From: caforce@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (DALE FORCE)
Subject: Re: Views? :
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 29 Dec 1992 13:30 EST  

In article <1992Dec28.111935.16715@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes...
>Charles -
>	I've got to agree were getting no where, so I'll drop out. 
>However something you should think about.  Unless you are an expert it is
>very difficult to tell the difference between an argument that sounds
>true, and one that is true.  I could give you mathematical arguments to
>prove absolute nonsense with very minor flaws in them, that you wouldn't
>pick up.  An economist could do the same to me.
>	That's to a great extent why I'm not even going to consider
>reading this sort of book.  I'll realy on the experts to analyze the data,
>I'm humble enough to realize that I do not have the capacity to tell the
>difference between these two types of arguments.
>	As for argument that truth is not determined by majority vote,
>this is a nice statement but probably leads to very incorrect statements
>standing unchallenged.  Generally if you want to convince the majority
>that they are wrong the burdon of proff lies almost entirely on yourself,
>to prove that there is a contradiction between two of their held views. 
>To simply shrug off the opinion of the majority leads very quickly to
>philospohical sceptism.
>	Now I am neither dense not being stuborn nor for that matter
>trying to wear you out.  But your claim that the most people consider gold
>more stable than dollars is nonsense.  I don't have any evidence to back
>this up, other than that most people "stuff their mattress" before they
>"buy gold".  
> 
>	Unlike yourself, I could care less about what sort of currency we
>have for a disaster, I want a currency that is stable 99% of the time. 
>Disasters are disasters,  I don't expect to walk away from them, if they
>happen I deal with it then.  I unlike yourself don't see the govt. as some
>evil orginization out to rob me, but a slightly misguided group of good
>hearted people.  So basically portability might be crucial to you and to
>John Haas, but to most people the full faith of the US govt. is enough of
>a guarentee.  If it isn't enough for you, then switch to the barter
>system, or issue your own currency backed in gold.
> 
>	As for my source for SA enourmous gold holdings, I'm not sure what
>sorts of sources you'd except.  You seem to reject opinion on vertually
>everything.  I haven't seen the hoards myself, SA claims they have them;
>it's reasonalby common knowledge, and I've seen estimates to that effect
>often.  In fact I think I once saw it in a lib. pamphlet as an argument
>against the gold standard (in on of the Q+A session).
> 
>	As for me "not knowing what the hell I'm talking about" that may
>be true.  However what your describing is something way outside the
>main stream of thought.  A conspiricy of economists to hide the truth in
>your Banckrupcy 1995 book (and yes you did say this "they have no reason
>to tell the truth").  The govt. activly supporting this conspiracy.  The
>eminant collapse of the economy.  People fleeing the country, and mass
>riots.  But no one steals Charles' gold for some reason.  Your living in a
>paranoid fantasy WAKE UP!
> 

>--JMB
One point on this discussion. The distinction between a fiat currency and a 
commodity based currency is that the government can print $100 billion in 
currncy and cannot create 1 million barrels of oil or 100 tons of gold. 
Therfore either gold or oil would work as a currncy. A small country like 
Switzerland would have difficulty going to a commodity standard since it 
would be at the mercy of fluctuations in the relative prices of different 
commodity ( ie it's standard, and it's exports and imports). While a 
commodity standard would prevent serious inflation, it would cause problems 
in foriegn trade.
f

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian