Thread: Каддафи хотел заменить доллар золотом

Originally Posted by Ramil

That's your idea of short?

It's really short considering the length of the entire story,

Originally Posted by Ramil

Croc, I would hate to disappoint you, but that really was a rhetorical question. (trollface).

Yes, I got that. I'm only saying the system we see today has evolved historically. It's not like someone evil had something really bad for breakfast, felt sick and started to cut the paper into pieces, write some arbitrary numbers on them and sign them by "666".

Originally Posted by Ramil

Thanks for the story anyway, thought it's a bit naive and incorrect, but it describes the main things pretty well.

Мысль изречённая - есть ложь. А мысль изречённая, сильно укороченная и с вырезанным контекстом - есть короткий рассказ.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Before the middle of XX century, the powers used paper money simply because they were more convenient than carrying a heavy bag of gold with you, BUT if you really needed, you could ALWAYS exchange your paper money for a FIXED amount of gold (or any other value which was used to secure the paper). This was stamped on any banknote of every state. That stood for reason and helped to avoid the inflation. Even in your story, every paper (or legal obligation) used for a payment was backed up with something. Something fixed.

Aha! Got you! The golden equivalent was already inflation prone. What you're saying helped to avoid a CATASTROPHIC inflation to a certain extent, but nothing more than that. It's true the gold stood behind the paper, but what stood behind the gold? In my example that was the CROP! That was the ultimate value which stood behind the golden bars. Or the villages as the direct means to produce the crop. For example, I personally do not like to wear gold, so the gold by itself worth nothing to me. However, if I can exchange the otherwise useless gold for food (as promised by the government) then I would agree to do some work for you in exchange for gold as I know that is just a temporary measure. And when the food is scarce, it would worth 10 golden bars and not 1 golden bar (=>inflation!) as those who have the food would prefer to eat it rather than share it with me. However, if I'm optimistic and I believe that the scarcity of food would be over then in the meantime I could eat the bark off the trees as well as the unlucky snails and snakes and do not exchange my 10 golden bars for food. And if that happens and the food scarcity is over, the food would cost 1 golden bar again. And I would be able to exchange them for 10 times more food that when the food was scarce. Yay! That is the only fundamental difference between the golden currency and the paper currency. In theory. But in practice, people are not ready to eat the bark and they prefer to stop spending and start collecting the golden bars because maybe the food scarcity would become worse and they would need more golden bars to pay for it in the near future thus effectively removing the golden bars from the circulation. So if you're the government what would you do? You have no golden bars to pay those in your service, and you have no golden bars to exchange for food and feed them directly. What are you going to do? You can either start promising them everything will be ok (=start issuing "promissory notes" = paper money) or stop paying. The later option was exactly the situation in the Middle Ages. They could afford themselves to call the usury the sin, because they got the service done for them FOR FREE!! Most of their servants (the ordinary people) were obliged to do free work for their masters or be imprisoned (=made to work for free anyways) or being killed. As soon as the serfdom was left behind (due to some other reasons) the governments were left without that cool choice, so they had to start issuing promises (=the paper). It had just happened historically that way. Whatever is the most practical survives in the long term.

Исправление замеченных ошибок: Сам-то я верю, что бомбардировка Ливии сделана(как-то не по-русски звучит) глобальными банкирами(кто такие "глобальные банкиры"?). Зачем(либо Почему) Обама беспокоится? У него нет никаких оснований тревожиться. Он просто работает на своего верховного владыку. Что вы думают об зтом?

C'mon Eric, what's the big secret? Nobody else has a problem revealing their nationality. It's more easy to understand and sympathise with your views if we know what historical context they are from.

Is it a personal or professional interest?

And who are "we"?

According to the latest reports, the 'defenders of freedom and democracy' in Libya have already killed more than 700 civilians. Now, they were the martyrs for the cause, it appers.

That's awful. But how many people had been killed by "the initiator of the golden dinar" before that? He had to be stopped...

