From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:29:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.063235.4991@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.052850.5919@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.204932.5375@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>>Joh Haas -  I've deleted the discussion because most everyone knows the
>>>major points of contention.  To sumarize:
>>>
>>>1)  I think we should use oil because it has an intrinsic value.  You
>>>think we should use gold because its portable, and we would have rely
>>>on commodities (a problem if a crash came).  I continue to contend that if
>>>the crash came it really wouldn't matter if you had gold or dollars they
>>>both be equally worthless.
>>
>>refer to my previous post. the above makes 0 sense because the value
>>of real, intrinsic items like gold goes up when the value of paper goes
>>down, as it does during a crash. the usefulness of gold as a commodity
>>of exchange has been sufficiently refuted. if you can't take it with you,
>>it's no good. simple as that.
>>
>
>	Sure real intrinsic items that are worthless except for trade.

is that supposed to be a point or a concession?

>>>3)  Regarding the likelyhood of a crash, you argued that a default on the
>>>deficit was likely to occur, and would lead to the crash.  I disagree with
>>>both points.  First, I don't think we'll default, it goes to far against
>>>the protestant work ethic .....  stuff our leaders out into.  
>>
>>read "Bankruptcy 1995". blind faith like the above is what got us into
>>this mess. it will eventually reach the point where they will have no
>>choice.
>>
>
>	Haven't read it, but not one recognized economist thinks the US is
>likely to default.

they can all go straight to hell. they have nothing to gain by exposing
the truth. they have not demonstrated their trustworthiness nor their
skill in predicting much of anything.

>That includes orginations like the Word Bank, and IMF.
> I've seen enough chicken little books already.

whatever you say.
truth is not decided by majority vote. believe what you want --
you're not alone.
people with blinders on are very good at finding reasons to shrug off
those who try to remove those blinders. if you can't even be bothered
to read that book, you have no basis to decide on the debt question.
because i doubt you have the facts.

>>>	Second, even if we did default that would simply ake it very
>>>difficult if not impossible for the country to borrow.  Do you really
>>>think that this would lead to the end of our culture.  You mentioned riots
>>>do to people's savings.  Most people's savings is in their home, not in
>>>the bond market.  Their pensions might get killed, but corporate bonds
>>>would retain their value. 
>>
>>get serious!
>>corporations are as much in debt as persons and the government. corporate
>>bonds are as good as the ability of the corporation to repay, which it can't
>>do while losing money, which is what happens in a depression.
>>why do you think the pensions would get killed anyway?
>>
>
>	If the govt. defaults they probably would issue a general amnesty
>on dept (the banks are goners anyway).  Besides why would a default
>neccarily lead to a depression.  Many countries have defaulted on their
>debt, and had booms in their economy (they just have to trade in goods no
>paper with foreign countries).

i'm not going to give you a primer on basic economics. read a book.

>>>4)  Finally, there is a question of who wants large of gold.  If someone
>>>did don't you think that South Africa would have sold them all they wanted?
>>
>>silly.
>>first of all, production is limited because the gold isn't lying around,
>>it has to be mined. more importantly though, supply and demand states
>>that if they flooded the market, they would get less, so it is not
>>in their best interest. also, they would sell more when prices were high
>>if they had the choice.
>>
>
>	This is simply false.  SA had enormous supplies of surplus gold,
>as does the US and the USSR.  Your simply mistaken.  Besides the cost for
>SA to mine gold is minimal, it vertually is "just lying around".

provide your source.

>The
>problem is there isn't enough demand to absorb large quanties of gold.

i'm not going to argue simple supply and demand relationships with you.
i don't know where you are trying to go with this anyway.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian