4 ms·

can you back up your statement that his proposed solution would send the entire world into a recession? I always find it interesting that people say this and ye

by zaphar 17y ago

can you back up your statement that his proposed solution would send the entire world into a recession? I always find it interesting that people say this and yet don't give any reasons why. I'm not financial genius myself but surely just collateralizing the dollar with something automatically cause a recession. What exactly is the mechanism you think would cause this? Asking cause i genuinely don't understand myself.

jakarta 17y ago
it comes down to your economic philosophy. a keynesian will say that if you need to stimulate the economy, government spending will help get us out of crises. the problem that arises with a collateralizing program, like the gold standard is that the monetary supply would be inherently confined by physical discoveries and captures of gold. If it is the Great Depression and you cannot find any more gold, you'd be pretty screwed.
- kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
  The argument is that if it's a strict commodity currency, there's no Great Depression. No cheap money boom, no depressions. Free market interest rates naturally rise and fall to control the extremes of the business cycle.
cynicalkane 17y ago
It's bizarre these so-called conservatives at the WSJ have abandoned Chicago style economics for gold-bug reactionary alarmism. The monetarist theory--now the dominant theory of monetary policy--is that one of the biggest, most economically important features of a recession is a flight to liquidity. In such a situation, the demand for tangible money--and, under US law, there is none more tangible than the dollar--will drastically jump, despite a limited supply. Nobody doubts the tangibility of the dollar when they are forced to pay taxes, and if they do, they might find themselves in a cell with a tangible lock and 6 by 6 tangible feet. The correct thing to do, then, is to expand the money supply. This might happen by a seemingly alarming amount, especially given the highly leveraged nature of our economy. But otherwise a flight to liquidity will shut down the financial system, cause huge losses in "safe" bank accounts and funds, cause massive deflation as money becomes scarce, and cause a nasty depression--which is what happened from 1929 to 1932. The money supply has expanded from about $800 billion to $2 trillion. Alarming? Maybe, but 1) we're not seeing inflation yet 2) most economists agree that the Fed contracting the money supply was a major cause of the 1929 Depression 3) the Fed is perfectly willing to stall the economy to prevent inflation, which is what they did in 1979 when a shameless monetarist finally was given power. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker#Chairman_of_the_Federal_Reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker#Chairman_of_the_Fe... . It's worth noting that Volcker is one of Obama's chief economic advisors: the guy in charge of economic recovery board. 4) the amount of paper cash has increased by a "mere" 120 billion or so. Most of the remaining cash is sitting in Federal Reserve bank accounts, not being used. So I wouldn't dump greenbacks yet. If you're like most people few of your assets are in greenbacks anyway. Finally, if I keep seeing articles like this, I'm buying puts on gold. You heard it here first, folks.
- patrickgzill 17y ago
  If you claim that you haven't seen inflation, then I am going to guess that you are not the one in the household that is buying groceries. Example: Wheat-based products like pasta used to sell on sale for 50 to 80 cents /lb; now a sale price is $1/lb; or an increase of over 20% over the past 2 years.
  - cynicalkane 17y ago
    Ok, but I don't measure inflation solely by wheat prices. The government puts a Fisher index on personal consumption expenditures, which include a lot of non-wheat items. Also, I am single.
  - jonknee 17y ago
    And yet in the real world wheat prices peaked in 2008 (along with oil) and are now back to 2006 prices of ~$200/metric ton. http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=wheat&months=120 http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=wheat&m... Don't base inflation on your local Safeway.
    - pmorici 17y ago
      Why not? For the average citizen prices at the local store are the thing that immediately effects their daily lives and will in turn cause them to change their spending habits accordingly subsequently effecting other parts of the economy beyond basic needs.
      - jonknee 17y ago
        Because how much you spend for wheat is not what inflation is (unless the only thing money was used for was to buy wheat). The price changes of any one good is an inaccurate look at inflation. Oil tripled last year but that doesn't mean we went through 300% inflation.
  - warfangle 17y ago
    The government doesn't use food or fuel to track inflation prices anymore. They were thrown out for being "volatile," price-wise - to make it all look rosy when it definitely was not. (One would, logically, think that if food and fuel prices are volatile, that would indicate that something is sour in the fridge, so to speak) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_inflation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_inflation

by zaphar 17y ago

jakarta 17y ago

it comes down to your economic philosophy. a keynesian will say that if you need to stimulate the economy, government spending will help get us out of crises. the problem that arises with a collateralizing program, like the gold standard is that the monetary supply would be inherently confined by physical discoveries and captures of gold. If it is the Great Depression and you cannot find any more gold, you'd be pretty screwed.

kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
The argument is that if it's a strict commodity currency, there's no Great Depression. No cheap money boom, no depressions. Free market interest rates naturally rise and fall to control the extremes of the business cycle.

cynicalkane 17y ago

It's bizarre these so-called conservatives at the WSJ have abandoned Chicago style economics for gold-bug reactionary alarmism. The monetarist theory--now the dominant theory of monetary policy--is that one of the biggest, most economically important features of a recession is a flight to liquidity. In such a situation, the demand for tangible money--and, under US law, there is none more tangible than the dollar--will drastically jump, despite a limited supply. Nobody doubts the tangibility of the dollar when they are forced to pay taxes, and if they do, they might find themselves in a cell with a tangible lock and 6 by 6 tangible feet. The correct thing to do, then, is to expand the money supply. This might happen by a seemingly alarming amount, especially given the highly leveraged nature of our economy. But otherwise a flight to liquidity will shut down the financial system, cause huge losses in "safe" bank accounts and funds, cause massive deflation as money becomes scarce, and cause a nasty depression--which is what happened from 1929 to 1932. The money supply has expanded from about $800 billion to $2 trillion. Alarming? Maybe, but 1) we're not seeing inflation yet 2) most economists agree that the Fed contracting the money supply was a major cause of the 1929 Depression 3) the Fed is perfectly willing to stall the economy to prevent inflation, which is what they did in 1979 when a shameless monetarist finally was given power. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker#Chairman_of_the_Federal_Reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker#Chairman_of_the_Fe... . It's worth noting that Volcker is one of Obama's chief economic advisors: the guy in charge of economic recovery board. 4) the amount of paper cash has increased by a "mere" 120 billion or so. Most of the remaining cash is sitting in Federal Reserve bank accounts, not being used. So I wouldn't dump greenbacks yet. If you're like most people few of your assets are in greenbacks anyway. Finally, if I keep seeing articles like this, I'm buying puts on gold. You heard it here first, folks.

patrickgzill 17y ago
If you claim that you haven't seen inflation, then I am going to guess that you are not the one in the household that is buying groceries. Example: Wheat-based products like pasta used to sell on sale for 50 to 80 cents /lb; now a sale price is $1/lb; or an increase of over 20% over the past 2 years.
- cynicalkane 17y ago
  Ok, but I don't measure inflation solely by wheat prices. The government puts a Fisher index on personal consumption expenditures, which include a lot of non-wheat items. Also, I am single.
- jonknee 17y ago
  And yet in the real world wheat prices peaked in 2008 (along with oil) and are now back to 2006 prices of ~$200/metric ton. http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=wheat&months=120 http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=wheat&m... Don't base inflation on your local Safeway.
  - pmorici 17y ago
    Why not? For the average citizen prices at the local store are the thing that immediately effects their daily lives and will in turn cause them to change their spending habits accordingly subsequently effecting other parts of the economy beyond basic needs.
    - jonknee 17y ago
      Because how much you spend for wheat is not what inflation is (unless the only thing money was used for was to buy wheat). The price changes of any one good is an inaccurate look at inflation. Oil tripled last year but that doesn't mean we went through 300% inflation.
- warfangle 17y ago
  The government doesn't use food or fuel to track inflation prices anymore. They were thrown out for being "volatile," price-wise - to make it all look rosy when it definitely was not. (One would, logically, think that if food and fuel prices are volatile, that would indicate that something is sour in the fridge, so to speak) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_inflation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_inflation