I do not think that is what Sperk said. JFK signed an order that would basically end the Federal Reserve's monopoly of money. He was shot soon after. The JFK's order was immediately reversed by Johnson after he was dead. Coincidence? I don't think so. Two other presidents were shot who did similar things and another they tried but failed to kill. That was Jackson.

So are you saying anyone who begs to do a similar thing will be killed?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Is it a personal or professional interest?

And who are "we"?

Still dodging the question, huh?

Still dodging the question, huh?

If you answer to my first question with the second option, then yes, definitely.

If not, we can discuss it in private...

Originally Posted by Hanna

Still dodging the question, huh?

Hey Eric, I apologize in advance for giving you advice, but you might consider using my crocodile tactics and let Hanna know you're just one of the Ericsson devices. That might do the trick.

Hey Eric, I apologize in advance for giving you advice, but you might consider using my crocodile tactics and let Hanna know you're just one of the Ericsson devices. That might do the trick.

Thanks, but this stage is in the past already. She's not gonna believe I'm a bot anymore...

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Aha! Got you!

Croc, I think it's pointless to compete in casuistry with you. If you have the arguments which can prove to me that the modern banking system belonging to FRS is better than the fixed value currency I'm ready to hear them.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Ok, I am pretty sure Eric C. is not a native speaker of English now.

He's Russian. I'm 99% sure of it judging by some mistakes he makes. And I get the feeling that he's been known here before by a different nick.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

That's awful. But how many people had been killed by "the initiator of the golden dinar" before that? He had to be stopped...

Much less. According to the various news sources the number is about 27 people. Even the most anti-Lybian news sources say only about less than 200 people killed.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Croc, I think it's pointless to compete in casuistry with you.

Ahm... casuistry... sophistry... I would prefer you address the points I'm making rather than sticking the labels. That would help the discussion move forward.

Originally Posted by Ramil

If you have the arguments which can prove to me that the modern banking system belonging to FRS is better than the fixed value currency I'm ready to hear them.

Wait-wait-wait... I was under impression we were discussing the pros and cons of the golden currency and not the FRS ownership of the entire world, so to speak. What Hanna usually refers to as Bretton Woods system is actually not part of the Bretton Woods accord, but was introduced much later in the 70s and is known as Nixon Shock (the unilateral disconnect between the USD and the golden standard). And that was a very bad thing at the time. And I'm not arguing about that. What I'm trying to say is that for the ordinary people (the producers and the consumers) it DOESN'T MAKE ANY PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE whether the governments use the golden standard or don't. All I'm asking you to realize that the golden standard made sense as long as gold ACCUMULATED the value HISTORICALLY as a capacitor of all previously produced goods and services. But as soon as the disconnect between the paper money and the golden standard had happened (and many people lost the value associated with their legal tender), there's no practical point to go back. Just to remind why that disconnect had happened: in the 1970-71 the US was in the Vietnam war and had a lot of expenses (and people were collecting the paper USDs as they knew the USDs were covered by the golden standard), so the US had to print more dollars thus diluting (=>inflation!) the golden value. And when people saw that, they started to accumulate more USDs just to make the government print more and causing more inflation. So, in the end the US had no choice, but to just stop the coverage and plain promise things would turn out well. That was a catastrophic point and the US deserved to being military punished at that point, but as soon as that point was over, there would be much greater issues to go back. How on Earth the conversion to golden standard would happen today without a great devaluation of all the currencies worldwide?! That situation would inevitably cause those tho won and those who lost. And those who lost would want their money back: first the economic war and the the military campaign. And the worst point is that as soon as the countries would start the war and run out of cash, they would start to print more money diluting their golden backing and so the situation would happen once again! So, what's the point to go back at this point? Just to benefit the raw material-exporting countries? That would make the goods-producing countries lose and inevitably start the war. Why to go to that trouble? Just to punish the evil FRS? If you call that simple and history-proven layout a casuistry I'm not sure what's not casuistry.

