspect of the US economy more than any other... borrowing money from a third party at interest and allowing yourself to owe more than your annual GDP is asinine. People should be upset... but most don't really understand that its even happening. By design, of course).

Now, to put some of this in perspective, since the creation of the Federal Reserve (which, interestingly enough is neither Federal or a Reserve; but I digress) in 1913 the US inflation has risen about 2374.3% (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/). If we had stuck with, at the very least a gold standard, it is highly likely half pennies would still be in circulation and often to be used in commerce.

So what you're saying is you think an economy can work where the amount of money (gold) stays constant and the price of goods and services stays constant. Let’s see how this would work.

There are 10 people and they have 20 pieces of gold. They each sell different goods, and each good costs 1 piece of gold. Therefore, each person can buy 2 “things”.
The population increases to 20 people. Now each person can only buy 1 “thing”.

If the amount of money is constant, and the price of goods is constant, then as the population increases each person will be able to buy less goods. That’s just basic math.

Why in the world would all goods be valued the same? For that matter, why would you even need a currency when you only have 20 people?

If the amount of gold in circulation is outpaced by a population using it... its value goes up. Meaning you could buy more, not less.... assuming supply and demand for said goods remains constant to the number of new people in the 'system', so to speak.

Fun fact: the law.

U.S. Treasury
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Notice that is for private business....

Try paying a government utility or tax with Disney Dollars and tell me how it goes.

Except you know, how it's in play pretty much everywhere and the world economy is doing better than ever.

But other than literally everything about it, yes damning history, right there.

LOL

Maybe you should look at some of the worlds economies. Because "doing better than ever" is not what's happening. Just read about Greece or Argentina for two quick examples.

Of course, depending on where you get your news... you may be told otherwise.

Economists record another 55 times that faith in government-backed currencies has proven to be unwise due to hyperinflation. This number does not even include the hundreds of times countries have devalued their currency, significantly reducing the purchasing power, or value, of paper currency.

While many of these economic collapses have occurred in Latin American countries, examples of hyperinflation can be found in the economies of China, France and other nations. War is often a precursor of such periods of extreme inflation, but it is not the only cause. Fundamentally, economists such as Steve Hanke and Nicholas Krus have identified excessive printing of currency as the ultimate villain.

Cite (https://www.sbcgold.com/blog/hyperinflation-much-trust-paper-money/) And a good, light read.

***TO everyone:

Excessive printing... the core of fiat money.

Why?

Because fiat money allows a politician to make promises of things, be it new money for schools, new roads, a bridge, whatever... all while not raising taxes. That money has to come from somewhere though, right?

Its created out of nothing, and every time that happens the buying power of each note gets a little less. Year after year more and more political promises are made, more and more money is created (from nothing), and the price for everything gets a little more expensive than the previous year.

That is the nature and danger of fiat currency at its core. BUT, it gets worse.

Intrinsic money is more stable at its base, because you can only pull so much metal from Earth at one time. The down side is economic growth is slower, but also more steady, without the roller coasters you see in other monies.

The usual (but not only) way intrinsic money is debased is either by chipping (think Rome) or through the process of fractional reserve banking. This means, a bank only needs to hold a small percentage of intrinsic wealth on hand (to cover expected withdraws) and is allowed to lend the rest at interest.

This will lead to fiat currency after so much money has been lent and so much interest is due that it becomes easier to detach from the intrinsic metal and just allow government issued paper money. Because otherwise you would have to value the real amount of gold/silver to the 'on paper' amount and makes some severe adjustments, which will cause a correction/contraction in the economy.

The end game is fractional fiat currency. Not only is the currency not attached to anything real, banks are allowed to lend 9/10s of what they are supposed to hold (aka: your savings accounts). So not only are you getting inflation from the machine itself every time the government wants to create new money on a whim; but banks are adding to it through their lending practices. Any nation with a central bank is probably practicing fractional fiat currency, the US sure does.

Inflation robs you of your buying power. Sure, if you have a job that gives you raises that keep up with inflation who cares, right? But what about the people who don't get good raises (either because of personal performance or business constraints)? How about those on fixed incomes?

Those most vulnerable are the ones hurt most by our currency economic system. And for the US in particular, should the world no longer need dollars for their oil... its game over.

Peelee

2017-08-10, 06:48 PM

Notice that is for private business....

Try paying a government utility or tax with Disney Dollars and tell me how it goes.

Private business was what was brought up, so I fail to see the disconnect.

Erys

2017-08-10, 07:03 PM

Private business was what was brought up, so I fail to see the disconnect.

Private business is but one factor when using "legal tender".

But, I misspoke saying it was a requirement of law to use dollars... because individuals and private businesses do have the ability to negotiate other terms.

littlebum2002

2017-08-10, 07:21 PM

Why in the world would all goods be valued the same? For that matter, why would you even need a currency when you only have 20 people?

I'm not quite sure I can trust your knowledge of currency if you don't know what an analogy is.

My point is, if we keep the price of goods and services the same, and we have a fixed amount of money, then a increase in population means everyone is slightly poorer

Erys

2017-08-10, 07:25 PM

I'm not quite sure I can trust your knowledge of currency if you don't know what an analogy is.

My point is, if we keep the price of goods and services the same, and we have a fixed amount of money, then a increase in population means everyone is slightly poorer

No, people would be slightly richer.

Less money in circulation means the greater buying power the existing supply has.

georgie_leech

2017-08-10, 08:21 PM

No, people would be slightly richer.

Less money in circulation means the greater buying power the existing supply has.

Hang on. Econ 101 here: If there are more people needing a thing, that makes Demand go up, which means prices rise. There are a lot of other factors, but it seems like you're arguing that prices would drop in response more people that want and need stuff.

Keltest

2017-08-10, 08:24 PM

Hang on. Econ 101 here: If there are more people needing a thing, that makes Demand go up, which means prices rise. There are a lot of other factors, but it seems like you're arguing that prices would drop in response more people that want and need stuff.

He's suggesting that, because there is a finite amount of money, its value goes up the more people need it. Which is true if you define value as being how much a person wants a thing, but not true in any economic sense.

Snails

2017-08-10, 08:34 PM

Hardly cherry picking on my part. There are many areas in South America, Europe, and Africa suffering from their fiat currencies.

So? There are many many more areas in South America, North America, Europe, Africa, Asia thriving with their fiat currencies.

The main problem with, say, Venezuela and Zimbabwe is their atrociously bad gov'ts. Gold standard would not save them in the least. Nor would gold help, say, Greece because the Euro being too much of a hard currency for their particular economy is a big part of their problem; a gold standard now would actually make approximately all of Greece's problems worse.

georgie_leech

2017-08-10, 08:37 PM

He's suggesting that, because there is a finite amount of money, its value goes up the more people need it. Which is true if you define value as being how much a person wants a thing, but not true in any economic sense.

He seems to be arguing for a literal purchasing power increase. So on that note Erys, say over a period of years the population of a place doubled. How much would the value of a coin go up? Like, if an arbitrary gold coin could purchase, say, 5 apples, how many apples could it purchase after the population doubling?

2D8HP

2017-08-10, 09:31 PM

No, people would be slightly richer.

Less money in circulation means the greater buying power the existing supply has.

No, people who had managed to hoard/save a lot of money would be richer.

More would be poorer.

As I posted before, one person's spending is another person's income.

This is really basic.

I was born in 1968, and I remember 1980 which is the year with the highest inflation rate of my lifetime (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/).

2009 had the lowest rate of inflation in my lifetime (see link above).

You probably remember 2009 as well.

Far more Americans fell into miserable poverty in 2009 than in 1980.

Don't you have any grandparents who told you about the 1930's?

Here's a song about it

"Brother Can You Spare A Dime" (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eih67rlGNhU)

They're far more dangerous economic beasts than inflation.

Please take another look at
Scents and Cents Ability (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1089.html)

Sharing a meal with friends and family, and knowing that none of them is homeless and starving is far more valuable than counting the value of your gold.

I was going to suggest The Grapes of Wrath (my grandfather straddled the fender of a Model A Ford for days to get to California because of rumors of work), but I think A Christmas Carol may be better for you.

Erys

2017-08-10, 09:36 PM

He's suggesting that, because there is a finite amount of money, its value goes up the more people need it. Which is true if you define value as being how much a person wants a thing, but not true in any economic sense.

It is true in an economic sense.

Money is a unit of exchange; the more of anything in a supply, be it apples during harvest or currency- the less each will be valued at the individual unit. The less in the supply, the more value each unit holds.

This is universal.

So? There are many many more areas in South America, North America, Europe, Africa, Asia thriving with their fiat currencies.

The main problem with, say, Venezuela and Zimbabwe is their atrociously bad gov'ts. Gold standard would not save them in the least. Nor would gold help, say, Greece because the Euro being too much of a hard currency for their particular economy is a big part of their problem; a gold standard now would actually make approximately all of Greece's problems worse.

While I agree completely that bad government can kill good currency; you are not really accurate about how many countries are thriving verse suffering. South America, for example, has very high poverty rates across the board- and the poorer you are, the more fiat currency systems hurt. Poor cannot adjust to raising prices like middle class and wealthy can.

He seems to be arguing for a literal purchasing power increase. So on that note Erys, say over a period of years the population of a place doubled. How much would the value of a coin go up? Like, if an arbitrary gold coin could purchase, say, 5 apples, how many apples could it purchase after the population doubling?

Literal purchasing power could increase, yes. If your money supply isn't swelling faster than goods and people are- the buying power of your currency will improve.

As for your question, too many factors in play to fairly answer that. For starters. is mining happening during this time, at what rate is new money being added in relation to new people, and how comparable are the apple harvest between the first and final years?

With an intrinsic economy those apples could cost more, cost less... or be the same. My educated guess is: you would get apples at a slightly better price.

By the same token, if you take the population of the US in 1950 to today, the population has roughly doubled. During that time our buying power has decreased 916.4%. Something that cost $20 then cost over $200 today.

In closing I leave you with a great quote:

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

Erys

2017-08-10, 09:46 PM

No, people who had managed to hoard/save a lot of money would be richer.

More would be poorer.

As I posted before, one person's spending is another person's income.

This is really basic.

I was born in 1968, and I remember 1980 which is the year with the highest inflation rate of my lifetime (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/).

2009 had the lowest rate of inflation in my lifetime (see link above).

You probably remember 2009 as well.

Far more Americans fell into miserable poverty in 2009 than in 1980.

Don't you have any grandparents who told you about the 1930's?

Here's a song about it

"Brother Can You Spare A Dime" (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eih67rlGNhU)

They're far more dangerous economic beasts than inflation.

Please take another look at
Scents and Cents Ability (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1089.html)

Sharing a meal with friends and family, and knowing that none of them is homeless and starving is far more valuable than counting the value of your gold.

I was going to suggest The Grapes of Wrath (my grandfather straddled the fender of a Model A Ford for days to get to California because of rumors of work), but I think A Christmas Carol may be better for you.

Oy...

You might want to look into the role of the Federal Reserve during that time and other economic recession/depressions (https://www.thomhartmann.com/users/dr-peterpalms/blog/2015/10/how-federal-reserve-policies-led-crash-1929). It might surprise you.

You also need to realize that inflation being high one year and low another still means you are losing purchasing power each year. That is an additive effect, much like how one year you might have a lower deficit the the next- but all along your national debt gets bigger and bigger.

Poor people, and people on fixed incomes have the most to gain from the stability intrinsic metal bring to the economy. The little they have will buy them roughly the same amount of good year to year... whereas fiat money means poor and fixed income retirees have to learn to live on less year to year- until they can no longer afford anything and they are homeless, hungry, and suddenly in need of some contrived government assistance.

Also, he who hordes gold is also one who will horde paper wealth. I agree when you say "Sharing a meal with friends and family, and knowing that none of them is homeless and starving is far more valuable than counting the value of your gold." But just know that that is true regardless of what economic model is in play.

2D8HP

2017-08-10, 09:50 PM

It is true in an economic....:

I suggest reading up on the Washington Baby Sitting Co-op (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Recession_(economics)/Tutorials)

Erys

2017-08-10, 10:08 PM

I suggest reading up on the Washington Baby Sitting Co-op (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Recession_(economics)/Tutorials)

Paul Krugman is a Keynesian economics man through and through.

Keynesian economics is solely a fiat system... so, I don't take much of what he says as gospel as he has an agenda. That said, the baby sitting co-op is a one dimensional situation; you get coupons and spend coupons for one thing. Very poor example of a currency and even worse as an example against intrinsic wealth.

Ithaca hours (http://www.ithacahours.com/) might be a better example.

The only time hording really comes into play is when you have a fiat currency and you are trying to return to something intrinsic. Then people will spend the bad money and save the good. With the new currency never really getting circulated it can never really becomes a currency because in this particular situation, the fears of hording gold becomes true. However, I feel should the masses demand real money over fiat; there are ways to make such a change without provoking such responses and behaviors.

If you have an intrinsic currency at the start (or by itself), people will use it. People will always need and want stuff. Always.

georgie_leech

2017-08-10, 10:15 PM

Literal purchasing power could increase, yes. If your money supply isn't swelling faster than goods and people are- the buying power of your currency will improve.

As for your question, too many factors in play to fairly answer that. For starters. is mining happening during this time, at what rate is new money being added in relation to new people, and how comparable are the apple harvest between the first and final years?

With an intrinsic economy those apples could cost more, cost less... or be the same. My educated guess is: you would get apples at a slightly better price.

Unless it's half the price or better, the average person is poorer after doubling the population: the same amount of money would have to be spread twice as thin. A "slightly better price" translates to everyone getting poorer.

By the same token, if you take the population of the US in 1950 to today, the population has roughly doubled. During that time our buying power has decreased 916.4%. Something that cost $20 then cost over $200 today.

Hey, it turns out we have data on what average wages were like in various years since 1951. (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html) Might I suggest checking to see if wages were constant over that period, or if they grew over time? Hint: I'm pretty sure minimum wage wasn't $7.25/hour back in 1950.

Erys

2017-08-10, 10:32 PM

Unless it's half the price or better, the average person is poorer after doubling the population: the same amount of money would have to be spread twice as thin. A "slightly better price" translates to everyone getting poorer.

Hey, it turns out we have data on what average wages were like in various years since 1951. (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html) Might I suggest checking to see if wages were constant over that period, or if they grew over time? Hint: I'm pretty sure minimum wage wasn't $7.25/hour back in 1950.

How do you figure a "slightly better price" equals everyone is poorer?

That is completely backwards. Let's pretend that somehow the amount of currency remains completely static, twice the people means twice as many people using said currency- meaning the your money would be twice as strong. No different then double the people to a static amount of apples; those apples will be worth more due to supply and demand.

Minimum wage didn't have to be 7.50 back then; interestingly the US still was partially on the gold standard back then too. You could get paid 2 dollars an hour and have money to buy necessities and still have enough to see a movie and do whatever. In fact, in the 50's you only needed one parent working to live well.

Fast forward to today where, thanks to reckless money creation (usually called spending) people feel they need 15 an hour just to survive and most families require two incomes to keep afloat.

This is not an improvement by any measure; and it will get worse. The money supply can only get bigger- until it bust.

Keltest

2017-08-10, 10:35 PM

It is true in an economic sense.

Money is a unit of exchange; the more of anything in a supply, be it apples during harvest or currency- the less each will be valued at the individual unit. The less in the supply, the more value each unit holds.

This is universal.

Ok, but the supplies are not changing at all, only the demand. The increased demand increases value, thus price. But you aren't putting any more money into the system, so the total purchasing power of X amount of currency goes down relative to where it was before, because you now are able to get fewer goods for the same amount of currency.

Svata

2017-08-10, 10:37 PM

How do you figure a "slightly better price" equals everyone is poorer?

That is completely backwards. Let's pretend that somehow the amount of currency remains completely static, twice the people means twice as many people using said currency- meaning the your money would be twice as strong. No different then double the people to a static amount of apples; those apples will be worth more due to supply and demand.

