On Sep 10, 2:02Â am, "Sean"
now.com.au> wrote:> "tg"
earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3fba0df1-c171-4148-a01a-5e71ff493744@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 9, 7:43 am, "Sean" now.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>> Thx Sean
>
>>> --
>>> "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." RFK
>>> 1968
>
> Ok Sean, you are getting to be a bottom-feeder like Bret---what kind
> of challenge do you expect from those guys? Â Let me offer a question
> for you that your other post got me thinking about:
>
> How is a gold standard different from the current one? Â It seems to me
> that both rely on faith in the gummint, and an artificial 'value'
> attributed to the standard.
>
> -tg
>
> ----------------------
>
> Hi tg, you're bein' a bit hard on me aren't you, comparing me to Bret? :-(
>
Tough love, dude, tough love. ;-)
> Someone's gotta clean up all the garbage settling on the floor of our ocean
> of ideas. :-)
>
> OK to your good question.
>
> I think the main difference is that Gold can neither be created, nor
> destroyed. Just lost at sea, or maybe even stolen. It doesn't rust, doesn't
> take up much space vs value, which is why god made it heavy. :-)
>
> Cash notes on the other hand ....... well, it's real cheap to print, some
> folks like to light their cigars with a $1000 bill, and the biggy is no one
> has yet found a way to counterfeit Gold.
>
> So that's a primary principle, imho, but it does I'm sure fail to address to
> your satisfaction the larger "economics" issues .... that's where all the
> mirrors start working and it gets harder to see the truth from the fiction.
> Or under which shell is the real pea.
>
> Now, if I may add, even if Ron P is saying what he says, doesn;t mean I know
> enough to know if changing back to gold is a good idea or not. But, for me,
> it's one of the things that has changed the last century, with the speed of
> changes these last 20 years especially, well it;s one hell of a scrambled
> egg isn't it? And really I am not sure what the solutions are, but I;m
> pretty confident that what is happening now is a major problem and not the
> solution.
Ok Sean, I think this part is basically an honest reply---which is, "I
dunno".
What's you say below is I think the real point though. If we had
wonderful philosopher kings to run things, then I suspect that almost
any kind of system would work, at least as well as it can with too
many people for the available resources.
But the converse is true as well. Follow all the principles of RP, and
there will still be people who will find a way to turn things to their
advantage and the detriment of most. Consider the 1930's, which
followed on a period of zero gummint control of anything. What people
don't seem to realize is that the gummint acting as a damper on things
is actually a *good* thing much of the time. Systems need a degree of
inertia otherwise you get endless booms and busts.
The best political argument there is for the Dems v the Republicans is
that Dems will tend to hire government types to run things, and they
will pay attention to all the little nitpicks that infuriate people,
but slow things down enough that thinking and long-term planning is
possible. Sorry, but that's the best you're going to get with the
world the way it is.
If you don't believe that profound excursions are a problem when a
system gets overheated, try growing some grain in Australia, eh?
-tg
>
> I can;t explain this yet in a suitable way, but what bear sterns & freddie
> mac have been doing with "mortgage repackaging" and marketing them, and
> selling them around the world is fundamentally wrong and corrupt. What the
> central banks are doing is fundamentally wrong and corrupt. What the
> individual politicians know about such things is but a drop in the bucket -- Â
> so rather than accuse them of corruption, I see them as being grossly
> manipulated [ in their desire for relection and as a salve against their own
> impotence in such responsible positions of power ..... basically they are
> beyond their capacity to work out what's going on inside the house of
> mirrors.
>
> At the core of all this economic juggling appears to me to be the words
> "self-interest". What that means imho, is it means very different things to
> different people. Sound ideas and philosophies and values seem to have been
> spun out of any sense of reality. Maybe looking at the role of Gold in the
> past, is but part of the method to unscramble the egg, and smash all the
> mirrors? I'm not sure.
>
> One person who I do admire and seen a bot of the last few years is the
> Economist Jeffery Sachs. He tried his best to help Russia in the early 90's,
> and his ideas about Carbon trading and the whole climate change dynamic
> sound absolutely excellent to me.
>
> At the end of day Tg, it's about "values" isn't it? Todays world in the west
> seems to have twisted and confused people's values and they have lost sight
> of what is really important to them as others do flashy things to attract
> attention so they can tell people "they have the solutions for these
> problems".
>
> Isn;t defying reality that the ones creating the problems can speak with
> such forked tongues as to be credible that they have the solutions, yet
> again?
>
> Hope that helps. cheers sean
