Jump to content
fajw

How would you change our governance if you could?

Recommended Posts

Well, whether something has other uses doesn't change how it works as a currency.

Rubbish.

 

It's still only useful as a medium of exchange because people believe that other people will accept it in payment.

No; it is valuable whether or not it is used as a medium of exchange.

 

That said, the fact that gold has other uses is actually a strong argument against using it as a currency. Gold that is minted into coins or stored in a vault somewhere is gold that can't be used to make jewellery or electronics. Fiat money works just as well (actually better) as a currency and doesn't tie up useful resources in the process. To paraphrase Adam Smith, it's as if we could build our roads in the sky, and thereby release the underlying land for more productive uses. He was talking about using gold-backed paper money instead of gold itself, but the logic still applies.

Rubbish. There is no reason that gold in a vault can't be used for other purposes.

 

 

Don't mistake me for someone who wants legal tender legislation for gold; I am against all legal tender legislation and I believe what we use as money/currency should be up to the people.

Edited by fajw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No; it is valuable whether or not it is used as a medium of exchange.

This is all we're asking you to explain; so outside jewelery (which i maintain is impulse and would be unworn if jewelery directly = money) and electrical, what makes it valuable?

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish. There is no reason that gold in a vault can't be used for other purposes.

Um ... it's in a vault so's it can't be used for anything else. Duhh !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No; it is valuable whether or not it is used as a medium of exchange.

This is all we're asking you to explain; so outside jewelery (which i maintain is impulse and would be unworn if jewelery directly = money) and electrical, what makes it valuable?

 

You can find the Wikipedia article as well as I can.

 

 

Rubbish. There is no reason that gold in a vault can't be used for other purposes.

Um ... it's in a vault so's it can't be used for anything else. Duhh !

 

The point I was trying to make is whoever owns the gold can take it out of the vault and use it for other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gold has many practical uses in dentistry, electronics, and other fields. Its high malleability, ductility, resistance to corrosion and most other chemical reactions, and conductivity of electricity have led to many uses, including electric wiring, colored-glass production, and gold leafing.

Still not a huge list bro.... the resistance to some acids, and colored glass are 2 I didnt know; but we have forms of glass nowadays that resist the same thing; and I wonder how much is needed for colored glass? If we banned churches I'm sure we'd get away with a lot less colored glass :P

 

I stand by my opinion, gold is only notably valuable in electrical and radiation.

I REALLY feel that if it was the standard 'currency' people would stop wearing it.

 

Though some people do make money suits.....

 

 

Now, why do YOU think its valuable? Ive read the wiki article, all its uses have alternatives (bar the two i mentioned). so what gives it value? You keep saying it as fact, I wanna know your thoughts on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, whether something has other uses doesn't change how it works as a currency.

Rubbish.

So, you're claiming that whether something has other uses changes how well it works as a currency? That's a pretty bold claim that you're going to have to back up. In what way does it work differently? Be specific for once.

 

It's still only useful as a medium of exchange because people believe that other people will accept it in payment.

No; it is valuable whether or not it is used as a medium of exchange.

But we don't care about whether it's valuable or not, we care about how well it would work as money, and whether there are any drawbacks to using it as money. Money has three basic roles, as a medium of exchange, as a store of value, and as a unit of account. You've yet to demonstrate how gold is any better at these roles than fiat currency. Since we've shown that there are significant drawbacks to using gold (such as losing control of monetary policy, experiencing frequent depressions and deflation, etc) it would need to be significantly better than fiat currency for your claims to be justified.

 

That said, the fact that gold has other uses is actually a strong argument against using it as a currency. Gold that is minted into coins or stored in a vault somewhere is gold that can't be used to make jewellery or electronics. Fiat money works just as well (actually better) as a currency and doesn't tie up useful resources in the process. To paraphrase Adam Smith, it's as if we could build our roads in the sky, and thereby release the underlying land for more productive uses. He was talking about using gold-backed paper money instead of gold itself, but the logic still applies.

Rubbish. There is no reason that gold in a vault can't be used for other purposes.

 

So you've discovered a way that a given atom of gold can be in two places at once? If a bar of gold is being kept in a vault or is being used as coins, then THAT BAR cannot also be used for electronics. Are you even trying any more?

 

Don't mistake me for someone who wants legal tender legislation for gold; I am against all legal tender legislation and I believe what we use as money/currency should be up to the people.