One problem that both fiat and commodity backed currencies have is exponential debt growth. This always leads to debt deflation when the overburden of debt gets so large that it sucks all the money out of the economy. All the different 'isms' have this problem. The only solution is debt cancellation. With private control of credit creation, management never allows their assets (the bonds they hold) to be torn up. And so they demand public assets when the nation's debts cannot be paid. Thus the problem with private monopoly control of credit at the national level. Transfer of publicly held lands, infrastructure, etc to private oligarchs simply by the inevitable consequences of monopoly private credit creation. It is dysfunctional to operate economies this way. The nations must retain or recover their sovereign right to public credit creation. This allows publicly held debt to be cancelled, when it grows so large that it sucks all the money out of the economy in interest payments. But currently this is not the case, and so we see massive problems in Europe at the present, precisely because of private control of credit creation at the national level.
Usurpation of democratic, public national control by private interests, in the form of banking legislation.

Originally Posted by Seraph

One problem that both fiat and commodity backed currencies have is exponential debt growth. This always leads to debt deflation when the overburden of debt gets so large that it sucks all the money out of the economy. All the different 'isms' have this problem. The only solution is debt cancellation. [...] Usurpation of democratic, public national control by private interests, in the form of banking legislation.

I agree to some extent, but what are the alternatives?

The alternatives are true sovereign control of currency and credit creation by actual representative governments, with firm regulation and enforcement of domestic and international banking/finance sectors. Some laws and regulations are in place now, but are not enforced. The current deregulated plutocratic systems with un-enforced laws/regulation, in which special interests are above the laws, and also dictate legislation will always be dysfunctional. The finance sector displays the faults of unrestrained privilege. They are having their cake, and eating yours too.

I would probably say it's inevitable to some extent, as the "public interests" are always being managed by the individuals. However, the degree of that extent makes all the difference. I think there is a certain critical point at which people totally lose faith in existence of their interests as part of the public interests, and everyone would openly throw the "public" consideration down the drain so as pursue his own short-term interests. In my opinion, that process was largely responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. So, what mechanism could be effective to tame that process? The mere presence of the governing laws is not enough, as you said. (And as many in Russia would assert, I believe.) Perhaps, the only reliable way is to assume the plutocrats are rational players and offer them something they would appreciate, but that would also serve the public interest. That might encourage the plutocrats to invest into the public interests. I think things like innovation and development of the new markets can do some of the work. After all, the plutocrats like the big screens TVs and perhaps a private space shuttle as much as everybody else, but at the same time the investing into such innovations could help the plutocrats make more relative (=money) value. So, even if the relative income gap is getting wider, the absolute value of the public markets is still growing making the public richer. So, the fiat currency makes that happen faster than the backed currency. What do you think of that?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

... the absolute value of the public markets is still growing making the public richer. So, the fiat currency makes that happen faster than the backed currency. What do you think of that?

It appears that perhaps I haven't made clear the significance/ramifications of debt deflation.
Perhaps we could liken the situation to public health. Centuries ago we did not know what were the causative agents responsible for cholera, plague, yellow fever, polio etc. But people gained more and more knowledge about these kinds of things until the 19th and 20th centuries when it became possible to prevent many such things by having sanitation laws, clean municipal water supplies, medical support treatments, etc. We know now what to do in many such cases to reduce the incidences of various diseases, not all of them of course, but huge strides have been made.
Likewise in finance, we know what causes a great many problems, but we let the disease , the dysfunctional agents, actually run things. We know how to prevent problems. Enough is known, but crazy doctrines are promulgated, like false religions, leading people over the cliffs. If you want medical care, you know who to go to. If you want economic health do not go to economic witch doctors.

Maybe this can help you see the tip of the iceberg: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ecb...ean-central-ba

Originally Posted by Seraph

If you want economic health do not go to economic witch doctors.

