Yeah I misspoke when I said “worse than the dollar” etc. Poor choice of words.
Dwight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In an “end of the world” event your gold > will be of little comfort. Couldn’t disagree more. What do you think we’d use as a medium of exchange? I’m fairly confident people that have gold would be better off than people that don’t. Sure, farmland, oil, and guns would be good too. I’d be willing to debate where on the end-of-the-world priority list to put gold, but it’d be on there. After 12/21/12 you’ll see me standing in sun-god robes on a pyramid with thousands of naked women throwing little pickles at me. Thanks gold.
^ I’m sure the gold bugs of the 2013 Armageddon will respect the rule of law in such a situation and indenture themselves to you since you were wise enough to buy some shares of GLD. Or then again they might just take your gold by force. It’s marshal law after all remember? Any currency only has its power because a government issues the currency, accepts the same currency for tax payments, and enforces property rights. The same can be said of assets like gold. Bugs love to envision the day when they are proven right, without realizing that if they ever were right it would be a Pyrrhic victory. Thomas Babington Macaulay said this in 1830. It rings true today as well: “We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason… on what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"
What good will land do when a small group of bandits approaches your cute little farm with assault rifles and shotguns in hand? Are you going to show them your deed to the land?
Duplicate Post.
Dwight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^ I’m sure the gold bugs of the 2013 Armageddon > will respect the rule of law in such a situation > and indenture themselves to you since you were > wise enough to buy some shares of GLD. > > Or then again they might just take your gold by > force. It’s marshal law after all remember? > > Any currency only has its power because a > government issues the currency, accepts the same > currency for tax payments, and enforces property > rights. The same can be said of assets like gold. > Bugs love to envision the day when they are > proven right, without realizing that if they ever > were right it would be a Pyrrhic victory. > > > Thomas Babington Macaulay said this in 1830. It > rings true today as well: > > “We cannot absolutely prove that those are in > error who tell us that society has reached a > turning point, that we have seen our best days. > But so said all before us, and with just as much > apparent reason… on what principle is it that, > when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we > are to expect nothing but deterioration before > us?" A) Who said anything about GLD? I’m the last person on this forum that would ever buy that crap. B) Why would my gold be at risk if, according to you, it would be of little value? C) Currency has value based on demand. Government support helps, but isn’t necessary. If there are no more governments, people will still need some way to store value. Why not gold? D) I’m not a gold bug nor do I believe the absolute collapse of fiat is ever likely to occur. For this hypothetical scenario though, a little common sense goes a long way.
Sweep the Leg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A) Who said anything about GLD? I’m the last > person on this forum that would ever buy that > crap. You can change the statement to one about physical gold if you prefer. I used GLD as that is the exposure the recent “retail gold bugs” are realistically able to get. Here is the reworded version: “I’m sure the gold bugs of the 2013 Armageddon will respect the rule of law in such a situation and indenture themselves to you since you were wise enough to buy some physical gold.” “Or then again they might just take your gold by force. It’s marshal law after all remember?” > B) Why would my gold be at risk if, according to > you, it would be of little value? It is one of the other. You are claiming that it would be valuable and by having it you would be safe. I am claiming that a) if it is valuable, people will just steal it from you or b) if it is not valuable then there is no reason to have it. > C) Currency has value based on demand. Government > support helps, but isn’t necessary. If there are > no more governments, people will still need some > way to store value. Why not gold? I’ll grant you this one. Sure gold could theoretically become a medium of exchange again. Just as likely that it would be cigarettes or sea shells though. > D) I’m not a gold bug nor do I believe the > absolute collapse of fiat is ever likely to occur. > For this hypothetical scenario though, a little > common sense goes a long way. Does this quote sound like common sense to you? “After 12/21/12 you’ll see me standing in sun-god robes on a pyramid with thousands of naked women throwing little pickles at me. Thanks gold.”
As an investement? Ride gold as long/far as you can. As an inflation hedge, not great. As an armageddon hedge, horrible. There’s only 2 things that will be worth spit in that case.
Dwight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > B) Why would my gold be at risk if, according to > > you, it would be of little value? > > It is one of the other. You are claiming that it > would be valuable and by having it you would be > safe. I am claiming that a) if it is valuable, > people will just steal it from you or b) if it is > not valuable then there is no reason to have it. I never said anything about safety. I said it would be of value. You’re the one playing both sides. It’s can’t be worthless but still demanded by brigands. It’s also funny that people always assume guns and gold are mutually exclusive. Most armageddon types I know have both. > > D) I’m not a gold bug nor do I believe the > > absolute collapse of fiat is ever likely to > occur. > > For this hypothetical scenario though, a > little > > common sense goes a long way. > > > Does this quote sound like common sense to you? > “After 12/21/12 you’ll see me standing in sun-god > robes on a pyramid with thousands of naked women > throwing little pickles at me. Thanks gold.” That only shows me your knowledge of awesome 80’s movies is subpar.
