|
Constitution Class - Happy 4th of July (pg. 20)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trance Nutter |
^^isn't that still showing that gold and other currencies are fluctuating? So............. that there's nothing inherent about the value of anything, its only what people decide it's worth?
and if you look, the gold line traces pretty much the same path of the previous graph. So in trying to prove he knows nothing, you've posted the same data. |
|
|
| iTranscendence |
He just posted the value of gold fluctuation and tried to make it out to be this wildly out of control object, while failing to even show with it's worst fluctuations what it looks like in comparison to every other major currency over the last hundred years, from 1913 (foundation of the federal reserve on). But your naiveté is funny, thanks for the larf.
:haha: |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
| quote: | Originally posted by iTranscendence
He just posted the value of gold fluctuation and tried to make it out to be this wildly out of control object, while failing to even show with it's worst fluctuations what it looks like in comparison to every other major currency over the last hundred years, from 1913 (foundation of the federal reserve on). But your naiveté is funny, thanks for the larf.
:haha: |
actually no, he was pointing out that the value of gold fluctuates depending on what people are willing to value it at.
As you've decided to show that the value of a lot of other currencies are dropping over the same period (in effect increasing the value of gold), you've strengthened his point.
I'm no economist, and have never claimed to be, but explain to me how I'm wrong. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
lol, iStupid is well, really stupid. occrider was pointing out that kismet's assertions were nonsense. gold is as volatile as anything else you care to mention, which makes currencies tied to gold just as volatile.
nobody is denying that fiat currencies devalue over time. the point that iStupid misses, and is missed by all gold bugs and conspiracy theorists, is that it doesn't matter as long as the devalue isn't extreme, and as long as people have more money that compensates for the loss in purchasing power.
its really quite ridiculous. these idiots would have you believe that people were better off during the great depression, because $1 could buy you so much more than it could today. they completely ignore the fact that nobody had any money. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
PKC...you are ignorant as they come. Gold has inherent value because you CANT endlessly print gold, you can only extract the limited supply from where it lays on earth. |
If you want to be technical, you can't endlessly print money because the Earth would run out of resources sooner or later.
As Lira said, gold isn't valuable because of it's scarcity. It's because it's a shiny metal that people liked back in the BC years. There are elements on Earth that are a hundred times less abundant than gold, and yet are worth less. In fact, gold is a fairly common mineral. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by iTranscendence
You're the best economic guy this forum has?
:stongue:
Look at me I can post graphs too. I can't believe you worked so hard spent so much time and money to know so much about markets and economics but still ended up devoid of any common sense.
Keynesian economics: like AIDS, but for money.
 |
First, notice how gold trends with perfect correlation with all other currencies until the early 1970's. Hmmm what happened in the early 70's? Why, that would have absolutely nothing to do with the floating rate bretton-woods system when US and other currencies got off the gold standard would it? So in other words, looking at your own graph you can see how the currencies reduced volatility in gold prices ... it was only after currencies removed themselves from the gold standard that the price of gold wildly fluctuated according to perceived value by the market. If value was inherent there would be no volatility right? Right?
Second, way to peg everything to 1913 dollars and ignore inflation. Now I'm going to take my 1913 salary and go buy myself a toffee for a penny and one of those new fandangled model T's I've been hearing about for $500 and lament about how the purchasing power parity of my 1913 salary has dropped over the years relative to gold. Things were so much better when I got paid in gold or 2010 salary rather than 1913 salary. I hate you 1913, so much!
Third, as for aids ... I always say that when life gives you aids, make lemonaids. |
|
|
| GoSpeedGo! |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Gold has no more inherent value than fiat currency does. The only reason you think gold has "value" is because you believe it does. |
If belief plays such a role in this (and I agree it does), isn't economy a religion?
Furthermore, shouldn't we study the history of belief/religion more often so we could learn more about our economic behaviour? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
If belief plays such a role in this (and I agree it does), isn't economy a religion? |
Not really, a tenuous link of "belief" isn't enough to equate two very different systems with each other. |
|
|
| GoSpeedGo! |
I mean, obviously, economics doesn't try to offer some sort of explanation for (our) existence, but just like religion it sets out certain rules that we should supposedly obey if we want to live in a healthy society. Incidentally, they both deal with morality and especially right now the problem of moral hazard seems to be one of the key talking points in this stage of economic crisis.
Yes, economics perhaps isn't a form of religion, but those two seem to be two intertwined systems that influenced each other (especially religion -> economics) quite a lot.
Still, when you consider God to be someone/something that sort of governs your behaviour (with inherent or implanted set of rules), isn't money the most influential God of the 21st century?
I just think that lately economics is too much about graphs, numbers and mathemathics, and not enough about philosophy. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | | Still, when you consider God to be someone/something that sort of governs your behaviour (with inherent or implanted set of rules), isn't money the most influential God of the 21st century? |
I just think this is a massive, massive simplification of the concepts of God, religion and faith that doesn't work at all. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
If belief plays such a role in this (and I agree it does), isn't economy a religion?
Furthermore, shouldn't we study the history of belief/religion more often so we could learn more about our economic behaviour? |
Going further on my point. If you believe something has value, then you buy it, along with others who agree, and find some utility in its use. Gold has a utility and so can be valued because people buy and sell it at an agreed upon price. But gold itself is not valuable. People don't buy gold just because it's gold, which implies "inherent value". They buy gold because they find some use for it.
Thus, the economy is not a religion, because tangible assets and their derivatives are being traded. I can touch gold and place a price on it. Can you do that with God? How much does God cost? How can I buy or sell God outside of getting gullible people to give 10% of their wealth to the church? So no, I wouldn't find any use in studying religion, to understand the economy. But I'd be open to a serious academic study on such a correlation, if it were presented to me. |
|
|
| GoSpeedGo! |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I just think this is a massive, massive simplification of the concepts of God, religion and faith that doesn't work at all. |
Yeah, I agree that it really looks like that the way I wrote it.
It was basically meant to put some things into a bigger context, showing that some concepts may have more in common than we usually think. Too often are the analyses of the crisis concerned with trivial technicalities, while ignoring that this is not just a financial crisis, but a cultural one. It only manifests as such simply because money is the most prominent measure of worth in our society. |
|
|
|
|
