Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NorthKorea, post: 2494406, member: 29643&quot;]BTW, I&#039;m not a hard money proponent, as I don&#039;t believe it is even a good store of wealth in anything but medium time horizons. In the extremely long, you run the same risk of fiat currency that falls out of favor as a reserve currency. In the short run, you are impacted by market shocks. In the medium run, you get out what you put in (assuming you didn&#039;t buy during a shock), adjusted to inflation.</p><p><br /></p><p>Oh, and gold does poorly in most scenarios of government collapse. In essence, governments have become so large and encompassing that they are not only the backer of fiat, but of most precious metals, as well.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for Keynesian economics, I still contend that it only works for those nations that hold reserve currency status. Smaller nations that rely upon larger nations&#039; fiat to back their own fiat don&#039;t see as far reaching benefits to Keynesian models. If you really want to look into this, look at South East Asia in the mid- and late- 90s. Additionally, look at Thaksinomics. Populist policy making works... but also creates inflation in the process. A purely Keynesian model creates the eventual outcome of communism (little c, not big C), where the economy is driven by altruism. So long as greed is a factor and money can be made, Keynesian economics solves problems just as well as basically any other mainstream economic model... for reserve currency governments. Why? Because we can afford to mess up and kick the can down the proverbial road.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in