Question on the gold standard

[moralist]

Have you ever felt the urge to manipulate a 2x4 in a cranial direction?

What distinguishes humans from animals is the freedom to choose to act contrary to our intellect and emotions.

Greg

Both at once? Maybe in an emergency, but you've not been talking about emergencies. Why would someone do this? No heart; no head; still human--only human!!!!!!!!!!!!

--Brant

Ok, Brant. Have a go at answering the opposite question:

Do you act upon every transient thought that runs through your head, and on every irrational emotion that arises from thought?

The answer is obvious... but then again perhaps it isn't.

Greg

[moralist]

I deduce from this that in every life situation, you already know, or "see", as a result of previous cognitive decisions, what is your preferred course of action.

Not necessarily.

The ideal view that's closest to objectivity is calmly seeing every situation fresh and new with no previous intellectual of emotional prejudices, and then taking spontaneous action.

How would you ever know not to touch a hot stove?You can obviously feel radiated heat long before you get to the point of actual physical contact. However, someone who is not aware of what's going on around them can easily get burned simply by not paying attention.

That's the purpose of pain... to get you to pay attention.

Persistent unawareness of the world around you as a way of life can literally carry fatal consequences.

Greg

But if I can't use any "previous intellectual or emotional prejudices" then I can't know that radiated heat will cause me pain.

Feeling heat is neither a previous intellectual or emotional prejudice. It is an immediate sensory message which you receive LONG before you ever even have a chance to think about it or to fret over it.

But a sensory message has to be attached to an outcome for it to be helpful, and the outcome is learned intellectually or emotionally, right? For instance, I learned at some point in my past that radiated heat originates with something that will cause me pain, so I should not touch that something. If that learned outcome is no longer relevant to me, then I can't know that radiated heat is a sensory message that serves as an alarm to move away from whatever is generating heat. You want me to throw out the learned outcome of sensory messages, but still expect me to know how to behave in the future when I receive those messages?

Sorry, I'm not doing a very good job of describing a latent ability that humans posses. If you have never experienced for yourself seeing what to do right in the moment and doing it before your thoughts and emotions kick in to "tell" you what to do, then it's just as if it does not exist, and it would be impossible to ever convince you that it does.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry, I'm not doing a very good job of describing a latent ability that humans posses. If you have never experienced for yourself seeing what to do right in the moment and doing it before your thoughts and emotions kick in to "tell" you what to do, then it's just as if it does not exist, and it would be impossible to ever convince you that it does.

Greg

I experienced such a moment.

Fortunately, I didn't pull the trigger.

--Brant

[moralist]

Sorry, I'm not doing a very good job of describing a latent ability that humans posses. If you have never experienced for yourself seeing what to do right in the moment and doing it before your thoughts and emotions kick in to "tell" you what to do, then it's just as if it does not exist, and it would be impossible to ever convince you that it does.

Greg

I experienced such a moment.

Fortunately, I didn't pull the trigger.

--Brant

Are you doing your usual clever tongue in cheek?

Or are you being sincere?

Greg

[moralist]

Sorry, I'm not doing a very good job of describing a latent ability that humans posses. If you have never experienced for yourself seeing what to do right in the moment and doing it before your thoughts and emotions kick in to "tell" you what to do, then it's just as if it does not exist, and it would be impossible to ever convince you that it does.

Greg

I experienced such a moment.

Fortunately, I didn't pull the trigger.

--Brant

Are you doing your usual clever tongue in cheek?

Or are you being sincere?

If you're serious, then you saw in the moment not to pull the trigger.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry, I'm not doing a very good job of describing a latent ability that humans posses. If you have never experienced for yourself seeing what to do right in the moment and doing it before your thoughts and emotions kick in to "tell" you what to do, then it's just as if it does not exist, and it would be impossible to ever convince you that it does.

Greg

I experienced such a moment.

Fortunately, I didn't pull the trigger.

--Brant

Are you doing your usual clever tongue in cheek?

Or are you being sincere?

If you're serious, then you saw in the moment not to pull the trigger.

Greg

All my tongue in cheek is sincere.

