About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Sunday, November 4, 2012 - 1:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Whoa! This reminds me of a quote of Ayn Rand's, 45 years ago.

Ed


Post 1

Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 8:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
These are scary times, you would think people would have learned from the economic colapse of the weimar republic, here we go again....
(Edited by Jules Troy on 11/08, 8:57pm)

(Edited by Jules Troy on 11/08, 9:00pm)


Post 2

Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 9:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bleh..my editing of typos went..unedited..twice.

Post 3

Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 9:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jules,

Most people don't know about the Weimar Republic.

Post 4

Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 9:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I know, it was not taught in school when I was in school, it was not even until I started reading books on objectivism and history in general on my own that I learned about it. What did their currency top out at? 4.2 million marks to the british pound before it collapsed utterly? I recall reading about people literally taking wheelbarrow loads of marks to buy one shoe or a few buttons in order to barter for food or what ever they could get their hands on.

Post 5

Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 9:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't remember ever hearing about it in the years I attended public school. I learned about it from reading "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff.

According to Peikoff, in 1923 the value of the German mark fell to its lowest level: 4,200,000,000,000 to the U.S. dollar.

Its difficult to imagine such a disparity.


Post 6

Friday, November 9, 2012 - 9:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jules:

That's why people start talking about "wheelbarrow futures" when discussing inflation. Wheelbarrows will be the only thing that will increase in (real) value.

Sam


Post 7

Friday, November 9, 2012 - 9:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Add on top of this video, the Federal Reserve bought more long term (>10 year) treasuries than were issued. That's the only way treasury interest rates are able to stay so low... because only the Fed is willing to buy them at the rate they are offered.

China is no longer buying the treasuries at any significant amount... its buying gold.

With no long term buyers of their debt, and a guaranteed default if the interest rate hits 15% (fed income = interest payment) (not unreasonable given the money supply has been inflating at 30%/year since 2008)... the dollar is toast.

Post 8

Friday, November 9, 2012 - 9:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am contemplating buying some far out cheap usd options..shorting them that is.

Post 9

Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - 4:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

JT:  ...  What did their currency top out at? 4.2 million marks to the british pound before it collapsed utterly? I recall reading about people literally taking wheelbarrow loads of marks to buy one shoe or a few buttons in order to barter for food or what ever they could get their hands on.
KJB: ... According to Peikoff, in 1923 the value of the German mark fell to its lowest level: 4,200,000,000,000 to the U.S. dollar. Its difficult to imagine such a disparity.




Germany was charged with the entire cost of all civilian loses of World War I. The Allies took Germany's gold.  The war ended November 11, 1918, with an armistice: both sides stopped fighting; it was not a surrender.  The Versailles Treaty a year later brought Germany, the UK, the USA, and France together, leaving out Austria, Russia, and everyone else.  It was there that the terms of surrender were laid down. 

The UK had to borrow 250 million ounces of silver from the USA to be coined for use in India, which was on the verge of revolt.  (The Congress Party of India was formed in 1880, I think.) German propaganda in India was that the Bank of England's paper would not be redeemed.  So, the USA made it good.  The UK paid that back -- which why we have over 90 million 1921 Morgan Dollars and so few dimes, quarters and halves from that year.  The silver came from the international markets, purchased with the gold that was paid by Germany, reducing her currency to pure fiat.

People pushing wheelbarrows were newsy. Gresham's Law gave them reason to pay each other in worthless paper as fast as possible.  That said, nonetheless, hoarded silver coins still circulated: it was the only way daily trade could continue.  Moreover, note that in this same period, local scrip - "Notgeld" - also circulated by choice and necessity.  Fiat money can have value as markers in exchange.  We have other real world examples from modern Iraq where the Kurds used a certain limited issue of Saddam Hussein's last paper during the American occupation.

Germany's worthless currency came from the government for government purchases and debts - bureaucrats, office rents, pencils.

Moreover, inflated currencies have worked long enough to be replaced... or not.

Back in 1890 or thereabouts, when Japan joined the international gold standard, their yen changed from a large silver coin on par with the US Silver Dollar to a gold coin on par with the US gold dollar.  After conquering Korea, defeating Russia, taking Manchuria - oh, and losing World War II - the yen fell to 300 to 1 against the dollar... but they kept the currency.  Italy and Turkey also kept their currencies despite losing two world wars and the zeroes were only dropped when they joined the EU.

A couple of years ago, I was waiting at a bus stop and saw a Dominoes Pizza sign: One Topping Medium 899.  At which point, Walmart will be paying $1000 per hour.

The Bush-Obama bailouts tripled the money supply, but prices have not tripled. The sky is not falling. You need a more nuanced theory grounded in actual facts to explain the past and present well enough to predict the future.  I always buy silver and gold coins - or always bought them: I've been selling for about a decade... This is real, but it is not the end of the world.

BTW: Austria was also broke. However, on the advice of certain Austrian economists, Austria borrowed gold, issued gold coins, and stabilized its currencies... while villages issued Notgeld and the "Woegels" that Irving Fisher studied.  Such emergency moneys were issued by cities and other ad hoc authorities the USA in 1933

The US Dollar is backed in gold (and silver). The US Treasury sells gold and silver coins near the market par every day.  The silver coins ("Eagles") enter commerce through a limited number of large buyers who resell them at narrow margins down the market chain to you.   Gold coins are sold directly to consumers, again, despite some numismatic permium, very close to the London Spot Price for gold, not bad if you want to buy a single one-ounce coin ...as opposed to a 100-oz bar, which is how the price is set. 

