Economics: Why are mainstream views different from reality?

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,853
Country flag
Now, I am hardly an expert in economics, and reading these discussions has given me a lot of food for thought.

One question I have always had, is with regard to world reserve currency, which has been the US dollar for a very long time. This enables the US to print currency, and therefore they will never get into the kind of issues that other "normal" countries do.

I heard of some discussions regarding a new "world reserve currency", created by member nations of the world, which will exclusively be used for international trade - imports and exports. What is your take on this - all the economic junkies on this thread? Is it feasible, is it beneficial to the world at large? Will India gain from this, and to what extent? Who will be the major winners and losers in case such a move were to be made by the world?
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,761
Backtracked? No. Decrypted? Yes :)


People may flock to different currencies when there is a problem. But considering the number of times, the monetary system changed till now, due to the imperfections, it is safe to assume that one person's investment over his/her life time in a particular currency will end up losing value by the time he/she retires. Is it fair enough that every generation loses it's life savings because of the stupid system? Everytime, they have to flock to a different currency or metal, it comes with downturns and subsequent wars. They have serious repurcussions. A good design should work effectively, irrespective of the short comings. Existing one doesn't. Period!!

As you said, govt is the choke point here. Then why keep it in the middle always? Why not a better system which doesn't rely on govt to get things running?
Ron Paul wants that to change. He wants open competition on currencies and it is not possible right away because of the Federal backing of incompetent dollar. He couldn't do it because he is not yet president and it takes lot of time for brainwashed people to unlearn. Instead of focusing on the brainwashed generation, he is focusing on the next gen to make sure they learn the monetary system in a way that it is. Also, forget abt the stability of Euro zone. It has to fall before it stabilizes. One will have face the consequences of their actions.
Economy of Pak will not slide in one day and it will show symptoms and take a prolonged time. It would be foolish of you to still keep Pak money till it finally falls off the cliff. Most people diversify their assets and understand this basic logic.

There have been business cycles even when US was most close to the Gold standard in the 20th century. In case of law people say, "Ignorantia juris non excusat". So ignorance of law is no excuse. So, it is unwise to think people cannot protect their wealth or well-being.

And it is the wars and social spending(demands from voters) which can never let any other system work. And Ron Paul is just another politician playing rhetoric out in the open. Also you do not use any logic or technicality to defend your position in your posts and I am sorry to say that world does not work on emotions, it needs facts and understanding.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,761
Now, I am hardly an expert in economics, and reading these discussions has given me a lot of food for thought.

One question I have always had, is with regard to world reserve currency, which has been the US dollar for a very long time. This enables the US to print currency, and therefore they will never get into the kind of issues that other "normal" countries do.

I heard of some discussions regarding a new "world reserve currency", created by member nations of the world, which will exclusively be used for international trade - imports and exports. What is your take on this - all the economic junkies on this thread? Is it feasible, is it beneficial to the world at large? Will India gain from this, and to what extent? Who will be the major winners and losers in case such a move were to be made by the world?
I have written about this multiple times in this thread. It is not because US wants that everyone uses $ as an exchange currency. They had the most stable economy in the world and that gives people a confidence that during transactions spread over time, their transaction value will be preserved. Take away this confidence and businesses flock to other currencies or assets. I will give a small eg: Say you need to send mails. In your area you have two operators: DHL and Bluedart. DHL is good for local mails but Bluedart is good for inter-city mails. This experience is gained over a period of time using these two service providers. Now, say Bluedart's services start deteriorating, so you will switch to DHL to see how it works. If you find a better service at DHL, you will switch to DHL. It is almost similar to currencies in the international trade market. People do not have any blind faith on $, it is just a credibility earned over a period of time.

As far as creating new reserve currency is concerned, it again needs credibility and that takes long time to build up. I do not see any other such currency on the horizon anytime soon except the Euro, if they recover or PRC yuan in some 10 years time. If there are two stable economies to provide reserve currency, it would definitely be better because one would provide insurance against another in case of downturn. India too would benefit from this development like the rest of the world as all international transactions will be better insured.
 