--Brant

even my insincerity is sincere, just like the altruism of a dictator is selfishness

uh, you cannot know why I didn't pull the trigger; I didn't tell you; you also missed my point--or ignored it; you are impregnable to argument for you don't argue, just assert, probably for the same reason you don't think about what my remark might actually refer to respecting your proposition's multiple asseverations, as all of them necessarily are, for they are completely beyond falsification and/or even ratiocination

[dldelancey]

Sorry, I'm not doing a very good job of describing a latent ability that humans posses. If you have never experienced for yourself seeing what to do right in the moment and doing it before your thoughts and emotions kick in to "tell" you what to do, then it's just as if it does not exist, and it would be impossible to ever convince you that it does.

Greg

Actually, what you are failing to do is respond to the specific example at hand as well as failing to accept that in many, if not most, situations there ARE thoughts and/or emotions being processed even when we react very quickly to stimuli. For instance, if my son were choking, I may appear to react instantaneously without thought or emotions. In reality, I have indeed thought, albeit very quickly, "oh dear my son is choking and he can't breathe and that will lead to death and my son dying would cause me grief that I do not want to experience." And because I know what the grief of my son dying would feel like, I would proceed to take action. All of that may happen in a millisecond, but it has happened. However, if I didn't have prior knowledge that choking could lead to death and if I didn't have prior emotions regarding my son's mortality, I wouldn't know to react at all. Or perhaps I'd be so slow to react that I wouldn't have time to save him.

So, back to the example that you introduced. If, as you suggest, actions should be divorced from "previous intellectual and emotional prejudice" how would a person know to move away from an object that is radiating heat?

[dldelancey]

This thread has abandoned the gold standard.

--Brant

fiat discussion?

Ugh, you're so right. I totally forgot that's what this thread was about. I will cease and desist, but in my defense, it seems that no matter what the thread topic is, if Moralist Greg gets involved we always end up back at the same place.

[Brant Gaede]

This thread has abandoned the gold standard.

--Brant

fiat discussion?

Ugh, you're so right. I totally forgot that's what this thread was about. I will cease and desist, but in my defense, it seems that no matter what the thread topic is, if Moralist Greg gets involved we always end up back at the same place.

Follow my lead. I've not ceased and desisted.

--Brant

I am your leader! (You don't know the power of letting someone else jerk you around!)

"A leash is only a rope with a noose at both ends."

edit: with Greg it's necessary to get back to the "same place" because so far he's not given us something that travels

Edited October 16, 2013 by Brant Gaede

[moralist]

Brant and di,

This latent ability is not about intellectuality or emotional reactions. It's a spontaneous action that precedes them. Look, it's ok. You either know what it is or you don't. I think it's best to drop the issue as it's only causing resentment.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

The issue causes no resentment for you are causing no resentment. The issue and you are all of a piece. You have yet to elevate it out of positive ad hominem (from you to me at al.) and I hope I'm not doing a negative ad hominem (to you). I'd really like to know enough about your "spontaneous action" to prime my pump so I won't need to keep hearing it from you to keep it from disappearing altogether and I can go learn more about it. (Zen?)

--Brant

the other side of the positive (anecdotal coin) can be positive

edit: my previous "leader" post had little to do with you

Edited October 16, 2013 by Brant Gaede

[Peter]

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

Moreover, free market economist Friedrich A. von Hayek long ago advocated for currencies other than gold, calling gold "the unsteady anchor."

end quote

There is the gold standard, the silver standard, and once there was the tulip standard in Holland. Some silly people have even postulated the beanie baby standard, sure that their stuffed toys would have everlasting value. The only real standard is in people’s heads. Air is a valued commodity only when it is rare. “Air Jordan” sneakers have value for people with very low standards based on impressing others with very low standards. Even the newest phone's, tablet's, and computer's values are time sensitive until they are labeled “vintage.” Cars are worth less once you have driven them off the lot, but in clichéd TV land, kookiness is defined as using a manual typewriter, yet we don’t think people driving classic cars are kooks.

Peter

[moralist]

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

Moreover, free market economist Friedrich A. von Hayek long ago advocated for currencies other than gold, calling gold "the unsteady anchor."

end quote

There is the gold standard, the silver standard, and once there was the tulip standard in Holland. Some silly people have even postulated the beanie baby standard, sure that their stuffed toys would have everlasting value. The only real standard is in people’s heads. Air is a valued commodity only when it is rare. “Air Jordan” sneakers have value for people with very low standards based on impressing others with very low standards. Even the newest phone's, tablet's, and computer's values are time sensitive until they are labeled “vintage.” Cars are worth less once you have driven them off the lot, but in clichéd TV land, kookiness is defined as using a manual typewriter, yet we don’t think people driving classic cars are kooks.