Yes, that sounds reasonable. The only problem is that there seems to be no mutual agreement as to what evil is lesser at each point in time. Say, you're a government and you want to reduce the deficit. One of the simple and clear recipes is to cut the spendings. And one of the major annual bills is the payment to the government-supported unprofitable enterprises. So, you stop paying those enterprises which would effectively have those enterprises closed and the employees fired. But, hey, you have the lesser bills to pay. Yay! Right? Not quite. As a government, you have the further responsibility to provide social security to those people paying them money directly and at the same time you have less tax revenues coming as well as less GDP produced to back up your currency. So, in the end you'll have to pay even bigger bills than before. So, which evil was the lesser at that point? Alternatively, you might decide not to cut the deficit that way, but you have to cut it somehow or borrow even more, right? And the problem is that almost each and every measure of the deficit cut creates some well-known adverse side-effects which come and bite you from behind. So, using your analogy with the health providers, if you have a headache you can take the pill and the headache will go away, but the pill would hurt the liver. Of course, you might do lots of outdoor sports and you won't ever have headaches, but that's not easy too: because of your busy schedule you would have to sacrifice some quality time with your wife and kids, so your wife might leave you for someone else "who cares" and your kids would grow up and won't care about you as you've "never been there for them". And so on...

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The only problem is that there seems to be no mutual agreement as to what evil is lesser at each point in time.

There is sufficient data to provide quantitative answers to these issues. And actually solve the problems. Unfortunately, various groups ranging from well intentioned and well informed, to well intentioned but misinformed, to mal-intentioned and well informed, to mal-intentioned and misinformed, and everything in between are continually arguing passed each other. Some are trying to solve the problems and know how. Some are trying to confuse the issue to keep dysfunctional systems in place because they are so lucrative. And so there is not much more to say about it.

От Луки 6
43 Нет доброго дерева, которое приносило бы худой плод; и нет худого дерева, которое приносило бы плод добрый,

44 ибо всякое дерево познаётся по плоду своему, потому что не собирают смокв с терновника и не снимают винограда с кустарника.

Originally Posted by Seraph

There is sufficient data to provide quantitative answers to these issues. And actually solve the problems.

I agree with you. However, the whole thing looks to me more like Тришкин Кафтан.

Originally Posted by Seraph

Maybe this can help you see the tip of the iceberg [...]

As someone who witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union, I would respectfully disagree that could qualify to be named iceberg. As usual, when the debt would go out of control, they would just cancel it and make us all pay for it. That's all. It's not like there would be no veggies in the corner store except for the pickled tomatoes in the 5-liter jars.

«Сестрица! знаешь ли, беда!—
На корабле Мышь Мыши говорила,—
Ведь оказалась течь: внизу у нас вода
Чуть не хватила
До самого мне рыла.
(А правда, так она лишь лапки замочила.)
И что диковинки — наш капитан
Или с похмелья, или пьян.
Матросы все — один ленивее другого;
Ну, словом, нет порядку никакого.
Сейчас кричала я во весь народ,
Что ко дну наш корабль идет:
Куда!— Никто и ухом не ведет,
Как будто б ложные я распускала вести;
А ясно — только в трюм лишь стоит заглянуть,
Что кораблю часа не дотянуть.
Сестрица! неужли нам гибнуть с ними вместе!
Пойдем же, кинемся скорее с корабля;
Авось не далеко земля!»
Тут в Океан мои затейницы спрыгнули
И — утонули;
А наш корабль, рукой искусною водим,
Достигнул пристани и цел и невредим.

Иван Крылов, 1832

Originally Posted by Crocodile

... I would respectfully disagree that could qualify to be named iceberg. As usual, when the debt would go out of control, they would just cancel it and make us all pay for it. ...

It's not the whole iceberg: just a small tip of it. The iceberg has a lot of underwater hidden mass. They certainly have been making us pay for it. But that is not the whole story.