From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Views? :
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:20:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.061931.4471@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.051208.5339@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.142218.18962@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>>	If the major exchanges collapse, I can't see gold being worth much
>>>either.
>>
>>huh? you must be joking. gold is reknowned as a place that investors put
>>their money during bad times. as John Updike said, "the beauty of gold is,
>>it loves bad news". your statement smacks of ignorance bordering on the
>>negligent for one so involved in this discussion.
>>
>
>	True, but your not describing mildly bad news, what your
>describing is at least a collapse of the major banking and commodity
>instutions in the United States.  Gold doesn't love news that bad.  See
>the Pelopensian war for an example of this.

i don't know about that war, and i don't have time to read up on it.
i do know that you made a general sweeping statement which is untrue.
i also know that in any bad news, i would rather have gold than US dollars --
and so would most other people.

>>>What your describing is a the collapse of western civ.
>>
>>no he's not. why do you say that? a certificate is just an IOU from
>>a brokerage house. if it goes under, or its president absconds with the
>>items which are allegedly in storage, your certificate is meaningless.
>>the rest of western civilization may coincidentally collapse, but so what?
>>
>
>	Commodity certificates are not issued by brokers (except in a very
>liberal use of this word) they are simply sold by them.

i don't care if they grow them on fruit trees. if i buy 10 ounces of gold,
and don't physically collect it, i get an IOU from the broker saying
"we owe you 10 ounces of gold" and (hopefully) "by the way, it's nice
and safe in our vault, no-one is gambling it away in 'Vegas". your
flimsy nit pick changes nothing.

>>>If that
>>>happens, to quote a Russian proverb, "you can't eat gold".
>>
>>no, but you can barter with someone who has wheat,
>>because he has more wheat than he needs, and he likes gold. or he knows
>>that he can then trade *that* gold with someone who has more fish than
>>*he* needs, etc. etc. gold is simply a marker, a placeholder representing
>>real wealth or value.
>>
>
>	Why shouldn't the farmer still take dollars under this scenerio?

*sigh*

are you trying to just wear me out? you are succeeding...
the farmer wouldn't take dollars because the chances of the next guy
accepting them would be poor. a dollar is nothing more than an IOU --
why wouldn't the farmer accept an IOU? because he has no reason to
trust that the IOU is worth a damn thing. and that is the real reason
why gold is a good medium of exchange -- lots of people think it is
useful, even if only to sell to the next guy.

>>is that really so complicated?
>>it has been that way for thousands of years.
>>meaningless fiat currency is a recent invention.
>>
>
>	Yes but my whole point is that gold is a meaningless fiat
>currency.  Your only response to this is that people like gold.

i give up. i've explained this dozens of times. i just don't have
the energy to continually repeat myself. gold is not a fiat currency.
it has intrinsic value. that *is* the essential difference. my
response "that people like gold" is all that is necessary.

at this point i feel that you are either impossibly dense
or hopelessly stubborn; either way, endless repetitions of these
arguments are futile. sorry to be blunt, but you have me at my wit's end.

>>>No currency
>>>standard will matter because there won't be a currency.
>>
>>then why would gold be valueless? this statement implies the opposite.
>>see the above -- whatever people decide is the currency would be the
>>currency.
>>
>>>That would just
>>>be an aweful situation.  Finally if society collapses to that extent, why
>>>would the government (if there still was one which would be doubtful) make
>>>good on the old govt. promise to pay in gold for green paper.  
>>
>>because if it had the gold, it would have no legal basis for not doing so.
>>it can't just decide to renege on its promises without serious consequences.
>>
>
>	So in other words, you don't see a collapse of the economy
>destabing the govt. enough so that it would renig on a promise.

no, i said there would be serious consequences. don't put words in my mouth.
you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

>Get
>serious.  When societies collapse the people in power could care less
>about the law.  You can't have your cake and eat it to.  If oil goes so
>does the govt; do you think gold would this sort of serious conseqences if
>the price collased?  

if a disaster were imminent, people who were smart would cash out. once you
allow the government to be corrupt, everything goes out the window. what
prevents the government from simply seizing all my assets any way?
pointless tangent.

i am concerned with making sure i and my family can eat. i don't give a damn
about "the government" because it doesn't give a damn about me.
at the point when i feel that the government is likely not to repay me my
gold, i cash in my dollars. that is the freedom i have with a backed currency.
i don't have to sit around and wait for the government to screw me over.

--
charles