|
|
Trail Guide [FOA] (2/12/2000;
9:52:36MDT - Msg ID:25137)
Reality
Hello ORO,
Well, I knew that if I only asked, we would all receive! Boy did you deliver
in ORO (Msg ID:25113).
Good stuff for everyone to read, my friend. You mentioned; """
The comments below - particularly those to Aristotle, are somewhat harsh. I
hope this is taken in the spirit of friendly criticism."""
Sir, you can serve me (and probably everyone here) your "harsh"
anytime. Waiter ,,,,,,,, I'll have a double order of that please! (smile)
OK, brace yourself ORO ,,,,,, a big plate of my "Trail" harsh
coming up!
=============================
You write:
-------There are consequences to the existence of a fiat currency and for the
use of debt money for trade settlement. FIAT HAS NEVER BEEN THE CHOICE OF THE
PEOPLE ACTING IN COMMERCE OF THEIR OWN ACCORD. Even when wildly popular, fiat
money has not had a single instance when it had not been established by force
- by laws imposing its use.-----------
ORO,
On a larger scale there was always more to it than this. Human society has
from the very beginnings formed tribes and picked sides against each other.
When we are not battling nation against nation, we jockey for position within
our own groups. Right down to "me and my neighbour against the three
houses down the street. As a tribe ,,, as a nation ,,,,,, as a group ,,,,,,
our war is really a human problem with each other and always has been. In
better context; the problems are in the way we use our laws and governments
to gain advantage over the next in line.
Whether through force (war) or democratic means, we subject ourselves
to the order of governments. We rightly perceive that,,,,,, the order gained
from this action ,,,,,,, the security of a group, overcomes the rights and
property lost on a individual level that living in a tribe requires. It's
been this way through the ages. It's a political process that has always had
its in-house battles ,,,,, namely portions of society try to circumvent their
percentage of lost rights and property by maneuvering the rules (laws) in
their favor. Yes,,,,,if I can gain the advantages of tribe life and still keep
my "lost portions",,,,, I'm gaining wealth to the disadvantage of
the group. Truly, the most obvious action of not paying your taxes,,,,, and
that's only a small item when viewing the world battle as a whole.
So, how does this apply to money?
When you and others say """ FIAT HAS NEVER BEEN THE CHOICE OF
THE PEOPLE ACTING IN COMMERCE OF THEIR OWN ACCORD """ ,,,,,
this is true.
This is true, but this was never the thrust of the argument. The use of money
in any context, fiat, gold or seashells, has always entailed the use of
borrowing and lending... And as long as economies function at a profit, debts
are made and paid back without argument. However, when the eventual downturn
arrives, some portions (perhaps a large portion) of the owed wealth (debt)
cannot be returned.
It's here,,,,at this point in tribal life,,,,,,,that all of the context
from above comes into play. The "reality" of life on this earth is
this: ,,,,,,Some portion of society will use their influence or control of
the leaders to make their debts easier to pay. In fact,,,,,it's times 2 for
that number of government influencers ,,,, because even the ones that have
debt owed to them will try to alleviate an impossible pay back situation to
save the ones that owe them face.
You see,,,,,tribal life and the human nature that comes with it ,,,,,,,, will
not allow any money system to "completely" destroy the wealth of a
good portion of society. Even if everyone is plainly shown that they are
going to lose something ,,,,,,they would still opt for the good of the
overall tribe. This is why we return,,,,time and again to fiat monetary
systems. In the few examples where a gold system brings the harsh reality of
loses to bear on a nation,,,,,, usually war is the result. Not a good
outcome.
Yes, we can break gold into many small parts,,,,, 'stamp it into coins and
circulate gold certificates as money. We can borrow it, lend it and also
circulate gold bonds as the economy grows. It is the perfect "weights
and measures" monetary system. Exactly representing our productive
efforts in every facet of human endeavour. But, when the losses mount, our
tribal human tendencies will not allow us to support a government or banking
system that forces these real losses on only a portion of the group. Never
has,,,, and never will! Without this escape valve, we go to war ,,,,,,
internally or on a world scale,,, so we all can share the loss,,,one way or
another. As a human society of thousands of years,,, outside of war,,,,, we
have learned to inflate our loses upon everyone as a whole,,,,,for the good
of the keeping the whole from each others throats. Even to the point of a
total loss of the current system,,,,, and all the destruction that entails
for everyone.
