From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Gold Standard? No!
Keywords: Gold, zealot, oil
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:21:04 GMT

In article <liqedgINNra@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kris@bsg8.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>The Gold Standard is to the Libertarian party what abortion is to the
>republicans; an albatross with no understandable defense.
>
>The liberatarian party places a childlike, religious faith in gold as
>an economic cure-all. I find it especially astonishing that
>net-liberatarians support it!
>
>The value of any commodity, including currency, is the value that we
>collectively place in it. This is true of gold and currency. When the
>two are tied together the value of both will still fluctuate in the
>market as the supply and demand for each fluctuates.
>
>
>> Flame space reserved here for liberatarians who don't understand >
>commodities or the free-market.

sorry, not a flame, just an explanation.
i consider myself libertarian-thinking on most issues yet i have been
one of those raising questions about the gold standard. i would still
rather put a "childlike faith" in gold over a "childlike faith"
in Bill Clinton and our wonderful congress. the only problem with
the gold standard is from a practical perspective -- not a theoretical
one.

>Why don't liberatarians advocate the binding of pork bellies to corn?
>The price and production of corn actually is related to the price of
>the meat that it produces!

because they're not worried about bill clinton printing up more
*pork bellies*! can you say the same for dollars?

>The reason is simple: It doesn't make any sense.

you just don't understand the point behind the gold standard.

>We in the computer community should be naturally adept in dealing in
>symbols and abstractions. Why then is it so difficult to deal with
>currency as an abstraction, that has no inherent value.

that's the whole point! it has no inherent value. so why do you
have faith in it? why do you accept a note from the US government
over a note from me? would you accept *my* IOU? probably not.
what if i showed you i had gold in a safe in the basement to
guarantee the note? would you feel better? i would.

you may argue that you have more reason to have faith in the US
government than in me. i disagree - at least i can balance my
checkbook.

>From this perspective, it looks as though the republicans and democrats
>have one up on us here: They can comfortably live with the concept of
>currency as abstraction.

so can libertarians. they just don't want to have "faith" in a 
government which has shown that it is grossly fiscally irresponsible.
what's wrong with that?

republicans and democrats can live "comfortably" with *anything*
if the shepherd tells them to. look at their recent nominations for
president, as just one example.

>The assignment of a value to the dollar, in gold or any other commodity
>(oil), would be arbitrary. This arbitrary assignment would place
>restrictions on the free flow of other commondities on which it
>depends, namely interest rates and other currencies, and would interupt
>the market just as all other government-imposed restriction do.

the pragmatic issues are being covered, and they differ from the theoretical
ones. i still maintain that the main problem is only due to the globalization
of the economy -- within the US, or with the US as 75% of world GNP as it
was in the 50's, it works fine.

>Are we interpretting the constitution as _we_ see fit? Are the
>liberatarians saying that 'All men are created equal' and meaning, all
>european-descent, non-women, land-owning people are created equal? Or,
>are we interpretting it too literally, as the fundimental christians
>interpret the Bible. Maybe that's why liberaterians sound like
>religious fanatics when talking about the gold standard!

you must have accidentally inserted that from another, unrelated
thread. i'll just let it go.

>The gold standard should be dropped from the Liberatarian Party
>platform.  No one can defend it. Everyone who tries to sounds like a
>zealot.

actually, it is *you* who sounds like a zealot. because we are using
reason and logic in trying to define the issue, and you are the one
who is ranting and making undefended generalizations without even
a complete understanding of the issue. sorry.

--
charles