Re: US dollar: modern history
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 06/30/04
- Next message: cantueso: "Re: US dollar: modern history"
- Previous message: jpathogan: "Please tell me why..."
- In reply to: smithaa02: "Re: US dollar: modern history"
- Next in thread: cantueso: "Re: US dollar: modern history"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:23:15 GMT
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:02:04 -0500, "smithaa02" <asdf@asdf.net> wrote:
><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:40e1b08e.5164783@news.telus.net...
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:50:21 -0500, "smithaa02" <asdf@asdf.net> wrote:
>>
>> ><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:40e04e30.688816@news.telus.net...
>> >> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:11:20 -0500, "smithaa02" <asdf@asdf.net> wrote:
>> >> >Gold has for nearly all its life existed in fractional form
>> >> >and has been supported by government legal tendar laws.
>> >>
>> >> Flat false. Through most of history, there _were_ no legal tender
>> >> laws, and gold and other metal coinage was valued on its weight and
>> >> purity.
>> >
>> >Taxes are a subset of legal tendar laws.
>>
>> False and stupid.
>
>Legal tender dictates the store of value you use for taxes.
Nope. It dictates what you use in trade. Tax law dictates what you
use for taxes.
>> >So the impetus is on you to find a
>> >nation that supported a gold standard while not demanding their taxes be
>> >paid in gold.
>>
>> The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire is just one example of many.
>
>I found sources like the following on the net:
>
>www.bitsofhistory.com/ace/contest_lots/Essay/lot9.doc
>
>"As emperor, Constantine began the important administrative reforms. He
>reorganized and separated the civil and military authority. He gave the
>Senate back their powers they had lost in the third century. Constantine
>moved the capitol from Rome to Constantinople. He had to maintain Rome’s
>privileges and the new senate in Constantinople had a lower rank. He did
>that because he did not want to upset the old senate of Rome. He issued new
>gold coins that remained the standard of exchange until the Byzantine
>Empire. Constantine's tax laws were hard for the people. The citizens were
>supposed to pay the taxes in gold or silver. The people who were too poor to
>pay was beaten or tortured"
Thank you for posting the proof that you were wrong. The Eastern
Roman Empire issued gold coins that were an international standard for
700 years, but accepted tax payments in silver (and most of the time
in other forms, too).
You are proved wrong. As always.
>>In
>> fact, were there any gold standard countries that _did_ require
>> payment of taxes in gold? I can't think of any. Gold was usually far
>> too scarce for most taxpayers to ever _have_ any of it.
>
>In these gold economies of yours...what did they pay taxes in?
Often in silver or even in kind.
>> ROTFL!! If it had utility of 50, who would pay 100 for it?
>
>People like Roy, people facing tax liabilities denominted in gold,
When have tax liabilities ever been denominated exclusively in gold?
>people
>facing private liabilities to external parties in gold, etc...
Sounds like 100 utility to me.
>> >How can can a defense of gold be that it can be used in the real economy,
>> >when currency traders disagree and use it as a store of value?
>>
>> A store of value is also a use in the real economy.
>
>Not if the people put more into that store of value then they get out of it.
Which they don't.
>> >> >You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's real simple. The
>> >> >demand for gold as a currency will drive up the price beyond what its
>> >> >current uses were for non-gold utility uses, such that a portion of
>its
>> >> >price will reflect gold's ability to tally wealth
>> >>
>> >> So? That's not overvaluation. That's the market's _accurate_
>> >> valuation of gold as a medium of exchange, store of value and unit of
>> >> account.
>> >
>> >A natural market you have yet to illustrate with an example from history.
>>
>> <yawn> Every time and place where gold coins and bullion have traded
>> freely is an example.
>
>Gold notes and watered coins aren't a free trade of gold as a store of
>value,
Sure they are. Gold notes can trade in a gold standard economy, and
gold alloy coins have often been traded and valued according to weight
and purity.
>nor is gold that has to have government enforce its use as a store of
>value.
Gold doesn't need any help in that regard. Governments more often try
to stop people using gold as a store of value.
>The onus is on you to provide a historical example to the contrary.
There were active gold coin and bullion markets in Europe and the
American colonies in the 16th-19th C, in feudal China and Japan, etc.
>> >> Why would it be surprising that a commodity's price would
>> >> rise as a result of an additional use being made of it? Just like
>> >> silver's value fell when it was no longer used for coins.
>> >
>> >This is sort of the problem... If gold is not rising in demand to tooth
>> >fillings, speaker wire, and other non-store-of-value uses then such a
>rise
>> >in price must be fiat.
>>
>> Nope. Flat false. Use as a store of value is just as legitimate as
>> any other use.
>
>Which gold isn't because it must raise its price in order for it to act as a
>store of value
Flat false. As usual.
You seem to have some sort of bizarre, animistic notion that gold
itself is an active participant in economic affairs. It's not. It's
just an inanimate metal. It can't raise its own price. It doesn't
care what its price is. It's a perfectly good store of value even if
its price does not increase.
>(and on the flip side lower its price when its empties its
>store of value).
Incoherent gabble.
>> >That raise in price is what the gold holders are
>> >fleecing from the public in the name of a commoditized-currency.