Peter

Gold as a standard of value has actually logged a pretty consistent track record for millennia, when compared to the wild and insane gyrations of government manipulated paper.. One reason for its relatively stable value is that it takes the objective reality of real world labor to mine, refine, and mint. Whereas paper's virtual value is derived solely by pure faith.

For example:

In 1913, you could buy a Colt 1911 45 automatic for an ounce of gold.

In 2013 you can buy a Colt 1911 45 automatic for an ounce of gold.

There's a certain amount of parity between the intrinsic value of real things. The most notable variable is the perceived virtual value of the pieces of paper (or electronic blips) which are used to buy them.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

Moreover, free market economist Friedrich A. von Hayek long ago advocated for currencies other than gold, calling gold "the unsteady anchor."

end quote

There is the gold standard, the silver standard, and once there was the tulip standard in Holland. Some silly people have even postulated the beanie baby standard, sure that their stuffed toys would have everlasting value. The only real standard is in people’s heads. Air is a valued commodity only when it is rare. “Air Jordan” sneakers have value for people with very low standards based on impressing others with very low standards. Even the newest phone's, tablet's, and computer's values are time sensitive until they are labeled “vintage.” Cars are worth less once you have driven them off the lot, but in clichéd TV land, kookiness is defined as using a manual typewriter, yet we don’t think people driving classic cars are kooks.

Peter

Gold as a standard of value has actually logged a pretty consistent track record for millennia, when compared to the wild and insane gyrations of government manipulated paper.. One reason for its relatively stable value is that it takes the objective reality of real world labor to mine, refine, and mint. Whereas paper's virtual value is derived solely by pure faith.

For example:

In 1913, you could buy a Colt 1911 45 automatic for an ounce of gold.

In 2013 you can buy a Colt 1911 45 automatic for an ounce of gold.

There's a certain amount of parity between the intrinsic value of real things. The most notable variable is the perceived virtual value of the pieces of paper (or electronic blips) which are used to buy them.

Greg

$20 in 1911. $1300 in 2013. 20 x 65 = 1300.

$20 in 1911 = $1000 today.

Value maintained but not much grown.

--Brant

make business of business

[moralist]

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

Moreover, free market economist Friedrich A. von Hayek long ago advocated for currencies other than gold, calling gold "the unsteady anchor."

end quote

There is the gold standard, the silver standard, and once there was the tulip standard in Holland. Some silly people have even postulated the beanie baby standard, sure that their stuffed toys would have everlasting value. The only real standard is in people’s heads. Air is a valued commodity only when it is rare. “Air Jordan” sneakers have value for people with very low standards based on impressing others with very low standards. Even the newest phone's, tablet's, and computer's values are time sensitive until they are labeled “vintage.” Cars are worth less once you have driven them off the lot, but in clichéd TV land, kookiness is defined as using a manual typewriter, yet we don’t think people driving classic cars are kooks.

Peter

Gold as a standard of value has actually logged a pretty consistent track record for millennia, when compared to the wild and insane gyrations of government manipulated paper.. One reason for its relatively stable value is that it takes the objective reality of real world labor to mine, refine, and mint. Whereas paper's virtual value is derived solely by pure faith.

For example:

In 1913, you could buy a Colt 1911 45 automatic for an ounce of gold.

In 2013 you can buy a Colt 1911 45 automatic for an ounce of gold.

There's a certain amount of parity between the intrinsic value of real things. The most notable variable is the perceived virtual value of the pieces of paper (or electronic blips) which are used to buy them.

Greg

$20 in 1911. $1300 in 2013. 20 x 65 = 1300.

$20 in 1911 = $1000 today.

Value maintained but not much grown.

--Brant

make business of business

Yes. That's a very relevant point, Brant.

Gold does not make money unless you play the cyclical market swings.. And since I don't gamble, I don't consider it to be an investment, but rather to be just one practical way to store value among many others simply because it is real. Things that are real have an intrinsically objective quality to them that naturally tends to endure over time when compared to the wholly subjective virtual value of paper which is manipulated by the government.

