~ Matter of Trust ~

[Serendipper]

Dubious: So, please explain why an uninformed opinion on economics is superior to the opinions of the experts? And I'm referring to economic orthodoxy. Like the position that central banking is superior to a gold standard.

Yup, a gold standard is bad news. From the transcript of Bill Still's "The Money Masters" film:

For those who believe that a gold standard is the answer for America's current monetary problems, look what happened to
America after the Currency Act of 1764 was passed. Writing in his autobiography, Franklin said:

"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that
the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."

Franklin claims that this was even the basic cause for the American Revolution. As Franklin put it in his autobiography:

"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the
Colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."

Ben Franklin claimed that this was the real cause of the American Revolution. Most of the founding
fathers realized the potential dangers of banking, and feared bankers' accumulation of wealth and power. Jefferson put it this
way:

"I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have
raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks
and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. "

Benjamin Franklin was a big supporter of the colonies printing their own money. In 1757, Franklin was sent to London to fight
for colonial paper money. He ended up staying for the next 18 years - nearly until the start of the American Revolution.
During this period, ignoring Parliament, more American colonies began to issue their own money.

Called Colonial Scrip, the endeavor was successful, with notable exceptions. It provided a reliable medium of exchange, and it
also helped to provide a feeling of unity between the colonies. Remember, most Colonial Scrip was just paper money - debt-
free money - printed in the public interest and not really backed by gold or silver coin. In other words, it was a fiat currency.

Officials of the Bank of England asked Franklin how he would account for the new-found prosperity of the colonies. Without
hesitation he replied:

"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the
demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers... In this manner,
creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."

https://archive.org/stream/TheMoneyMast ... s_djvu.txt

http://www.billstill.com/bio/

The film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFDKr9SnTBg

[Science Fan]

S: I'm not familiar with that film, but, your comment raises another point. Namely that one can have an economic opinion that is not entirely mainstream, provided it is based on some experts in the field. Now, I'm not saying that it's a good idea to go out on a limb, like not believing in evolution because perhaps 2% of biologists don't believe in evolution, or ignoring human-caused climate change because 2% of climate scientists have that view, but, to the extent there are legitimate competing opinions by economists, after reviewing the arguments, one can side with one group of economists over another group, which is still deferring to the experts and a rational thing to do. What I am against is the anti-intellectual position that rules out the experts in a field entirely, which is why we are ruining civilization. Anti-vaxxers, for example, have zero credible medical evidence for their claims, and it is simply not true that their opinions on vaccines are deserving of equal merit alongside those of trained medical professionals. The same is true with respect to those who want to return to a gold-standard. That is an extremely small view among professional economists, and with good reasons ---- it didn't work out so well in the past.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





SOooooo this was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives - March 22, 2018...H.R. 5404 - To Define the Dollar as a Fixed Weight of Gold




So...there's that.





.

[Serendipper]

SOooooo this was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives - March 22, 2018...H.R. 5404 - To Define the Dollar as a Fixed Weight of Gold
So...there's that.

Luckily it won't pass.

[Serendipper]

S: I'm not familiar with that film, but, your comment raises another point. Namely that one can have an economic opinion that is not entirely mainstream, provided it is based on some experts in the field.

Why appeal to authority? Either become an expert or refrain from having an unsubstantiated opinion. Isn't that the best way?

Now, I'm not saying that it's a good idea to go out on a limb, like not believing in evolution because perhaps 2% of biologists don't believe in evolution, or ignoring human-caused climate change because 2% of climate scientists have that view, but, to the extent there are legitimate competing opinions by economists, after reviewing the arguments, one can side with one group of economists over another group, which is still deferring to the experts and a rational thing to do.

We're not deferring to experts, but coincidentally agreeing with them. If I happen to agree with an expert, it's purely happenstance.

What I am against is the anti-intellectual position that rules out the experts in a field entirely,

It does seem unwise to rule out opinions from those who have studied the topic.

which is why we are ruining civilization.

How can you tell the difference between progress and ruin?

Anti-vaxxers, for example, have zero credible medical evidence for their claims, and it is simply not true that their opinions on vaccines are deserving of equal merit alongside those of trained medical professionals.

I'd consider their opinion and the opinion of the experts and determine the sensible solution. The experts do not automatically win by virtue of being an expert. Drs are the 3rd leading cause of death https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/health/m ... index.html

Is Most Published Research Wrong? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

The same is true with respect to those who want to return to a gold-standard. That is an extremely small view among professional economists, and with good reasons ---- it didn't work out so well in the past.

Yes, but it's not the experts, but deduction that allows me to know that because the gold standard produces scarcity of money which brings hardship similar to the fed raising interest rates and reducing the supply of money. A silver standard could be better, but fiat is the best way. Gold is the worst.