Last edited:

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,853
Country flag
I have written about this multiple times in this thread. It is not because US wants that everyone uses $ as an exchange currency. They had the most stable economy in the world and that gives people a confidence that during transactions spread over time, their transaction value will be preserved. Take away this confidence and businesses flock to other currencies or assets.

As far as creating new reserve currency is concerned, it again needs credibility and that takes long time to build up. I do not see any other such currency on the horizon anytime soon except the Euro, if they recover or PRC yuan in some 10 years time. If there are two stable economies to provide reserve currency, it would definitely be better because one would provide insurance against another in case of downturn. India too would benefit from this development like the rest of the world as all international transactions will be better insured.
Actually, I was referring to the proposed creation of a new reserve currency by mutual agreement of the world's nations. I didn't mean using pre-existing currencies like Euro or Yen or Yuan..
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
I have written about this multiple times in this thread. It is not because US wants that everyone uses $ as an exchange currency. They had the most stable economy in the world and that gives people a confidence that during transactions spread over time, their transaction value will be preserved. Take away this confidence and businesses flock to other currencies or assets.

As far as creating new reserve currency is concerned, it again needs credibility and that takes long time to build up. I do not see any other such currency on the horizon anytime soon except the Euro, if they recover or PRC yuan in some 10 years time. If there are two stable economies to provide reserve currency, it would definitely be better because one would provide insurance against another in case of downturn. India too would benefit from this development like the rest of the world as all international transactions will be better insured.
No, they want everyone to use it as an exchange currency.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
Actually, I was referring to the proposed creation of a new reserve currency by mutual agreement of the world's nations. I didn't mean using pre-existing currencies like Euro or Yen or Yuan..
What do you mean ? A new currency that the whole world uses or one that is only used for trading against already existing currencies ? The former would not be favorable to India as of now and the latter doesn't look feasable.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,761
No, they want everyone to use it as an exchange currency.
They obviously want but it does not mean while trading with China, India should use $. And S&P downgrade of US economy last year exactly refers that sentiment of the market. My above statement means that the market cannot be forced to use $ for exchange(hope you understand the distinction).
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,761
Actually, I was referring to the proposed creation of a new reserve currency by mutual agreement of the world's nations. I didn't mean using pre-existing currencies like Euro or Yen or Yuan..
That is not possible because of varied strength of different economies. You will need some currency that does not fluctuate much to stabilize the value of transactions. And you cannot achieve stability by mutual agreement.
 

aerokan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,024
Likes
817
Country flag
Actually, I was referring to the proposed creation of a new reserve currency by mutual agreement of the world's nations. I didn't mean using pre-existing currencies like Euro or Yen or Yuan..
It is indeed possible. The question we have to ask is what difference between the newly created currency and the current currency like Euro be? Euro is a tightly integrated currency which has a certain set of rules and regulations by which it won't let the member countries go out of sync beyond a certain threshold of variance. It will be unsustainable if we let every country join it the way it is. So that approach is not possible for the world currency.

Alternative for that should be to create a basket of top performing currencies (say 8 in number) backing the new currency. In that way even if the member currencies go down, the least performing currency in the basket can be replaced by a better performing currency outside the basket if need be. it may come with it's own set of problems but it will still be better.

Regarding the political will to create one.. it's hard to come by. Those who have the military might( like US) can strong arm smaller countries into keeping dollar as the reserve currency for a while till someone equally powerful stands up against it. Saddam said he will accept Euro for oil payments and the world knows what happened to him. He is not the first and he won't be last. As for Euro, it's time is also over.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
This is the most absurd paragraph you have pasted, since the start of our discussion. The guy has no clue about what he is talking. It is plain rhetoric with no scientific backing of the arguments. Users of different currencies still adjust their efforts according to competitiveness and productivity, which is inherently related to their currency.
And as discussed before, gold backed currency is not feasible, so no point talking about it(even you agreed to the infeasibility).
Blondie (his webname) is a very good poster. I have had a privilege to know him. He was a big shot banker when he was young but he learnt the whole system was built on cards. He made his money and now in his early 30's he is Retired and living in NZ. He is a top bloke. You could say he could very well have continued now and made millions more. But his insights into the system will able assistance from FOFOA have taught me things I would never have figured out in the 3 short years I dedicated to this endeavour.

