Is this forum named correctly?

Aye

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Okay, so you're saying that our aim needs improvement, but is this the right forum for that discussion?

 

Unfortunately, reality is now considered "abuse" by what seems to be an ever-growing number of the flake-class, the vast majority of whom only wish to be told what they want to hear. Still, "fun" is great, but not when protecting someone's ever-precious little feelings has the potential to harm others, and is particularly true in an area in which many folks are regretfully willing to spend money they simply don't have to waste.

On the other hand, many of these newcomers haven't the slightest problem dishing. In such cases, one reaps what they sow imo.

 

Jim will always protect any hard money believers as if they were his kittens. He may not BELIEVE his bias on that shows, but it does. It almost blazes.

 

I am not a mod, but so will I. We are here to exchange ideas and learn. I may not agree with those members on that topic, but if cannot explain and defend what I believe, how am I so sure I am correct?

This is why I like Cointalk and how Peter and his mods work here. They try to make it a place where all opinions can be expressed and heard, and not shouted down by the crowd. That is a rare thing both on the internet and general society nowadays.

 

I’ll tell you why. The hard money neo-Austrian paradigm was universally rejected for many many decades and was only quite recently dug out of its well-earned grave to “justify” an extremist political ideology that no serious contemporary economic scholars believe or even take seriously UNLESS they are purely politicos in economist vestments (e.g. Steve Forbes). Their rejection of econometrics and macroeconomics generally actually DOES disqualify them from serious consideration. They actually do reject any measurement in favor of “what’s good for ME?”

Yes, Austrian economics should NEVER be allowed to be taken seriously. It’s traffic equivalent is “traffic lights and speed limits be damned - I have to get somewhere.” It lives on abject selfishness. Institutionalized chaos cannot be taken seriously.

At its VERY BEST, it is a thought experiment, a “what if we all went crazy” thought experiment. It is useless as a policy tool.

 

That is your opinion, and quite frankly mine as well.

However, not everyone may CARE about policy tools, etc. If they believe owning physical PM is good protection for them or their family, I do not think we have a right to tell them they can't. We can discuss policy beliefs, discuss how PM may or may not be the best investment, but in the end everyone has a right to believe what they wish. Personally, I love having a discussion with any person with any perspective. I will debate for hours with a diehard Marxist. Again, they have a right to their view, and me of mine. I can try to change their minds, and them mine, but as long as its a civil discussion nothing bad can come of it.

Maybe we will be right, maybe they will. No way of knowing the future today, (though we believe we are correct). That is why we have freedom of speech, which the founders intended to protect civil discussion of any ideas, not matter what others believe of their validity.

You seem well read enough to know what other paradigms or predominant theories over the years have been dominant. Maybe current economic thought is just as flawed. We will never know unless we accept criticism of it, and reexamine it ourselves.

 

I agree that current major economic paradigms are “insufficient” due to fundamental changes coming. Adam Smith “invisible hand” economics worked really well when we were agrarian, but became “insufficient” with the Industrial Revolution. New economics were needed. Even what I call “book Keynesianism” starts to break down as international trade becomes more and more a proportion of economic output. The Keynesian system worked beautifully to “fix” the world economy after the 2008-09 shock. It greatly improved life for workers who made the goods we bought - Asian workers in Asian economies. We now face a world in which there may not be enough work for everybody (human) to do worldwide. That’s never been close to true before. It’ll need a new economics too, but not the one that created the robber barons of the 19th to 20th century transition.

 

Abstain. I just read 4 pages of this thread on a subject I have no interest in (slight changes that have no impact on anything). It still beat anything on tv.

 

I vote NAY.

As a proud conformist I believe it is necessary to maintain the status quo and continue calling this bullion investing. That way our beloved teachers and gurus can leap tall buildings in a single bound rescuing everyone and receiving the recognition they so richly deserve; hey maybe even the Warren Buffett @ Woodstock Awh Shucks-ie citation award? I know, right?

And of course, I've always believed that continuity of the status quo is the only real public good. How many times have I said that?

OMG! Where'd the lint brush go?

 

I agree 100%.

At some point, two things are true. 1) they NEED to think about policy and act accordingly on a macro basis, and 2) understand that there almost is NO SUCH THING as "what's best for me personally serves the best needs of the economy at large". "The paradox of thrift" (Google it) is but the best example of that fact.

Yes, and NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND have we found a useful answer in "going paleo", or "going back to what we used to do."

One example. Ever hear of Luden's Cough Drops? It was the number one OTC cough and cold remedy in this country at one time. There is a place in southeastern Reading, Pennsylvania where the Luden Mansion still stands today. One family's wealth was able to support that property. Yes, it was the gold standard hard money era. Now I know people think there's some pretty wild income distribution out there now, but during that era it was downright Dickensian. Single families had palatial estates while other people literally died in poor houses. Is that what we seek to return to?

Oh, the Luden Mansion became Reading Central Catholic High School for MANY decades. Even the Diocese of Allentown, rich as the Church is, even while 100% tax exempt, couldn't keep the Luden Mansion afloat any more, AS A SCHOOL!!! A single family home at one time. It's now a rotting hulk. I see NOTHING attractive about returning to the old days and its economics - NOTHING AT ALL. By the way, Ludens itself was bought up by Hershey Foods and shut down. Even the factory is now urban blight.

We need some other paradigm than "Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Zuckerberg and the Jobs widow get everything" as a result of the tech revolution. I don't know what it is yet, but it can't be this. But maybe we can start with an aggressive anti-merger and acquisition regime, a la Teddy Roosevelt. You can compete with your competition, but you can't own them. We don't YET allow the New York Yankees to own every other team and stock them with AA players. Wait. It may still happen yet.

 

THIS needs to be on a stone tablet on every public building.

 

A quote I picked up long ago: "If you do not believe what I believe, it proves that I do not believe what you believe, and that is all it proves."

 

I think we should call it George

 

I would place Benny Binnion as the champeen stacker since he got all
of his dollars and half dollars at face value from his Horseshoe Casino.

 

My personal credo is that I am the undisputed champion arbiter of my own opinions.
Since I also grant that status to others we tend to get along just fine.

 

If you mean Ted Binion he certainly had the soap opera life that LaVere did--if not more so.

https://coinweek.com/coins/pedigrees-hoards-the-binion-hoard/

 

Sorry, I misspoke. Benny was the father of Ted and the man who created the Horseshoe Casino in the first place. There is no known treasure cache associated with Benny.

 

No, it's this one: HereWeComeToSaveTheDay.Winky

 

Lavare Redfield got his Morgan's for face value from the bank.