The powers that be are perfectly content with people fighting over a gold standard because it distracts folks, like a red herring, from the solution of allowing the treasury to issue its own money without having to borrow from the fed. Nobody likes that idea because it puts the money in the hands of the people and removes it from the control of the elites or those who own the gold. That's the theme of the video, which is substantiated by a slew of historical accounts, hence the 3.5 hr length.

[Science Fan]

S: I think the rational thing to do is to appeal to authorities, like going to a physician when we are ill. One of the things philosophy can offer people is a method to understand two things: 1. We are dependent on relying upon experts, because there is no way a single person can become an expert on everything, and 2. How to tell which expert opinions are most reliable.

I agree with you that a return to the gold standard would be a disaster, which is also shared by the vast majority of economists. Outside ideologues, like Murray Rothbard, who even went mad by claiming that deflation was a good thing, because he knew a return to the gold standard would bring about deflation, I don't see anyone pushing a return to a gold standard. It seems to be a cult-like fetish, and ironically, it is supported by conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, who clamor about being against the "globalists," despite the gold standard having come about to promote global transactions across national boundaries. That's how nutty the gold-standard movement is these days.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




15th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5404

To define the dollar as a fixed weight of gold.





_______________________________________________________________________


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 22, 2018

Mr. Mooney of West Virginia introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL



To define the dollar as a fixed weight of gold.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States dollar has lost 30 percent of its
purchasing power since 2000, and 96 percent of its purchasing
power since the end of the gold standard in 1913.
(2) Under the Federal Reserve's 2 percent inflation
objective, the dollar loses half of its purchasing power every
generation, or 35 years.
(3) American families need long-term price stability to
meet their household spending needs, save money, and plan for
retirement.
(4) The Federal Reserve policy of long-term inflation has
made American manufacturing uncompetitive, raising the cost of
United States manufactured goods by more than 40 percent since
2000, compared to less than 20 percent in Germany and France.
(5) Between 2000 and 2010, United States manufacturing
employment shrunk by one-third after holding steady for 30
years at nearly 20,000,000 jobs.
(6) The American economy needs a stable dollar, fixed
exchange rates, and money supply controlled by the market not
the government.
(7) The gold standard puts control of the money supply with
the market instead of the Federal Reserve.
(8) The gold standard means legal tender defined by and
convertible into a certain quantity of gold.
(9) Under the gold standard through 1913 the United States
economy grew at an annual average of four percent, one-third
larger than the growth rate since then and twice the level
since 2000.
(10) The international gold exchange standard from 1914 to
1971 did not provide for a United States dollar convertible
into gold, and therefore helped cause the Great Depression and
stagflation.
(11) The Federal Reserve's trickle down policy of expanding
the money supply with no demand for it has enriched the owners
of financial assets but endangered the jobs, wages, and savings
of blue collar workers.
(12) Restoring American middle-class prosperity requires
change in monetary policy authorized to Congress in Article I,
Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

SEC. 2. DEFINE THE DOLLAR IN TERMS OF GOLD.

Effective 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act--
(1) the Secretary of the Treasury (in this Act referred to
as the ``Secretary'') shall define the dollar in terms of a
fixed weight of gold, based on that day's closing market price
of gold; and
(2) Federal Reserve Banks shall make Federal Reserve notes
exchangeable with gold at the statutory gold definition of the
dollar.

SEC. 3. DISCLOSURE OF HOLDING.

During the 30-month period following the date of enactment of this
Act, the United States Government shall take timely and reasonable
steps to disclose all of its holdings of gold, together with a
contemporaneous report of any United States governmental purchases or
sales, thus enhancing the ability of the market and of market
participants to arrive at the fixed dollar-gold parity in an orderly
fashion.






Cult-like? House of Representatives?

...Wow. Just wow...










.........................................................











.

[Science Fan]

Bill: So? Every year all sorts of nonsensical bills are introduced, especially at the state and local levels.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





April 2nd Russia and China changed their currency over to "gold-backed"and China's yen will be used for buying tanker-ships of oil so to be competitive on the world market we will need to be on the gold standard also.



So THAT'S new!





Oh, & more to the point of this thread - 5 MILLION Sak's 5th Avenue and Lord & Taylor accounts have been hacked.


As I have stated here many times before...: There are two types of companies in existance today;

Those companies who have been hacked

Those companies that will be hacked




*Cryptocurrencies & blockchains offer a future where individual accounts cannot be easily hacked because ledgers are decentralized instead of having one hackable server...





.

[Serendipper]

S: I think the rational thing to do is to appeal to authorities, like going to a physician when we are ill. One of the things philosophy can offer people is a method to understand two things: 1. We are dependent on relying upon experts, because there is no way a single person can become an expert on everything, and 2. How to tell which expert opinions are most reliable.