Minimum wage didn't have to be 7.50 back then; interestingly the US still was partially on the gold standard back then too. You could get paid 2 dollars an hour and have money to buy necessities and still have enough to see a movie and do whatever. In fact, in the 50's you only needed one parent working to live well.

Fast forward to today where, thanks to reckless money creation (usually called spending) people feel they need 15 an hour just to survive and most families require two incomes to keep afloat.

This is not an improvement by any measure; and it will get worse. The money supply can only get bigger- until it bust.

The problem here isn't that we've decoupled. Its that wages haven't risen accordingly cause the people who run corporations are greedy ****s.

georgie_leech

2017-08-10, 11:08 PM

How do you figure a "slightly better price" equals everyone is poorer?

That is completely backwards. Let's pretend that somehow the amount of currency remains completely static, twice the people means twice as many people using said currency- meaning the your money would be twice as strong. No different then double the people to a static amount of apples; those apples will be worth more due to supply and demand.

Because if you have twice as many people and the same amount of money, everyone gets half as much. Unless you're arguing these new people will have a disproportionately small part of the available currency, you necessarily have fewer bits of currency to go around.

Here, watch: Let's say your currency can buy an extra 60% as much as you used to, quite a bit better than the "slightly better price" you suggested earlier, no? If a coin could buy 5 apples before, 1 coin now buys 8. By extension, half a coin buys 4. If there are X coins, and Y people, there are X/Y coins per person. We're assuming double the population, so now there is 2Y population. So now it's X/2Y. Which is half as much. So now everyone that had a coin before has half a coin; they could buy 5 apples before, but now they can only buy 4! If they could buy 1000, they can now buy 800. The price has gotten better; the actual buying power any given person has goes down.

KorvinStarmast

2017-08-10, 11:14 PM

This thread has lost the plot.
Krugman did too, but that's a separate issue.

Erys

2017-08-11, 12:43 AM

Because if you have twice as many people and the same amount of money, everyone gets half as much. Unless you're arguing these new people will have a disproportionately small part of the available currency, you necessarily have fewer bits of currency to go around.

Here, watch: Let's say your currency can buy an extra 60% as much as you used to, quite a bit better than the "slightly better price" you suggested earlier, no? If a coin could buy 5 apples before, 1 coin now buys 8. By extension, half a coin buys 4. If there are X coins, and Y people, there are X/Y coins per person. We're assuming double the population, so now there is 2Y population. So now it's X/2Y. Which is half as much. So now everyone that had a coin before has half a coin; they could buy 5 apples before, but now they can only buy 4! If they could buy 1000, they can now buy 800. The price has gotten better; the actual buying power any given person has goes down.

I see where you are coming from in this example. But, the odds of you killing a wizard, looting a boat-ton of gold from him, starting a small town, and being stricken by a curse so that you cannot add new money your economy... are pretty slim. If that did happen, I believe golds value would raise in proportion to the population. Half a coin would buy 5 apples, just like a full coin did all those years ago.

But more than likely you will have a mining operation and prices would be stable throughout the years. Your 5 apples might cost an 1/8 oz less perhaps. By contrast we have a fiat system which has doubled the money supply in about ten years, and in that time inflation has gone up about 18% (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/). :smallfrown:

georgie_leech

2017-08-11, 12:54 AM

Objection, you were arguing for a slightly better price earlier, and now you're arguing prices would literally halve. You are arguing the economy would be completely static by virtue of... I can't even tell at this point. Some mysterious power of gold coins that prevents prices from being raised.

Cazero

2017-08-11, 01:24 AM

But more than likely you will have a mining operation and prices would be stable throughout the years.
You mean magic. Mining can't extract gold forever, is unlikely to have a steady production, is even more unlikely to produce even roughly the amount you need, and does nothing to block outside gold from getting in and inside gold from getting out.
Even assuming the best, the only thing using gold does is loss of all control over your de facto fiat money, wich is now dictated by random chance and technological progress.
Eventualy we'll run out of new gold to dig, or doing so will stop being profitable, or we will find a new use for the material that negates its utility as money. Establishing a better standard by then is only common sense.

woweedd

2017-08-11, 01:27 AM

You mean magic. Mining can't extract gold forever, is unlikely to have a steady production, is even more unlikely to produce even roughly the amount you need, and does nothing to block outside gold from getting in and inside gold from getting out.
Even assuming the best, the only thing using gold does is loss of all control over your de facto fiat money, wich is now dictated by random chance and technological progress.
Eventualy we'll run out of new gold to dig, or doing so will stop being profitable, or we will find a new use for the material that negates its utility as money. Establishing a better standard by then is only common sense.
He seems to be under the belief that Gold's finiteness is a good thing, presumably not realizing that, while that DOES prevent inflation, it also puts a permanent cap on your economy's growth, one outside of your control, and things will only get worse as your population, and, thus, economy size increases.

Onyavar

2017-08-11, 04:37 AM

There are places WITHOUT Free Refills? Why? I mean the cost of the soda is tiny compared to the value of keeping the customers happy.

There were some businesses around here that tried free refills. I was a few times eating at one of these locations with coworkers who always raised their eyebrows if I went to the soda machine to get a refill. Once, I was even reported to the shop owner by another customer, because I hadn't paid for the refill, i.e. stolen a drink.

I haven't seen signs offering free refills, for at least five years, however. If American chains like the McD or the BKing still offer them, it's not largely advertised, as far as I observed.

In short, free refills is a cultural thing, and it seems there are cultures who don't understand it. The argument I usually heard was "but that would mean you can get ten times the amount of drink you paid for - the restaurant's going to be broke tomorrow".

Also, in comparison, German tipping culture is rather cheap. Restaurants simply compensate with higher standard prices.

Peelee

2017-08-11, 08:21 AM

There were some businesses around here that tried free refills. I was a few times eating at one of these locations with coworkers who always raised their eyebrows if I went to the soda machine to get a refill. Once, I was even reported to the shop owner by another customer, because I hadn't paid for the refill, i.e. stolen a drink.

I haven't seen signs offering free refills, for at least five years, however. If American chains like the McD or the BKing still offer them, it's not largely advertised, as far as I observed.

In short, free refills is a cultural thing, and it seems there are cultures who don't understand it. The argument I usually heard was "but that would mean you can get ten times the amount of drink you paid for - the restaurant's going to be broke tomorrow".

That argument would hold more weight if people actually got ten refills (I typically get more refills than anyone else i eat with, and even that tops out at 4 or 5). And cokes are cheap. A BiB (big ol' bag of syrup for the fountains) run like $80. I'm not sure exactly how many drinks that breaks into, but I can guarantee ain't no place losing money on even the thirstiest customer.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-11, 08:29 AM

That argument would hold more weight if people actually got ten refills (I typically get more refills than anyone else i eat with, and even that tops out at 4 or 5). And cokes are cheap. A BiB (big ol' bag of syrup for the fountains) run like $80. I'm not sure exactly how many drinks that breaks into, but I can guarantee ain't no place losing money on even the thirstiest customer.

It doesn't matter - this is about perception. Unlimited drinks don't really work in places were they're not already entrenched because the people perceive the business as headed for bankruptcy (and few people want to go to a place going out of business) or doing "shady stuff" (in this case, some vague conspiracy theory-like diluting or substitution of the promised drink for something cheaper). None of it is actually true, but the perception remains. The whole thing is more than a bit silly, but the bottom line is that businesses have no reason to try to implement it before anyone else does, and therefore none do.

TANSTAAFL and all that, really.

Grey Wolf

Peelee

2017-08-11, 10:13 AM

It doesn't matter - this is about perception. Unlimited drinks don't really work in places were they're not already entrenched because the people perceive the business as headed for bankruptcy (and few people want to go to a place going out of business) or doing "shady stuff" (in this case, some vague conspiracy theory-like diluting or substitution of the promised drink for something cheaper). None of it is actually true, but the perception remains. The whole thing is more than a bit silly, but the bottom line is that businesses have no reason to try to implement it before anyone else does, and therefore none do.

TANSTAAFL and all that, really.

Grey Wolf

Oh, I figured it was perception. Especially since a component of that perception is that they may have to charge even more for drinks, and I know (or, at least, I'm pretty sure) that in Austria at least, soft drinks must be cheaper than beer by law. So the thought of having to pay more for beer in order to get free refills on coke probably also factors into it somewhat. I dunno. I don't live there.

Keltest

2017-08-11, 10:21 AM

Peelee

2017-08-11, 10:28 AM

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-11, 10:38 AM

Not that I can exactly argue against "people aren't basing their actions on reality", but I am deeply curious as to why free refills = headed for bankruptcy. Do Europeans just not trust themselves to avoid drinking the place dry if given half a chance or something?

I'd say they expect a very specific subtype of European to drink any such location dry: the dreaded Homo europeaniensis hooliganus
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/15/article-P-3f2d5014-c9e8-49b7-8f30-aa8a41a9c2b5-2EhPivDblLcd663016b85aa1c15c-235_634x356.jpg
(link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3640478/FA-chairman-voices-concerns-security-fans-Euro-2016.html))

Yes, like elephants, they prefer alcoholic-laden drinks, but it is widely believed that if given half a chance, they will drink and eat a place empty of anything "free".

ETA: So I'll add that there might be also the perception that free refills will attract the wrong kind of clientèle.

I happened to be in Madrid when Spain won the semi-final of the (actual football) World Cup (I was thankfully out of there when a week later they also won the final), and I am not disinclined to believe the stereotypes myself.

Grey Wolf

Keltest

2017-08-11, 10:50 AM

I'd say they expect a very specific subtype of European to drink any such location dry: the dreaded Homo europeaniensis hooliganus
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/15/article-P-3f2d5014-c9e8-49b7-8f30-aa8a41a9c2b5-2EhPivDblLcd663016b85aa1c15c-235_634x356.jpg
(link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3640478/FA-chairman-voices-concerns-security-fans-Euro-2016.html))

Yes, like elephants, they prefer alcoholic-laden drinks, but it is widely believed that if given half a chance, they will drink and eat a place empty of anything "free".

ETA: So I'll add that there might be also the perception that free refills will attract the wrong kind of clientèle.

I happened to be in Madrid when Spain won the semi-final of the (actual football) World Cup (I was thankfully out of there when a week later they also won the final), and I am not disinclined to believe the stereotypes myself.

Grey Wolf

The wrong kind of clientele huh? You mean like... Americans? Yeah, that makes sense.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-11, 10:54 AM

The wrong kind of clientele huh? You mean like... Americans? Yeah, that makes sense.

No, I do not "mean" Americans, especially not when I mentioned who I mean literally in the preceding paragraph.

DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

GW

Peelee

2017-08-11, 11:02 AM

The wrong kind of clientele huh? You mean like... Americans? Yeah, that makes sense.

I, for one, enjoyed that joke.

Ron Miel

2017-08-11, 11:03 AM

2D8HP

2017-08-11, 11:06 AM

Clearly, the restaurant can only not go under with free refills by paying the servers next to nothing and making the customers pay them.

...ya know, I was joking as I wrote that, but now I wonder how much truth there is to it, since both of those things are, if not uniquely American, very closely associated with us.

While normally a tip is a percentage of the bill, I do often have a minimum tip (usually a dollar) even when somethings given "gratis".

The article I linked to earlier, suggested that in the past, tipping was more common in Europe, than in the U.S.A.

I have no data, but I'd suspect that tipping became less common in Europe, as service staffs standard of living became higher without tips.

Tipping seems to me to be more common in expensive big cities, and less common in cheaper rural areas (though in my experience the restaurants outside of urban areas are more likely to be "fast food" places that tipping isn't customer in, or the wait staff are the owners, or a relative of the owners).

It would be nice if it was easier for the wait staff to make a living just from their wages, but given how many feel the need for additional "gigs", to pay they rent these days, it seems most need a raise, so maybe tipping should be more common?

In a lot of the world, outright bribery is much more common (such as of police officers), and it was more common in the early 20th century U.S.A. as well, I suspect, Canada, Western Europe and the mid to late 20th century USA, are simply historical aberrations by being relatively corruption free.

We'll see.

In OotS terms:

Gresky City (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Greysky_City) = normal

Halls of the Dwarves (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Dwarves) = outliers

Doug Lampert

2017-08-11, 11:06 AM

Huh.

To non-US people, large parties do usually have gratuities automatically added to their checks (though I'm surprised you got 15, it's always been 18% here). And honestly, I never even thought to wonder if it was legal or not.

I suspect if the policy is posted prominently it's legal. But my understanding is that you can tell them to take that tip off the check if you do not feel it's justified. I've got friends who report having done so at least once when the service was particularly bad.

I have no idea if the restaurant is required to remove such a charge by law on request.

I suspect the 18% for large parties is because large party tips are extremely erratic (both too high and too low), and so adding it in is considered fairer. (I've heard of cases of a big party leaving nothing, and I know of several cases where the tip was way over 50% due to no one wanting to bother splitting the check in detail and everyone overestimating their own cost.)

I should point out, that my friends in food service all report that a share of their tip income goes to the kitchen staff and maitre d', so if you're tipping mostly for good food that does have some return to the people actually making the food.

Similarly, at a place with a tip jar where I was usually served by the owner, I once an employee if the owner got a share of the tips, and was told that no, all the tips were split among the employees and the owner just got the business profits (if any).

Keltest

2017-08-11, 11:09 AM

No, I do not "mean" Americans, especially not when I mentioned who I mean literally in the preceding paragraph.

DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

GW

I was attempting to be humorous. :smallannoyed:

Peelee

2017-08-11, 11:17 AM

But do they give free refills on Orange Juice?
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1029.html)

Nope. Just sodas, lemonades, and sweet teas. Juices and milks never fall into the free refill category (which saddens me on the rare occasion I go out for breakfast).

2D8HP

2017-08-11, 11:25 AM

...DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

This is the Playground, we never "put words" in anyone's mouth.

We put words under their thumbs.

:amused:

...Don't try to put words in my mouth (we need a new phrase for this, due to the fact I'm using mostly my thumbs for communication.... Don'the put words under my thumbs? Yeah, I like that)....

I'm not putting anything under your thumbs. (I like that expression by the way. :smallsmile: ) .

coming together and creating "Don't put words under my thumbs" is an achievement for the ages!

Keltest

2017-08-11, 11:26 AM

Nope. Just sodas, lemonades, and sweet teas. Juices and milks never fall into the free refill category (which saddens me on the rare occasion I go out for breakfast).

Storing sufficient quantities of those to make them available is problematic, to say the least. Its almost certainly not the will that's lacking, but the logistics.

georgie_leech

2017-08-11, 11:37 AM

Storing sufficient quantities of those to make them available is problematic, to say the least. Its almost certainly not the will that's lacking, but the logistics.

Note that the previous can all be purchased in syrup cube/liquid form that can be added to water, whereas juice and milk are pretty much just juice and milk.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-11, 12:48 PM

I was attempting to be humorous. :smallannoyed:

By suggesting I'm a xenophobe? Yes, absolutely hilarious, I'm sure.

How would you feel if I made a "joke" that suggests that you, Keltest, think all Chinese people are drunks?

Grey Wolf

woweedd

2017-08-11, 02:49 PM

By suggesting I'm a xenophobe? Yes, absolutely hilarious, I'm sure.

How would you feel if I made a "joke" that suggests that you, Keltest, think all Chinese people are drunks?

Grey Wolf
Trust me, speaking as an American? We deserve everything we get.:smalltongue:

The MunchKING

2017-08-11, 02:56 PM

Peelee

2017-08-11, 03:00 PM

Nah, Free refills are also a fast food thing, and no one tips there.

Well, yeah, but they save money by serving "food."

Imean, I'll still eat it and all, but still.

Erys

2017-08-11, 07:23 PM

“Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.”

*
*
*
Shame most men will turn on their principles if offered the right incentive... His words are true though, if you understand how the systems work.

