One thing you fail to mention is that the German inflation was due to fixed exchange rates. A Gold standard guarantees fixed exchange rates.
Exactly, a universal gold standard is a fixed exchange rate! When the ratio between currency A and gold is fixed, and the ratio between currency B and gold is fixed, then the ratio between currency A and currency B is also fixed. However, the German hyperinflation did not happen because of the gold standard, it happened because Germany went off the gold standard during the first world war. After 1914, the exchange rate between the dollar and the German papiermark was no longer fixed, it was variable. The method of varying the exchange rate was through printing money. Because of the huge war reparations Germany was forced to pay to the victors of the war, their government used inflationary policies to pay off their debt, thus taking the purchasing power of Germans and using it to pay the debts. This had devastating effects on the German economy, and had its part in getting the Nazi party to power.
Since the Chinese peg the yuan to the dollar (in great proportions now, but it's still a 70-80% peg), what do you think will happen when the US are sick of having a huge current account deficit because of the huge underevaluation of the Yuan?
Having the yuan pegged to the dollar at an undervalued exchange rate has two effects: it keeps the Chinese people's purchasing power artificially low, and it raises the purchasing power of the dollar artificially high. This leads to a huge current account deficit, because Chinese goods cost less in the US, and US goods cost more in China. If the dollar moved to a gold standard, it would at first fix the current account deficit because of the inflationary pressure within the dollar. If the Chinese responded by readjusting their peg so that it was undervalued at the same ratio again, it would shift the inflationary pressure on the US economy to the Chinese economy! Imagine the consequences for the Chinese government if the Chinese people would suddenly be faced with hyperinflation. The communist regime would end up in front of their own firing squads.
As for the US getting sick of the huge undervaluation of the yuan, that is not going to happen. Certainly, the American people are getting sick of losing all their manufacturing jobs to the Chinese due to the cheap price of labor in China, and want the peg cut. The problem is, that the US government has no interest in removing the peg whatsoever. In this situation, the government can grow the money supply without causing much inflation, because the peg has a deflationary effect on the dollar. This leads to the situation we have today, where the Chinese people are essentially funding the US government through a redistribution of the yuan's purchasing power to the dollar. There is no way the US government is going to do anything to jeopardize the peg. Any demands politicians make to the Chinese government are lip service to the constituents at best, and the Chinese government is loosening the peg only to prevent their own economy from overheating.
What they will do is exactly the same that the UK did in the period you mention, and that is devaluate their currency. And the whole history repeats itself.
The UK didn't devalue their currency per se, they were forced to go off the gold bullion standard because of their inflationary policies. During the time period, countries with the gold standard could cheat the system if all the participants inflated their money supply simultaneously, thanks to the central bank system of setting interest rates. If only one country inflated, it resulted in a net loss of gold to the countries that didn't inflate. During the time period, the UK inflated their currency a lot, and thanks to most of the Europea
People's money gets more valuable if they hold onto it, so nobody spends any more money than they can avoid.
How is that different from now? I for one avoid spending money that I don't have to! I do agree that inflation gives an impetus to spend/invest money, as just holding on to money reduces its value. But the effect would be quite minimal. If deflation was for example 3% per annum, would that really affect spending?
Hypothetical Consumer A wants a candy bar that costs 1$. By holding off his purchase by a year, he'll be able to buy the candy bar for 97 cents, saving 3 cents. Would it be worth it to hold off on buying a candy bar for a year? I doubt it, but maybe there are some who think so.
Hypothetical Consumer B is planning on buying a 100 000$ house. By holding off on his purchase for a year, he'll be able to buy the house for 97 000$, saving 3000$. Is being without the house for a year worth 3000$? Again, maybe for some people, but I think the majority would ignore the small savings.
Now, some might point out that now buying a house is a bad investment, because your house is losing 3% of it's value annually. However, this is false, as the value of the house is not variable, it's the amount of dollars you get in exchange that changes. You have to keep in mind that also other things have gone down 3% in price, so you'll still get the same amount of purchasing power for your house. The same is true in reverse, if the price of your house only goes up as much as inflation, your house hasn't gained any value. This of course doesn't take in consideration other effects that might affect the value of a house, outside of inflation/deflation.
Also, debt becomes very expensive.