The US Dollar is backed in gold and silver -- and don't you forget it. Austria sells "Philharmonic" gold coins. China sells Pandas.  Australia has its Kookaburras and Kangaroos.  Canada's gold is 5 Nines Fine, the best on the market. The gold and silver coins of the UK include a lovely goddess in wet clothing.  Just sayin' ... get your facts from someone other than Leonard Peikoff. 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/13, 5:08am)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - 6:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not really in response to MEM, because I'm sure he realizes he typed bullshit that mutilates meanings of words well defined by austrian economists & objectivists...

"The US Dollar is backed in gold and silver -- and don't you forget it."

No, the dollar is not backed by gold. The exchange rate between them changes via free market forces. It is not possible to deposit gold in a bank, redeem "dollars" as receipts, and then one day in the future redeem the same amount (minus accounting fees) of gold using the dollar receipts.

Post 11

Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - 7:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MEM: "The US Dollar is backed in gold and silver -- and don't you forget it."
DMG: No, the dollar is not backed by gold. The exchange rate between them changes via free market forces. It is not possible to deposit gold in a bank, redeem "dollars" as receipts, and then one day in the future redeem the same amount (minus accounting fees) of gold using the dollar receipts.

Apparently, you dislike a free market and prefer government guarantees. 

Perhaps the problem you have is with the licensing of banks.  US banks deal in dollars, not gold.  Some private Swiss banks will do for you what you want, deposit and withdraw in gold.  US banks follow different rules.  According to the theories proposed by F. A. Hayek, if we denationalize banks and open the markets to all kinds of moneys, such banks dealing only in US Government Greenbacks might still do business.  It would be your responsibility to know what kind of bank you are dealing with.

As it is, banks or no, you are perfectly free to offer Federal Reserve Notes to buy US Government Gold at the London Spot Market Price.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/13, 7:47pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 - 8:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Dean is totally correct - you are abusing the language. To say that our dollar is backed by gold is to imply that the dollar will be exchanged for a predetermined weight of gold in the future. That is what is meant by "backed." That is NOT what we have. We have a fiat currency. Because the ratio of a dollar to gold is set by a free market and changes constantly means that it is NOT "backed" by gold. What is frustrating is that you already know this!

Clearly, Dean prefers that if government issues a currency, that it back it by a precious metal rather than just print more and not allow them to be exchanged for anything. That is NOT the same as disliking a free market. And you know this too.

Post 13

Thursday, November 15, 2012 - 2:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

"The Bush-Obama bailouts tripled the money supply, but prices have not tripled. The sky is not falling."

The inflation-sky is not falling yet because circulation in the economies has long stalled. In the current environment, the policy of QE is like trying to push a rope down a hill; that is because debt is primarily taken, not given, and the few folks who are currently taking are not taking for anything like expansion. (Go ask a banker these days...)

And so... massive unemployment. Anemic growth. Economies barely circulating value. Massive amounts of capital tied up in eddies and static pools. But little that results in circulation in the economies, and so, in spite of all the cash, it feels more like a recession/depression...

...to some. For a few others, not so much.

The reasons debt is incurred(and as well, not incurred)are important. The current reasons do not include anything like widespread expansion in the economies. Remember, the biggest IPO in recent history was Facebook, and Facebook employs maybe 3400 people... capital is not employing enough people to drive circulation.

Said another way; no inflation while our economies are sputtering around at the bottom of the hill, languishing as they are... for as long as things are worse elsewhere and there is a relative 'flight to quality' to US debt.

China isn't the number 1 willing US debt holder; the US SS Trust Fund is, and willing or not, that boat has sailed. So when the economic masters of the Universe blithely say they need to 'raise the debt ceiling' again, they are rapidly sprinting towards the following reality: not only do they need to find new willing debt holders for that greater debt, but they need to start replacing the -former- #1 debt holder at the lower levels of debt, who's exit from the willing debt holder marketplace has not only left a hole, but been replaced by an ever increasing drain on the US Treasury, the opposite of hidden subsidy.

What felt doubly good while we were sprinting downhill has left a hill twice as big to try and run back up.

When willing debt holders get relatively scarcer(relative to demand), what will inevitably happen to interest rates, as they must?

They are squirming to avoid this inevitable piper, long waiting to be paid. Obama just won the latest competition for Captain of the Titanic.

The business environment matters. State gun backed hostility towards those who take on risk and run uphill matters. Those who can will(and long have)deftly adjusted their economic activities accordingly, starting months before Obama took office in 2008(was it a huge mystery that he was going to win?)

Obama's latest clumsy forks are going to come up empty, as always. In the meanwhile, America is going to take all the time it can --- all the time it can endure -- to figure this one out. And it is exactly the middle class and poor who have and will continue to bear the brunt of this nonsense.

Elections matter/have consequences?

Well sure; and so does the politics this nation not only tolerates but embraces.

What drives healthy economies is the willingness of humans to take on risk and run uphill; that is what results in circulation of value. We've gamed risk from every corner of the playing field, and broken the engines that drive healthy economies.

Obama inherited a sick thing...and made it worse. And now he's ready to double and triple down, because he's staring at his 49/51 election results and seeing a massive mandate of some kind. He's checked and rechecked his Marx a thousand times, and actually believes his own BS.

Meanwhile, my 24 year old son, the one with the double major in econ and psych from UVA, has 18 months more actual business experience than Barack Obama and Karl Marx combined, and yet I never hear him claiming to be able to 'run the[sic] economy.'

As well, I've long taught him never to refer to them as an it because that would make him sound kind of ignorant on the subject. I'm not saying he wouldn't sound 'normal', but normal on this subject is really average on this subject, and on average, people are ignorant of the subject.






Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.