Objection, you were arguing for a slightly better price earlier, and now you're arguing prices would literally halve. You are arguing the economy would be completely static by virtue of... I can't even tell at this point. Some mysterious power of gold coins that prevents prices from being raised.

I have always said it could be a better price down the road. As opposed to fiat currency which guarantees higher prices down the road and across the board (save a few niche exceptions), always.

Also, NOT static, stable. Big difference.

More importantly:
"Commodity money comes about in a natural and voluntary way and does not depend on governments or banks. (http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/ron-hera/fifteen-fundamental-problems-with-fiat-currencies)"

This little fact is important, and a worthy read. Especially to the fiat loyalist out there.

You mean magic. Mining can't extract gold forever, is unlikely to have a steady production, is even more unlikely to produce even roughly the amount you need, and does nothing to block outside gold from getting in and inside gold from getting out.
Even assuming the best, the only thing using gold does is loss of all control over your de facto fiat money, wich is now dictated by random chance and technological progress.
Eventualy we'll run out of new gold to dig, or doing so will stop being profitable, or we will find a new use for the material that negates its utility as money. Establishing a better standard by then is only common sense.

De facto fiat? Oy...

There is estimated that in the deep earth there is enough gold to cover the globe in over a foot of it.

If the economy is driven by gold, you better believe technology will exist to get it if/when needed.

Also, using America as an example, Congress regulates the money supply (well, its supposed too... they kind of gave that power to the private entity known as the federal reserve a while ago, but I digress) and is to coin money. So new 'outside' gold couldn't just be injected via third party- at least not without permission. If one year more gold is mined than needed, some gets held back to make up for a short fall another year, so on and so forth.

Common sense tells you that when you work, you should get something that truly represents your efforts. Gold and silver do because they themselves require work to obtain. Work for work, the ideal unit of exchange. A FRN, on the other hand, is simply a debt instrument- an IOU.

He seems to be under the belief that Gold's finiteness is a good thing, presumably not realizing that, while that DOES prevent inflation, it also puts a permanent cap on your economy's growth, one outside of your control, and things will only get worse as your population, and, thus, economy size increases.

As I said, intrinsic currencies mean slow and steady growth; as opposed to boom bust cycles and collapses fiat brings. (And, you do have some measure of control- like mentioned above the US Constitution has proper rules in place for such a thing).

Unfortunately, I doubt any poster here will change their minds from a forum thread about money...

After all, those who control certain aspects of the Country (for better or worse) generally control the schools that teach said aspects. I.e.: Those who profit most from Keynesian economics, teach it as the end all be all and that anyone who even suggest it is not the best thing ever is wrong. Or worse, a kook or conspiracy buff.

Years ago I had an interest in banking history, read a few books (some of which were not Keynesian orientated) and made my own opinion: Fiat money is the devil, it promotes big government, it destroys small business, and is a principle root cause of the wealth divide; all the while making life harder and harder on those who are the most vulnerable year after year.

No thanks.

georgie_leech

2017-08-11, 07:35 PM

Common sense tells you that when you work, you should get something that truly represents your efforts. Gold and silver do because they themselves require work to obtain. Work for work, the ideal unit of exchange. A FRN, on the other hand, is simply a debt instrument- an IOU.

Because all the other things you buy with money take no work to produce? :smallsigh: All you've done is declared the work needed to dig up gold as the baseline type of work.

And for the record, I can see little evidence that those 15 problems with fiat currency don't just apply to currency, full stop. As if Currency based on bits of metal is somehow immune to rich people getting richer, or rent seeking, or most egregiously, of having some intrinsic value that ensures it exists as a spoon instead of an idea.

EDIT: Something you might find interesting:

Current areas of research include precious metals (gold, silver and platinum group metals), strategic metals and minerals, such as copper, lithium and graphite, as well as oil, gas and coal, green energy, agriculture, rare earth element (REEs), uranium and more.

Bolding mine. That's an excerpt about Hera Research, LLC. (https://cambridgehouse.com/company/1448/hera-research-llc) That's the company the author of the article founded. I'm not saying that she can't be objective, but I can't help but notice that gold being seen as more valuable benefits her investment company.

Erys

2017-08-11, 08:00 PM

Because all the other things you buy with money take no work to produce? :smallsigh: All you've done is declared the work needed to dig up gold as the baseline type of work.

That is a core point of mine. Other items, goods, services all require work to create. Money should mirror that.

Work for work. Not work for an IOU.

And for the record, I can see little evidence that those 15 problems with fiat currency don't just apply to currency, full stop. As if Currency based on bits of metal is somehow immune to rich people getting richer, or rent seeking, or most egregiously, of having some intrinsic value that ensures it exists as a spoon instead of an idea.

EDIT: Something you might find interesting:

Bolding mine. That's an excerpt about Hera Research, LLC. (https://cambridgehouse.com/company/1448/hera-research-llc) That's the company the author of the article founded. I'm not saying that she can't be objective, but I can't help but notice that gold being seen as more valuable benefits her investment company.

I am sure there is some bias... or at least more of a desire to get the word out about intrinsic currency. But they are not wrong. I have read similar things from people who are not connected to the gold market at all.

If you can only create money so fast, and grow an economy so fast... many of those 15 things are, at the very least, much harder to do. Though there are other factors to consider. 100% gold currency means a bank can't manipulate money as it does with fiat... but if you allow fractional reserve banking it can still, even with gold as the base.

The MunchKING

2017-08-11, 08:06 PM

That is a core point of mine. Other items, goods, services all require work to create. Money should mirror that.

Work for work. Not work for an IOU.

The National Mints will be very happy to know that their jobs don't actually require any work and that money just magically appears in the sacks ready to go every morning. And here they thought they needed giant machine, and plates and ink and fancy paper to prevent counterfieters and everything. :smallamused:

georgie_leech

2017-08-11, 08:10 PM

That is a core point of mine. Other items, goods, services all require work to create. Money should mirror that.

Work for work. Not work for an IOU.

So how is a gold coin work? Because of the effort needed to produce it? Do you think dollar bills appear by magic? Or do all the resources, machines, and people needed to transport, orgqnise, and run everything not count when the end product is made out of paper or plastic?

2D8HP

2017-08-11, 08:15 PM

...Shame most.....

:confused:

:sigh:

Erys, I'm going to try to resist posting anymore on this "golden" topic, but the more you try to convince, the more I believe the opposite.

Ta ta!

Erys

2017-08-11, 09:09 PM

The National Mints will be very happy to know that their jobs don't actually require any work and that money just magically appears in the sacks ready to go every morning. And here they thought they needed giant machine, and plates and ink and fancy paper to prevent counterfieters and everything. :smallamused:

I am confused...

Why would those not be in the equation. You don't mine a minted coin.

What are you saying here? Cause it has seemingly nothing related to anything discussed so far.

So how is a gold coin work? Because of the effort needed to produce it? Do you think dollar bills appear by magic? Or do all the resources, machines, and people needed to transport, orgqnise, and run everything not count when the end product is made out of paper or plastic?

How much effort does it take to make a sheet of one dollar bills? By contrast, how much effort does it take to make a sheet of 100 dollar bills? Answer: the same.

How much effort does it take to pull one ounce of gold from the earth, refine and mint it? How much effort does it take to do the same for 100 ounces gold? Answer: 100 times.

One represents the work we put into our every day lives; one does not.

Also, kind of an aside to the core discussion but, when you add fractional reserve banking (in any form) banks can and do literally create new money from nothing.

:confused:

:sigh:

Erys, I'm going to try to resist posting anymore on this "golden" topic, but the more you try to convince, the more I believe the opposite.

Ta ta!

"Don't forget the best advice: everybody has got a price." -Steve Taylor.

It's sad, but true. Alan Greenspan is a great example in fact, and very apt.

But regardless, later.

georgie_leech

2017-08-11, 09:14 PM

The MunchKING

2017-08-11, 09:27 PM

"Don't forget the best advice: everybody has got a price." -Steve Taylor.

"Everybody's got a price. Everybody's going to pay. Because the Million Dollar Man ALWAYS gets His Way!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ke5eSys09g)

georgie_leech

2017-08-11, 09:30 PM

"Everybody's got a price. Everybody's going to pay. Because the Million Dollar Man ALWAYS gets His Way!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ke5eSys09g)

And here I thought Steven Universe managed to be a little more ridiculous than reql life in the wrestling episode :smalleek:

The MunchKING

2017-08-11, 09:33 PM

And here I thought Steven Universe managed to be a little more ridiculous than reql life in the wrestling episode :smalleek:

I am sometimes surprised at how often cartoon wrestling is LESS crazy than the real stuff. :p

Erys

2017-08-11, 10:58 PM

I wasn't going to harp on this, but you keep bringing up people working against their morals for gain. Your source from earlier is directly enriched by people thinking gold is valuable. What makes you so sure this isn't her "price?"

Good question.

Honestly, I would be a fool to think otherwise. If you hold a lot of gold you already have a lot of wealth, even in a fiat world. That wealth becomes a currency... $$. Though, naturally, you wouldn't likely own the currency. Governments should be making unique coins and enforcing counterfeiting laws.

On the flip side, you shouldn't disregard the overall message and warnings about fiat money and toss out the real, tangible benefits of an intrinsic currency. Being able to summon large amounts of new money in very little time allows quick economic booms, but it also hastens corruption. Not only can you find those magic numbers that makes men question their integrity, faster; you can afford more people as well.

"Everybody's got a price. Everybody's going to pay. Because the Million Dollar Man ALWAYS gets His Way!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ke5eSys09g)

Fun fact. That came out in the late 80's. For him to have the same buying power as then, today; he would have to be the Two Billion Dollar Man (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/).

Interestingly enough, a million dollars worth of gold in 1987 is worth 2.5 billion today.

georgie_leech

2017-08-11, 11:43 PM

Good question.

Honestly, I would be a fool to think otherwise. If you hold a lot of gold you already have a lot of wealth, even in a fiat world. That wealth becomes a currency... $$. Though, naturally, you wouldn't likely own the currency. Governments should be making unique coins and enforcing counterfeiting laws.

On the flip side, you shouldn't disregard the overall message and warnings about fiat money and toss out the real, tangible benefits of an intrinsic currency. Being able to summon large amounts of new money in very little time allows quick economic booms, but it also hastens corruption. Not only can you find those magic numbers that makes men question their integrity, faster; you can afford more people as well.

Fun fact. That came out in the late 80's. For him to have the same buying power as then, today; he would have to be the Two Billion Dollar Man (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/).

Interestingly enough, a million dollars worth of gold in 1987 is worth 2.5 billion today.

Okay, so bearing in mind that people can push Precious metal based currencies for personal reasons, what does it mean to have an "intrinsic" currency? What distinguishes it from "Unintrinsic" currencies?

Erys

2017-08-12, 12:37 AM

Okay, so bearing in mind that people can push Precious metal based currencies for personal reasons, what does it mean to have an "intrinsic" currency? What distinguishes it from "Unintrinsic" currencies?

Everything we create requires work.

If I make a table, I worked. If I write a book, I worked.

Gave IT support, fixed a power-line, baked cookies, tended crops, flipped burgers, painted a ceiling, trained lions... whatever- I worked.

Pulling metal from the ground requires work as well.

This makes it intrinsic.

It is a physical embodiment of real labor. You are literally trading work for work.

woweedd

2017-08-12, 01:02 AM

Svata

2017-08-12, 01:29 AM

Money is an abstract concept anyway. It is the service by which goods are exchanged. It in and of itself is not a good. It has always been an IOU, just one that everyone accepts as payment, because they can also use it as one. Making it able to be expanded by not tying it to an un-renewable resource is a positive. Yes, if people all decide paper money is worthless, it becomes worthless. Outside of people using it in circuitry/transistors, the same is true of gold. I fail to see what you're not grasping here.

theNater

2017-08-12, 04:48 AM

Everything we create requires work.

If I make a table, I worked. If I write a book, I worked.

Gave IT support, fixed a power-line, baked cookies, tended crops, flipped burgers, painted a ceiling, trained lions... whatever- I worked.

Pulling metal from the ground requires work as well.

This makes it intrinsic.

It is a physical embodiment of real labor. You are literally trading work for work.
Well, there's your problem. You seem to think that work has intrinsic value. But, as with any object or currency, work is only worth what someone else is willing to trade you for it. A carpenter who makes two identical tables, but has a broken arm while making the second one, doesn't get paid more for the second one, even though making a table with a broken arm is more work than normal. Similarly, two identical people working equally hard at pulling metal out of the ground are going to get different amounts of metal, just by quirks of geology.

I know the idea of money only being in the hands of the deserving is appealing. Unfortunately, reality is too messy, and there will always be some people who get a lot of money with little effort and other people who put in a lot of effort and don't get much. Making currency a physical item doesn't change that, it just changes how one lucks/cheats one's way into money.

martianmister

2017-08-12, 06:25 AM

Gold has no intrinsic value, it's just a shiny metal. Totally worthless, just like the paper they used to make dollar bills.

factotum

2017-08-12, 07:12 AM

Gold has no intrinsic value, it's just a shiny metal. Totally worthless, just like the paper they used to make dollar bills.

Not true. Gold actually has several properties that would make it a very useful material, if it wasn't so rare--for instance, its electrical resistance is very low and its heat conductance very high, so in an ideal world you'd use it for both electrical wiring and heat sinks in computers. It's obviously far too expensive for such a use, though, so we go second best and use copper instead. I believe they also used incredibly thin layers of gold as an anti-glare component in Concorde's cockpit windows, since it would survive the high temperatures generated by the aircraft's speed better than anything else they could choose.

Also, saying something is worthless because it's only useful for making pretty things kind of flies in the face of thousands of years of human history. Gold was considered valuable long before the uses I mentioned above were identified, precisely because it's a superb material for making jewellery--it's attractive and doesn't tarnish or rust.

martianmister

2017-08-12, 09:46 AM

Not true. Gold actually has several properties that would make it a very useful material

True. Just like the paper and other materials they used to make money. It's still worth less compared to its extrinsic value.

Also, saying something is worthless because it's only useful for making pretty things kind of flies in the face of thousands of years of human history. Gold was considered valuable long before the uses I mentioned above were identified, precisely because it's a superb material for making jewellery--it's attractive and doesn't tarnish or rust.

It's still not intrinsic, not different from dollar bills.

factotum

2017-08-12, 10:49 AM

Well, no value is intrinsic, is it? Values are set on things by human beings--whatever is agreed to be valuable, is.

Svata

2017-08-12, 10:51 AM

The value of very few things in intrinsic. Potable water, non-spoiled food, shelter, clothing, that sort of thing has intrinsic value, because it is necessary to survival.

georgie_leech

2017-08-12, 11:52 AM

Everything we create requires work.

If I make a table, I worked. If I write a book, I worked.

Gave IT support, fixed a power-line, baked cookies, tended crops, flipped burgers, painted a ceiling, trained lions... whatever- I worked.

Pulling metal from the ground requires work as well.

This makes it intrinsic.

It is a physical embodiment of real labor. You are literally trading work for work.

So who worked harder, the guy that panned for gold for hours, or the guy that drove the machine that did the digging? Do advances in mining technology make everyone's labour worth less because it takes less labour to produce a given amount of gold, or worth more because there is more gold per labour? Why is mining and digging the base unit of labour? Why isn't wood from trees that take some time to grow and cutdown the base?

Furthermore, what does it matter if $1 bills are made the same way as $10 bills, if the vast majority of people using them have to work for them in proportionately different amounts of time?

And finally, these days physical money is increasingly not used, rather a complicated system of ones and zeroes that keep track of who has what money. Under the gold-based system, is this not allowed?

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-12, 12:59 PM

And finally, these days physical money is increasingly not used, rather a complicated system of ones and zeroes that keep track of who has what money. Under the gold-based system, is this not allowed?

