Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Rich ToscanoKeymasterOh boy, well now I’m embarrassed for flying off the handle like that. Sorry if I misread the point of your post. (In my possible defense, I have the flu or something so my brain is running at less than half speed today). Thanks for writing that nice followup… for my part I will try to imbue your posts with a jocular tone as I read them so I am less likely to make the mistake of misunderstanding the point. It’s not as easy when you don’t specifically mention sharks.
Rich
Rich ToscanoKeymasterOh boy, well now I’m embarrassed for flying off the handle like that. Sorry if I misread the point of your post. (In my possible defense, I have the flu or something so my brain is running at less than half speed today). Thanks for writing that nice followup… for my part I will try to imbue your posts with a jocular tone as I read them so I am less likely to make the mistake of misunderstanding the point. It’s not as easy when you don’t specifically mention sharks.
Rich
Rich ToscanoKeymasterOh boy, well now I’m embarrassed for flying off the handle like that. Sorry if I misread the point of your post. (In my possible defense, I have the flu or something so my brain is running at less than half speed today). Thanks for writing that nice followup… for my part I will try to imbue your posts with a jocular tone as I read them so I am less likely to make the mistake of misunderstanding the point. It’s not as easy when you don’t specifically mention sharks.
Rich
Rich ToscanoKeymasterYou invoked Ron Paul, who is against fractional reserve banking. So while I agree with what you said in the first half of your post (about a fractionalized gold standard), the “irony” you cited about Ron Paul’s position just isn’t there because the system you described is not what he proposes.
As for the second part of your email, I really, really dislike it when people accuse me of being dishonest. Because I’m not dishonest. So it is offensive to me when people assume dishonesty rather than a simple miscommunication.
I believe that a gold standard would be better than the current system, but I could say that about any number of monetary arrangements. That is more than anything else a function of the current system being dysfunctional and horrific and incredibly regressive. That’s hardly an “endorsement,” as I think that practically any system would be better than the current rip-off-the-poor-developing-nations and enrich-the-speculators based system. And while I do think many people overstate the flaws in a gold standard, especially in comparison to the current system, I have never, ever “endorsed” it as the ideal system.
The fact is I’m pretty confident we could come up with a system better than a gold standard. Runaway expansionist monetarism, as you aptly put it, is very harmful and imho we haven’t even come close to seeing the depths of the harm it will eventually cause. But there are a lot of different systems that could prevent runaway expansionist monetarism, the gold standard being just one and probably not the best one. But I don’t give a lot of thought to the alternate monetary systems, gold standard included, because that’s in the realm of navel gazing about policy that will never happen (not before the current system completely breaks down anyway), and I don’t typically spend much time on such thoughts.
In fact, unless I’m asked about it, I usually avoid conversations about the gold standard because I really haven’t spent a huge amount of time thinking about the topic, because I don’t want to give the impression of endorsing a gold standard as the ideal system, and because it’s not really a topic I am interested in spending a lot of time debating.
In the case of this thread, I wasn’t asked, but your statement as I understood it (remember here that since you invoked Ron Paul, I incorrectly assumed you were talking about the non-fractionalized pure gold standard that he endorses) seemed off-base enough that I felt compelled to correct it. Clearly that was a giant mistake on my part.
Next time there is a disagreement, please, ask me about it before accusing me of being a liar.
Rich ToscanoKeymasterYou invoked Ron Paul, who is against fractional reserve banking. So while I agree with what you said in the first half of your post (about a fractionalized gold standard), the “irony” you cited about Ron Paul’s position just isn’t there because the system you described is not what he proposes.
As for the second part of your email, I really, really dislike it when people accuse me of being dishonest. Because I’m not dishonest. So it is offensive to me when people assume dishonesty rather than a simple miscommunication.
I believe that a gold standard would be better than the current system, but I could say that about any number of monetary arrangements. That is more than anything else a function of the current system being dysfunctional and horrific and incredibly regressive. That’s hardly an “endorsement,” as I think that practically any system would be better than the current rip-off-the-poor-developing-nations and enrich-the-speculators based system. And while I do think many people overstate the flaws in a gold standard, especially in comparison to the current system, I have never, ever “endorsed” it as the ideal system.