Yes, indeed,,,,,,,we will transition to the next fiat system from the dollar,
when the time comes. Believe it!
Further:
For myself and other observers ,,,,, we know about "peace on earth"
and live our life in this context but,,,, as a member of the world
tribe,,,,,, and following our best interest,,,,,, one must still arrange his
affairs to shield their family from the "I'm going to get yours"
times we live in. Should we get our leaders to help us? Well, the leaders of
this world can only be but a reflection of us as a whole. Yes, many things
are not right, but they can only strive to do what can be done, not what must
be done.
Consider the dilemma:
If a small portion of society telegraphs thoughts that "if we cannot
have our oil we will go to war",,,,,,,, how would you force them to not
elect officials that ease their pain from a gold money system? What's right
and what's wrong is not the issue,,,,,, it's what this present generation
will live with that rules. If they will break the gold yoke, no matter
what,,,, then why place gold on them? Is it not better to at least free the
"knight" (gold) for the good of those that would stand with him?
During the period we are now entering,,,,,we can see all the ugly aspects of
a fiat system that is failing its tribe. Look far and wide and witness the
various groups ,,,, all jockeying for position as they use whatever influence
they have to lessen their own private losses. If this had been a gold system,
the outcome would be the same,,,,, as players force their leaders to lessen
the gold debts that could not be paid. They would raise the price of gold and
inflate their way out of it,,,,,, for better or worse ,,,, come hell or high
water.
So, my friend (smile),,,,,,, as you can see,,,,, I completely agree with all
of your post. Only, my trail is hiked with a different mind. "Another"
mind set, if you will. We use the life experiences of man to dictate the best
path to follow. As such,,,,,, Gold must not be part of any money system,,,,,,
it must reside as a freely traded asset without debt or paper to resemble it.
In this position ,,,,, its value can fully represent the ebb and flow of the
affairs of man. And in doing so retain the wealth of man as a holding of
things. Truly, the "Wealth of Nations" in the peoples hands. We
move forward by starting at the beginning of time.
We'll talk much about this and all the affairs of the world,,,including
gold,,,, on the gold trail.
"We walk this new gold trail together, yes?" I hope to see everyone
there when I return.
Trail Guide
Trail Guide (2/14/2000;
8:08:19MDT - Msg ID:25302)
Gold
ALSO: The point I was trying to make in #25137 (and the question I was
asking) was this;
A full gold money system works during level and rising economic dynamics. It
also works "VERY" well during a downturn. In fact it works
"Perfectly" all the time! It's the lending of money that creates
debt, be it gold debt or fiat debt ,,,, and the failure of that debt during a
downturn is what causes the pain.
I ,,,,, we as gold bugs ,,,,,, most financial thinkers ,,,,, do not debate
this point. The argument is that: If the pain dynamic (losses) of a financial
downturn is not "Somewhat" shared by society as a whole ,,,,, the
economic dislocation always intensifies until we go to conflict. (see my
earlier post)
It's during the downturns that society in general will not tolerate a full
gold system because it concentrates the loses upon their rightful owners. As
such "these same" are usually "wiped completely out" and
the fallout effects on the social and economic structure can be widespread
and very destructive to tribal life.
Again, history has proven, time and time again that humans will not allow the
full (natural) effects of gold money ,,,,, if it threatens to create
factions. They accept gold during long periods until conflict (internally
political or externally war) forces a break in the gold bond.
We, as nations, will break the "gold bond" by calling for the
shared pain of inflation. Whether we (as countrymen) understand the reasoning
behind it or not; currency inflation (not price inflation) in the modern
world is carried out until its debt destroys the current system ,,, thereby
sharing all the pain of the losses before it. We then move into the next fiat
system.
The question:
Is it not better for all ,,,, if we remove gold from the official currency
structure by forcing derivatives failure and creating a free physical only
marketplace,,,,, so as to keep "us" ,,,,,, ourselves ,,,,,, from
controlling it through our politicians?