Then you don't understand why we invented currency in the first place. I thought you wanted to send us back to the 1850s. I just didn't realise you meant 1850BC. Edited by DaCraw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No; it is valuable whether or not it is used as a medium of exchange.

This is all we're asking you to explain; so outside jewelery (which i maintain is impulse and would be unworn if jewelery directly = money) and electrical, what makes it valuable?

 

You can find the Wikipedia article as well as I can.

 

 

 

It's not actually up to other people to backup your wild claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest Uranium impregnated currency. It'd be BRILLIANT! Get too much of it, you'd die. Have a little of it, you're fine. Lots of it = buy lots of things. Not much of it = not buying much.

 

Choose what you want. A long non-financial life without radiation poisoning, or a short lived (Half Life? HA!) exciting life with adventures and fun.

 

There you go. Maybe Plutonium. It's rarer than gold and thus has more value..

 

AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish. There is no reason that gold in a vault can't be used for other purposes.

Um ... it's in a vault so's it can't be used for anything else. Duhh !

 

The point I was trying to make is whoever owns the gold can take it out of the vault and use it for other things.

 

But the owner of the gold has put it in the vault. Clearly that is the sole purpose for that gold. Why have a vault in the first place if it's not to be used

as it was intended ?

That's just silly, and a waste of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest Uranium impregnated currency. It'd be BRILLIANT! Get too much of it, you'd die. Have a little of it, you're fine. Lots of it = buy lots of things. Not much of it = not buying much.

 

Choose what you want. A long non-financial life without radiation poisoning, or a short lived (Half Life? HA!) exciting life with adventures and fun.

 

There you go. Maybe Plutonium. It's rarer than gold and thus has more value..

 

AD

Just make sure you don't live next to a bank :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest Uranium impregnated currency. It'd be BRILLIANT! Get too much of it, you'd die. Have a little of it, you're fine. Lots of it = buy lots of things. Not much of it = not buying much.

 

Choose what you want. A long non-financial life without radiation poisoning, or a short lived (Half Life? HA!) exciting life with adventures and fun.

 

There you go. Maybe Plutonium. It's rarer than gold and thus has more value..

 

AD

Just make sure you don't live next to a bank :p

 

Ahem. #111 in this thread. I knew nobody paid me any heed. ;p

 

Certainly not fatjaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I'm getting bored of the gold standard debate. Fajw's 'claims' (or, more accurately, assertions) have been pretty thoroughly debunked. Lets move on to another one of his suggestions:

 

I think health care should only be funded by government concerning infectious diseases with the amount of funding determined by the severity and infectiousness of the disease.

This one sounds innocuous but is actually one of the most shocking things I have ever read on this forum. There are many diseases which are life altering - or indeed life threatening - but nevertheless not infectious. Cancer would be one example. According to fajws logic, if you're poor and get cancer, you deserve to die. Painfully.

 

"I'm sorry, but the biopsy returned positive. Your daughter has cancer. The good news is that this form of cancer is easily treated, and post-treatment prognosis is usually good. The surgery and post-op care should cost around $xx,000. She may also need a round of chemo after that."

"Oh god, we can't afford that."

"Well, if it's not removed, the cancer will spread. I'm afraid all we can do is make her comfortable."

 

This sounds extreme, but the US has shown that when people are expected to pay for their own treatment out of pocket, those who cannot afford health insurance will tend to delay treatment until they're forced to go to the emergency department at their local hospital. This actually costs the taxpayer more than if the problems had been treated earlier, as 1) emergency care is one of the most inefficient ways to provide medical care, and 2) by the time they present the problem has progressed to a much more complex (and expensive) stage. Fajw's proposal sidesteps this, however, by not providing government funded emergency care either. Thus the poor are left to die in the gutter.

 

The lack of empathy this suggestion represents is absolutely monstrous. "Fuck you, got mine" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Edited by DaCraw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming fajw thought that carefully about the statement before saying it is a probably inadvisable.....

 

I have been constantly amazed at how hostile so many Americans are to the idea of getting health care to sick people at affordable cost. In the US the ACA is not a big change but it is doing some good, getting more affordable insurance to some and coverage to others who may have never had it.

 

And so many hate, hate, hate it and will tell any lie to make it seem a massive, even dangerous, failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming fajw thought that carefully about the statement before saying it is a probably inadvisable.....

 

I have been constantly amazed at how hostile so many Americans are to the idea of getting health care to sick people at affordable cost. In the US the ACA is not a big change but it is doing some good, getting more affordable insurance to some and coverage to others who may have never had it.