So I prefer objective reality to subjective fantasy.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

Moreover, free market economist Friedrich A. von Hayek long ago advocated for currencies other than gold, calling gold "the unsteady anchor."

end quote

There is the gold standard, the silver standard, and once there was the tulip standard in Holland. Some silly people have even postulated the beanie baby standard, sure that their stuffed toys would have everlasting value. The only real standard is in people’s heads. Air is a valued commodity only when it is rare. “Air Jordan” sneakers have value for people with very low standards based on impressing others with very low standards. Even the newest phone's, tablet's, and computer's values are time sensitive until they are labeled “vintage.” Cars are worth less once you have driven them off the lot, but in clichéd TV land, kookiness is defined as using a manual typewriter, yet we don’t think people driving classic cars are kooks.

Peter

Gold as a standard of value has actually logged a pretty consistent track record for millennia, when compared to the wild and insane gyrations of government manipulated paper.. One reason for its relatively stable value is that it takes the objective reality of real world labor to mine, refine, and mint. Whereas paper's virtual value is derived solely by pure faith.

For example:

In 1913, you could buy a Colt 1911 45 automatic for an ounce of gold.

In 2013 you can buy a Colt 1911 45 automatic for an ounce of gold.

There's a certain amount of parity between the intrinsic value of real things. The most notable variable is the perceived virtual value of the pieces of paper (or electronic blips) which are used to buy them.

Greg

$20 in 1911. $1300 in 2013. 20 x 65 = 1300.

$20 in 1911 = $1000 today.

Value maintained but not much grown.

--Brant

make business of business

Yes. That's a very relevant point, Brant.

Gold does not make money unless you play the cyclical market swings.. And since I don't gamble, I don't consider it to be an investment, but rather to be just one practical way to store value among many others simply because it is real. Things that are real have an intrinsically objective quality to them that naturally tends to endure over time when compared to the wholly subjective virtual value of paper which is manipulated by the government.

So I prefer objective reality to subjective fantasy.

Greg

Value is in the head. Physical objects and substances tend to have more value (in the head) for there is more intrinsic in a physicality than an idea, but adding the two concepts together ("intrinsic value") doesn't put value into an object, it's still in the head. The objectification of value is merely of value to you. Take Midas for whom gold was a great value became a horrible non or negative one. If you and yours were the last people on earth would you value gold or the canned food in the homes you came to?

Thus fiat currency has value for currency has value and all currency value is subjective and if gold was a currency--maybe it is--so too for it. Currency is a time-bridge between assets. The value of it is the value of a particular time bridge. If I could go away for a hundred years and come back just the same as I am now, I might decide first to go bury a pot of gold as a likely retainer of value for the duration. One year? I might use bucks in a bank account.

The more faith is lost in a currency the shorter time it will have available to be an effective time-bridge. Velocity goes up as holders want to exchange it for something else, especially if one comes to need a wheelbarrow of it to buy a loaf of bread.

The real danger for present-day currency--not physical gold or silver--generally speaking, is it's mostly electronic digits. They could go the way of light that loses its source. Let's take a share of your stock held in a brokerage account. You don't own that stock; neither does the brokerage. The latter has a claim against a giant pool of equity assets, and you have a claim against the brokerage. You own the claim. If you think you actually own a piece of that company, okay, but it's magical thinking. You believe the guy up on the stage doing tricks. It's harmless enough until it isn't. If you tell the broker to send you the stock certificate you are either now dealing directly with the company or a company that services the stock for the company that you own part of. But it's still a piece of paper that's reduced to electronic digits in some computer. Might as well call it "fiat." All these bridges are "fiat." The reason they work--one reason--is the extant relations between production and consumption. Any of these bridges can go "poof!", but that's the nature of life itself: your life, my life, the life of all and sundry.

--Brant

[insert witty remark here]

[moralist]

Value is in the head. Physical objects and substances tend to have more value (in the head) for there is more intrinsic in a physicality than an idea...

Yes...the value of physical objects is FAR more intrinsic, and FAR less subject to manipulation.

Reality is the material and labor and tools it takes to mine, refine, and mint gold. It is this quality of reality which makes the value of gold far more durable over time than paper. Gold has real world uses. It coats the sliding contacts of every computer in the world. I've happily taken payment in silver for my products and services. It a simple matter fo look up whatever the current daily melt value is on coinflation.com and charge in silver by that rate.

1913 one ounce of gold = $20

2012 one ounce of gold = $1,200

For that 100 year span, an ounce of gold is still exactly the same ounce of gold because it is real.

What happened to the paper?

