"tg"
earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bcd16365-02b0-4859-b55a-1eeb4a0247fd@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 10, 9:33 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. 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
--------------------------
O love a good fantasy myself, hey. :-)
and aha, yes, ur right about that less than ubiqutous water .... I mean we
are known as the scientifically proven driest continent on Earth.
Yet our visionary agribusiness self-interest decided that growing Rice and
Cotton in the western Murray-Darling basin with irrigation as if we were in
the Asian Tropics. To them it was a shit hot idea and another example of the
wonders of new technology, albeit, at the same time as a series of the worst
droughts in known memory. Brilliant I say. Simply brilliant!!!
What I can't seem to work out [ I must be a complete idiot ] is how come the
People, via the Govt are required to buy back for $ Millions on Millions the
"irrigation water rights" from Companies that got them for about a dime a
megalitre they should never have recieved in the first place given it was
utterly and obviously unsustainable in the first place despite their
Professionally prepared and "scientific" Environmental Impact Statements,
and comprehensive Business Plans?????
Does business ever have to pay for their own mistakes, or get told to "hey,
just piss off with your stupid ideas." No one *forced* them to start such
idiotic businesses in a dry land in the first place, so why should I fund
their EXIT from Agri-business?
Again, I say, brilliant, simply brilliant are these "free enterprise
capitalists" and their self-interests.
And so great for the economy, for a few minutes at least!
ok ..... moving on, and thanks Tg.