 

And so many hate, hate, hate it and will tell any lie to make it seem a massive, even dangerous, failure.

It isn't the health care that they object to - it's knee-jerk reaction to the word 'socialism'.

 

They got so ingrained; during the cold war their enemy was both communist and socialist, they conflate the two. Now anytime a Republican points at something and yells "Socialism!", they break out in a rash of guns and flags and start gibbering about Reds Under the Beds. It's a most effective way for the Republicans to block anything the Democrats try to do.

Edited by Cybes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The point I was trying to make is whoever owns the gold can take it out of the vault and use it for other things.

 

 

Before we move onto the healthcare thing, I really would like a response to this!!!!

 

Like WHAT? paperweight? Building bricks?

If you're not an electrical engineer, nuclear physicist, (or if I give into your assumption) a jeweler, what?

 

 

The way i see it (for me):

So I have gold in my vault (so far, same as fiat)

I take some out (same as fiat)

I carry it with me (more annoying than fiat)

Spend it on a new laptop (same as fiat)

 

 

What, for the love of fucking god WHAT are the 'other things' people will use gold for?

 

 

I can make wrapping paper out of cash, or fishing sinkers out of coins, but i don't, why would I do it with our new 'currency' legislated or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not a huge list bro.... the resistance to some acids, and colored glass are 2 I didnt know; but we have forms of glass nowadays that resist the same thing; and I wonder how much is needed for colored glass? If we banned churches I'm sure we'd get away with a lot less colored glass :P

 

I stand by my opinion, gold is only notably valuable in electrical and radiation.

I REALLY feel that if it was the standard 'currency' people would stop wearing it.

 

Though some people do make money suits.....

 

 

Now, why do YOU think its valuable? Ive read the wiki article, all its uses have alternatives (bar the two i mentioned). so what gives it value? You keep saying it as fact, I wanna know your thoughts on it.

Ask the people who are buying gold. There is a market for it. It tends to be what the free market chooses for money AFAIK. If you know of a better form of money let's hear it.

 

 

So, you're claiming that whether something has other uses changes how well it works as a currency? That's a pretty bold claim that you're going to have to back up. In what way does it work differently? Be specific for once.

It makes it valuable.

 

But we don't care about whether it's valuable or not, we care about how well it would work as money, and whether there are any drawbacks to using it as money. Money has three basic roles, as a medium of exchange, as a store of value, and as a unit of account. You've yet to demonstrate how gold is any better at these roles than fiat currency. Since we've shown that there are significant drawbacks to using gold (such as losing control of monetary policy, experiencing frequent depressions and deflation, etc) it would need to be significantly better than fiat currency for your claims to be justified.

The fiat currency we are using is not good for a store of value. No one should have control of the money; we should be free. Why would frequent depressions occur?

 

So you've discovered a way that a given atom of gold can be in two places at once? If a bar of gold is being kept in a vault or is being used as coins, then THAT BAR cannot also be used for electronics. Are you even trying any more?

Like I said: the point is the owner of the gold can do whatever he/she wants with it, including turning it into jewellery. The fact that it is in a vault does not mean it has to stay there.

 

Then you don't understand why we invented currency in the first place. I thought you wanted to send us back to the 1850s. I just didn't realise you meant 1850BC.

What's the problem? Why do you think we invented currency in the first place?

 

 

You know, I'm getting bored of the gold standard debate. Fajw's 'claims' (or, more accurately, assertions) have been pretty thoroughly debunked. Lets move on to another one of his suggestions:

 

I think health care should only be funded by government concerning infectious diseases with the amount of funding determined by the severity and infectiousness of the disease.

This one sounds innocuous but is actually one of the most shocking things I have ever read on this forum. There are many diseases which are life altering - or indeed life threatening - but nevertheless not infectious. Cancer would be one example. According to fajws logic, if you're poor and get cancer, you deserve to die. Painfully.

 

"I'm sorry, but the biopsy returned positive. Your daughter has cancer. The good news is that this form of cancer is easily treated, and post-treatment prognosis is usually good. The surgery and post-op care should cost around $xx,000. She may also need a round of chemo after that."

"Oh god, we can't afford that."

"Well, if it's not removed, the cancer will spread. I'm afraid all we can do is make her comfortable."

 

This sounds extreme, but the US has shown that when people are expected to pay for their own treatment out of pocket, those who cannot afford health insurance will tend to delay treatment until they're forced to go to the emergency department at their local hospital. This actually costs the taxpayer more than if the problems had been treated earlier, as 1) emergency care is one of the most inefficient ways to provide medical care, and 2) by the time they present the problem has progressed to a much more complex (and expensive) stage. Fajw's proposal sidesteps this, however, by not providing government funded emergency care either. Thus the poor are left to die in the gutter.

 

The lack of empathy this suggestion represents is absolutely monstrous. "Fuck you, got mine" doesn't even begin to cover it.

 

How about you fuck off or don't lie? I am not saying poor people with cancer deserve to die. I am not saying we should not help each other out. I am saying that a man who works hard to provide for his family, pays for private health insurance and private schooling should be forced to pay for bludgers' health care. It's not like I am proposing to make charity illegal.

 

 

0

 

The point I was trying to make is whoever owns the gold can take it out of the vault and use it for other things.

 

 

Before we move onto the healthcare thing, I really would like a response to this!!!!

 

Like WHAT? paperweight? Building bricks?

If you're not an electrical engineer, nuclear physicist, (or if I give into your assumption) a jeweler, what?

 

 

The way i see it (for me):

So I have gold in my vault (so far, same as fiat)

I take some out (same as fiat)

I carry it with me (more annoying than fiat)

Spend it on a new laptop (same as fiat)

 

 

What, for the love of fucking god WHAT are the 'other things' people will use gold for?

 

 

I can make wrapping paper out of cash, or fishing sinkers out of coins, but i don't, why would I do it with our new 'currency' legislated or not?

 

Jewellery was the main thing I had in mind. I don't have anything to add to the Wikipedia article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll give you this Fjaw, you’re a man of very strong conviction.

 

I was kinda on your side at the start of the thread (mainly because of the vast corruption in our current banking system) but would have crumbled pretty quickly after getting consistently fed for pages by dacraw, MS and Cybes.

Usually on these forums, despite how ridiculous the argument is, there is usually a hand full of people on both sides of the fence.

 

I remember that bigotry in homosexuals thread I made in answer to one of Daves editorials when I first entered these forums, there where a quite a few people who agreed with my angle. But as the pages went on and some of the really smart people on here started thoroughly explaining it, It became hard to fight back. Mainly because of pride and it got to a point where I knew I was really wrong and had to admit defeat and make a major change in my outlook on life.

 

Its good to have a strong conviction, but don’t let pride make you look like a dumbass.

Some would say pride has already got you to that point years ago, but I would say it only hit that point around page 8

 

Anyway, I would love to be able to contribute something to this thread but its far beyond my prior understanding of economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you're claiming that whether something has other uses changes how well it works as a currency? That's a pretty bold claim that you're going to have to back up. In what way does it work differently? Be specific for once.

It makes it valuable.

 

I can burn our current money for heat.

I can use the coins for fishing.

I can use the coins as ammunition.

I can wrap things with the notes.

I could recycle them and get crude oil.

I could burn them and get Hydrogen.

I can weigh paper with them

I can collect them (coin collecting).

I can appreciate history with them (commemorative releases).

 

and I'm sure I can keep going.

 

 

So, that therefore makes our FIAT 'valuable' Awesome! No need for gold eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, if you want to try to trade with bits of plastic I don't have a problem with that, but people should not be required by law to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about you fuck off or don't lie?

Settle petal.

 

I am not saying poor people with cancer deserve to die. I am not saying we should not help each other out. I am saying that a man who works hard to provide for his family, pays for private health insurance and private schooling should be forced to pay for bludgers' health care. It's not like I am proposing to make charity illegal.

So now anyone that can't afford health care is a bludger. Good one, charlatan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. Here we go again.

 

Still not a huge list bro.... the resistance to some acids, and colored glass are 2 I didnt know; but we have forms of glass nowadays that resist the same thing; and I wonder how much is needed for colored glass? If we banned churches I'm sure we'd get away with a lot less colored glass :P

 

I stand by my opinion, gold is only notably valuable in electrical and radiation.

I REALLY feel that if it was the standard 'currency' people would stop wearing it.

 

Though some people do make money suits.....

 

 

Now, why do YOU think its valuable? Ive read the wiki article, all its uses have alternatives (bar the two i mentioned). so what gives it value? You keep saying it as fact, I wanna know your thoughts on it.

Ask the people who are buying gold. There is a market for it. It tends to be what the free market chooses for money AFAIK. If you know of a better form of money let's hear it.
Fiat money. It's more stable, it doesn't tie up useful resources, and it allows us to use monetary policy to keep the economy from falling apart every few years.

