The Gaming Den

Doom wrote:Literally, nothing here that constitutes an intelligent response; between the lies, misinformation, and intellectual dishonesty

Yes, if you declare your opponent's response unintelligent and never hold yourself to the standard of showing it, you can 'win' a great many 'intelligent' discussions that way.

Unfortunately, you've added four more claims to the list of things I'm waiting for you to prove - "unintelligent response," "lies," "misinformation," and "intellectual dishonesty." These are things one might think you would be capable of demonstrating, since you're apparently able to spot them and more than willing to claim them.

When (if?) you can do that, let me know.

As long as we're going to abandon rational discourse and tell each other we're all full of shit: Doom, you are so full of shit your eyes are brown.

The main issue with the gold-based economy - the one that countries ran into again and again - is the limitations placed on the economy by the amount of actual gold. One of the great truths of modern economics is that you don't need gold. People will take bits of paper with a number on them. They will work to earn them, they will put them in banks, they will spend them freely. Beyond that, people do not even need to see the individual pieces of paper: they will accept credit cards, debit cards, electronic cash transfers. None of that (with the exception of certain digital metal currencies) relies on a great hunk of gold in a vault somewhere.

Is it perfect? No. There are risks to going off the gold standard. Hyperinflation is the great fear: paper money undervalued to the point where the comparatively worthless paper is worth more than the number printed on it.

But is it worth it? I say yes. In earlier centuries, commercial ventures were comparatively rare, wealth grew very slowly, and very few people or institutes could manage to invest in anything. Today, for a large chunk of the world, things have changed. We in America are fantastically more wealthy than our ancestors were a century ago. Look at your car, you iPod, the quality and diversity of the food you eat.

The basic question people have of inflation is: does a loaf of bread cost the same amount as it did in your grandfather's day? If you saved a dime under a mattress for eighty years, then no. If you invested that dime in a bank so it grew at the rate of inflation? Bread may cost less. For thousands of years, people have looked back on the past for some sort of mythical golden age that never happened - and that's the people like Doom here that advocate the gold standard. The gold standard may not be completely absent or obsolete, but it is no longer the universal standard for currency, and with good reason. It has major drawbacks in terms of how much money it can actually back, how big the economy can effectively be - because gold grows slowly, as we mine it, as it is made available. A dollar bill can circle the world before a gold coin gets from the ground to the mint to somebody's pocket, and that's where the value of money lies: in being spent or collecting interest, not sitting in a vault somewhere or under a mattress.

Ancient History wrote:As long as we're going to abandon rational discourse and tell each other we're all full of shit: Doom, you are so full of shit your eyes are brown.

Clever. I do believe you are capable of better, and glad to see you have real things to say, instead of just imitating DSM.

But is it worth it? I say yes.

Certainly, an opinion to have. At least you can tell there are risks.

In earlier centuries, commercial ventures were comparatively rare, wealth grew very slowly, and very few people or institutes could manage to invest in anything.

The 19th century begs to differ. Going further back, the East Indies companies, the Hanseatic League (14th century)...this isn't quite accurate, really, but the 19th century is sufficient enough.

We in America are fantastically more wealthy than our ancestors were a century ago. Look at your car, you iPod, the quality and diversity of the food you eat.

Agreed, we are fabulously wealthy in comparison. Things are so wildly different now that it really isn't fair to compare today's world to the world of the Romans.

does a loaf of bread cost the same amount as it did in your grandfather's day?

Depends on who your grandfather was, and who you are. Inflation as we currently experience it didn't exist until 1913.

If you saved a dime under a mattress for eighty years, then no.

Actually, yes. A dime from 80 years ago was made of silver, the content of which is more than sufficient to buy a loaf of bread, regardless of inflation.

If you invested that dime in a bank so it grew at the rate of inflation?

I would truly love to see a proof of this. I'm not convinced it will, especially since you'll be taxed on the gains 'at the rate of inflation' guaranteeing you to be behind.

It's important to note, of course, that no such bank paying such rates exists, or can even possibly exist. Still, it would be a fun academic exercise.

on the past for some sort of mythical golden age that never happened - and that's the people like Doom here

I've made no such claim of a mythical golden age, sorry, you have me confused with someone else. The rest of your prose is nice, but...we've been over this already.

AncientHistory wrote: It has major drawbacks in terms of how much money it can actually back, how big the economy can effectively be - because gold grows slowly, as we mine it, as it is made available. A dollar bill can circle the world before a gold coin gets from the ground to the mint to somebody's pocket, and that's where the value of money lies: in being spent or collecting interest, not sitting in a vault somewhere or under a mattress.