Sweep the Leg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I never said anything about safety. I said it > would be of value. You’re the one playing both > sides. It’s can’t be worthless but still demanded > by brigands. It’s also funny that people always > assume guns and gold are mutually exclusive. Most > armageddon types I know have both. We can play with words all day and redefine what “safe” means a million different ways. My point was very simply that gold will have little benefit for you as an Armageddon hedge. So the whole gold bug philosophy/religion is self-defeating. > That only shows me your knowledge of awesome 80’s > movies is subpar. Sure I’ll agree with that. Must have missed out on my “common sense” lessons from awesome 80s movies.
Dwight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My point is that you cannot ignore history when > thinking about economics and policy. you seem to be ignoring anything that didn’t happen in the last 100 years. the only way governments can perpetuate unsustainable debts is to continually debase its currency. it’s happened many times thoughout history and the outcome is always the same.
jbaldyga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dwight Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > My point is that you cannot ignore history when > > thinking about economics and policy. > > you seem to be ignoring anything that didn’t > happen in the last 100 years. the only way > governments can perpetuate unsustainable debts is > to continually debase its currency. it’s happened > many times thoughout history and the outcome is > always the same. So let’s see. It’s “unsustainable”, yet governments can perpetuate it? At first glance those two claims would seem to be contradictory. Where is the disconnect? If you are arguing that I have said that inflation has never occurred in the past 100 years please direct me to the post where I said that. What is this outcome you speak of that is “always the same”? Because it sounds to me like your argument is that the outcome for the US situation will “always be different” from the outcome of Japan, UK, and France who followed similar policies in history, because the US has a somewhat different structural trade balance.
Dwight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We can play with words all day and redefine what > “safe” means a million different ways. My point > was very simply that gold will have little benefit > for you as an Armageddon hedge. So the whole gold > bug philosophy/religion is self-defeating. So far we’ve agreed you don’t need governments to have a currency and a Mad Max world will be dangerous. I don’t see how that equates to gold being of little benefit in our post-apocalyptic society. Bartering is extremely inefficient, so can we also agree that something will have to serve as a new currency? Why not gold and silver? Seems to me there’s actually a historical standard for its use, and it makes you wonder why Central Banks are buying it like crazy if it has no use has a currency.
^ I don’t think so. Do you know of any examples in history where a currency was accepted with no government? I’m not saying I know definitively, just that I doubt any form of economy aside from barter would exist in a post-apocalyptic world with no central authority to enforce property rights. If you can point out a reason to think otherwise I might be able to be convinced that an exchange mechanism could exist without government backing. Central bank buying up-ticked a bit this quarter, but by far the largest increase in marginal demand has been from ETF fund assets. Central bankers are part of the herd too for the most part. Did Greenspan see the tech or real estate bubbles?
Dwight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m not saying I know definitively, just that I > doubt any form of economy aside from barter would > exist in a post-apocalyptic world with no central > authority to enforce property rights. If you can > point out a reason to think otherwise I might be > able to be convinced that an exchange mechanism > could exist without government backing. Again, just seems like common sense to me. Bartering doesn’t work well for anyone involved. I’d be loathe to give up my goat for that bottle of vodka, but may have to. And they guy that gets my goat may not be able to unload it to the next dude. It’d be a lot easier to use gold, silver, seashells, or beads. I’m fine with saying gold may not be the answer, but I think it’s only reasonable to assume a solution would be found. Perhaps I have more faith in individuals, and their ability to find elegant solutions, where as you believe central planning is necessary. If that’s the case, then I suppose that’s that.
So you get together all these guys with goats and vodka and say: “Hey guys this barter system is silly. The solution here is to use this shiny metal that I happen to have a lot of. That way you can give me your vodka/guns/tobacco/goats and I will give you gold so that you can spend it to someone else. If everyone accepts it then it will work just fine.” Somehow I just don’t envision the end-of-the-world crowd being so interested in the common good and willing to have faith in others reciprocating an undefended currency with no intrinsic value. Call me a skeptic if you like.
maybe which currency has lost least against gold over that period, which would be a measure of how much fiat currency they have printed
guest Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > maybe which currency has lost least against gold > over that period, which would be a measure of how > much fiat currency they have printed This!
ManMythLegend Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > guest Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > maybe which currency has lost least against > gold > > over that period, which would be a measure of > how > > much fiat currency they have printed > > This! Should you measure the value of the dollar by how much it lost relative to Pets.com in the late 1990s? Or by how much it lost relative to the value of your house in 2006?
Dwight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ManMythLegend Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > guest Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > maybe which currency has lost least against > > gold > > > over that period, which would be a measure of > > how > > > much fiat currency they have printed > > > > This! > > > Should you measure the value of the dollar by how > much it lost relative to Pets.com in the late > 1990s? Or by how much it lost relative to the > value of your house in 2006? Create a currency basket and chart it against the USD for the past 10 years. You will wet yourself.