I already touched that issue in the post you responded to. There is nothing that says interest rates have to be above zero. If for example deflation was 3% per annum, lenders might borrow money to people at a rate of -2%. This would give the lenders a margin of one percentage point, and would make the issue you mention moot.
Oh, and commodity-based standards become really fucking stupid if you end up having a bunch of bonus commodity. If there's a gold rush (there was!), your gold standard has become hyperinflation. If there's a silver rush that devalues silver all to hell (there was!), your silver standard becomes hyperinflation.
As of 2001, it was estimated that all the gold ever mined totaled 145 000 tonnes. According to wikipedia, about 370 tonnes were mined in the first five years of the California Gold Rush, which equals 0.25% of the world's gold supply. Assuming a similar gold rush today, it would inflate a gold standard based currency by a yearly average of 0.05% for the first five years. To call that hyperinflation is absurd.
At least with paper money, you can stop printing money (or even start burning money) or print less, or print more, depending on economic growth.
The problem is, that the ones with most to gain from inflation, are also the ones with the keys to the printing press. The US government operates on huge budget deficits, and holds a mind-boggling 8.8 trillion dollars in debt. This is why proponents of a gold standard talk of a inflation tax. The government inflates the money supply to their own gain, redistributing purchasing power from citizens to itself. The government would have to be crazy to start burning dollars, the public debt would go from a big problem to US bankruptcy!
Oh yeah, one other thing. A gold standard is just as fiat as fiat currency. After all, if you mandate that everyone uses gold as currency, there's more demand for gold, pushing the price of gold up. And this gets even worse with a fixed p
And don't forget the Mexican wars, Mexico lost ~50% percent of their territory to the US. Other examples are Alaska, Hawaii, Wake Island etc. The most recent expansion happened in 1970, when the US gained ~600 acres of land from Mexico. Claiming that the US is not expansionist is absurd.
Is that Dyson sphere made out of unobtanium? If it is, then sign me up for a plot above sea level. It's gonna get real valuable when the polar ice caps melt!
Fundamentalist nonsense! The big rumble is perfectly compatible with the Pastafarian faith, the two branes that collided are of course his noodly appendages!
Even worse, if the population increases faster than we mine gold, then we get bad deflation.
And deflation is bad because?
Deflation increases the value of money. That can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on who you are. For wages, deflation increases unemployment, because the real price of labor goes up. The same is true in reverse, inflation increases employment because real wages go down. However, from an economic point of view, nothing has changed. Increased employment through inflation is essentially reducing the wages of those who are employed and giving it in form of new jobs to the unemployed.
Another claimed "negative" side of deflation is that if you have borrowed money, the real amount you end up paying grows as the value of money increases. With inflation your debt decreases the more inflation eats the value of money. Obviously this causes problems in a central bank-run monetary system. Which however isn't an argument for paper money, but is an argument for letting the market decide what the rate is. In periods of great inflation, this would cause high interest rates, and in periods of deflation, the interest rate would be zero, and in some cases negative.
Tying inflation or deflation to the amount of a specific metal that we happen to dig out of the ground is a pretty bad way to do things. See what happened during the price revolution, where nations rapidly increased their silver production, in part causing a lot of inflation.
Oh my. The awful price revolution, where prices increased sixfold in a period of 150 years. This is obviously why paper money is superior to a gold standard!
Do you know how much a 1966 dollar is worth today? 6 dollars. That is the same sixfold increase in prices, in a period of 40 years, and that's for a relatively strong fiat currency . To make an apples to apples comparison, we need to compare the price revolution to a similar case of extreme growth of money supply. A good example would be Germany, from the year 1914-1924. During this time period, the prices in German papiermark grew an incredible one trillion times!
Compared to the horrors of paper money, a gold standard is rock solid. Such stability would increase the predictability of the economy, and would benefit almost everyone. There is one huge problem with moving to a gold standard however. Losing the power to inflate, means that the US government would have to pay for military expenses through taxation, instead of just borrowing money from the Chinese and inflating the debt away. If the people actually saw in their taxation how much it all costs, the empire would dissolve overnight.
As things are today, not much. As loucura! pointed out, Taiwan and South Korea would be useful in an invasion on China, but that would require someone crazier than Bush in the white house. There's also the economic side, as Taiwan houses lots of electronics industry, but I doubt things on that end would change even if Taiwan was reincorporated to the mainland.
If one wanted to be cynical, one could suspect that the military-industrial complex is hoping for a limited conflict with China over Taiwan. Getting rid of a few carriers and some materiel would be a fast way to create demand for new products.
What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what kind of regime Iran has, funding insurgents in Iraq to make things difficult for the US is in their best interest, as that makes it harder for the US to attack Iran. And in case you haven't noticed, the US is building a missile shield in eastern Europe with the purpose of nullifying the Russian nuclear deterrent, so the reason Russians are arming Iran is hardly because of a purely "economic motive". As for the Chinese, Taiwan. In case it needs elaborating, more US resources wasted in the middle east = less US resources available to defend Taiwan.
Likewise, if they want to win the Iraq war now, they should invade Syria and Iran.
And if they want to win the Iran war, the US would have to invade Russia and China, that are arming Iran in preparation for US-led attacks. Oops.
If the US Army had stopped at the German border after liberating France from Nazism they would have lost WWII.
I think that is debatable. If the US had stopped at the German border, the Allies certainly wouldn't have lost. It probably would have prolonged the Cold war with a couple of decades though.
iPod vs. other MP3?? I aint think so. iPod has a 85% market share. The rest ALL brands are combined as a generic products MP3.
So i can buy a Rio, HP, Zune, and all are MP3....
What matters is Brand name...
That's what I thought too, until I played around with an iPod and iTunes. The reason iPods are the most popular is because of iTunes, because it's so simple yet powerful to use. With a conventional MP3 player you first rip a cd, compress it to MP3, tag them, organize them in folders/playlists in the way you want them to play, plug in the MP3 player to your computer, and then use the file explorer/bash/whatever to copy the files to the MP3 player. With an iPod, you pop the cd in your computer, wait while iTunes rips, compresses and tags them, then you plug in the iPod and wait as the files get synced to it. The files then go into a playlist on the iPod. The process is completely automatic! Add to that the fact that you can use the same software to copy movies, photos, podcasts, in addition to being able to buy music, and you have a killer app.
This is why iPods have 85%, and AFAIK the other manufacturers don't have anything similar to iTunes.
9/11 cost 3000 lives. That's less than the number of people who commit suicide every year (30 000)! Until terrorists become a bigger threat than depression, fatty foods or car accidents, I think it's safe to answer your question with a yes.
It really is too bad I'll never get to vote for him. There's no way in hell he'll get out out of the primary. It's too bad too, I actually met him in 2006. He came to speak at my third party's state convention when I was running for congress since it turns out his brother is my uncle's accountant here in Nevada. He really is top notch. Even if you don't agree with his politics, you cannot cite him for being dishonest.
His one saving grace is that he's a relatively effective war leader. I say relatively because while he has shown he has the moxie to take the fight to the enemy, he doesn't have the moxie (or the correct advice, maybe) to take the fight to the enemy in the way that FDR, and Truman after him, did. That is the kind of war leader we really need.
What war would that be?
Keep in mind that the last real war was WW2, all the conflicts after that have been military engagements authorized by congress. The difference is, that in real wars you fight a real enemy who has the capability to hurt you, while military engagements are against opponents considered so harmless as to not even warrant a real war declaration.
Unless you meant the ridiculous "war on terror", in which case carry on.
His opinion on those things do not matter. He is a constitutionalist, and is of the correct position that the federal government has no business in legislating anything related to abortion, gays and "all the usual stuff". States are the ones supposed to deal with such matters.
I guess his browser doesn't support sarcasm tags. Alternatively, he might have had his speakers turned off, so he couldn't hear the Colbert impersonation.
Just my opinion, but I would have no problem cooking people who rape a mother or molest a child. Actually, death is too good for them.
I agree, but I think it should be extended to other bad crimes like murder. We should also adopt lesser capital punishment, where only a part of a person is killed. E.g. a thief should have his hand chopped off, and DIU-offenders should have their liver removed. I saw similar laws in action when I visited Saudi Arabia, which really has a handle on crime. You could walk around freely without having to fear for thieves or beggars, and people were happy. I really think this would cut down on crime and make society a truly better place to live for our children.