 

So, you're claiming that whether something has other uses changes how well it works as a currency? That's a pretty bold claim that you're going to have to back up. In what way does it work differently? Be specific for once.

It makes it valuable.
And why does that make it more suitable to being used as money? Which of the three roles does that improve? Again, be specific.

 

But we don't care about whether it's valuable or not, we care about how well it would work as money, and whether there are any drawbacks to using it as money. Money has three basic roles, as a medium of exchange, as a store of value, and as a unit of account. You've yet to demonstrate how gold is any better at these roles than fiat currency. Since we've shown that there are significant drawbacks to using gold (such as losing control of monetary policy, experiencing frequent depressions and deflation, etc) it would need to be significantly better than fiat currency for your claims to be justified.

The fiat currency we are using is not good for a store of value. No one should have control of the money; we should be free. Why would frequent depressions occur?
Actually, fiat money is suitable as a store of value. I know that my money will be worth approximately 2-3% less in one years time. That stability allows me to plan my investments according to my risk and liquidity preferences. Using gold, with its volatile price, would add an extra level of risk to this. It would still work, but not as well as well as fiat money.

 

How does having a central bank keeping the money supply stable make you less free than having the money supply be determined by Gina Rinehart?

 

As for why depressions would happen, it would be because:

1) We would be unable to use monetary policy to deal with shocks

2) Changes in the gold supply (such as a new seam being discovered) would create additional shocks

3) We know from history that they did. Frequently.

 

So you've discovered a way that a given atom of gold can be in two places at once? If a bar of gold is being kept in a vault or is being used as coins, then THAT BAR cannot also be used for electronics. Are you even trying any more?

Like I said: the point is the owner of the gold can do whatever he/she wants with it, including turning it into jewellery. The fact that it is in a vault does not mean it has to stay there.

No, but some of it must be kept out of productive use to be used as money. The only way that no useful resources would be wasted is if no money was ever used. Does that sound even remotely likely?

 

Then you don't understand why we invented currency in the first place. I thought you wanted to send us back to the 1850s. I just didn't realise you meant 1850BC.

What's the problem? Why do you think we invented currency in the first place?
To deal with the double coincidence of wants problem. Please try to keep up.

 

You know, I'm getting bored of the gold standard debate. Fajw's 'claims' (or, more accurately, assertions) have been pretty thoroughly debunked. Lets move on to another one of his suggestions:

 

I think health care should only be funded by government concerning infectious diseases with the amount of funding determined by the severity and infectiousness of the disease.

This one sounds innocuous but is actually one of the most shocking things I have ever read on this forum. There are many diseases which are life altering - or indeed life threatening - but nevertheless not infectious. Cancer would be one example. According to fajws logic, if you're poor and get cancer, you deserve to die. Painfully.

 

"I'm sorry, but the biopsy returned positive. Your daughter has cancer. The good news is that this form of cancer is easily treated, and post-treatment prognosis is usually good. The surgery and post-op care should cost around $xx,000. She may also need a round of chemo after that."

"Oh god, we can't afford that."

"Well, if it's not removed, the cancer will spread. I'm afraid all we can do is make her comfortable."

 

This sounds extreme, but the US has shown that when people are expected to pay for their own treatment out of pocket, those who cannot afford health insurance will tend to delay treatment until they're forced to go to the emergency department at their local hospital. This actually costs the taxpayer more than if the problems had been treated earlier, as 1) emergency care is one of the most inefficient ways to provide medical care, and 2) by the time they present the problem has progressed to a much more complex (and expensive) stage. Fajw's proposal sidesteps this, however, by not providing government funded emergency care either. Thus the poor are left to die in the gutter.

 

The lack of empathy this suggestion represents is absolutely monstrous. "Fuck you, got mine" doesn't even begin to cover it.

 

How about you fuck off or don't lie? I am not saying poor people with cancer deserve to die. I am not saying we should not help each other out. I am saying that a man who works hard to provide for his family, pays for private health insurance and private schooling should be forced to pay for bludgers' health care. It's not like I am proposing to make charity illegal.
Again, history shows that charity cannot provide sufficient healthcare to a society, and that was before we discovered many new lifesaving but expensive techniques. You may not like it, but having those who can't afford private insurance (ie the poor) die or have their lives ruined by preventable diseases is the natural result of not providing universal healthcare. Charity steps up in some cases, but not nearly enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×