Hm. Sort of true, sort of not true. When you represent that gold with dollars, those dollars can circulate as fast as you want (unless somebody in the chain asks for their gold, which causes problems). And using gold as currency will raise gold's value, such that it represents more wealth just by being currency. These increases are rarely proportional or adequate, and it has the problem of making gold even MORE expensive, so when it comes time to expand your economy, the fact that you're using gold has inflated gold's price, and you have to turn around and buy more of that gold.

The main real drawback of a gold economy is that occasionally economies switch from spending to saving and vice versa. It is always better for the economy to be in spending mode. In a gold economy, you have no strong mechanism for switching people from saving to spending. In a fiat economy, you print money (the dollars in everyone's pocket depreciate from 1.00 to .9999... dollars), and then you spend that money or distribute it to be spent or whatever you prefer, and this starts a cycle that switches the economy from saving to spending (it's actually a little more complicated to do with that - it's usually the ability to manipulate the interest rate that's the cincher, something that's harder to do in a gold-backed economy, because high interest rates imply gold is coming out of thin air, and lower interest rates imply pixies eat it).

Doom wrote:and glad to see you have real things to say, instead of just imitating DSM.

I've invited you to demonstrate instead of hurl petty insults - if you aren't capable of living up to that, you're just being childish and pathetic. I can't say I expected better from you, but I do have to ask you to not be so annoying if you're not going to contribute.

I've already demonstrated, repeatedly. That said, you're right, that was a cheap shot, my apologies.

Doom wrote:I've already demonstrated, repeatedly

I strongly disagree (I'm still waiting on quite a few responses), but I appreciate the rest. If you don't want to debate eachother over inflation, let's just not debate eachother over inflation, and call it that.

Your wait can be shortened simply by reading responses I've already given. I respect that you disagree, but that doesn't matter, as we've established no proof or evidence is sufficient for you.

I have responded, diligently, to every point you've made. I'll accept any proof or evidence I can't actually refute.

Admittably, we've talked a lot, so there's too many details to mention, but the discussion has revolved mainly around two things: A) showing inflation is economically destructive, or B) showing inflation is morally wrong. You've had arguments for both.

A doesn't seem to be true, as the economic data grabbed off wikipedia strongly supports fiat economies, as well does modern economic theory and our understanding of how spending/saving works (Frank called it 'velocity of money,' which is a funny phrase for it, but it's a totally valid concept - the more money moves, the more money gets done).

B doesn't seem to be true, either, because the moral arguments you've made apply equally well to taxes as inflation, and I don't know about you, but I like taxes. Sure, paying them sucks, but I recognize that the cost-benefit is heavily in the favor of benefit most of the time.

And that's the current position of the argument - I'm waiting for new evidence/arguments of inflation's tendencies to destroy entire economies, or a reason for why inflation is morally wrong and taxes aren't. All that crap we're talking about breaks down into those two simple categories. And if you think you have some piece of evidence or some argument that wasn't properly refuted, you're welcome to bring it back to my attention and it can be discussed. If you have new evidence or arguments, the same.

Not that I really want to get this started again, but if you do, we should probably try to discuss one point at a time to prevent massive bloat. Or we can just let it go, but I have responded to your arguments, and the only response you've given in turn is to handwave them away, which is by no means... compelling.

Anyone who wishes to read your manifestos and determine the truth of the matter can do so himself to judge the validity of your increasingly shrill denials. In years to come, I expect you will be among that number.

Let it go at that, already.

Yes, they can - I'm very much comfortable with everything I've said, and you haven't shaken that comfort at all.

A Good Reason not to go to the Gold Standard. There are more US Dollars out in the world outside of the US, than are currently in the US. People use the US Dollar for all sorts of transactions around the world. If all of a sudden, all those dollars become renegotiable for /GOLD/ OMFG the US would go broke in a heartbeat.

Not to mention, Wall Street is fucked if the US Dollar has to have gold backing it up. $1505 an ounce.. think about that for a second.

A solid gold coin the size of a dime is a $100 worth. You can't mint a US $1 Gold Coin, because it would cost more to Gold Plate the coin, then the coin would be worth.

And you say that Gold Coins don't get melted down, because there's lots of old coins. The reason for that is because those coins are all COLLECTORS ITEMS. They are worth MORE in pristine condition than 1505 an ounce. A US $50 coin, Minted during the Reagan Years, is worth $1505 because of the gold content, but it sells for 1645 if it's in First Strike or Mint Condition. But it's face value is $50.

