Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Cloudsweeper99, post: 89920, member: 3011&quot;]I would have to say I have a mind that is completely open to new ideas.&nbsp; I didn&#039;t always have a lot of knowledge about this subject, but I was willing to investigate.&nbsp; In political debates, I can debate the liberal and conservative philosophies with about equal skill, just for the fun of it, even though I have a personal preference.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>You indicate I favor a gold standard.&nbsp; This isn&#039;t the intent of my posts.&nbsp; The intent was to defend an alternative economic system that works perfectly well, but is currently out of favor.&nbsp; What I object to are the opinions that hard money systems don&#039;t work, when it is so obvious to anyone who studies the matter that they do.&nbsp; For some psycological reason, a lot of people can&#039;t be content with the idea that we have chosen one system unless they can completely discredit every possible alternative, regardless of intrinsic merit or historical success.&nbsp; I&#039;ll leave it to others to explain why that is.</p><p><br /></p><p>You mentioned some problems with trade while being on a gold or silver standard.&nbsp; The Greenspan article addressed this point.&nbsp; I would only add that this isn&#039;t a problem with the coinage as much as with technology.&nbsp; The exact same problems would exist today exchanging dollars for yen and the dozens of other international currencies if it were attempted without computerized trading systems and efficient currency markets.&nbsp; If gold and silver coinage were in use today, the same technological solutions would be applied to them that is applied to their modern paper equivalents.&nbsp; People tend not to think of this.&nbsp; Things aren&#039;t better today because the money is better.&nbsp; They are better because the markets and the technological underpinnings are better.</p><p><br /></p><p>But the main tipoff of the closed mine [for me] is someone&#039;s insistance that hard money systems didn&#039;t work, don&#039;t work, can&#039;t possibly work; but completely unbacked money systems always will because of some imagined inherent advanatage.&nbsp; Trade as a percentage of world GDP was higher prior to World War I than at any time up until about the early or mid 90s.&nbsp; You can look it up.&nbsp; With no computers and no derivatives, pretty complex clearing systems were operated out of London that permitted a high and sophisticated level of world trade with very little actual movement of bullion between nations.&nbsp; The only requirement was a settlement in ounces instead of paper.&nbsp; Now it would be with bits and bytes.&nbsp; The open and flexible mind has to mentally project what today&#039;s advances in technology and finance could add to the older processes.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>However, I completely agree with your comments on stubborness.&nbsp; People today believe that the way things are is the only way they could possibly be without some sort of cataclysmic breakdown -- mostly due to that stubborness.&nbsp; The real truth is that there are usually multiple solutions to any problem, including that of currencies and trade.</p><p><br /></p><p>So I can function in our current fiat currency system with complete comfort and full knowledge of its strengths and weaknesses.&nbsp; I also feel that as a result of my research, I&#039;d be equally comfortable under a hard currency system provided the same laws and protection of personal freedom was in place.&nbsp; I consider having a working knowledge of multiple systems to be an advantage, and also a sign of an open mind.[/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