Far more important question: will fractional reserve banking be allowed, and therefore the modern system of mortgages, loans, etc. that the modern economy relies on? If everyone is like Erys, and refuses to "work for IOUs", what happens when the builders refuse to take mortgage-backed money? How does any business get off the ground if no worker will take a job at a business who "only pays in IOUs" since all their money is a loan from investors? No single modern successful company I know of has run exclusively on their own cash reserves - heck, Apple was two guys in a garage and a rich guy allowing them to use his money in exchange for IOUs, but if Erys had been that rich guy, no modern personal electronics today.

(The above is rhetorical, by the way. Fractional reserve banking is the greatest advance in economics of the last 500 years, and would be killed dead by the gold standard - indeed, the gold-standard lovers want to get rid of fractional reserve banking: they think that it is a bad thing. Clearly, they are all sons of rich people who have never needed a loan, and have no understanding of why gold standards were abandoned in the first place due to their drag on economic growth)

Grey Wolf

georgie_leech

2017-08-12, 01:37 PM

Far more important question: will fractional reserve banking be allowed, and therefore the modern system of mortgages, loans, etc. that the modern economy relies on? If everyone is like Erys, and refuses to "work for IOUs", what happens when the builders refuse to take mortgage-backed money? How does any business get off the ground if no worker will take a job at a business who "only pays in IOUs" since all their money is a loan from investors? No single modern successful company I know of has run exclusively on their own cash reserves - heck, Apple was two guys in a garage and a rich guy allowing them to use his money in exchange for IOUs, but if Erys had been that rich guy, no modern personal electronics today.

(The above is rhetorical, by the way. Fractional reserve banking is the greatest advance in economics of the last 500 years, and would be killed dead by the gold standard - indeed, the gold-standard lovers want to get rid of fractional reserve banking: they think that it is a bad thing. Clearly, they are all sons of rich people who have never needed a loan, and have no understanding of why gold standards were abandoned in the first place due to their drag on economic growth)

Grey Wolf

Worth noting that FRB was a thing when the gold standard was still a thing. It's literal gold currency that stops it dead, which is what Erys seems to be arguing for. The early days of Bank Notes where they were mostly for the merchants and other well-to-do folks saw plenty of FRB pretty much as soon as it was a possibility, not just when they achieved mass adoption.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-12, 02:06 PM

Worth noting that FRB was a thing when the gold standard was still a thing. It's literal gold currency that stops it dead, which is what Erys seems to be arguing for. The early days of Bank Notes where they were mostly for the merchants and other well-to-do folks saw plenty of FRB pretty much as soon as it was a possibility, not just when they achieved mass adoption.

Yes, and it did so because by the point the FRB started to be a thing (it took more than a few tries to get it right, by the way, and collapsed more than one economy in doing so, but every new system has bugs needing to be ironed out), by that time the strict adherence to the gold standard was literally chocking the economy - there just wasn't enough currency to be able to develop further.

It would take a few decades to officially abandon the gold standard, but the moment people started accepting the bank notes as currency as good as official currency, the gold standard wasn't long for this world. It is trivial to imagine a scenario in which the money "multiplies" as people take a bank note, and put it in their bank, and then that too gets lent out, and put in another bank, and lent out, ad nauseam, until a single unit of gold "backs" multiple units of currency moving about the economy instead of just one. It is, in fact, what caused the bank runs which most of us are familiar from the end of Mary Poppins, and what the gold-standard people want to force upon the rest of us.

But here's the thing: those collapses can happen much more easily under the gold standard, unless you forbid FRB, at which point we regress to pre-industrialization economies, which is such a terrible price to pay that it is quite literally unthinkable, especially when the alternative is the current system of slow inflation.

Grey Wolf

georgie_leech

2017-08-12, 02:13 PM

Yes, and it did so because by the point the FRB started to be a thing (it took more than a few tries to get it right, by the way, and collapsed more than one economy in doing so, but every new system has bugs needing to be ironed out), by that time the strict adherence to the gold standard was literally chocking the economy - there just wasn't enough currency to be able to develop further.

It would take a few decades to officially abandon the gold standard, but the moment people started accepting the bank notes as currency as good as official currency, the gold standard wasn't long for this world. It is trivial to imagine a scenario in which the money "multiplies" as people take a bank not, and put it in their bank, and then that too gets lent out, and put in another bank, and lent out, ad nauseam, until a single unit of gold "backs" multiple units of currency moving about the economy instead of just one. It is, in fact, what caused the bank runs which most of us are familiar from the end of Mary Poppins, and what the gold-standard people want to force upon the rest of us.

But here's the thing: those collapses can happen much more easily under the gold standard, unless you forbid FRB, at which point we regress to pre-industrialization economies, which is such a terrible price to pay that it is quite literally unthinkable, especially when the alternative is the current system of slow inflation.

Grey Wolf

Oh yeah, you just couldn't afford, say, installing a proper sewage system into London without modern banking systems.

Erys

2017-08-12, 06:10 PM

How does paper/plastic money not take real labor to produce?

Again, learn how fiat money is created and the amount of 'work' it takes to produce billions of dollars verse a billion ounces of gold.

There is a real, and important, difference between the two.

Money is an abstract concept anyway. It is the service by which goods are exchanged. It in and of itself is not a good. It has always been an IOU, just one that everyone accepts as payment, because they can also use it as one. Making it able to be expanded by not tying it to an un-renewable resource is a positive. Yes, if people all decide paper money is worthless, it becomes worthless. Outside of people using it in circuitry/transistors, the same is true of gold. I fail to see what you're not grasping here.

First off, All commodities are intrinsic.

As for the rest, yes and no.

Yes, if everyone agrees that cigarettes are an acceptable unit of exchange, it becomes money.

No, money that is intrinsic is not an IOU. Also, to just arbitrarily expand whatever money you have is not a benefit- save in the very immediate short term. Think long term and you might start to see where I am coming from.

It wasn't an accident that mankind figured out gold and silver make good units of exchange.

Well, there's your problem. You seem to think that work has intrinsic value. But, as with any object or currency, work is only worth what someone else is willing to trade you for it. A carpenter who makes two identical tables, but has a broken arm while making the second one, doesn't get paid more for the second one, even though making a table with a broken arm is more work than normal. Similarly, two identical people working equally hard at pulling metal out of the ground are going to get different amounts of metal, just by quirks of geology.

I know the idea of money only being in the hands of the deserving is appealing. Unfortunately, reality is too messy, and there will always be some people who get a lot of money with little effort and other people who put in a lot of effort and don't get much. Making currency a physical item doesn't change that, it just changes how one lucks/cheats one's way into money.

You are not understanding the work for work idea. A carpenter makes a two tables, but one with a broken arm... that alone doesn't make the second more valuable.

Just like if mining co A pulls more gold out than mining co B, the second company doesn't get paid less because they are smaller and had less workers... they get paid less simply because they got less gold.

(See below for more details).

So who worked harder, the guy that panned for gold for hours, or the guy that drove the machine that did the digging? Do advances in mining technology make everyone's labour worth less because it takes less labour to produce a given amount of gold, or worth more because there is more gold per labour? Why is mining and digging the base unit of labour? Why isn't wood from trees that take some time to grow and cutdown the base?

Furthermore, what does it matter if $1 bills are made the same way as $10 bills, if the vast majority of people using them have to work for them in proportionately different amounts of time?

And finally, these days physical money is increasingly not used, rather a complicated system of ones and zeroes that keep track of who has what money. Under the gold-based system, is this not allowed?

If a plumber comes to your house and does a 2 hour job, does he get paid the same as a 20 hour job?

Supply and demand dictates much of what prices should be. If the cost of mining is reduced the mining company makes more money- because again, the currency should be controlled by the governing body. That body pays for the gold and is in control of the mint.

Wood is too plentiful. One of the pillars of a good currency is whatever is used has to be somewhat scarce... though not too scare that it is unable to change hands.

It costs the same to make a sheet of $1s as it does a sheet of $100s. Sure, from the people who have to "work for them", this is not understood and doesn't really affect them (save the inevitable inflation that robs them of their purchasing power). However, to the people who control the money... well, its a different ball game. If I can just create the money I need at a whim, nothing- be it items or persons- are out of my reach to buy. That alone is a problem.

Electronic receipt money is an interesting thing. On the surface, you really should not use it, as the less tangible a currency the easier it is to fraud and debase said money. That said, I do know of a way you could keep the convenience of modern electronic money while having a gold currency- (really short answer is) so long as there is gold vaulted away that is the entire sum of its electronic counterpart- and anyone at any time can exchange their electronic money for physical gold/silver, there is no issue. Same for paper, go back to what we used to have when we first got hoodwinked: gold/silver certificates make great paper money but are paper representations of actual intrinsic coin.

Again, as long as you are not allowing fractional reserve banking and allow/encourage people to trade their paper for intrinsic coin at their request- there is no reason you cannot have an intrinsic system with modern conveniences.

Oh yeah, you just couldn't afford, say, installing a proper sewage system into London without modern banking systems.

Why not?

And don't give me the 'not enough gold' line...

Remember, the numbers across the board are about 1000 times smaller than what we see today. And as an additional bonus you won't get no bid contracts to buddies of Parliament- when you use gold as money and can't just create money on a whim -> the costs start to matter.

Erys

2017-08-12, 06:20 PM

It would take a few decades to officially abandon the gold standard, but the moment people started accepting the bank notes as currency as good as official currency, the gold standard wasn't long for this world. It is trivial to imagine a scenario in which the money "multiplies" as people take a bank note, and put it in their bank, and then that too gets lent out, and put in another bank, and lent out, ad nauseam, until a single unit of gold "backs" multiple units of currency moving about the economy instead of just one. It is, in fact, what caused the bank runs which most of us are familiar from the end of Mary Poppins, and what the gold-standard people want to force upon the rest of us.

What you are describing is called Fractional Reserve banking. It always leads to fiat, which leads to fractional reserve fiat banking. True intrinsic wealth people oppose such shenanigans.

Interestingly enough, right now banks do the very thing you Falsely Accuse 'gold standard people' of doing/wanting: they create nine new dollars for every ten they are supposed to hold.

The FDIC was created to give the illusion of security so people would not do 'bank runs' thinking their money is somehow "insured" and would be available to them. Short-sighted because that money is also created the same way the original money was... from nothing. Meaning the economic factors that caused the bank run in the first place just got worse- and peoples buying power at that stage of the game will be approaching Weimar Republic levels.

theNater

2017-08-12, 08:16 PM

You are not understanding the work for work idea.
At least one of us isn't.

A carpenter makes a two tables, but one with a broken arm... that alone doesn't make the second more valuable.

If a plumber comes to your house and does a 2 hour job, does he get paid the same as a 20 hour job?
What if it took the carpenter 2 hours to make the first table and 20 to make the second? Why are the rules different for the carpenter than they are for the plumber? I'm pretty sure it's because all specific measures of value are arbitrary and the systems that deal with them are a cobbled-together hodge-podge of whatever seemed to work at the time, but I suspect you have a different take on the matter.

Just like if mining co A pulls more gold out than mining co B, the second company doesn't get paid less because they are smaller and had less workers... they get paid less simply because they got less gold.
Why do you assume mining co A had more workers? Maybe they had fewer workers, but hit a lucky vein. It happens.

It costs the same to make a sheet of $1s as it does a sheet of $100s.
Depending on where one digs, it may end up costing the same to dig out a dozen one-ounce nuggets as a single 100 pound nugget. Why is this an acceptable state of affairs for gold, but not paper money?

Erys

2017-08-12, 08:50 PM

What if it took the carpenter 2 hours to make the first table and 20 to make the second? Why are the rules different for the carpenter than they are for the plumber? I'm pretty sure it's because all specific measures of value are arbitrary and the systems that deal with them are a cobbled-together hodge-podge of whatever seemed to work at the time, but I suspect you have a different take on the matter.

You are looking at the wrong end. Its not how one does the work, but rather what the work has created.

A carpenter makes a good table and a wobbly one- the good one sells for more. The "work" is the final product, in this case: a table.

Your goal as a carpenter is to take the labor, the materials, and other costs and turn a profit by offering your tables at a price that someone will say, "That's a nice table, and I can afford it. I'll take it." This is true no matter what currency you use.

If I offer you gold for that table, that gold (just like that table) required work. Someone had to crawl into a hole and dig it out. Then others to refine it. And finally the fruit of that labor is formed: a coin.

Whereas if you give the man a fiat note, you give him a debt instrument that required very little effort to create. And which slowly depreciates as time goes on.

Depending on where one digs, it may end up costing the same to dig out a dozen one-ounce nuggets as a single 100 pound nugget. Why is this an acceptable state of affairs for gold, but not paper money?

Do you know why diamonds retain a high price?

Its because there exist a monopoly over them, and those that control it withhold diamonds from circulation to keep their appearance of rarity and their price high.

While you don't need banks per se; if you want a successful currency its best to have a society, therefore there should be a government which functions and has obligations.

A responsible government will regulate the money supply in steady fashion. Not just buy all the gold and put it into circulation at once. It will save a reserve of circulated money in times of mining booms, so it can account for shortfalls later.

If a mine hits a boom, good.

georgie_leech

2017-08-12, 10:06 PM

Erys, what sort of labour or work do you think goes into gold mining?

Erys

2017-08-12, 10:38 PM

Erys, what sort of labour or work do you think goes into gold mining?

I will give you that, modern mining has come a long ways since- even 50 years ago. But, so has table making...

Fifty can do the work of 1,000 easy in many labor areas.

But there are still men who work the machines that dig the holes and suck the rocks.

georgie_leech

2017-08-12, 10:56 PM

theNater

2017-08-13, 12:04 AM

You are looking at the wrong end. Its not how one does the work, but rather what the work has created.

A carpenter makes a good table and a wobbly one- the good one sells for more. The "work" is the final product, in this case: a table.
So why doesn't this hold for plumbers? The "work" being a functioning plumbing system, which should command the same price whether it took 2 hours to produce or 20.

A responsible government will regulate the money supply in steady fashion. Not just buy all the gold and put it into circulation at once.
Why can a government be relied on to do this with gold, but not with fiat currency?

Erys

2017-08-13, 12:32 AM

Right, they work machines like this, (http://www.miningandenergy.ca/images/article_photos/Wingdam_Mine_1790_630.jpg) or maybe this, (https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/3801590/520315483/stock-photo-gold-mining-underground-520315483.jpg) Or maybe even this. (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_eV8OcObodc/hqdefault.jpg) So I ask again, why is it so important that every bit of work be exchanged for this? Especially since the same piece of "work" can get traded over and over; the hours of digging that paid for a pair of shoes then get used to pay for a doctor's appointment, then the doctor buys a car, then the car dealer buys food, then the cashier buys a computer...

People should be free to trade in any medium they choose. Intrinsic metal should just be the base currency of the land. It is stabler, slower to corrupt, and protects the buying power of the people.

...And yes, currency should have velocity.

So, about those London sewers?

So why doesn't this hold for plumbers? The "work" being a functioning plumbing system, which should command the same price whether it took 2 hours to produce or 20.

You seem to be confusing two plumbers doing the same job, one finishing in 2 hours and the other in 20. I am referring to two different jobs, with different needs and solutions where one takes 2 hours and the other, more complicated one, takes 20.

Why can a government be relied on to do this with gold, but not with fiat currency?

Gold has real, physical constraints. You have to choose your projects wisely and try to get the best bang for your buck, so to speak.

Paper, on the other hand, you create as needed/wanted. There is no real constraint in the system. Sure, there is a budget, but that really only serves as a guide line. You can have a trillion dollar budget and add 200 billion new dollars per quarter on top of it without batting an eye. (And it gets many times worse when you consider the fractional reserve aspects of our modern fiat system). All the while, each time new money gets dumped into the supply- we lose a little more buying power and live with a little less.

factotum

2017-08-13, 01:07 AM

The value of very few things in intrinsic. Potable water, non-spoiled food, shelter, clothing, that sort of thing has intrinsic value, because it is necessary to survival.