The fact is I’m pretty confident we could come up with a system better than a gold standard. Runaway expansionist monetarism, as you aptly put it, is very harmful and imho we haven’t even come close to seeing the depths of the harm it will eventually cause. But there are a lot of different systems that could prevent runaway expansionist monetarism, the gold standard being just one and probably not the best one. But I don’t give a lot of thought to the alternate monetary systems, gold standard included, because that’s in the realm of navel gazing about policy that will never happen (not before the current system completely breaks down anyway), and I don’t typically spend much time on such thoughts.
In fact, unless I’m asked about it, I usually avoid conversations about the gold standard because I really haven’t spent a huge amount of time thinking about the topic, because I don’t want to give the impression of endorsing a gold standard as the ideal system, and because it’s not really a topic I am interested in spending a lot of time debating.
In the case of this thread, I wasn’t asked, but your statement as I understood it (remember here that since you invoked Ron Paul, I incorrectly assumed you were talking about the non-fractionalized pure gold standard that he endorses) seemed off-base enough that I felt compelled to correct it. Clearly that was a giant mistake on my part.
Next time there is a disagreement, please, ask me about it before accusing me of being a liar.
Rich ToscanoKeymasterYou invoked Ron Paul, who is against fractional reserve banking. So while I agree with what you said in the first half of your post (about a fractionalized gold standard), the “irony” you cited about Ron Paul’s position just isn’t there because the system you described is not what he proposes.
As for the second part of your email, I really, really dislike it when people accuse me of being dishonest. Because I’m not dishonest. So it is offensive to me when people assume dishonesty rather than a simple miscommunication.
I believe that a gold standard would be better than the current system, but I could say that about any number of monetary arrangements. That is more than anything else a function of the current system being dysfunctional and horrific and incredibly regressive. That’s hardly an “endorsement,” as I think that practically any system would be better than the current rip-off-the-poor-developing-nations and enrich-the-speculators based system. And while I do think many people overstate the flaws in a gold standard, especially in comparison to the current system, I have never, ever “endorsed” it as the ideal system.
The fact is I’m pretty confident we could come up with a system better than a gold standard. Runaway expansionist monetarism, as you aptly put it, is very harmful and imho we haven’t even come close to seeing the depths of the harm it will eventually cause. But there are a lot of different systems that could prevent runaway expansionist monetarism, the gold standard being just one and probably not the best one. But I don’t give a lot of thought to the alternate monetary systems, gold standard included, because that’s in the realm of navel gazing about policy that will never happen (not before the current system completely breaks down anyway), and I don’t typically spend much time on such thoughts.
In fact, unless I’m asked about it, I usually avoid conversations about the gold standard because I really haven’t spent a huge amount of time thinking about the topic, because I don’t want to give the impression of endorsing a gold standard as the ideal system, and because it’s not really a topic I am interested in spending a lot of time debating.
In the case of this thread, I wasn’t asked, but your statement as I understood it (remember here that since you invoked Ron Paul, I incorrectly assumed you were talking about the non-fractionalized pure gold standard that he endorses) seemed off-base enough that I felt compelled to correct it. Clearly that was a giant mistake on my part.
Next time there is a disagreement, please, ask me about it before accusing me of being a liar.
Rich ToscanoKeymasterYou invoked Ron Paul, who is against fractional reserve banking. So while I agree with what you said in the first half of your post (about a fractionalized gold standard), the “irony” you cited about Ron Paul’s position just isn’t there because the system you described is not what he proposes.
As for the second part of your email, I really, really dislike it when people accuse me of being dishonest. Because I’m not dishonest. So it is offensive to me when people assume dishonesty rather than a simple miscommunication.
I believe that a gold standard would be better than the current system, but I could say that about any number of monetary arrangements. That is more than anything else a function of the current system being dysfunctional and horrific and incredibly regressive. That’s hardly an “endorsement,” as I think that practically any system would be better than the current rip-off-the-poor-developing-nations and enrich-the-speculators based system. And while I do think many people overstate the flaws in a gold standard, especially in comparison to the current system, I have never, ever “endorsed” it as the ideal system.