You are still stuck with gold backed currency.

Blondie is not talking about gold backed currency either.

We are on different pages.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
I already mentioned in my post before, that we are not yet ready for the pure virutally derived currencies like bitcoin for the obvious reasons like what you mentioned. They are energy intensive and is taxing on the environment. I also mentioned that we still need some more technological advancements and it will take atleast another half a century to even think of implementing them main stream. In the present day scenario, any currency should be backed by tangible assets, given the imperfections of the monetary systems prevailing today and the technological challenges we have yet to overcome.
Agreed. But why do you need something else? Why not use what you have? Why not use a time immemorial thing used for generations?

Why do i need tangible assets now? It achieves two things. First, it puts a limit on anyone's ability to indiscriminately rake up currency out of thin air. Yes it does have it's own problems like finding huge assets. But this is not 1900's. We have enough maturity on mining as of now, which avoids big surprises. Second, it gives people some control over their savings. We have to understand the psycology of the people also when designing a system. Metals don't lose value because of it's alternate uses. If for example, tommorow pak cease to exist suddenly, what will i do if all my investments are in pak rupees? The guarentor of the paper money i have is gone and the pak rupees won't even be good enough for wiping my posterior(where sun doesn't shine) :D
But I say let the people who can rake up currency out of thin air do that. You stand out of their way by holding something which they cannot rake out of thin air. You take away their power to control you and your life. Debt is the way they control the poor countries and the people within this world. Let them print. Let them kill the currency to protect their life style. Why should you let them control your life? Why not keep your surplus production out of their reach?

If it's metals, i can use them for several purposes. They are used in communications, used in all kinds of equipment possible and it becomes really hard to lose value in totality. Other competing forms may get priority from time to time, but confidence level of metals won't go down in totality. For now, currency backed by a basket of metals is a good start. Since we are trying to apply patches to the broken system, it will work well enough to keep the engine running.
Why do you need a basket of metals? Jim Sinclair recently backtracked on this too. He was pro-basket of metals. Not anymore. Have you heard of the silverites?

The Silverites were members of a political movement in the United States in the late-19th century that advocated that silver should continue to be a monetary standard along with gold, as authorized under the Coinage Act of 1792. The Silverite coalition's famous slogan was "16 to 1" – that is, the ratio of sixteen ounces of silver equal in value to one ounce of gold, a ratio similar to that established in the Coinage Act of 1834. Silverites belonged to a number of political parties, including the Silver Party, Populist Party, Democratic Party, and the Silver Republican Party.

The Silverites advocated free coinage of silver. They wanted to lower the gold standard of the United States to silver, which would have simultaneously allowed more money to be printed and made available to the public and cause inflation. Many Silverites were in the West, where silver was mined.[1] Advocates predicted that if silver were used as the standard of money, they would be able to pay off all of their debt. The debt amount would stay the same but they would have more silver money with which to pay it.

The Silverites' main presidential candidate was William Jennings Bryan, whose famous Cross of Gold speech argued in their favor. He ran for president several times but was never elected.
You say basket of metals backing a currency - I ask you this,' What do the Central Banks around the globe hold as a reserve?' And Why? And why not something else?
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Actually, I was referring to the proposed creation of a new reserve currency by mutual agreement of the world's nations. I didn't mean using pre-existing currencies like Euro or Yen or Yuan..
Euro is the newest currency on the block and if you are interested in knowing about this, please read the thing below. Just one thing to remember, Euro is backed by the Central Banks of the Central Banks- The Bank of International Settlements based in Geneva.

Part of the reason the rest of the world did not abandon the dollar in 1971 was that the rate of economic expansion flowing from Middle Eastern oil cheaply priced in U.S. dollars was already exceeding the expansion rate of the money supply. So the switch from a semi-gold-(con)strained monetary system to a much more expandable "balance sheet money system" as I like to call it — or another name I like is "purely symbolic monetary system" — allowed for the non-deflationary addition of many new "quality of life" gadgets, widgets and shipping lanes that the world had never before imagined.