But the value they have is still defined by human beings, because we're the only ones who care about that sort of thing. As an example, I pay water rates each year to have potable water delivered to my house and sewage taken away, and the amount I'm charged for that is based on the costs to the water company to do those jobs, not any sort of intrinsic value that the water has. Even in places where water is scarce, the value of it usually comes down to labour rather than money--e.g. somebody has to walk five miles with a pot on their head to fetch water from the nearest clean source.

Now, it's not *impossible* to think of a scenario where water is used as a trading commodity because it's that rare and valuable, but I'm not sure if any such scenario has ever existed on Earth. If someone knows of one, please let me know because I'd be fascinated to hear the details.

theNater

2017-08-13, 01:50 AM

You seem to be confusing two plumbers doing the same job, one finishing in 2 hours and the other in 20. I am referring to two different jobs, with different needs and solutions where one takes 2 hours and the other, more complicated one, takes 20.
Crafting a table while one has a broken arm is a more complicated job, with different needs and solutions, than crafting a table while whole and healthy. If you don't believe that, try doing carpentry work with one hand immobilized.

Gold has real, physical constraints.
But governments can still buy it all and put it into circulation at once, right? Something responsible governments won't do; that's what you said. So since we have to rely on governments being responsible anyway, why are those particular physical constraints meaningful?

alwaysbebatman

2017-08-13, 02:00 AM

Gold has real, physical constraints. You have to choose your projects wisely and try to get the best bang for your buck, so to speak.

The physical restraints on the amount of gold in the economy are arbitrary and not calibrated or possible to calibrate to the amount of currency optimal to be in the economy at a given time.

If you are using fiat currency, you always know that you have to be careful how much you add to the system to allow growth but avoid too much inflation. If you trust in gold to not grow too fast, just look at how the Spanish Empire collapsed under the weight of gold.

Cazero

2017-08-13, 03:03 AM

Gold has real, physical constraints. You have to choose your projects wisely and try to get the best bang for your buck, so to speak.Not really. By your own admission, regulations are mandatory.

A responsible government will regulate the money supply in steady fashion. Not just buy all the gold and put it into circulation at once. It will save a reserve of circulated money in times of mining booms, so it can account for shortfalls later.So, if I make an economy backed by granite (or carpentry) using regulations as rigorous as what is required for gold, it should work? How come nobody tried that? Maybe people make a big deal of gold for no reason?
And since nobody actualy uses gold in a transaction, what stops a greedy irresponsible governement to print more paper money than their gold can back?

And then, for some reason, you decide that the exact same kind of regulations can't be applied to paper money.

Paper, on the other hand, you create as needed/wanted. There is no real constraint in the system. Sure, there is a budget, but that really only serves as a guide line. You can have a trillion dollar budget and add 200 billion new dollars per quarter on top of it without batting an eye. (And it gets many times worse when you consider the fractional reserve aspects of our modern fiat system). All the while, each time new money gets dumped into the supply- we lose a little more buying power and live with a little less.But why? You already need regulations to stop gold from flooding/starving the market. What stops a responsible governement from applying similar regulations controling the amount of fiat paper money they print?

Erys

2017-08-13, 11:40 AM

Crafting a table while one has a broken arm is a more complicated job, with different needs and solutions, than crafting a table while whole and healthy. If you don't believe that, try doing carpentry work with one hand immobilized.

No one has disputed this.

But in the end of the day only the final product matters. If you make a terrible table, busted hand or not, you won't get paid as much for it. Period.

But governments can still buy it all and put it into circulation at once, right? Something responsible governments won't do; that's what you said. So since we have to rely on governments being responsible anyway, why are those particular physical constraints meaningful?

A divine, perfect being could hand mankind clear, precise details on how to run the perfect government and economy... and the second man touches it, its open to creative interpretation, technicalities and the like.

At least with intrinsic metal there is a natural, physical limit to how much government bodies can add to a money supply. With fiat currency- there is no limit.

The physical restraints on the amount of gold in the economy are arbitrary and not calibrated or possible to calibrate to the amount of currency optimal to be in the economy at a given time.

If you are using fiat currency, you always know that you have to be careful how much you add to the system to allow growth but avoid too much inflation. If you trust in gold to not grow too fast, just look at how the Spanish Empire collapsed under the weight of gold.

Again, the Spanish empire is an exception, not the rule. They found massive amounts of gold and recklessly added it to there existing supply. When you double you money supply in short amount of time you are setting yourself up for calamity.

Fiat currency has no natural limits on how much can be created; it encourages reckless and wasteful spending. It promotes the creation of more and more government bureaucracy and red tape.

Worse, even if you have men of integrity at the helm, inflation is part of that system no matter what. You might think 1% inflation per year is great, but after 50 years you still can only buy half of what you could when you were a young man... and as you get ready to retire and be on a fixed income for the rest of your life (which could be another 40 years) that one percent increase in the cost of living every year will consume your savings and could easily leave you with nothing before you die.

Not really. By your own admission, regulations are mandatory.
So, if I make an economy backed by granite (or carpentry) using regulations as rigorous as what is required for gold, it should work? How come nobody tried that? Maybe people make a big deal of gold for no reason?

Granite is too plentiful, as is wood. No good for currency.

And since nobody actualy uses gold in a transaction, what stops a greedy irresponsible governement to print more paper money than their gold can back?

That would be called Fractional Reserve Banking... which is very, very bad. I have written on this several times in this thread. You should either use gold/silver coins or gold/silver certificates that are 100% redeemable in gold/silver on demand. And people should routinely make such demands to keep whom ever is holding the gold/silver honest.

And then, for some reason, you decide that the exact same kind of regulations can't be applied to paper money.
But why? You already need regulations to stop gold from flooding/starving the market. What stops a responsible governement from applying similar regulations controling the amount of fiat paper money they print?

To kind of re-state what I said above: Fiat currency, unlike commodity currency, has no natural limits on how much can be created; it encourages reckless and wasteful spending. It promotes the creation of more and more government bureaucracy and red tape.

It also makes men easier to corrupt as it allows a small handful of people the ability to create unlimited money at their whim.

No currency system is perfect because we as people are not perfect. Actual physical limits help keep men honest (can't spend what you don't have) and helps keep government more transparent (easier to follow the money when you are not just creating trillions yearly from nothing).

georgie_leech

2017-08-13, 12:10 PM

Cazero

2017-08-13, 12:19 PM

Granite is too plentiful, as is wood. No good for currency.
Just adapt the ratio of granite/money unit accordingly.
Anf if your actual issue is that granite is too easy to counterfeit, then we do as with gold : use paper money that are nothing but IOU X quantity of granite, lock all the granite that was arbitrarily decided to have value in bank vaults, and enforce regulations to ensure rich people sitting atop mountains of granite can't break the economy.
Money is not something magical. Money is not work or a product of work. Wether it is gold, granite or paper, money is an artificial value fabricated for the sole purpose of enabling trades by allowing everyone to gauge what they want to trade around that common value.

That would be called Fractional Reserve Banking... which is very, very bad. I have written on this several times in this thread. You should either use gold/silver coins or gold/silver certificates that are 100% redeemable in gold/silver on demand. And people should routinely make such demands to keep whom ever is holding the gold/silver honest.
I don't want to trade my money for gold. I don't like gold. I want to trade my money for stuff I would actualy use, like videogames (another form of pointless luxury). Why would I want to trade my money for a less practical money that would sit uselessly in my home until I bank it back for the money I spent to get it?
If the point is to regulate money, we have governements and laws to do that.

To kind of re-state what I said above: Fiat currency, unlike commodity currency, has no natural limits on how much can be created; it encourages reckless and wasteful spending. It promotes the creation of more and more government bureaucracy and red tape.
If you don't trust the people who give value to your money to not do stupid things with whatever process gives value to said money, wether or not there is gold backing that money should be the least of your concerns.

martianmister

2017-08-13, 01:07 PM

Gold has real, physical constraints.

And we need physical constrains to constrain our ability to make currency, because?

theNater

2017-08-13, 01:46 PM

No one has disputed this.

But in the end of the day only the final product matters. If you make a terrible table, busted hand or not, you won't get paid as much for it. Period.
But the plumbers who went to georgie_leech's house are producing the same product, yet getting paid differently. georgie_leech doesn't have a different plumbing system in the two cases; why the distinction?

Rogar Demonblud

2017-08-13, 02:10 PM

And we need physical constrains to constrain our ability to make currency, because?

I don't know. But all the gold mined in human history could be melted down and poured into an Olympic size swimming pool with room left over. I wonder how Erys will react when someone like Elon Musk decides to send a robotic probe to the asteroid belt to grab a smallish rock that will triple that amount, then use those profits to go get some of the bigger ones.

Precious metals have value because they're pretty. Their worth is significantly less

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-13, 03:38 PM

I don't know. But all the gold mined in human history could be melted down and poured into an Olympic size swimming pool with room left over. I wonder how Erys will react when someone like Elon Musk decides to send a robotic probe to the asteroid belt to grab a smallish rock that will triple that amount, then use those profits to go get some of the bigger ones.

Oh, no need to worry. Remember, Erys wants to stop all forms of loans, investments, etc. and destroy the modern first world economy. Musk wouldn't have got any of his businesses off the ground without Fractional Reserve Banking, and getting rid of it is the objective, so we can all go back to a world in which only the extreme rich have enough money to start new businesses, and they won't want to, since they will have more money than they know what to do with anyway. The rest of us can go back to starving like nature intended.

GW

Peelee

2017-08-13, 03:48 PM

But in the end of the day only the final product matters. If you make a terrible table, busted hand or not, you won't get paid as much for it. Period.
....I think the situation is two tables, both of the same fine quality, but one made by a woodworker who has a broken arm. One takes more time and more work, but has the same value (As only final product matters).

Erys

2017-08-13, 05:51 PM

Erys, you realise the bulk of gold production is not done by government sources, right? It's done by private companies. Either you're suggesting a government monopoly on precious metal production or a 100% tax on gold, which seems counter to your assertion that government intervention is bad.

I do. And while those are options, it seems another is simply allowing a government to buy it from various mining companies. The minting, however, probably shouldn't be done third party.

Still waiting to hear about that sewer scenario though...

Just adapt the ratio of granite/money unit accordingly.
Anf if your actual issue is that granite is too easy to counterfeit, then we do as with gold : use paper money that are nothing but IOU X quantity of granite, lock all the granite that was arbitrarily decided to have value in bank vaults, and enforce regulations to ensure rich people sitting atop mountains of granite can't break the economy.
Money is not something magical. Money is not work or a product of work. Wether it is gold, granite or paper, money is an artificial value fabricated for the sole purpose of enabling trades by allowing everyone to gauge what they want to trade around that common value.

I don't want to trade my money for gold. I don't like gold. I want to trade my money for stuff I would actualy use, like videogames (another form of pointless luxury). Why would I want to trade my money for a less practical money that would sit uselessly in my home until I bank it back for the money I spent to get it?
If the point is to regulate money, we have governements and laws to do that.

If you don't trust the people who give value to your money to not do stupid things with whatever process gives value to said money, wether or not there is gold backing that money should be the least of your concerns.

Paper, granite, wood, all too plentiful.

Means a government can spend recklessly and allows debasement of currency easier.

If gold was money, you would still be using your "money" for the things you want. Your things just wouldn't be constantly getting more expensive simply because the money supply is swelling at too fast a pace.

And we need physical constrains to constrain our ability to make currency, because?

If you don't already know the answer to this form my past post, read about the Weimar Republic and hyperinflation.

More money in the supply, the less individual notes are worth. Inflation is literally the loss of buying power.

But the plumbers who went to georgie_leech's house are producing the same product, yet getting paid differently. georgie_leech doesn't have a different plumbing system in the two cases; why the distinction?

If the job is the same, they get paid the same. My example was two different jobs which take different amounts of time and materials to complete.

Not sure where the disconnect is, but I am sure we can get through it.

Oh, no need to worry. Remember, Erys wants to stop all forms of loans, investments, etc. and destroy the modern first world economy.

When have I ever said this?

Pro-tip: its better to keep your mouth shut in matters you don't understand than to make false accusations.

If/when man decides to mine asteroids, good! There is nothing wrong with this and is completely supported within the framework of intrinsic currency.

....I think the situation is two tables, both of the same fine quality, but one made by a woodworker who has a broken arm. One takes more time and more work, but has the same value (As only final product matters).

That's probably a better way of saying it. And correct! :smallsmile:

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-13, 06:11 PM

Oh, no need to worry. Remember, Erys wants to stop all forms of loans, investments, etc.
When have I ever said this?

Here:

What you are describing is called Fractional Reserve banking. It always leads to fiat, which leads to fractional reserve fiat banking. True intrinsic wealth people oppose such shenanigans.
and here:

That is a core point of mine. Other items, goods, services all require work to create. Money should mirror that.

Work for work. Not work for an IOU.

Loans "create" money. Even if you pass some law forbidding any fractional reserve (and immediately crashing the economy in the process), what the bank gives you is not actual money, it is an IOU from the loanee to the bank. Those IOUs then are used by the loanee to pay for work. But as per your words, we should refuse to be paid with IOUs. Therefore, in this brave new world of yours there are no loans, because even if granted, no-one will take your loan, since they are merely IOUs.

QED

Grey Wolf

Erys

2017-08-13, 06:31 PM

Here:

and here:

Loans "create" money. Even if you pass some law forbidding any fractional reserve (and immediately crashing the economy in the process), what the bank gives you is not actual money, it is an IOU from the loanee to the bank. Those IOUs then are used by the loanee to pay for work. But as per your words, we should refuse to be paid with IOUs. Therefore, in this brave new world of yours there are no loans, because even if granted, no-one will take your loan, since they are merely IOUs.

QED

Grey Wolf

LOL@ immediately crashing the economy. Too funny man. Thanks.

But really, you don't need to have Fractional Reserve banking to allow a bank to loan money. You just need to separate activities. A 'savings bank' that holds peoples money (probably for a fee) and 'lending banks' where loans and such are done.

Loans that come from the banks coffers and is delivered in an intrinsic method. Fractional reserve banking is not required, and (imho) should be avoided if you hope to maintain any integrity to a monetary system.

The MunchKING

2017-08-13, 06:43 PM

If you don't already know the answer to this form my past post, read about the Weimar Republic and hyperinflation.

That was Pre-Nazi, but Post WWI era Germany right? From what I heard they intentionally torpedoed their currency because the war debts they were ordered to pay for WWI were explicitly set in Duechmarks, not Francs or some other government's currency, so they basically intentionally drove down the Duechmarks' value so they could pay off the debt without having to give up much in the way of resources.

In other words, it's an aberration, and not the standard result of Fiat Currency.

Any government that wasn't already circling the drain would have a better grip on their currency.

But really, you don't need to have Fractional Reserve banking to allow a bank to loan money. You just need to separate activities. A 'savings bank' that holds peoples money (probably for a fee) and 'lending banks' where loans and such are done.

Loans that come from the banks coffers and is delivered in an intrinsic method. Fractional reserve banking is not required, and (imho) should be avoided if you hope to maintain any integrity to a monetary system.

How would lending banks GET the money to lend out if they don't have people's savings?

Ron Miel

2017-08-13, 07:07 PM

Some people on this thread really ought to know their limits (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w).

Erys

2017-08-13, 07:17 PM

That was Pre-Nazi, but Post WWI era Germany right? From what I heard they intentionally torpedoed their currency because the war debts they were ordered to pay for WWI were explicitly set in Duechmarks, not Francs or some other government's currency, so they basically intentionally drove down the Duechmarks' value so they could pay off the debt without having to give up much in the way of resources.

In other words, it's an aberration, and not the standard result of Fiat Currency.

Any government that wasn't already circling the drain would have a better grip on their currency.

There are a myriad (http://www.truthistreason.net/a-look-at-the-past-all-fiat-currencies-collapse-and-fail) of recent examples of currencies collapsing.

Three since the turn of the century.

How would lending banks GET the money to lend out if they don't have people's savings?