Through "legal tender laws" currently in place ,,, let's force us
(ourselves) to continue to create debts only in paper. As such,
"they" ,, "we" can manipulate the fiat as needed for
society.
Does this not place gold in it's rightful position of being a "real
currency asset" as it was chosen to be used from the beginning of time?
A private money for trade and savings that's outside the 'contract / debt'
system. Your thoughts?
Trail Guide
Robert Mundell:
--------I think that legal tender is a very old institution. It certainly
goes back thousands of years and legal tender is an institution, whether we
like it or not is going to stay. ----------
Robert Mundell :
------There's no institutional mechanism by which we could ever duplicate the
kind of financial system we have under a system that relied almost entirely
upon gold. Of course you could always have a system that used a lot of paper
that was in some sense convertible into gold. You could always find a price
of gold that you could convert that paper theoretically into gold. But I
don't think anyone has thought in terms of the enormous price of gold
that would be required in order to achieve that.-----------
Larry Parks:
---------George Soros says in his book Soros on Soros that the gold standard
had to be given up because it did not make possible a lender of last resort.
And says Soros, because financial markets are in his words "inherently
unstable" you have to have a lender of last resort.-------
Trail Guide (2/14/2000;
18:20:51MDT - Msg ID:25335)
Freegold
Thanks for your reply, ORO.
My comments presume that readers have read our full posts.
Your major point, logic and comments that I got from your post (25310) ,
followed by my comments:
ORO's POINT:
I pointed out that it is the existence of a "lender of last resort"
that causes the debt boom
ORO's Logic:
It is obvious then, that had there not been a lender of last resort there
would not have been a substantial credit crunch, because the lenders would
not have taken the same risks they allowed themselves once a promise of
bailout was given, and thus would have avoided the credit boom.
ORO's Comments:
The argument is false in that it is circular. (FOA note: I think he is
referring to my logic?) The lender of last resort was there in the first
place, the inevitable credit boom followed, the credit crunch followed - just
as inevitable - and a further lender of last resort was needed. History shows
that the credit policies of the BOE led to its bankruptcy before WWI and
before the Fed was created. This was among the reasons for the argument for
the Fed being pressed. All the previous lenders of last resort were tapped
out and a new one was necessary. In 1929-1930 the Fed was tapped out and the
gold standard obligation was abolished shortly after.
My (FOA's) Comments:
ORO, I cannot accept that a "lender of last resort" causes a debt
boom. It presumes that a great portion of lending is done for reckless,
uneconomic reasons. Yet, at the end of great expansions many projects that
were considered "blue chip" in the beginning still go bad. Sometimes,
the most necessary economic activity is curtailed because people's needs
change during the course of life ,,,
not to mention a recession. Thus changing business dynamics.
How many instances can we document where banks lent into real demand ,,,,,,,
backed with the very best demographic patterns ,,,,, only to find the loan
blow up from changing demand. Oil in the late seventies would be a convenient
example for us (smile). People were breaking down the doors of the old
"Texas Commerce Bank" in Houston ,,,,,,, all in an effort to
finance hugely profitable petroleum projects. This was no flash in the pan,
as the oil industry had a progressive expansion history of 15++ years before
this. Truly, a lender of last resort was the very last thing on their minds.
Later, even paper based on $10 producing reserves was trashed! Certainly
there are many, many other examples,,,,,,,, most are of a more mundane,
unglamorous nature, but fine examples.
Further:
Was this really circular thinking on our part? Did the Lender of last resort
exist during the 'South Sea Bubble" or the "Tulip mania",,,,,,
and did the "Black Plague" of Europe shut down a few sound
financial systems then? I think gold was the norm in that period?
ORO, this portion of your thinking needs to include the other side of the
lending aspect,,,,,, people want and demand loans for sound, economically
justifiable, profitable projects,,,, and they get them on sound lending
principles. Still, some 90% of them can become only "at the margin"
when demand changes. And typical of our human society, we all shift at once.
Truly, my friend, bank loans often fail because human events change the
course of money dynamics ,,,,,, and it does so in a way that is beyond the
vision of any lender. Be the lender you, me or a group of people such as a
bank, large portions of deals go bad just as much from human affairs as from
"over lending".