My point is if one has researched and feels he knows what he is talking about, then he's justified in opining, but most people simply parrot whichever talking head (ditto head) they happen to fancy without actually understanding anything.

who even went mad by claiming that deflation was a good thing,

Deflation begs the question of what exactly is deflating. Ideally, we'd like prices of necessities to fall and the prices of investments to rise, but central banks conflate the two into one index and are battling automation and competition which are lowering prices regardless how much money they print. We could have an infinite supply of money, but it wouldn't make people buy more toilet paper. However, they can't measure inflation properly because the constituents would have a cow thinking the central banks are targeting stock prices.

They are aware of this and if you inspect the weightings of the components of the CPI as they change over the years, you'll see the opposite of what the conspiracy theorists assert: the weightings are declining for things for which the prices are falling and rising for things for which the prices are rising. In other words, they're trying to adjust the numbers so it seems to report inflation higher than before. This is going on globally and unnoticed by most. Inflation deserves to be considered higher... just look at the stock market.

[Science Fan]

Deflation is a general fall in the prices of goods and services. This sinks economies. Why should I buy a $10,000 acre of land during a time of deflation? If I hold onto my money, my money will be worth more than $10,000 at the end of the year, while the land will then be worth less than $10,000. That's true for everyone, so people stop investing and spending as much as possible, which sinks an economy. For Rothbard to claim that deflation is a good thing, because he recognized that it automatically flows from the gold standard, was delusional on his part. Pure ideology, which is why mainstream economics considers Rothbard a lunatic.

[Arising_uk]

...
*Cryptocurrencies & blockchains offer a future where individual accounts cannot be easily hacked because ledgers are decentralized instead of having one hackable server... [/size]

Yup, an exchange owner can just up and walk away with thousands of individual's coins now. Or a bad coder can make a mistake and wipe millions of coins out in a wallet update, etc, etc.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.







There are now decentralized exchanges now along with centralized.

Hack-a-thons along with significant pre-testing and developing standard practices are reducing bad code...



...it's a developing process and we are in the extremely early stages of cryptocurrency enactment.




.

[Serendipper]

Deflation is a general fall in the prices of goods and services. This sinks economies. Why should I buy a $10,000 acre of land during a time of deflation? If I hold onto my money, my money will be worth more than $10,000 at the end of the year, while the land will then be worth less than $10,000. That's true for everyone, so people stop investing and spending as much as possible, which sinks an economy. For Rothbard to claim that deflation is a good thing, because he recognized that it automatically flows from the gold standard, was delusional on his part. Pure ideology, which is why mainstream economics considers Rothbard a lunatic.

There are two classes of assets for which prices can deflate: investments and consumables. We want one to go up and the other to go down. Actually, central banks cannot print enough money to inflate the prices of things that automation is determined to drive to zero and why would they fight the positive effects of automation and production efficiency anyway? That's dumb!

The bankers figure that when prices are rising by 2%, then it must be because demand is sufficient to drive the price increases, but they fail to consider the supply side of the price equation. They figure if prices are not rising, then it could only be because wages are not rising and employment is not rising fast enough, but it could be simply that automation and competition has reduced prices in spite of the demand and, actually, demand for products do tend to lower prices because when there is much demand, lots of competitors enter the scene which drives prices to cutthroat levels. When there is lack of demand, such as with DDR memory, then prices go up. Memory for my computer is higher today than it was 7 years ago when I bought the machine, but an SSD drive is far cheaper today than 7 years ago. Anyway, demand can work both ways in determining prices.

So the bankers judge inflation with the CPI and PCE which measure both investment and consumable prices, but mostly the latter. It should only measure investments because there is no sensible reason to struggle to inflate commodity prices while having the stock market go to the moon and yet the price of toilet paper still falls, in spite of the money printing, as it becomes more and more efficient to produce products. Surely those 160 IQ people know this, so they must be hogtied by the congress (who are idiots) and the voters (who are idiots) who would have a cow if they thought the bankers were targeting investment prices which benefit themselves (the rich). After all, you're a smart guy and you didn't put it together... and it took me years of pondering to stumble upon it.

So the future is clear: they're going to continue fighting the robots and sending investment prices to astronomical levels while in the process. And it's not just the robots, but an aging and declining population, like Japan. Stocks seem cheap in that light.

[Science Fan]

If you are saying that central bankers have difficulty figuring out the correct interest rates, then I agree. However, those same difficulties are also faced by everyone else, so the fact central bankers have difficulty does not mean that anyone else is in a better position to determine interest rates, whether based on some market mechanism or otherwise.

In fact, the best models of the economy show the economy is a complex system, and that's precisely why no one can make accurate predictions regarding the economy.