Bankers are millionaires, billionaires. If you want to be a private lending institution why shouldn't it come out of pocket?

IN that vein of thinking, public lending institutions would run the same way. Should the public demand such a mechanism- there should be a literal pile of gold/silver which is the exact limit which can be lent. All interest collected over cost go back to the government funds for projects.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-13, 07:19 PM

LOL@ immediately crashing the economy. Too funny man. Thanks.
You find funny the idea of getting rid of the FRB, which is currently the base of the world economy.

That really says everything about your position, if you think you can simply laugh its issues away. Do you even know how much of the current world currency is fractional?

But really, you don't need to have Fractional Reserve banking to allow a bank to loan money. You just need to separate activities. A 'savings bank' that holds peoples money (probably for a fee) and 'lending banks' where loans and such are done.

Loans that come from the banks coffers and is delivered in an intrinsic method. Fractional reserve banking is not required, and (imho) should be avoided if you hope to maintain any integrity to a monetary system.
Where would the loan bank get its money from? Because presumably investors would give their money to the loan bank... but that would make it the savings bank.

At the same time, why would anyone give its money to the savings bank?

And of course, this continues to hand-wave the real issue: we have historical proof of what the economy looked like pre-FRB. Why would anyone want to go back to it is beyond me.

Bankers are millionaires, billionaires. If you want to be a private lending institution why shouldn't it come out of pocket?
Because the loan bank isn't allowed to take people's money, by your own rules.

There are a myriad (http://www.truthistreason.net/a-look-at-the-past-all-fiat-currencies-collapse-and-fail) of recent examples of currencies collapsing.

Three since the turn of the century.

So not that many have failed. Sounds better than the failure rate of gold-backed currencies, which is 100%. No true gold-backed currency lasted more than a couple of generations.

GW

georgie_leech

2017-08-13, 07:21 PM

Erys, you seem to misunderstand the objection about gold mining. If there is a greater supply, the value of the gold currency you use drops along with the value of the gold it's made of. Unless you define the value of the currency to have a specified worth, as if by... fiat. But anyway...

Still waiting to hear about that sewer scenario though...

Been trying to track down primary sources on gold production during the 1800's, to not just respond with some of the construction details. But as the only source I've been able to locate is in an out-of-country library without an online version apparently available...

Between the main sewer systems and the connecting pipes, the London sewer system alone involved more than 20000 km of pipes, enough to stretch halfway around the world. 318000000 (yes, 318 million) bricks were laid, over one and a half million tons of concrete was poured, and 2.7 million cubic meters of earth had to be excavated. Even assuming it was all loose soil (it wasn't), that's over 3 million tons of earth. It took over 6 years to complete, and maintenance, expansions, and upgrades are ongoing. To say nothing of the price of labour nor the economic costs of having a major metropolitan area constantly under construction for half a decade.

To be clear, this isn't every British sewer system. This is just the capital city.

Paul Bairoch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bairoch) estimates the GNP of the UK back in 1860 to be about 16 billion 1960's American dollars . Not how much cash the government had available, but the total economic output of every british citizen and company across the world. Remember "The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire?" Under your system, you need the literal currency to pay for this; banks can't give loans, because they need to keep their currency on hand in case everyone everywhere withdraws everything they deposited there. To add insult to injury, this is shortly after the Opium Wars, which were precipitated in part due to the economic disruption from British Silver flowing out of the country to pay for tea. They were facing a shortage of precious metals. Tell me, do you think they produced enough literal gold to pay for all this without bankrupting the nation?

You can't argue "stuff was cheaper" back then, because the gold you would pay for it with was cheaper too; it has less value.

EDIT: Apparently the thread moved while I was typing. You know, your idea of setting money aside to lend out isn't a bad one. In fact, that's already done, partly to act as a cushion against the risks of FRB. Most countries have them now, and they're called Lender's of Last Resort: (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lenderoflastresort.asp) A bank to loan money to other banks in case of a run.

Erys

2017-08-13, 08:39 PM

You find funny the idea of getting rid of the FRB, which is currently the base of the world economy.

That really says everything about your position, if you think you can simply laugh its issues away. Do you even know how much of the current world currency is fractional?

FRN

It is not the only world reserve currency.

And of course I do. A major reason I support intrinsic wealth in fact. Its asinine.

Where would the loan bank get its money from? Because presumably investors would give their money to the loan bank... but that would make it the savings bank.

A loan bank would be one or many people pooling an amount of resources with the intention of lending it out at interest. Aka: a lending institution.

A savings bank would basically be a vault.

Two completely different entities governed by different rules.

At the same time, why would anyone give its money to the savings bank?

Theft prevention mostly.

And of course, this continues to hand-wave the real issue: we have historical proof of what the economy looked like pre-FRB. Why would anyone want to go back to it is beyond me.
FRN.

Here (http://www.truthistreason.net/a-look-at-the-past-all-fiat-currencies-collapse-and-fail) is a list of over 20 fiat currency crashes going back around 100 years. We have 2 examples in this thread of gold failing as a currency- one involving a massive influx of new gold, doubling the supply in an instant (like fiat can/does) and crashing it (like fiat will); and Rome when it was under some pretty severe outside forces AND the government/banks(probably even some people) were debasing their currency from the inside.

Do you know of many others?

So not that many have failed. Sounds better than the failure rate of gold-backed currencies, which is 100%. No true gold-backed currency lasted more than a couple of generations.

GW

I'm calling shenanigans (https://srsroccoreport.com/must-see-chart-death-of-paper-money-vs-gold/?PageSpeed=noscript) on that.

Erys, you seem to misunderstand the objection about gold mining. If there is a greater supply, the value of the gold currency you use drops along with the value of the gold it's made of. Unless you define the value of the currency to have a specified worth, as if by... fiat. But anyway...

***
...banks can't give loans...

***
You can't argue "stuff was cheaper" back then, because the gold you would pay for it with was cheaper too; it has less value.

Its doesn't matter what you use as currency- the more the units the less it is worth. So yes, as you slowly add gold to your economy its overall buying power is reduced. This is universal and I have never said otherwise.

But remember that earlier part about population? If you are adding new coins at roughly the same rate as people are coming into the world- you should be pretty balanced. Heck, gold might even allow for some deflationary periods. Something never seen in fiat.

***
Bankers are millionaires, billionaires. If you want to be a private lending institution why shouldn't it come out of their pocket? And if you can't borrow from those banks, there are allied countries you could turn to.

There is no reason to break your currency.

***
So long as supply's are stable, stuff retains roughly the same worth throughout time. Inflation makes it seem like goods were "cheaper" then and "more expensive now" but really- the script you are using simply has less purchasing power and you need more of them to buy things.

Look at the dollar value of gold (http://onlygold.com/Info/Historical-Gold-Prices.asp) verse oil (http://chartsbin.com/view/oau) through out those early years. There is a very significant event that happens in 1933, another in the 70's. From the 1800's up till then prices seem very steady.

georgie_leech

2017-08-13, 08:53 PM

I'm calling shenanigans (https://srsroccoreport.com/must-see-chart-death-of-paper-money-vs-gold/?PageSpeed=noscript) on that.

The Stone age lasted for thousands of years; does that make it a superior alternative to steel? And "This coin is 2600 years old" is not the same as being usable currency for 2600 years.

woweedd

2017-08-13, 09:12 PM

FRN

It is not the only world reserve currency.

And of course I do. A major reason I support intrinsic wealth in fact. Its asinine.

A loan bank would be one or many people pooling an amount of resources with the intention of lending it out at interest. Aka: a lending institution.

A savings bank would basically be a vault.

Two completely different entities governed by different rules.

Theft prevention mostly.

FRN.

Here (http://www.truthistreason.net/a-look-at-the-past-all-fiat-currencies-collapse-and-fail) is a list of over 20 fiat currency crashes going back around 100 years. We have 2 examples in this thread of gold failing as a currency- one involving a massive influx of new gold, doubling the supply in an instant (like fiat can/does) and crashing it (like fiat will); and Rome when it was under some pretty severe outside forces AND the government/banks(probably even some people) were debasing their currency from the inside.

Do you know of many others?

I'm calling shenanigans (https://srsroccoreport.com/must-see-chart-death-of-paper-money-vs-gold/?PageSpeed=noscript) on that.

Its doesn't matter what you use as currency- the more the units the less it is worth. So yes, as you slowly add gold to your economy its overall buying power is reduced. This is universal and I have never said otherwise.

But remember that earlier part about population? If you are adding new coins at roughly the same rate as people are coming into the world- you should be pretty balanced. Heck, gold might even allow for some deflationary periods. Something never seen in fiat.

***
Bankers are millionaires, billionaires. If you want to be a private lending institution why shouldn't it come out of their pocket? And if you can't borrow from those banks, there are allied countries you could turn to.

There is no reason to break your currency.

***
So long as supply's are stable, stuff retains roughly the same worth throughout time. Inflation makes it seem like goods were "cheaper" then and "more expensive now" but really- the script you are using simply has less purchasing power and you need more of them to buy things.

Look at the dollar value of gold (http://onlygold.com/Info/Historical-Gold-Prices.asp) verse oil (http://chartsbin.com/view/oau) through out those early years. There is a very significant event that happens in 1933, another in the 70's. From the 1800's up till then prices seem very steady.
Yes, your idea works...As long as supply remains stable, which is by no means a guarantee. With fiat currency, you can ensure that the growth of the economy and the amount of currency in circulation keep pace. You're making our arguement for us.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-13, 09:26 PM

Here (http://www.truthistreason.net/a-look-at-the-past-all-fiat-currencies-collapse-and-fail) is a list of over 20 fiat currency crashes going back around 100 years.
Which means that all the others have not failed in the last 100 years - and there is hundreds of fiat currencies. Much better rate than gold-backed, which became adulterated fiat-in-all-but-name in half that time.

You cannot both decry adulterated coins and then count them towards the length of time gold-backed currency lasted. The Romans began adulterating their coins before they even created the Empire. In fact, except for the post-Constantinian coins (which again, didn't last long), I don't actually know that the Roman civilization ever had true gold coins.

We have 2 examples in this thread of gold failing as a currency- one involving a massive influx of new gold, doubling the supply in an instant (like fiat can/does) and crashing it (like fiat will); and Rome when it was under some pretty severe outside forces AND the government/banks(probably even some people) were debasing their currency from the inside.

Do you know of many others?
All of them. Every single gold-backed currency became adulterated in short order, or fell back on promissory notes. You think it was all pure gold coins everywhere? As I said, I have a bridge you may be interested in.

I'm calling shenanigans (https://srsroccoreport.com/must-see-chart-death-of-paper-money-vs-gold/?PageSpeed=noscript) on that.
Shiny. Proves nothing. How long did the government that casted that coin actually continued to print pure ones? How soon did they start mixing in other metals, once their economy grew past the amount of gold they had? Anyone can print one pure gold coin once. It's sticking to that that proves impossible.

But I grow tired of explaining reality to you. Answer those question or don't - my points have been made and you are happy to say that the terrible consequences of limiting the money supply is what you want. Reality is that your ideas are catastrophic in practice, because governments of all stripes have tried and failed to run economies under true gold backing. And returning to it in the current day would be literally impossible, and would destroy the ability of economies to grow, by design. You WANT, by your own admission, to limit the growth of any economy to what can be mined, even though the economic growth that has given us the information age depended on quadratic growth, instead of the paltry incremental allowed by gold mining. If it were up to you, we'd still be in a pre-industrial economic growth curve.

Grey Wolf

Erys

2017-08-13, 09:27 PM

The Stone age lasted for thousands of years; does that make it a superior alternative to steel? And "This coin is 2600 years old" is not the same as being usable currency for 2600 years.

We are comparing currencies, not tools. And the facts are on my side, intrinsic currencies tend to be much longer lasting than their fiat counter parts. But, yes, I do agree- the authors claim of 2600 year stability based on the age of a coin was not good. However, there are many empires that lasted several hundred years with gold and silver as their currency.

Yes, your idea works...As long as supply remains stable, which is by no means a guarantee. With fiat currency, you can ensure that the growth of the economy and the amount of currency in circulation keep pace. You're making our arguement for us.

No fiat currency matches its population. It is designed to create booms and overspends, always. Just look at the debt clocks (http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/) from around the world; those numbers are going up WAY faster than their respective populations. And their buying power is dropping in kind.

Erys

2017-08-13, 09:40 PM

Which means that all the others have not failed in the last 100 years - and there is hundreds of fiat currencies. Much better rate than gold-backed, which became adulterated fiat-in-all-but-name in half that time.

You really just like making things up...

There are only what, ~160 countries in the world. Unless you are counting Disney dollars and arcade tokens there are not 'hundreds'.

And lets take it a step further. Of the last two hundred years, the longest lasting fiat currency is the US and Britain, and they have only been fiat for about 45 years. Until the 1970's both had ties to intrinsic wealth.

I grow tired of this with you and am not going to correct your many fraudulent claims as they give me quite a headache. Your constant misrepresentation of reality and false accusation of intrinsic currency have no place in civilized discussion.

georgie_leech

2017-08-13, 09:41 PM

Erys, do you know why the money supply grows in such a way as to create a bit of inflation over time?

Erys

2017-08-13, 09:54 PM

Erys, do you know why the money supply grows in such a way as to create a bit of inflation over time?

A bit?

I show you a chart where silver certificates could buy roughly the same amount of core commodities over the course of a hundred years; and you call 486% inflation (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/) in the last 45 years "a bit"?!? What $20 bought in '73 costs over $100 today. And spending/money creation is only increasing...

Yeah, I understand all to well how inflation works mate. My hope is you will too at the end of this discussion.

georgie_leech

2017-08-13, 10:04 PM

A bit?

I show you a chart where silver certificates could buy roughly the same amount of core commodities over the course of a hundred years; and you call 486% inflation (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/) in the last 45 years "a bit"?!? What $20 bought in '73 costs over $100 today. And spending/money creation is only increasing...

Yeah, I understand all to well how inflation works mate. My hope is you will too at the end of this discussion.

And I showed you the table that shows how our wages have kept pace. So when our wages keep pace with inflation, it stays in balance. Ish. You see, what that inflation does is incentivize spending over hoarding or saving. That means people invest, which encourages growth; that leads to more businesses, new products, new innovations that make our lives better and easier (even as we use that free time to cram more work in:smalltongue:) It's better to be a poor person today than it was to be a rich person 500 years ago.

The MunchKING

2017-08-13, 10:24 PM

You really just like making things up...

There are only what, ~160 countries in the world. Unless you are counting Disney dollars and arcade tokens there are not 'hundreds'.

196 widely recognized ones, According to Google (https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=how+many+countries+are+there&oq=how+many+count&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0l3j0i131k1.3742.6883.0.9202.15.14.0.0.0.0. 170.1785.0j13.13.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.13.1783.0.WGTuN1LKToI).

Assuming they all used fiat currency, I would use "Hundreds" to describe 1.96 hundreds of countries. It may or may not be strictly speaking correct, but I would use the word that way.

2D8HP

2017-08-13, 10:53 PM

I tried to resist this thread!

But the plumbers who went to georgie_leech's house are producing the same product, yet getting paid differently. georgie_leech doesn't have a different plumbing system in the two cases; why the distinction?

As a working plumber maybe I can shed some light on this, typically problems from the users point of view can be rounded to three problems:

Leaks,

Clogs,

Lack of water pressure

When I get a service order, I have a guess on what time it will take, but I have enough experience to know that the same description of a problem may take seconds or days to fix, and often you don't know until work is started, and you really don't know how long it will take until the work is done.

Few wanf to risk paying by the hour, because they don't want to wind up paying for days of labor, just to get the chance to be the one who's problem only takes seconds to fix. Since you try actually earn a living at this, effectively customers who's problems take a short time to solve are subsidizing those who's problems take a long time to solve.

Iceland! Currency! Yeah!