Because games run on it so well? Because it's so easy to install drivers for ATI and Nvidia video cards?
Sadly, gamers are stuck with MS for the time being. But when GPUs are folded into the CPU, and x86 is extended with GPU commands, cross-platform solutions will be able to compete with DirectX on a level playing field. We will also be free from NVIDIA/AMD for our driver needs, which is probably the reason AMD has started flagging for open-source graphics drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, a universal gold standard is a fixed exchange rate! When the ratio between currency A and gold is fixed, and the ratio between currency B and gold is fixed, then the ratio between currency A and currency B is also fixed. However, the German hyperinflation did not happen because of the gold standard, it happened because Germany went off the gold standard during the first world war. After 1914, the exchange rate between the dollar and the German papiermark was no longer fixed, it was variable. The method of varying the exchange rate was through printing money. Because of the huge war reparations Germany was forced to pay to the victors of the war, their government used inflationary policies to pay off their debt, thus taking the purchasing power of Germans and using it to pay the debts. This had devastating effects on the German economy, and had its part in getting the Nazi party to power.
Having the yuan pegged to the dollar at an undervalued exchange rate has two effects: it keeps the Chinese people's purchasing power artificially low, and it raises the purchasing power of the dollar artificially high. This leads to a huge current account deficit, because Chinese goods cost less in the US, and US goods cost more in China. If the dollar moved to a gold standard, it would at first fix the current account deficit because of the inflationary pressure within the dollar. If the Chinese responded by readjusting their peg so that it was undervalued at the same ratio again, it would shift the inflationary pressure on the US economy to the Chinese economy! Imagine the consequences for the Chinese government if the Chinese people would suddenly be faced with hyperinflation. The communist regime would end up in front of their own firing squads.
As for the US getting sick of the huge undervaluation of the yuan, that is not going to happen. Certainly, the American people are getting sick of losing all their manufacturing jobs to the Chinese due to the cheap price of labor in China, and want the peg cut. The problem is, that the US government has no interest in removing the peg whatsoever. In this situation, the government can grow the money supply without causing much inflation, because the peg has a deflationary effect on the dollar. This leads to the situation we have today, where the Chinese people are essentially funding the US government through a redistribution of the yuan's purchasing power to the dollar. There is no way the US government is going to do anything to jeopardize the peg. Any demands politicians make to the Chinese government are lip service to the constituents at best, and the Chinese government is loosening the peg only to prevent their own economy from overheating.
The UK didn't devalue their currency per se, they were forced to go off the gold bullion standard because of their inflationary policies. During the time period, countries with the gold standard could cheat the system if all the participants inflated their money supply simultaneously, thanks to the central bank system of setting interest rates. If only one country inflated, it resulted in a net loss of gold to the countries that didn't inflate. During the time period, the UK inflated their currency a lot, and thanks to most of the Europea
How is that different from now? I for one avoid spending money that I don't have to! I do agree that inflation gives an impetus to spend/invest money, as just holding on to money reduces its value. But the effect would be quite minimal. If deflation was for example 3% per annum, would that really affect spending?
Hypothetical Consumer A wants a candy bar that costs 1$. By holding off his purchase by a year, he'll be able to buy the candy bar for 97 cents, saving 3 cents. Would it be worth it to hold off on buying a candy bar for a year? I doubt it, but maybe there are some who think so.
Hypothetical Consumer B is planning on buying a 100 000$ house. By holding off on his purchase for a year, he'll be able to buy the house for 97 000$, saving 3000$. Is being without the house for a year worth 3000$? Again, maybe for some people, but I think the majority would ignore the small savings.
Now, some might point out that now buying a house is a bad investment, because your house is losing 3% of it's value annually. However, this is false, as the value of the house is not variable, it's the amount of dollars you get in exchange that changes. You have to keep in mind that also other things have gone down 3% in price, so you'll still get the same amount of purchasing power for your house. The same is true in reverse, if the price of your house only goes up as much as inflation, your house hasn't gained any value. This of course doesn't take in consideration other effects that might affect the value of a house, outside of inflation/deflation.
I already touched that issue in the post you responded to. There is nothing that says interest rates have to be above zero. If for example deflation was 3% per annum, lenders might borrow money to people at a rate of -2%. This would give the lenders a margin of one percentage point, and would make the issue you mention moot.