After all, the entire economic structure of the world is nothing more than a
people dynamic ,,,,,,,,, in the long run it's just too risky to bet one's
physical gold on (huge smile)!
Yes, our present financial system gives the impression of total insanity,,,,
but we are looking at the very "end of the timeline",,,, not how it
began. It all starts with the very first loan and progresses until everyone
has borrowed "too much", but no one wants the music to stop. Last
resort lenders then become the norm because society will lose "across
the board" if everything is "marked to the market". It is not
a circle (smile) as it starts and ends with the currency system (gold or
fiat) everyone demands to borrow into. It all ends in the shared pain of debt
collapse as the debt is discounted to zero from price inflation ,,,, even if
it's based on gold ,,,,,, gold that cannot be returned. Not much
different from our present gold loan structure. We will move on to the next
money system when this one ends.
If it were gold we started with? The banker would lend his gold only to find
the same metal returned to his bank as a new deposit. The "society at
large" would remove his franchise if he did not re-lend that same gold
during "good times", "booming times" no less! Round and
round the gold goes.
Reserve lending hits its limit and society demands the limits be raised again
,,, and again ,,, and again! Lender of last resort ,,,,,, or not.
In our modern world we must remove gold from the official money system, place
it in a free market and people will use it as wealth money, not borrowing
money. Then the fiat can come and go as the wind! Yes?
You agree now! I'm so very glad!
Trail Guide
Trail Guide (2/14/2000;
21:11:17MDT - Msg ID:25350)
Freegold
Elwood,
I have read much of Mises and even a few others. Actually, I completely agree
with them that the Gold money systems of the nineteenth century worked very
well. As such we do not fall into any of the groups that argue against that
concept. Our problem is with people (smile).
In a Money and Freedom speech at a Mises meeting Mr. Joseph T. Salerno made
this point:
-------Unfortunately, the monetary freedom represented by the gold standard,
along with many other freedoms of the classical liberal era, was brought to a
calamitous end by World War One.----------
Further, he stated:
------Within weeks of the outbreak of World War One, all belligerent nations
departed from the gold standard. Needless to say by the wars end the paper
fiat currencies of all these nations were in the throes of inflation of
varying degrees of severity, with the German hyperinflation that culminated
in 1923 being the worst.---------------
My point (as an extension of earlier posts):
No country, however rich in gold or resources, can continue to fight a war
once their money runs out! Consider ,,,,,,, You and your family as a country,
a nation ,,,,,, you are under attack and have spent the last of your gold
,,,,,You will print money and continue the effort, no matter the inflationary
costs,,,, come what may!
Many nations utterly failed to return to the original gold standard simply
because they were mostly tapped out from the war. At the best, the richer,
surviving countries would have taken a major economic hit by going back into
a full gold system. All the eventual gold deals and non-deals were little
more than a part of the progression of events that lead us here today. All in
an effort to keep from fully marking to the market the cost of a shared loss
in war, defence and other financial failures.
There is not one person among us that ,,,,,,,,, if their family was
completely broken from the war experience ,,,,,,,,,, would have asked for a
return to gold. In full a honest context, millions would have starved in the
process. The world opted to share the loss and spread it out as far and as
long as possible.
The war experience is but one example of why society has such a hard time
with an official gold system during times of stress. Over and over again we
have seen where gold is the very best holding and defence against private and
public financial loss. Yet, when large scale national loss threatens society
as a whole ,,,,,, it's always the money system that receives the brunt of the
demands for change. Society demands that whatever money system is in place at
the time of stress be shifted so as to spread the burden amongst all. Is it
right?,,,,,, is it just?,,,, I do not think so. But it is what we do and have
done for a long time!
Today, if gold can be forced out of the official money system, it will be to
the benefit of everyone during times of stress in the future. In times of war
people spend the legal tender in commerce. Yet they save the food, liquor and
necessities. A common currency of the world would be just such a necessity to
hold as part of your wealth.
Trail Guide
FOFOA
FOFOA is A Tribute to the Thoughts of Another and his
Friend
Donations are most appreciated, just click here
|
|