By the way, since I no longer am in private industry, and I'm employed by the City and County of San Francisco, when people talk about "the government", I take it personally.

Also, I hate plumbing work.

georgie_leech

2017-08-13, 10:54 PM

I tried to resist this thread!

-snip-

*coughs* We weren't saying that plumbers are paid per hour, or specifying the job needed, just trying to make the point that it's Value for Value that people want/trade, not Work for Work as Erys was arguing.

Erys

2017-08-13, 11:12 PM

And I showed you the table that shows how our wages have kept pace. So when our wages keep pace with inflation, it stays in balance. Ish. You see, what that inflation does is incentivize spending over hoarding or saving. That means people invest, which encourages growth; that leads to more businesses, new products, new innovations that make our lives better and easier (even as we use that free time to cram more work in:smalltongue:) It's better to be a poor person today than it was to be a rich person 500 years ago.

Negative.

Ever wonder why people are demanding a $15 minimum wage?

Its because their buying power is not keeping up with inflation. (http://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-and-what-it-buys-you-1950s-to-now-2012-4#the-1950s-1)

Making more money does not automatically make you a wealthier person.

196 widely recognized ones, According to Google (https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=how+many+countries+are+there&oq=how+many+count&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0l3j0i131k1.3742.6883.0.9202.15.14.0.0.0.0. 170.1785.0j13.13.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.13.1783.0.WGTuN1LKToI).

Assuming they all used fiat currency, I would use "Hundreds" to describe 1.96 hundreds of countries. It may or may not be strictly speaking correct, but I would use the word that way.

/roll. I suppose that's technically true.

Fun fact: Most of these currencies are not independent, but rather backed or 'pegged' to (usually) Dollars or Euros (55 tied to the latter (https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2014/10/02/dozens-of-countries-have-already-kicked-the-fiat-currency-habit/#79d99bff239e)), the Euro. Should one fail, they will take large swaths of the world with them.

theNater

2017-08-13, 11:27 PM

If the job is the same, they get paid the same. My example was two different jobs which take different amounts of time and materials to complete.

Not sure where the disconnect is, but I am sure we can get through it.
Well, let's do the full breakdown:

Carpenter A
Job: Make table while healthy.
Product: Nice table.

Carpenter B
Job: Make table while nursing broken arm.
Product: Nice table, identical to Carpenter A's table.

Plumber A
Job: 2 hours of repairing georgie_leech's plumbing system.
Product: One working plumbing system for georgie_leech's house.

Plumber B
Job: 20 hours of repairing georgie_leech's plumbing system.
Product: One working plumbing system for georgie_leech's house, identical to Plumber A's plumbing system.

We have here two pairs of professionals. Each pair is working a different job, but producing identical products. The plumbers, as you note, are being paid based on the job: Plumber B gets paid more. The carpenters, on the other hand, are being paid based on the product: they get the same money even though Carpenter B did more work. Why is this payment based on job for one career and on product for another acceptable to you?

Erys

2017-08-13, 11:49 PM

Well, let's do the full breakdown:

Carpenter A
Job: Make table while healthy.
Product: Nice table.

Carpenter B
Job: Make table while nursing broken arm.
Product: Nice table, identical to Carpenter A's table.

Plumber A
Job: 2 hours of repairing georgie_leech's plumbing system.
Product: One working plumbing system for georgie_leech's house.

Plumber B
Job: 20 hours of repairing georgie_leech's plumbing system.
Product: One working plumbing system for georgie_leech's house, identical to Plumber A's plumbing system.

We have here two pairs of professionals. Each pair is working a different job, but producing identical products. The plumbers, as you note, are being paid based on the job: Plumber B gets paid more. The carpenters, on the other hand, are being paid based on the product: they get the same money even though Carpenter B did more work. Why is this payment based on job for one career and on product for another acceptable to you?

The bold part is your disconnect.

This is correct:
Plumber A
Job: 2 hours of repairing georgie_leech's plumbing system.
Product: Fixed a very clogged toilet

Plumber B
Job: 20 hours of repairing georgie_leech's plumbing system.
Product: repaired the sewer line under the house.

The end products of the first example are tables. table = table.
The end products of the second are clogged toilet and a sewer line. Toilet != sewer line. The latter rightfully should ask for more (regardless of currency).

Services shouldn't be compared to goods. They operate differently.

georgie_leech

2017-08-14, 12:17 AM

Negative.

Ever wonder why people are demanding a $15 minimum wage?

Its because their buying power is not keeping up with inflation. (http://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-and-what-it-buys-you-1950s-to-now-2012-4#the-1950s-1)

Making more money does not automatically make you a wealthier person.

The fact that minimum wage hasn't kept up is a problem, yes. But I stand by my statement. People today are far less likely to die of preventable diseases or infections from minor injuries; have access to food (yes, even the impoverished through government assistance) in greater quantities, varieties, and quality than previously known; we generally (exceptions like Flint aside, and isn't that place strong evidence that governments don't just print all the money they want) don't have to worry about our drinking water making us ill; the middle class have access to luxuries that would have seemed like magic even 100 years ago.

He wrote, pushing buttons on a piece of plastic and silicon that will communicate wirelessly to servers that broadcast this debate around the world for anyone that cares to read it.

Erys

2017-08-14, 12:29 AM

The fact that minimum wage hasn't kept up is a problem, yes. But I stand by my statement. People today are far less likely to die of preventable diseases or infections from minor injuries; have access to food (yes, even the impoverished through government assistance) in greater quantities, varieties, and quality than previously known; we generally (exceptions like Flint aside, and isn't that place strong evidence that governments don't just print all the money they want) don't have to worry about our drinking water making us ill; the middle class have access to luxuries that would have seemed like magic even 100 years ago.

He wrote, pushing buttons on a piece of plastic and silicon that will communicate wirelessly to servers that broadcast this debate around the world for anyone that cares to read it.

Much of that came about from technological advances and human break through's.

It is an odd assumption that those advances could never happen with an intrinsic currency.
Its not as if we changed our money system and BAM, we had sciences!

Help me out here, why do you think that?

theNater

2017-08-14, 12:35 AM

The end products of the first example are tables. table = table.
The end products of the second are clogged toilet and a sewer line. Toilet != sewer line. The latter rightfully should ask for more (regardless of currency).

Services shouldn't be compared to goods. They operate differently.
So what you're saying is that value is product, not work. So if a piece of gold magically appeared on my desk, it would have the same value as any other piece of gold the same size, despite the fact that no one did the work of digging it out of the ground, correct?

2D8HP

2017-08-14, 12:37 AM

...with intrinsic metal there is a natural, physical limit to how much government bodies can add to a money supply. With fiat currency- there is no limit....

(I just can't resist anymore this economics/history discussion)

Jeepers Erys (Eris (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(mythology))?)

Why that means with a gold standard we could have avoided the terrible inflation I remember in the 1970's!

Why did our grandparents and great-grandparents (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=polnEBTnQ6g) get rid of the gold standard?

What could have possibly forced (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=exuGv3HsV-U) them to give it up?

Any reasons (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gkAfjRolNCI) you can think of?
Post 2008 could've been worse

georgie_leech

2017-08-14, 12:53 AM

Much of that came about from technological advances and human break through's.

It is an odd assumption that those advances could never happen with an intrinsic currency.
Its not as if we changed our money system and BAM, we had sciences!

Help me out here, why do you think that?

For one thing, the Industrial Revolution happened in part because it became much easier for businesses to acquire the capital they needed for factories and the like because Banks were able to lend money instead of waiting for some rich patron to feel it was worth it. It was not coincidental that very expensive projects were more common when FRB expanded the money supply. Without that, the rate of change slows immensely. And chances are everything you own was either sold at or made by a company that got its start thanks to loans; technology doesn't affect daily life much if it isn't economical for the populace.

But largely, I'm not saying that innovation is impossible under precious metal currencies. What I'm arguing is your contention that inflation means our quality of life is low because we have more less valuable dollars instead of fewer more valuable bills.

Erys

2017-08-14, 02:05 AM

So what you're saying is that value is product, not work. So if a piece of gold magically appeared on my desk, it would have the same value as any other piece of gold the same size, despite the fact that no one did the work of digging it out of the ground, correct?

If we can magically make gold (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_LWQQrpSc4), we have a problem.

(I just can't resist anymore this economics/history discussion)

Jeepers Erys (Eris (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(mythology))?)

Why that means with a gold standard we could have avoided the terrible inflation I remember in the 1970's!
The gold standard at this time was barely a thing up until this point and died when Nixon reneged on OPEC contracts. Not at all the fault of intrinsic money, and is more a show of what happens in its absence.

Why did our grandparents and great-grandparents (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=polnEBTnQ6g) get rid of the gold standard?

What could have possibly forced (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=exuGv3HsV-U) them to give it up?

Any reasons (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gkAfjRolNCI) you can think of?
Post 2008 could've been worse

The federal reserve system was established before these events and many blame it for contracting the money supply on purpose during this time.

For one thing, the Industrial Revolution happened in part because it became much easier for businesses to acquire the capital they needed for factories and the like because Banks were able to lend money instead of waiting for some rich patron to feel it was worth it. It was not coincidental that very expensive projects were more common when FRB expanded the money supply. Without that, the rate of change slows immensely. And chances are everything you own was either sold at or made by a company that got its start thanks to loans; technology doesn't affect daily life much if it isn't economical for the populace.

But largely, I'm not saying that innovation is impossible under precious metal currencies. What I'm arguing is your contention that inflation means our quality of life is low because we have more less valuable dollars instead of fewer more valuable bills.

We have better distractions, a more interesting circus, and tastier bread. We also offer treatments instead of finding cures, our tastier food has to cut corners to be affordable and in turn obesity is on the rise, and families pretty much require two working parents to survive...

I am not so certain this is a higher quality of life than what is possible with gold at the helm.

woweedd

2017-08-14, 02:30 AM

If we can magically make gold (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_LWQQrpSc4), we have a problem.

The gold standard at this time was barely a thing up until this point and died when Nixon reneged on OPEC contracts. Not at all the fault of intrinsic money, and is more a show of what happens in its absence.

The federal reserve system was established before these events and many blame it for contracting the money supply on purpose during this time.

We have better distractions, a more interesting circus, and tastier bread. We also offer treatments instead of finding cures, our tastier food has to cut corners to be affordable and in turn obesity is on the rise, and families pretty much require two working parents to survive...

I am not so certain this is a higher quality of life than what is possible with gold at the helm.
Um...Most studies have found that food hasn't gotten any more "processed" since the 50s. It's just that, now, thanks to federal labeling acts, we actually know what the hell is in our food. As for the "two working parents" , that's mainly because the United States and, by extension, large portions of the global economy, still has yet to recover from the economic disaster that was 2008, with the housing bubble and the third-biggest economic crash in US history. Also, "we offer treatments instead of finding cures?" What the hell does that even mean?

Cazero

2017-08-14, 02:40 AM

Also, "we offer treatments instead of finding cures?" What the hell does that even mean?
The problem of unethical doctors not curing their patients so they keep coming back. It was criticised in Gulliver's Travels, so it's a centuries old issue that probably has nothing to do with the nature of currency.

theNater

2017-08-14, 03:21 AM

If we can magically make gold (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_LWQQrpSc4), we have a problem.
This is entirely unrelated to my question. I'm not talking about a new, magical process. I'm talking about a one-time, non-repeatable event. Gold appears on my desk, nobody knows where it came from, but it was not moved there by any known entity. Does it have value?

Peelee

2017-08-14, 06:55 AM

We also offer treatments instead of finding cures.

Oh boy, it's my favorite argument! "We don't cure things anymore, we just treat them," or as I like to call it, "I have no ****ing idea how science works."

Fun fact: curing disease is hard. Who knew, right? It's almost as if medical biology differs from person to person, or diseases can mutate so we have to run just to keep pace, let alone gain ground, or we have strict test conditions because we're dealing with actual people and things like the Tuskeegee experiment happened. Damned fat cats, I say!

Another fun fact: CEOs and their families get sick too. There was this one guy, dunno if you've ever heard of him, he just owned a small computer company. Steve Jobs. He had a small retirement fund tucked away, from what I hear. Except he got some sort of disease, because no matter how rich you are, your body still ends up sucking one way or the other in the end. These super evil medical and pharmaceutical fat cats better hope they won the genetic lottery and don't come down with some sort of cancer (or their spouses, children, immediate family, friends, or other fat cats they fat cat around with in their super secret cabal), since they cut off their only hope to not die of it themselves. Why, it almost sounds as if that would be a stupid thing to do, and would go directly against their best interests.

One last fun fact: we're damn close to curing HIV and AIDS. Now, I'll be the first to admit, these are pretty small-time diseases and I don't think a lot of people would care very much. Not like they're the kind of thing that ever caused an epidemic or anything. But in the last ten years, we have one person who is confirmed to have been cured of HIV by medical science, which I think is pretty cool. Ya know, being on the cusp and all.

Not to mention that literally all medical research scientists would need to be in on a global conspiracy to make as much money as they can for the fat cats who run the corporations, despite never being handed bags full of money for making sure they don't accidentally cure something. It's not as of the scientists themselves are also vulnerable to disease. Or their spouses, children, immediate family, friends, etc.

Damned fat cats!

Erys

2017-08-14, 10:04 AM

Um...Most studies have found that food hasn't gotten any more "processed" since the 50s. It's just that, now, thanks to federal labeling acts, we actually know what the hell is in our food. As for the "two working parents" , that's mainly because the United States and, by extension, large portions of the global economy, still has yet to recover from the economic disaster that was 2008, with the housing bubble and the third-biggest economic crash in US history. Also, "we offer treatments instead of finding cures?" What the hell does that even mean?

Maybe you should look into the labeling laws of America.

They are not what you think.

Also, the need for two parent working families did not happen because of the events fiat currency and easy money created in 2008... its been an on going problem for a couple decades now (and will get worse).

The problem of unethical doctors not curing their patients so they keep coming back. It was criticised in Gulliver's Travels, so it's a centuries old issue that probably has nothing to do with the nature of currency.

And we have more money (literally unlimited money) and still- no cures.

Worse, I have read many times where science has found generic drug combos that could do things like slash the rate of heart disease (a major killer) and they refuse to market it because the drugs are generic and there is no good profit margin.

Oh boy, it's my favorite argument! "We don't cure things anymore, we just treat them," or as I like to call it, "I have no ****ing idea how science works."

Fun fact: curing disease is hard. Who knew, right? It's almost as if medical biology differs from person to person, or diseases can mutate so we have to run just to keep pace, let alone gain ground, or we have strict test conditions because we're dealing with actual people and things like the Tuskeegee experiment happened. Damned fat cats, I say!

Another fun fact: CEOs and their families get sick too. There was this one guy, dunno if you've ever heard of him, he just owned a small computer company. Steve Jobs. He had a small retirement fund tucked away, from what I hear. Except he got some sort of disease, because no matter how rich you are, your body still ends up sucking one way or the other in the end. These super evil medical and pharmaceutical fat cats better hope they won the genetic lottery and don't come down with some sort of cancer (or their spouses, children, immediate family, friends, or other fat cats they fat cat around with in their super secret cabal), since they cut off their only hope to not die of it themselves. Why, it almost sounds as if that would be a stupid thing to do, and would go directly against their best interests.

One last fun fact: we're damn close to curing HIV and AIDS. Now, I'll be the first to admit, these are pretty small-time diseases and I don't think a lot of people would care very much. Not like they're the kind of thing that ever caused an epidemic or anything. But in the last ten years, we have one person who is confirmed to have been cured of HIV by medical science, which I think is pretty cool. Ya know, being on the cusp and all.

Not to mention that literally all medical research scientists would need to be in on a global conspiracy to make as much money as they can for the fat cats who run the corporations, despite never being handed bags full of money for making sure they don't accidentally cure something. It's not as of the scientists themselves are also vulnerable to disease. Or their spouses, children, immediate family, friends, etc.

Damned fat cats!