As of 2001, it was estimated that all the gold ever mined totaled 145 000 tonnes. According to wikipedia, about 370 tonnes were mined in the first five years of the California Gold Rush, which equals 0.25% of the world's gold supply. Assuming a similar gold rush today, it would inflate a gold standard based currency by a yearly average of 0.05% for the first five years. To call that hyperinflation is absurd.
The problem is, that the ones with most to gain from inflation, are also the ones with the keys to the printing press. The US government operates on huge budget deficits, and holds a mind-boggling 8.8 trillion dollars in debt. This is why proponents of a gold standard talk of a inflation tax. The government inflates the money supply to their own gain, redistributing purchasing power from citizens to itself. The government would have to be crazy to start burning dollars, the public debt would go from a big problem to US bankruptcy!
Don't worry, they will. Right after the planned x86-GPU extensions make drivers obsolete.
And don't forget the Mexican wars, Mexico lost ~50% percent of their territory to the US. Other examples are Alaska, Hawaii, Wake Island etc. The most recent expansion happened in 1970, when the US gained ~600 acres of land from Mexico. Claiming that the US is not expansionist is absurd.
Is that Dyson sphere made out of unobtanium? If it is, then sign me up for a plot above sea level. It's gonna get real valuable when the polar ice caps melt!
Fundamentalist nonsense! The big rumble is perfectly compatible with the Pastafarian faith, the two branes that collided are of course his noodly appendages!
And deflation is bad because?
Deflation increases the value of money. That can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on who you are. For wages, deflation increases unemployment, because the real price of labor goes up. The same is true in reverse, inflation increases employment because real wages go down. However, from an economic point of view, nothing has changed. Increased employment through inflation is essentially reducing the wages of those who are employed and giving it in form of new jobs to the unemployed.
Another claimed "negative" side of deflation is that if you have borrowed money, the real amount you end up paying grows as the value of money increases. With inflation your debt decreases the more inflation eats the value of money. Obviously this causes problems in a central bank-run monetary system. Which however isn't an argument for paper money, but is an argument for letting the market decide what the rate is. In periods of great inflation, this would cause high interest rates, and in periods of deflation, the interest rate would be zero, and in some cases negative.
Oh my. The awful price revolution, where prices increased sixfold in a period of 150 years. This is obviously why paper money is superior to a gold standard!
Do you know how much a 1966 dollar is worth today? 6 dollars. That is the same sixfold increase in prices, in a period of 40 years, and that's for a relatively strong fiat currency . To make an apples to apples comparison, we need to compare the price revolution to a similar case of extreme growth of money supply. A good example would be Germany, from the year 1914-1924. During this time period, the prices in German papiermark grew an incredible one trillion times!
Compared to the horrors of paper money, a gold standard is rock solid. Such stability would increase the predictability of the economy, and would benefit almost everyone. There is one huge problem with moving to a gold standard however. Losing the power to inflate, means that the US government would have to pay for military expenses through taxation, instead of just borrowing money from the Chinese and inflating the debt away. If the people actually saw in their taxation how much it all costs, the empire would dissolve overnight.
As things are today, not much. As loucura! pointed out, Taiwan and South Korea would be useful in an invasion on China, but that would require someone crazier than Bush in the white house. There's also the economic side, as Taiwan houses lots of electronics industry, but I doubt things on that end would change even if Taiwan was reincorporated to the mainland.
If one wanted to be cynical, one could suspect that the military-industrial complex is hoping for a limited conflict with China over Taiwan. Getting rid of a few carriers and some materiel would be a fast way to create demand for new products.
Nothing overblown in that. When the technology advances to a point where cars can drive themselves, driving will eventually become illegal.
I believe you missed his point. Which I believe was that Linux would be a defense against these cyberweapons. :)
What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what kind of regime Iran has, funding insurgents in Iraq to make things difficult for the US is in their best interest, as that makes it harder for the US to attack Iran. And in case you haven't noticed, the US is building a missile shield in eastern Europe with the purpose of nullifying the Russian nuclear deterrent, so the reason Russians are arming Iran is hardly because of a purely "economic motive". As for the Chinese, Taiwan. In case it needs elaborating, more US resources wasted in the middle east = less US resources available to defend Taiwan.