For the next three or four decades we would be able to comfortably afford the new introduction of Betamax VCR's, microwave ovens in every home, personal computers, DynaTAC cell phones, camcorders, digital cameras, LaserDiscs, Compact Discs, DVD's, MP3's, and on and on. Eventually, all of these wonderful products would be built cheaper by someone else on the other side of the world and shipped to WEST cheaply using the oil purchased from the Middle East with easily available U.S. dollars.

The reason I like the term "balance sheet money" is that whenever there is a need for more dollars they can be easily gotten from any bank's balance sheet. The dollars don't have to be there in the bank. You simply jot down the "need" for them on one side of the balance sheet and the dollars magically appear on the other side. Presto!

Of course once that "need" (demand) is supplied, the balance sheet must then be serviced with interest. But the thing about easy money is that you can always borrow new to service the old. In the previous system (con)strained by its parity fixation to the U.S. Treasury's limited supply of gold all these wonderful life-enhancing advances would have put a deflationary pressure on the dollar.

What this means is that when all these new products came to market, the dollars we needed to purchase them would have become more and more precious with each new widget that came to market. The cost to borrow dollars to buy a new BMC-100P or DynaTAC-8000 ( the first mobile phones) would have been prohibitive. And even if you did borrow the money, the service of that debt would have grown more and more burdensome over the life of the loan as dollars became ever more precious.

This deflationary dynamic would have stifled the global economic growth rate and confined it to only reasonable risk-taking. Which is part of the reason the foreign central banks, represented by the BIS, did not lobby the U.S. to officially devalue the dollar against its Treasury gold in 1971.

Rather than closing the gold window, the U.S. could have, for example, raised the price of gold to $200 and kept the system going for another 30 or 40 years. A move like this would have been the mathematical equivalent of increasing the Treasury's physical stockpile 5X to double what it was at the height of the Bretton Woods experiment.

But while that would have satiated the monetary transgressions of the past, it would have done little for the future. It would not have substantially changed the system to one of easy money. It would only have extended the old system of hard money.

It was reasoned at that time that more than just the ridiculous price of gold being broken, the system itself was broken, and needed a global finance structural change. So the international consensus was to let the U.S. default outright on its gold obligations rather than lobbying for a revaluation of its gold at a new fixed rate. But then continue using the dollar anyway, as long as relatively cheap oil could be gotten for dollars.

And with this decision, the stage was set for a renewed global (Western?) economic growth spurt, much like after the end of WWII. Only this time, the value lost through the non-delivery of U.S. Treasury gold would be more than replaced by the value oil brought to the new world economy, especially with first-of-a-kind products like Pong( the first video game), released for the Christmas season in 1975.

Even at the higher oil prices of the 1970's, the economic demand for oil proved to be a far superior "backing" to the dollar than the depleting Treasury gold had been. And in a certain (limited) sense, the world got its first small taste of Freegold in the 1970's.

But as gold's price began freely rising in the global marketplace, the old alarm bells went off in the dollar's management office. The dollar, which had always been viewed at par with gold, was now seen to be falling as gold soared. So during the mid to late 70's the U.S. Treasury and the IMF held a series of gold auctions to flood the market and quell the perceived danger. But by 1979 the demand for gold was so overwhelming that the auctions had to be stopped.

Through '78 and '79 the dollar plunged against foreign currencies, and in July of 1979 a desperate Jimmy Carter appointed the tough New York Fed President Paul Volker to head the "deeply divided, inexperienced, soft and indecisive" Federal Reserve Board. Then in early October of that year, while attending an IMF meeting in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, Volcker received "stern recommendations" from his European counterparts that something big had to be done immediately to stop the dollar's fall. The general fear at that meeting was that the global financial system was on the verge of collapse.