You seem to be getting your info from just one source...

We have more money available than ever thanks to fiat currency (virtually unlimited in fact)- still no cures. In fact, Royal Rife's work has been suppressed, a cure for cancer created years ago (before we had all this unlimited money).

Big business- bolstered by ridiculously large sums of money- stifle innovation, buy patents from under small business to prevent new tech that will challenge their respective industry, influence governments to outlaw plants that have actual benefits (like the miracle berry, or even hemp), and control their little spheres of influence as such to always make more money.

Our economic system empowers the worst aspects of humanity and that is in open view to any who looks. We have less choices then ever before on the things that matter; but since you have more than 32 flavors of ice cream now you feel your life is better? Its not.

Rogar Demonblud

2017-08-14, 10:13 AM

It was not coincidental that very expensive projects were more common when FRB expanded the money supply.

Well, obviously besides keeping the gold standard we should've retained chattel slavery so we wouldn't have to worry about paying the work force.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-14, 10:14 AM

In fact, Royal Rife's work has been suppressed, a cure for cancer created years ago

To save everyone else a google search: Royal's Rife "cancer cure" was a nine volt battery applied to the skin with a couple of wires and some copper tubes.

Yep, that sounds like the kind of conspiracy theory that someone that believes gold-back currency is magical would also believe. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Erys also believing that "Big Soap" has also suppressed the sonic washing machine, and "Big Oil" killed the electric car.

GW

Kantaki

2017-08-14, 10:36 AM

To save everyone else a google search: Royal's Rife "cancer cure" was a nine volt battery applied to the skin with a couple of wires and some copper tubes.

Wow. That is even dumber than anything I could have imagined.
I think I would rather try sugar pills.

I mean sure, it sounds like a great prank and some people might even enjoy it, but other than temporarily fending off tiredness (or boredom:smallamused:) I don't see it „curing” anything.

georgie_leech

2017-08-14, 10:40 AM

To save everyone else a google search: Royal's Rife "cancer cure" was a nine volt battery applied to the skin with a couple of wires and some copper tubes.

GW

I like the part where it was covered up by the AMA, but the USSR never looked into this thing that would be an amazing symbol of the evils of capitalism and increase their prestige during the Cold War. :smalltongue:

2D8HP

2017-08-14, 10:51 AM

Since it looks like the "gold standard debate" is pretty unevenly sided

Just a guess on Durkon's plan...

...He's bringing Durkula, priest of Hel, in Odin's banquet hall, that could easily be a sacred place (more beer!)
At midnight it will start Odin's sacred day
Roy will arrive just before midnight
Connect the dots

Never noticed the engish name for the days were mostly from the germanic gods. You learn something every day :)

The weird stuff is that while my language kept most of the roman gods names (Lundi for Luna, Mardi for Mars, Mercredi for Mercure, Jeudi for Jupiter, Vendredi for Venus...), the one we changed (Samedi) is the only Roman god the germanics kept (saturday).

...It's because England kept being invaded by Germanic people well after than France had settled on the "let's claim we are the heirs of the glorious Roman Empire" idea.

There was a fairly major invasion by the French (well, the Normans, who were technically not French, but you know what I mean) that changed the language significantly, which is why English uses different terms for the meat of an animal than the animal itself--the Anglo-Saxon peasants looking after the herds still used their own names for them, while the Norman overlords who ate the meat used the old French names for them. Over the years both these got converted into modern English, so we eat beef from cows and pork from pigs.

I know that. I'm just saying the Germanic influence was more recent than the Latin one, even if the French influence had its effect after.

Also the Normans were French, including "technically", even if they descended from Norse men.

A philosophical question for the ages. What makes one French? The answer, of course, is the Maurice Chevalier laugh.

Somebody call a doctor, we have a case of old age.

Oh, I don't have time for this. I have to buy a single piece of fruit with a coupon and then return it, making people wait behind me while I complain.

It's also in the "Tao of Coot" to pay by writing a check.

The punks can just wait to go hotrodding to the malt shop!

Bah, kids these days with their newfangled checkbooks.

You pay in cash. With a coin purse, that you carefully count coins out of one at a time into the cashier's hand. Remember to stop and look at least five times, because you're sure you have another penny in there somewhere so you can make exact change.

This has the added benefit that there's an excellent chance whoever's behind you or the cashier will hand you some extra pennies just to get you to move. (Why in the name of all the OotS gods do we still mint pennies in the USA? The modern quarter is worth substantially less in purchasing power than the half-penny was when we eliminated it, the fifty cent piece is worth less in earning power than that half-penny was when we got rid of it. Our distant ancestors who cared far more about small amounts of money than most moderns decided that a coin worth more than our four most common coins wasn't worth bothering with. You can round off costs, you've been going to gas-stations for your entire life that price in mills, but round the cost off to the nearest penny. The modern penny is made from zinc, and the zinc, chosen as the cheapest metal usable for a coin, is now worth more than the coin.)

Also, modern pennies have very little copper in them. To even consider such an attempt you would need pennies from 1981 and before....

....The zinc in a modern penny is not worth more than the coin... that is partly why there is so much zinc in there now.
(That said, it is somewhat close to breaking even; as of now zinc is 1.30/lbs and there are about 145-180 pennies in a pound (depending on metal content); but, as our buying power continues to decline the zinc will become more valuable in the not too distant future).

Rome, when its economy started to crumble, would 'chip' their coins. Taking small chunks off many coins to create new coins in the hopes no one noticed the lighter coins... Modern governments do the same, they are just craftier about it.

Also: fiat money is the devil. But, that is a discussion for another thread (and probably another forum).

Is it now time to discuss "hidden medical cures"?

How about:

What does Durkon's memories reveal about Dwavish society?

I'm now picturing something like the communitarian law abiding Norwegians crossed with the hard drinking Finns and Brits (Northern indeed), what say you?

Cazero

2017-08-14, 11:06 AM

To save everyone else a google search: Royal's Rife "cancer cure" was a nine volt battery applied to the skin with a couple of wires and some copper tubes.
So, it's a handgun (https://xkcd.com/1217/) level of cancer cure? Nice.

georgie_leech

2017-08-14, 11:07 AM

What does Durkon's memories reveal about Dwavish society?

I'm now picturing something like the communitarian law abiding Norwegians crossed with the hard drinking Finns and Brits (Northern indeed), what say you?

I think it needs a bit of Scottish contrariness. You need to be stubborn to be able to always resist the encroaching trees after all. :smallwink:

Keltest

2017-08-14, 11:08 AM

I think it needs a bit of Scottish contrariness. You need to be stubborn to be able to always resist the encroaching trees after all. :smallwink:

To say nothing of speaking with that accent.

2D8HP

2017-08-14, 11:33 AM

I think it needs a bit of Scottish contrariness. You need to be stubborn to be able to always resist the encroaching trees after all. :smallwink:

Well, the Scots do have some Scandinavian ancestry:

Vikings still running rampant in Scottish DNA - The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/vikings-still-running-rampant-in-scottish-dna-1-3781684)

And IIRC from reading The Blood of the Isles (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1940284/), it's a greater percentage than the rest of Britain, especially in the Orkney's and the Shetland's.

But since "a mine is a hole in the ground with a Cornishman at the bottom.” (http://www.globemiamitimes.com/the-tin-men-of-cornwall/), I just combined the Cornish and the Scots, as "the Brits", which probably insults both the Cornish and the Scots, but too bad!

Peelee

2017-08-14, 11:57 AM

You seem to be getting your info from just one source...
....logic, news, and academia are one source? And an apparently unreliable one, at that?

We have more money available than ever thanks to fiat currency (virtually unlimited in fact)- still no cures.

Yes, that polio sure is wrecking havoc right now. Why, I think I just contracted smallpox! Shame, that.

2D8HP

2017-08-14, 12:17 PM

....that polio sure is wrecking havoc right now. Why, I think I just contracted smallpox! Shame, that.

Aye, you youngin's with your fancy new "medical care", well we didn't have that, but we were happy (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHFZBUTA4k)!!!

KorvinStarmast

2017-08-14, 12:18 PM

By the way, since I no longer am in private industry, and I'm employed by the City and County of San Francisco, when people talk about "the government", I take it personally. Also, I hate plumbing work. Is your boss named Liddy, by any chance? :smalleek:

Why that means with a gold standard we could have avoided the terrible inflation I remember in the 1970's! I well remember when Nixon floated the dollar. Our conversion rate to DM went from 1:4 to 1to 3.65 soon after. And it kept fading. (We lived in Germany at the time) I've been reading a book about the volatility on the price in oil and it dug up some ghosts like that from my past .... as I remember the bad old 70's. The Stones even put out an album called "Sucking in the Seventies" which was aptly named.

Why did our grandparents and great-grandparents (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=polnEBTnQ6g) get rid of the gold standard? Free silver, perhaps? :smallbiggrin:

martianmister

2017-08-14, 12:45 PM

Yes, that polio sure is wrecking havoc right now. Why, I think I just contracted smallpox! Shame, that.

I blame vaccines! :smallamused:

2D8HP

2017-08-14, 12:46 PM

Is your boss named Liddy, by any chance? :smalleek:

No, but there actually is a Water-Gate plumbing tool made by Mill-Rose (https://www.faucetdepot.com/mobile/ProductDetail.asp?Product=161293) that I use.

:tongue:

...Free silver, perhaps? :smallbiggrin:

Bryan (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech) gets my vote, he's for the common man!

Peelee

2017-08-14, 02:11 PM

I blame vaccines! :smallamused:

This actually may come up in rebuttal, so i'ma go ahead and use your post to address it, if you don't mind. Sort of nip it in the bud before it comes up in earnest.

Yes. We haven't cured some diseases so much as we have created vaccinations against them. Which is technically a different thing, and it means that instead of eradicating diseases, we have instead.... eradicated diseases.

georgie_leech

2017-08-14, 02:35 PM

This actually may come up in rebuttal, so i'ma go ahead and use your post to address it, if you don't mind. Sort of nip it in the bud before it comes up in earnest.

Yes. We haven't cured some diseases so much as we have created vaccinations against them. Which is technically a different thing, and it means that instead of eradicating diseases, we have instead.... eradicated diseases.

Wait, that's a thing people argue? I don't know about you, but I would rather I not be set on fire than to have a convenient water bucket handy for when I'm burning. :smallconfused:

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-08-14, 02:36 PM

This actually may come up in rebuttal, so i'ma go ahead and use your post to address it, if you don't mind. Sort of nip it in the bud before it comes up in earnest.

I give it better than even odds that any rebuttal actually includes the words "mercury" or "autism" at this point.

GW

2D8HP

2017-08-14, 02:43 PM

Wait, that's a thing people argue? I don't know about you, but I would rather I not be set on fire than to have a convenient water bucket handy for when I'm burning. :smallconfused:

:confused:

Where's the sport in that?

:wink:

I give it better than even odds that any rebuttal actually includes the words "mercury" or "autism" at this point.

GW

I actually had a teacher that blamed his kids autism on vaccines.

Unlike many things I've read on-line ("those awful Femi-nazis, and SJW's", "we should go back to the gold standard", "lembas bread is people!"), this is one "theory" that I've actually heard spoken aloud.

happycrow

2017-08-14, 02:45 PM

I feel like I'm missing the point on this one. What's Durkon planning?

In my call? Saddling the vampires with an indefensible location so they can get wafflestomped by Team Order And the Dwarves.

Peelee

2017-08-14, 02:47 PM

Wait, that's a thing people argue? I don't know about you, but I would rather I not be set on fire than to have a convenient water bucket handy for when I'm burning. :smallconfused:

Eh, call it more "hedging my bets."

2D8HP

2017-08-14, 02:53 PM

...What's Durkon planning?

In my call? Saddling the vampires with an indefensible location so they can get wafflestomped by Team Order And the Dwarves.

I hope so, but I wouldn't be surprised if Durkon is just genuinely trying to save lives and prevent suffering.

Really the more of his memories that we're shown, the more I respect Durkon.

I think I'll have an Ale in his honor after work today.

Erys

2017-08-14, 04:38 PM

To save everyone else a google search: Royal's Rife "cancer cure" was a nine volt battery applied to the skin with a couple of wires and some copper tubes.

Yep, that sounds like the kind of conspiracy theory that someone that believes gold-back currency is magical would also believe. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Erys also believing that "Big Soap" has also suppressed the sonic washing machine, and "Big Oil" killed the electric car.

GW

You have proven to make fraudulent and incorrect claims throughout the economics discussion, yet people still believe you when you spew other nonsense...

Have you ever considered a career in politics. You seem to be a good fit for it.

Royal Rifes cure involved frequency of sound. Not a nine volt battery applied to the skin... /sheesh.

And while I don't know anything about the soap claim; I have worked with two people that got funding from a major car manufacturer here in the US several years back to 'design a working electric engine', they had great success- only to have all funding pulled last minute. Since they were working for 'big car co', that company got all their patents for their particular design and guess what- said company still has no electric car.

This stuff happens a lot more then you might realize, in many/most areas of big business.

***

I am done with this thread; even though I have shown and proven all my points on the economy- if the other side of the debate refuses to even acknowledge it; then no progress can be made and the discussion is meaningless.

In closing, fiat money not only is robbing you of your wealth through buying power depreciation; it is making the wealth divide even greater at an ever increasing pace. This is allowing big business to have massive amounts of money to buy (lobby) politicians, suppress innovation, stifle competition, and ultimately reduce our choices about the things that matter.

It also gives them the resources to astroturf (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU) their goods or services. This is a very disturbing trend to any who are aware of it...

There is a LOT of money being created for the express purpose of tricking the masses. And since there is unlimited money in the hands of just a few people... you can thank the fiat economy for much of it.

The American Dream (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY) is not what you think it is.

Quebbster

2017-08-14, 04:52 PM

Does this mean I have to put away my popcorn?

The MunchKING

2017-08-14, 05:14 PM

I actually had a teacher that blamed his kids autism on vaccines.

Unlike many things I've read on-line ("those awful Femi-nazis, and SJW's", "we should go back to the gold standard", "lembas bread is people!"), this is one "theory" that I've actually heard spoken aloud.

I worked with someone who actually believed they faked the moon landings. She couldn't give any reason she thought that though.

Yo
Royal Rifes cure involved frequency of sound. Not a nine volt battery applied to the skin... /sheesh.

Let's check what the sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife) say!!

I use Wikipedia because Google refused to believe I wasn't asking about Royal rifles.

An analysis by Electronics Australia found that a typical 'Rife device' consisted of a nine-volt battery, wiring, a switch, a timer and two short lengths of copper tubing, which delivered an "almost undetectable" current unlikely to penetrate the skin.

Sounds like a nine volt and some copper tubing applied to the skin as Grey Wolf said...

And while I don't know anything about the soap claim; I have worked with two people that got funding from a major car manufacturer here in the US several years back to 'design a working electric engine', they had great success- only to have all funding pulled last minute. Since they were working for 'big car co', that company got all their patents for their particular design and guess what- said company still has no electric car.

So you're just ignoring the Tesla, Bolt, 500e, i3, and the other electric cars (http://www.plugincars.com/cars)?

I am done with this thread; even though I have shown and proven all my points on the economy

The problem is you haven't PROVEN anything, you've merely made assertions...

In closing, fiat money not only is robbing you of your wealth through buying power depreciation; it is making the wealth divide even greater at an ever increasing pace. This is allowing big business to have massive amounts of money to buy (lobby) politicians, suppress innovation, stifle competition, and ultimately reduce our choices about the things that matter.

And again I await proof of this.

There is a LOT of money being created for the express purpose of tricking the masses. And since there is unlimited money in the hands of just a few people... you can thank the fiat economy for much of it.

Yeah, because people NEVER spent money on lying to the public or tricking people back when they had gold. Fiat economy made everyone spend money on tricking people!!

The American Dream (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY) is not what you think it is.

Unfortunately, The American Dream (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfJJXIr1gzQ) died, June 11, 2015