The fact is I’m pretty confident we could come up with a system better than a gold standard. Runaway expansionist monetarism, as you aptly put it, is very harmful and imho we haven’t even come close to seeing the depths of the harm it will eventually cause. But there are a lot of different systems that could prevent runaway expansionist monetarism, the gold standard being just one and probably not the best one. But I don’t give a lot of thought to the alternate monetary systems, gold standard included, because that’s in the realm of navel gazing about policy that will never happen (not before the current system completely breaks down anyway), and I don’t typically spend much time on such thoughts.
In fact, unless I’m asked about it, I usually avoid conversations about the gold standard because I really haven’t spent a huge amount of time thinking about the topic, because I don’t want to give the impression of endorsing a gold standard as the ideal system, and because it’s not really a topic I am interested in spending a lot of time debating.
In the case of this thread, I wasn’t asked, but your statement as I understood it (remember here that since you invoked Ron Paul, I incorrectly assumed you were talking about the non-fractionalized pure gold standard that he endorses) seemed off-base enough that I felt compelled to correct it. Clearly that was a giant mistake on my part.
Next time there is a disagreement, please, ask me about it before accusing me of being a liar.
Rich ToscanoKeymasterYou invoked Ron Paul, who is against fractional reserve banking. So while I agree with what you said in the first half of your post (about a fractionalized gold standard), the “irony” you cited about Ron Paul’s position just isn’t there because the system you described is not what he proposes.
As for the second part of your email, I really, really dislike it when people accuse me of being dishonest. Because I’m not dishonest. So it is offensive to me when people assume dishonesty rather than a simple miscommunication.
I believe that a gold standard would be better than the current system, but I could say that about any number of monetary arrangements. That is more than anything else a function of the current system being dysfunctional and horrific and incredibly regressive. That’s hardly an “endorsement,” as I think that practically any system would be better than the current rip-off-the-poor-developing-nations and enrich-the-speculators based system. And while I do think many people overstate the flaws in a gold standard, especially in comparison to the current system, I have never, ever “endorsed” it as the ideal system.
The fact is I’m pretty confident we could come up with a system better than a gold standard. Runaway expansionist monetarism, as you aptly put it, is very harmful and imho we haven’t even come close to seeing the depths of the harm it will eventually cause. But there are a lot of different systems that could prevent runaway expansionist monetarism, the gold standard being just one and probably not the best one. But I don’t give a lot of thought to the alternate monetary systems, gold standard included, because that’s in the realm of navel gazing about policy that will never happen (not before the current system completely breaks down anyway), and I don’t typically spend much time on such thoughts.
In fact, unless I’m asked about it, I usually avoid conversations about the gold standard because I really haven’t spent a huge amount of time thinking about the topic, because I don’t want to give the impression of endorsing a gold standard as the ideal system, and because it’s not really a topic I am interested in spending a lot of time debating.
In the case of this thread, I wasn’t asked, but your statement as I understood it (remember here that since you invoked Ron Paul, I incorrectly assumed you were talking about the non-fractionalized pure gold standard that he endorses) seemed off-base enough that I felt compelled to correct it. Clearly that was a giant mistake on my part.
Next time there is a disagreement, please, ask me about it before accusing me of being a liar.
Rich ToscanoKeymaster[quote=urbanrealtor]The irony of being against price controls and for a gold standard seem entirely lost on Paul.[/quote]
That doesn’t make any sense at all. Making something the currency isn’t the same as controlling the price of it. You may be controlling the dollar denominated price, but the whole point is that the dollar-denominated price is irrelevant. In a gold standard it’s the price of things in gold terms that matters, and all such things can float freely, and conversely the price of gold against anything else can float freely. Linking the dollars to gold is just a convenience so you don’t have to carry ingots around, it’s not fixing or controlling the price of anything.
(I am not endorsing a gold standard and I have no interest in debating the merits of a gold standard… I’m just pointing out that the above quote is a misapprehension of what price controls are).
