On Sep 10, 9:33Â pm, "Sean"
now.com.au> wrote:> "tg"
earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ab9c17a5-e132-4c88-b294-59b7eefeaa4b@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 10, 2:02 am, "Sean" now.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>> "tg"
earthlink.net> wrote in message>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> 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? 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? 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. Â 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 appreciate the tough love, love! :)
> And I'm not 100%% sure, but doesn't australia grow more grain the USA? Even
> if it doesn't, aussie is far superior in quality grain for grain, than
> anything scratched out of the ground in the ol USA. Sorry, one good turn of
> love, deserves another!
>
I was talking about the drought and AGW there Sean---as a metaphor for
how economic systems cause trouble in particular sectors when they get
overheated. Australia *was* a major supplier of grains until that
ubiquitous resource water stopped being ubiquitous.
I leave the rest without comment since you have demonstrated often
enough that you have a good idea of how things work, and can
articulate it better than I. We each have our wishful thinking; same
goals but different fantasies about how to get there. :-)
-tg
> OK, now saying "I dunno" is fair enough .... it's sorta true, yet not quite
> as well. I'm just not willing to state anything that clearly, because this
> issue of the gold standard is only one small part of a million piece jigsaw
> puzzle. That doesn't mean I can't see the current big picture, and also see
> an alternative viable big picture that isn't so ugly.
>
> It's a philosophy newsgroup, not hard ass economics anyway, therefore I
> speak along the lines of 'philosophy' and concepts, and principles, and
> ethics, and values. Along the way then more mundane comments need to be
> made. But I'm not willing or prepared to nail those all down as if I have
> all the answers that might suit you, fred, or bret, or the world's financial
> system across the board. I hope that's understood.
>
> But I am willing to challenge accepted ideas and beliefs. That's the juice
> for me anyway. And I'm willing to present alternative notions, even if they
> don;t necessarily stack up, or are articulated by me co-herently of fully
> .... you see I don;t see that as being my job. Top spell everything out in a
> neat little package, in an effort to refute all known alternative views. I'm
> not here to agrue, or to convince others how "right" I am ... that's not the
> issue for me. I like to plant seeds.
>
> But I couldn't really give a shit about the world's financial system ......
> let alone the USA's "imagined" supremacy in world affairs. Â I am also not
> aligned with any side/version of political philosophy either. I'm quite
> independent actually.
>
> So, in this light, regarding what you said above .... I believe the notion
> that "governments" main role in life is to slow down the rate of changes. If
> you haven't heard about this idea before, look it up. Their role in a
> "perfect" world is to carefully consider the pro's and con's LONG TERM, in
> the *self-interests* of the nation or even the local municipality..........
> iow the PEOPLE who have honourably handed their *individual* power, values,
> and self-interest to the Govt to act on their behalf.
>
> Their "behalf" btw would also include the health of the natural environment,
> especially long term. Everyone has a responsibility to what they leave thier
> childrens, childrens children. No doubt about that in any way, have I.
>
> This is what I'd call a primary value ..... and if I could do anything to
> point people in a direction on how to think about things, especially when
> they are as complicated as world economics & financial systems ... is to
> REDUCE this complexity into a microcosm of the individual.
>
> iow if you apply what either the bankers, capitalists, busniessman,
> religious leader, or government is saying or doing ... then reduce it down
> to what it would look like if the parents of a family did that under ANY
> circumstances, how would their relatives or their local neighbours react
> .... what would you end up with?
>
> I'm not going to spell that out any further, it's only something each person
> can do for themselves. IOW each individual really needs to think for
> themselves, I can't put my head on your shoulders and do your thinking for
> you. Neither can the Government or Businessman, excpet in the context that
> they are already CLEARLY informed by those whom they are supposed to serve.
> That is the citizen or the customer, and thier neighbours.
>
> At present, the information flow is going in the wrong direction ....
> individuals are being told and being forced what is "good for them" and
> having *values* imposed on them by overt and covert forces.
>
> I can understand how the many comments of Ron Paul can sound really flaky,
> or of no real chnage at the end of the day .... as you say, you imagine the
> negative aspects of business/finance would soon find a way around it. I say
> yes and no ... it depends. [ whilst acknowledging that it IS a truism that
> liberty requires eternal vigilance ....... sure is lacking in the current
> political climate everywhere on the planet, imho ]
>
> What I think you, and others, may be missing [ I'm not sure ] in the RP
> rhetoric is his many many guiding principles and values, which would
> underpin any functional change like dumping the Fed, the IRS, and especially
> personal Income Tax. Many seem to think that all these "voids" will open up.
>
> I don't believe so. People need to listen to what he says, and many many
> others about issues such as when it comes to politics and government in the
> USA, the #1 guiding Principle is in fact the US Constitution. It is actually
> very very clear. What wrong imho is that people simply do not operate within
> it's boundaries.
>
> Secondly what gives the Constitution it's distinct *Values* IS the
> Declaration of Independence. You can't have one without the other, they must
> BOTH be applied in harmony, or things need to stop untill they do.
>
> Thirdly, in order for the Constitution to fullfill it's goals, there must be
> a valid and functional system of Laws ...... AND ...... natural justice
> coming as a result of those Laws being applied. [ such things as Separation
> of Powers is a part of that, as is the issue that if even one individual is
> to be ...
>
> read more »