Likewise, if they want to win the Iraq war now, they should invade Syria and Iran.
And if they want to win the Iran war, the US would have to invade Russia and China, that are arming Iran in preparation for US-led attacks. Oops.
If the US Army had stopped at the German border after liberating France from Nazism they would have lost WWII.
I think that is debatable. If the US had stopped at the German border, the Allies certainly wouldn't have lost. It probably would have prolonged the Cold war with a couple of decades though.
iPod vs. other MP3?? I aint think so. iPod has a 85% market share. The rest ALL brands are combined as a generic products MP3.
So i can buy a Rio, HP, Zune, and all are MP3....
What matters is Brand name...
That's what I thought too, until I played around with an iPod and iTunes. The reason iPods are the most popular is because of iTunes, because it's so simple yet powerful to use. With a conventional MP3 player you first rip a cd, compress it to MP3, tag them, organize them in folders/playlists in the way you want them to play, plug in the MP3 player to your computer, and then use the file explorer/bash/whatever to copy the files to the MP3 player. With an iPod, you pop the cd in your computer, wait while iTunes rips, compresses and tags them, then you plug in the iPod and wait as the files get synced to it. The files then go into a playlist on the iPod. The process is completely automatic! Add to that the fact that you can use the same software to copy movies, photos, podcasts, in addition to being able to buy music, and you have a killer app.
This is why iPods have 85%, and AFAIK the other manufacturers don't have anything similar to iTunes.
9/11 cost 3000 lives. That's less than the number of people who commit suicide every year (30 000)! Until terrorists become a bigger threat than depression, fatty foods or car accidents, I think it's safe to answer your question with a yes.
It really is too bad I'll never get to vote for him. There's no way in hell he'll get out out of the primary. It's too bad too, I actually met him in 2006. He came to speak at my third party's state convention when I was running for congress since it turns out his brother is my uncle's accountant here in Nevada. He really is top notch. Even if you don't agree with his politics, you cannot cite him for being dishonest.
Why don't you vote in the primary then?
His one saving grace is that he's a relatively effective war leader. I say relatively because while he has shown he has the moxie to take the fight to the enemy, he doesn't have the moxie (or the correct advice, maybe) to take the fight to the enemy in the way that FDR, and Truman after him, did. That is the kind of war leader we really need.
What war would that be?
Keep in mind that the last real war was WW2, all the conflicts after that have been military engagements authorized by congress. The difference is, that in real wars you fight a real enemy who has the capability to hurt you, while military engagements are against opponents considered so harmless as to not even warrant a real war declaration.
Unless you meant the ridiculous "war on terror", in which case carry on.
Since when has copyright law applied to property?
His opinion on those things do not matter. He is a constitutionalist, and is of the correct position that the federal government has no business in legislating anything related to abortion, gays and "all the usual stuff". States are the ones supposed to deal with such matters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#Alleged_raci al_remarks
From your post I got the impression that the cat is high on crack, and the bag is large enough to fit a 747. That does sound like Molyneux though.
Somebody set us up the patent bomb.
I guess his browser doesn't support sarcasm tags. Alternatively, he might have had his speakers turned off, so he couldn't hear the Colbert impersonation.
Just my opinion, but I would have no problem cooking people who rape a mother or molest a child. Actually, death is too good for them.
I agree, but I think it should be extended to other bad crimes like murder. We should also adopt lesser capital punishment, where only a part of a person is killed. E.g. a thief should have his hand chopped off, and DIU-offenders should have their liver removed. I saw similar laws in action when I visited Saudi Arabia, which really has a handle on crime. You could walk around freely without having to fear for thieves or beggars, and people were happy. I really think this would cut down on crime and make society a truly better place to live for our children.
I highly doubt you are ever going to be transmiting at 60hz on purpose.
It's not the sound that kills you, it's the smell.
Because games run on it so well? Because it's so easy to install drivers for ATI and Nvidia video cards?
Sadly, gamers are stuck with MS for the time being. But when GPUs are folded into the CPU, and x86 is extended with GPU commands, cross-platform solutions will be able to compete with DirectX on a level playing field. We will also be free from NVIDIA/AMD for our driver needs, which is probably the reason AMD has started flagging for open-source graphics drivers.