This however was well played, sir:
[quote]
I seem to remember another alternative currency endeavour that South Carolina spearheaded previously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America_currency
[/quote]Rich ToscanoKeymaster[quote=urbanrealtor]The irony of being against price controls and for a gold standard seem entirely lost on Paul.[/quote]
That doesn’t make any sense at all. Making something the currency isn’t the same as controlling the price of it. You may be controlling the dollar denominated price, but the whole point is that the dollar-denominated price is irrelevant. In a gold standard it’s the price of things in gold terms that matters, and all such things can float freely, and conversely the price of gold against anything else can float freely. Linking the dollars to gold is just a convenience so you don’t have to carry ingots around, it’s not fixing or controlling the price of anything.
(I am not endorsing a gold standard and I have no interest in debating the merits of a gold standard… I’m just pointing out that the above quote is a misapprehension of what price controls are).
This however was well played, sir:
[quote]
I seem to remember another alternative currency endeavour that South Carolina spearheaded previously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America_currency
[/quote]Rich ToscanoKeymaster[quote=urbanrealtor]The irony of being against price controls and for a gold standard seem entirely lost on Paul.[/quote]
That doesn’t make any sense at all. Making something the currency isn’t the same as controlling the price of it. You may be controlling the dollar denominated price, but the whole point is that the dollar-denominated price is irrelevant. In a gold standard it’s the price of things in gold terms that matters, and all such things can float freely, and conversely the price of gold against anything else can float freely. Linking the dollars to gold is just a convenience so you don’t have to carry ingots around, it’s not fixing or controlling the price of anything.
(I am not endorsing a gold standard and I have no interest in debating the merits of a gold standard… I’m just pointing out that the above quote is a misapprehension of what price controls are).
This however was well played, sir:
[quote]
I seem to remember another alternative currency endeavour that South Carolina spearheaded previously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America_currency
[/quote]Rich ToscanoKeymaster[quote=urbanrealtor]The irony of being against price controls and for a gold standard seem entirely lost on Paul.[/quote]
That doesn’t make any sense at all. Making something the currency isn’t the same as controlling the price of it. You may be controlling the dollar denominated price, but the whole point is that the dollar-denominated price is irrelevant. In a gold standard it’s the price of things in gold terms that matters, and all such things can float freely, and conversely the price of gold against anything else can float freely. Linking the dollars to gold is just a convenience so you don’t have to carry ingots around, it’s not fixing or controlling the price of anything.
(I am not endorsing a gold standard and I have no interest in debating the merits of a gold standard… I’m just pointing out that the above quote is a misapprehension of what price controls are).
This however was well played, sir:
[quote]
I seem to remember another alternative currency endeavour that South Carolina spearheaded previously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America_currency
[/quote]Rich ToscanoKeymaster[quote=urbanrealtor]The irony of being against price controls and for a gold standard seem entirely lost on Paul.[/quote]
That doesn’t make any sense at all. Making something the currency isn’t the same as controlling the price of it. You may be controlling the dollar denominated price, but the whole point is that the dollar-denominated price is irrelevant. In a gold standard it’s the price of things in gold terms that matters, and all such things can float freely, and conversely the price of gold against anything else can float freely. Linking the dollars to gold is just a convenience so you don’t have to carry ingots around, it’s not fixing or controlling the price of anything.
(I am not endorsing a gold standard and I have no interest in debating the merits of a gold standard… I’m just pointing out that the above quote is a misapprehension of what price controls are).
This however was well played, sir:
[quote]
I seem to remember another alternative currency endeavour that South Carolina spearheaded previously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America_currency
[/quote]Rich ToscanoKeymaster[quote=pri_dk]So everybody hates Geithner. An easy position to take.
Could be worse. At least he’s not Andrew Mellon.
So let’s look at the situation in the real world, i.e. in the context of the available alternatives (often more useful than than echoing talking points or mocking a person’s appearance.)
So, who would be a better choice?
[Edit: Note that Brian is the only one to “Bring Data” to this thread so far][/quote]
Actually I don’t think that’s a useful exercise… who’s a better choice in the context of “available alternatives” who might actually get appointed (i.e., other deeply entrenched insiders who support serial financial industry bailouts and employ a demonstrably flawed analytical framework)? Who cares? I think I will stick to making fun of his elf ears.
As far as bringing data, I an not going to spend the time it would take to rehash his long history of being wrong and of helping to facilitate a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the banks and financial speculators. The info is all out there.
-
AuthorPosts