That's terribad. That's so bad I can't begin to describe how bad it is.
WHat /idiot/ is going to use a $50 coin, for $50, when he can melt it down and sell it for 1505.

Or convert it to $1645 of not-yet-collectable whatevers!

RadiantPhoenix wrote:Or convert it to $1645 of not-yet-collectable whatevers!

This is of course even worse than the other part. At the point where people have a legitimate belief that hiding money in sock drawers is going to accrue value for them, they'll do that. That's terribad. The amount of investment in the economy is limited by the amount of savings. For you to invest a dollar in expanding capital or training someone or whatever, someone had to save a dollar. Maybe it was you, maybe it was someone who put a dollar into the bank so you could borrow at interest, but savings somewhere had to happen. A dollar saved in a mattress isn't funding any investment. It's a dollar saved and not a dollar invested. To the extent that putting physical dollars into safes is rational, the economy's investment potential is reduced and its growth rate is likewise reduced.

-Username17

sabs wrote:A Good Reason not to go to the Gold Standard. There are more US Dollars out in the world outside of the US, than are currently in the US. People use the US Dollar for all sorts of transactions around the world. If all of a sudden, all those dollars become renegotiable for /GOLD/ OMFG the US would go broke in a heartbeat.

Agreed, we're beyond the point of no return as far as any sanity goes.

Not to mention, Wall Street is fucked if the US Dollar has to have gold backing it up. $1505 an ounce.. think about that for a second.

Actually, I think somebody did make the calculation of what gold would need to be to back the 'US Dollar' things we use now, assuming we have as much gold in Fort Knox as we've been told. It was some godawfully insane number, darned if I can remember ($20,000 an ounce, just a guess, memory completely fails since the point is utterly moot).

A solid gold coin the size of a dime is a $100 worth. You can't mint a US $1 Gold Coin, because it would cost more to Gold Plate the coin, then the coin would be worth.

Heh, dime sized coins are closer to $200 now.

Australia is minting ridiculously tiny gold coins now, half a gram if I recall correctly, they seal them in plastic.

Fun fact: back when coins were silver, people complained that the silver 3 cent or 5 cent pieces were just too darn small. So, they used a cheaper metal, and a larger coin. Made out of nickel, of course.

And you say that Gold Coins don't get melted down, because there's lots of old coins.

Never said that, you just indicated that sooner or later all gold or all silver coins would be melted; this is not the case at all.

The reason for that is because those coins are all COLLECTORS ITEMS. They are worth MORE in pristine condition than 1505 an ounce.

Yes, the ones in pristine condition are collectors items. You can buy 'junk silver' by the ounce or pound or whatever. You can do this right now if you want. While curiousities, they're not collectors' items, and yet not melted down either. You can also buy 'crappy' gold coins in a similar way (generally one at a time, however, being expensive). Not collectors' items, not melted.

That's terribad. That's so bad I can't begin to describe how bad it is.
WHat /idiot/ is going to use a $50 coin, for $50, when he can melt it down and sell it for 1505.

Yes, only idiots would do this...except.

First though, I'll mention giving the coin a face value is useful for some obscure legal reasons; currency has protections that a chunk of gold does not. It's a piffling detail for the wise, as laws can change in a heartbeat. In the meantime, that coin is worth $50, in the sense that if you take it to a store, they are obligated to treat it like any other official US currency, because it is such.

Now back to that 'except'. A guy was hiring contractors, and telling them, "I'll give you this $50 coin to get your men to do the work." (It was more than just one coin, he was doing it alot, but bear with me).

The guy doing the work knew full well what the coin was worth, and accepted it. For tax purposes, he was only paid $50, you see, and that's a big deal, enough that he didn't mind 'losing' money in the transaction (of turning the gold into paper money), the tax savings was tremendous.

The IRS took them all to court for tax evasion; it was a bitter case, but the IRS lost. The judge said, bottom line, a $50 coin is worth $50, market value or perceived value is irrelevant.

So, yes, I can absolutely spend my gold coins at Starbucks; not a good idea, unless I can find an honorable sucker willing to bet me more than the coin is worth while I get some coffee with it.

sabs wrote:A solid gold coin the size of a dime is a $100 worth. You can't mint a US $1 Gold Coin, because it would cost more to Gold Plate the coin, then the coin would be worth.