This quality of objective reality is certainly not unique to gold. Land, homes, vehicles, tools, food, clothing, shoes and the like, ALL possess exactly the same quality of reality and are even more useful stores of value than gold or silver. I do not have one single penny in IRA's, 401K's, CD's, stocks, index funds, futures, options, treasury notes, annuities, insurance, or bonds. Because they are not real, they are ALL subject to manipulation.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

All of this is because of the natural scarcity of gold. While gold does have some utility value in plating switches, making dentures and making jewelry, it main attraction is its beauty, durability and scarcity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Samson Corwell]

All of this is because of the natural scarcity of gold. While gold does have some utility value in plating switches, making dentures and making jewelry, it main attraction is its beauty, durability and scarcity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Unfortunately that seems to be lost on some of the gold bugs (people who see it as having intrinsic value). It makes the concept of a diamond, ruby, sapphire, or emerald entertaining.

[BaalChatzaf]

All of this is because of the natural scarcity of gold. While gold does have some utility value in plating switches, making dentures and making jewelry, it main attraction is its beauty, durability and scarcity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Unfortunately that seems to be lost on some of the gold bugs (people who see it as having intrinsic value). It makes the concept of a diamond, ruby, sapphire, or emerald entertaining.

Gold is divisible and scaleable. Rocks are not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'd really like to know enough about your "spontaneous action" to prime my pump so I won't need to keep hearing it from you to keep it from disappearing altogether and I can go learn more about it. (Zen?)

See.

The link is to a Google search screen for "the myth of Zen in the Art of Archery."

Ellen

[moralist]

All of this is because of the natural scarcity of gold. While gold does have some utility value in plating switches, making dentures and making jewelry, it main attraction is its beauty, durability and scarcity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Unfortunately that seems to be lost on some of the gold bugs (people who see it as having intrinsic value). It makes the concept of a diamond, ruby, sapphire, or emerald entertaining.

Gold is divisible and scaleable. Rocks are not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And also gold's purity is empirically verifiable. Infinitely more suitable for commerce than gemstones. A stable 100 year old gold standard would retain the same parity between what is earned and what is spent. It would just be on a smaller numerical scale. People would work for about $1 gold dollar an hour and an average home would cost about $3,000 gold dollars, and an average car would cost about $300 gold dollars. A loaf of bread would cost about 5 gold cents.

In the last century, the government has purposefully devalued every $1 Federal Reserve Note by a factor of about 60. This is to sustain the illusion of having more, while in reality having less.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Productive, useful things are wealth. Commodities are somewhat static proxies for wealth. Currencies are proxies or stores of value. Wealth is dynamic and used up in goods and services replaced by creation and production. Gold is a proxy. Except for minor things it is not used up. Right now the whole world is on a gold standard--that is, other currencies are constantly being compared to each other including gold and prices of commodities and goods and services. Naturally, there is volatility. It's all relative. The only way to de-currency gold is for a major, wealthy government to state, say, it will buy and sell any amount of gold for x number of its currency units and make it stick. That currency unit then becomes a proxy for gold with all remaining currency units fluctuating against it. This is incompatible with the present powers of central banking and will not likely happen any time soon, and I'm not saying it should. Spain thought it's New World gold and silver was wealth and imported boatloads. It's real wealth was then damaged by gold induced price inflation and capital distortions. The Federal Reserve thinks priming the economy with as much paper money as it can absorb works. It is destroying and damaging the wealth of this country.

--Brant

[moralist]

The Federal Reserve thinks priming the economy with as much paper money as it can absorb works. It is destroying and damaging the wealth of this country.

--Brant

The Federal Reserve cannot destroy the wealth of American Capitalists who store their wealth in other things besides the Federal Reserve's crappy products... and who also know better than to "invest" (gamble) in the corrupt virtual debt market casinos where the something for nothing suckers get the fleecing they deserve.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

The Federal Reserve thinks priming the economy with as much paper money as it can absorb works. It is destroying and damaging the wealth of this country.

--Brant

The Federal Reserve cannot destroy the wealth of American Capitalists who store their wealth in other things besides the Federal Reserve's crappy products... and who also know better than to "invest" (gamble) in the corrupt virtual debt market casinos where the something for nothing suckers get the fleecing they deserve.

Greg

Unfortunately much of our production and distribution is in the hands of the "Cronies". Now if the U.S were a land of mostly small and medium size firms what you say would hold. But a considerable percentage of our production is in the hands of the Big Corporations whose manages and owners have been bedded down with the government creeps for nearly two generations.

Ba'al Chatzaf