>>
>> Garbage. The gold holders paid for the stuff to be extracted, refined
>> etc. They paid for an increase in total real wealth. It's not
>> "fleecing the public" to bet that real wealth will hold its value
>> better than fiat currencies.
>
>Don't you see how your land arguements contradict your gold arguements?
Nope. Gold is produced by labor. Land is not. You are spouting
garbage.
>> >On the
>> >flip side when a 'commodity' like silver falls out of favor as a store of
>> >value, its price returns to reality taking with it all those fools that
>> >bought into its market price at that time.
>>
>> Well, silver is not as good a store of value as gold, so it is riskier
>> to bet that way. So what?
>
>Silver, gold, whatever...
Ignorance. Gold is _uniquely_ suited to use as money.
>When it stops being used as a store of value, the
>result is the same and the ponzi balloon pops.
There is no similarity between gold currency and a Ponzi scheme.
None.
>> >> >(a fiat currency just like paper notes).
>> >>
>> >> False and stupid. You can't multiply gold coins or bullion by ten by
>> >> adding a zero.
>> >
>> >Governments would print arbritrary numbers on gold coins all the time.
>>
>> That is not a gold standard, and in point of fact, governments
>> _have_not_done_as_you_claim_. When did any government ever get away
>> with stamping "10 oz." on a 1-ounce gold coin, or even _try_ it?
>>
>> I'm waiting.
>
>You needn't wait long...
Liar. I am still waiting.
>http://www.mosler.org/docs/docs/innes.htm
>
>The ancient coins of Rome, unlike these of Greece, had their distinctive
>marks of value, and the most striking thing about them is the extreme
>irregularity of their weight. The oldest coins are the As and its
>fractions, and there has always been tradition that the As, which was
>divided into 12 ounces, was originally a pound-weight of copper. But the
>Roman pound weighed about 3271 grammes and Mommsen, the great historian of
>the Roman mint, pointed out that not only did none of the extant coins (and
>there were very many) approach this weight, but that they were besides
>heavily alloyed with lead; so that even the heaviest of them, which were
>also the earliest, did not contain more than two-thirds of a pound of
>copper, while the fractional coins were based on an As still lighter. As
>early as the third century B. C. the As had fallen to not more than four
>ounces and by the end of the second century B. C. it weighed no more than
>half an ounce or less.
None of that was about gold. You lied. As I knew you would.
>> >As
>> >would private consumers assign arbritrary amounts of real wealth to a
>> >corresponding weight in gold.
>>
>> ??? Stupidity. The things you claim _must_ happen have in fact
>> _never_ happened.
>
>A wants to trade a services with B. C has the gold by which such trade can
>take place. Prove objectively how C will get his exact quantity of service
>in ratio for gold.
?? Incoherent gabble. What "exact quantity"? Do you think there is
some sort of objective, permanent exchange rate of gold for labor?
>> >> >Most rich countries are western countries
>> >> >with a history of colonization and landgrabbing, with an emphasis on
>> >gold.
>> >> >These early gold/land grabs allowed these western countries to obtain
>the
>> >> >power they have today.
>> >>
>> >> Which proves you are wrong. The greatest colonizing and gold grabbing
>> >> powers, like Spain and Britain, now have modest gold reserves, and
>> >> concommitantly weaker currencies. Countries like Switzerland and
>> >> Taiwan, that _never had colonies, have strong currencies because they
>> >> have large gold reserve fractions.
>> >
>> >Spain and Britian are rich countries.
>>
>> But their currencies have not been particularly strong since their
>> gold reserves have declined.
>
>They are among the top in the world.
Only by comparison with countries that have even smaller gold
reserves.
>The British pound was like the 4 or
>5th most popular international reserve currency last I saw and Spain is part
>of the Euro.
Over the last 50 year or so, sterling has lost most of its value even
against other fiat currencies like the US dollar. Spain is now using
euros because its own currency was so weak. It had a lot of work to
do just to be accepted into the euro regime.
>> >Switzerland and Taiwan are money
>> >laundering countries (that take wealth from former gold countries like
>the
>> >US and Britian),
>>
>> False and ridiculous. You just make all this stuff up.
>
>Taiwan (not as much as Singapore nor Hong Kong) is a hotspot for Asian
>flight capital.
No, actually, it isn't. And in any case, that is irrelevant. To the
extent that it is a hotspot for flight capital, it is _because_ of its
strong currency, _because_ of its high gold reserve ratio.
>Switzerland is renown for being the hot money haven for the
>world.
It's the hot money haven for the world _because_ its currency is so
strong, _because_ it is backed by more gold than other currencies.
>> >so this is the real source of their strong currencies and
>> >not their preference for gold.
>>
>> Garbage. Germany is another example. Every actual fact of monetary
>> history proves you wrong. You have provided _no_ facts to support
>> _any_ of your wild claims.
>
>Germany's Mark tended to be a competitive store of value on the
>international market because their central bankers had been leery of
>inflation.
Which kept their gold reserve ratio high. _Get_it_?
-- Roy L
- Next message: cantueso: "Re: US dollar: modern history"
- Previous message: jpathogan: "Please tell me why..."
- In reply to: smithaa02: "Re: US dollar: modern history"
- Next in thread: cantueso: "Re: US dollar: modern history"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