I don't want to be contrarian, but no, it's not. It is way samller than a dime. I know because I actually have one (damn Candaians and their massively cute looking coins). 1/25-Oz Gold Coin - Geese (2011) Currently at $109.95 CAN / $109.11 US. (The $ CAN has never looked so good, in more ways than one.) Diameter is 13.92 mm. The diameter of a US dime is 17.91 mm ... over 1/4 larger. (28.66%)

tzor wrote:

sabs wrote:A solid gold coin the size of a dime is a $100 worth. You can't mint a US $1 Gold Coin, because it would cost more to Gold Plate the coin, then the coin would be worth.

I don't want to be contrarian, but no, it's not. It is way samller than a dime. I know because I actually have one (damn Candaians and their massively cute looking coins). 1/25-Oz Gold Coin - Geese (2011) Currently at $109.95 CAN / $109.11 US. (The $ CAN has never looked so good, in more ways than one.) Diameter is 13.92 mm. The diameter of a US dime is 17.91 mm ... over 1/4 larger. (28.66%)

So, $110 coins roughly the size of your index fingernail that weigh slightly less than a single-edge razor blade. Economics aside, how is this a good idea from a practical standpoint?

Makes it easier for muggers to steal your shit.

Although, how do I buy a soda?

tzor wrote:Diameter is 13.92 mm. The diameter of a US dime is 17.91 mm ... over 1/4 larger. (28.66%)

Actually, you're just measuring the diameter. If you're worried about how much gold is there, you have to measure the area (well, volume, but without thickness, all I can check is area). So rather than 17.91/13.92, you're looking at 17.91^2 / 13.92^2

So it's actually 65.54% bigger.

RobbyPants wrote:

tzor wrote:Diameter is 13.92 mm. The diameter of a US dime is 17.91 mm ... over 1/4 larger. (28.66%)

Actually, you're just measuring the diameter. If you're worried about how much gold is there, you have to measure the area (well, volume, but without thickness, all I can check is area). So rather than 17.91/13.92, you're looking at 17.91^2 / 13.92^2

So it's actually 65.54% bigger.

Actually you'd be concerned in how much it weighs, since it's going to be in your damn pocket. The density of a gold coin is 19.8, the density of a dime is 8.9. So the dime is 26% smaller.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:Actually you'd be concerned in how much it weighs, since it's going to be in your damn pocket. The density of a gold coin is 19.8, the density of a dime is 8.9. So the dime is 26% smaller.

Oh. I thought Tzor and Sabs were just comparing volume, not mass.

we were comparing price.. actually
Tzor got off on this stupid size tangent because he's a dick. I made a rough guess to how much a dime weighed, and how much that would cost if it was made of gold. Tzor had to be a complete dick and post the exact weight.. then he went on about the diameter.

tzor wrote: I don't want to be contrarian, but no, it's not. It is way samller than a dime. I know because I actually have one (damn Candaians and their massively cute looking coins).

I dunno how you can handle the 1/25th ouncers, so ridiculously tiny. Even my 1/10th ouncers took some getting used to, when I started buying them years ago (stopped a while ago, the premiums are just too nuts, and their market value is so high they no longer serve primary purpose as insurance).

Do you do straight bullion, too, or do you buy the goofy stuff also? I've bought a few odd things, but nothing too outlandish (assuming soveriegns are even a little outlandish).

Doom wrote:

tzor wrote: I don't want to be contrarian, but no, it's not. It is way samller than a dime. I know because I actually have one (damn Candaians and their massively cute looking coins).

I dunno how you can handle the 1/25th ouncers, so ridiculously tiny.

They remind me of the old Diamond in Amber Gludiches from Leiber's Nehwon. Basically the coin is in a plexiglass holder the size of a normal coin of the realm. So it's about the same size as a regular coin feel wise when you consider the container.

Doom wrote:Do you do straight bullion, too, or do you buy the goofy stuff also? I've bought a few odd things, but nothing too outlandish (assuming soveriegns are even a little outlandish).

My father was a coin collector, and I got involved in a few good mints (US & Candad) as a result. At first I just collected nice coins because in Canada the Candaian Mint makes a lot of good ones. Then I started investing in the silver coins because of the metal. I only got the gold one because it was in my price range. I think I buy something like three to four coins a quarter, so it's not a big investment per se.

I've also bought a few bills as well from other places. Mostly because of my (me and my dad) most famous mistake of not getting a first day of issue stamp on my wonderful two dollar bills. (The ones printed in 1776 with the declaration of independence drawing on the back.)

Mine too, though not paper currency (although I've picked up a few when I was in Europe and China).

My father favored coins that they didn't make anymore--that way he could actually finish the set. So now I have these books...for some reason, he ended up buying two 1916-D dimes, not sure why, he wasn't one for extras.