The Fed would switch from controlling interest rates through the Fed Funds rate to directly controlling the money supply through bank reserves. One of the side effects of this sharp policy change was that interest rates would now be governed by the marketplace rather than the Fed. The Fed did still raise its discount rate from 11% to 12%, but then the market took the Prime Rate up to 20% within 6 months where it mostly stayed for the next year and a half.

It was later observed that Volcker's 1979 policy change was the most significant change in Fed policy since 1932, when in the middle of the Great Depression the Fed abandoned its "real bills doctrine" and started massive open market purchases of government bonds.

In early 1980, Volcker's new Fed policy began to bite. As interest rates rose, the Dollar first slowed its descent, then stopped falling, and then began to rise. Both the public and the investment community which had stampeded into Gold were lured back into paper by this huge rise in interest rates – and by the prospect of a higher U.S. Dollar.

Many facets went into this change in investment attitude, but one concrete change in the U.S. financial system was the most telling. Way back in March 1971, four months before Nixon closed the Gold window, the "permanent" U.S. debt ceiling had been frozen at $400 Billion. By late 1982, U.S. funded debt had tripled to about $1.25 TRILLION. But the "permanent" debt ceiling still stood at $400 Billion. All the debt ceiling rises since 1971 had been officially designated as "temporary!" In late 1982, realizing that this charade could not be continued, The U.S. Treasury eliminated the "difference" between the "temporary" and the "permanent" debt ceiling.

The way was cleared for the subsequent explosion in U.S. debt. With the U.S. being the world's "reserve currency," the way was in fact cleared for a debt explosion right around the world. It was also cleared for five of the biggest bull markets in history.

The global stock market boom of 1982-87
The Japanese stock market/real estate boom of 1988-90
The Dow (and then Nasdaq) led boom - late 1994 to March/April 2000
The great global real estate boom of 2002-06
The global stock market revival of 2006-07

And thus, in 1980, began the modern era of Credibility Inflation.

Most simply stated, credibility inflation is the expanding confidence in the fiat financial system to always deliver a higher payoff tomorrow than today. And through credibility inflation we ultimately destroy the currency structure by believing it can somehow deliver more than reality will allow.

Credibility inflation is the exact antithesis of price inflations like the 1970's. It is why we saw low consumer price inflation for the last 30 years relative to the massive monetary and financial product inflation. It is partly why we saw gold stagnant or falling for 20 years. Yet it is just as much a product of monetary inflation as regular price inflation is (more on this in a moment). And it is much more catastrophic in the end.

Periods of high credibility inflation are generally not followed by smooth cycles of credibility DEflation. Instead, they tend to SNAP BACK into sudden real price inflation when confidence abates. What happens in the most extreme cases is real price HYPERinflation.

This is one of the main concepts deflationists and mainstream economists completely miss; the SNAP-BACK of credibility inflation that can instantly take down their precious fiat currency. And it is their intentional avoidance of this obvious concept that delivers aid and comfort to masterprinters like Gideon Gono and Ben Bernanke.

When people try to protect their assets against the effects of fiat money, what are they really fighting against? The first inclination is to say "rising prices." Yet it's much more than that! Most everyone agrees that the interest rate paid by the banks never covers the loss of buying power brought on by price inflation. Especially the "after tax" return. It's the same old story, played out decade after decade. We must "invest our savings" (or become a day trader?) because the money will erode in value! Even at 3%, price inflation can eat away at any cash equivalents.

But, price inflation isn't the only story that impacts us. Rising prices come and go, but money inflation continues to affect us without fail. So why do people feel better when price increases slow or stop, even as money inflation runs ever upward? The good feelings usually evolve from the effects that money inflation (increases in the money supply) has on financial instruments. These assets take on the very same characteristic that the rising prices of goods once exhibited. They run up in currency price.

During these periods of "less goods inflation" another sinister form of mindset lurks in the shadows. Credibility inflation! Yes, it has been here many times before as every fiat currency alternates its effects upon the feelings of the populace.

Fiat currencies must, by definition, always expand in quantity. Their continued usage and acceptance is always obtained with the bribe of "more wealth to come!" Without that bribe, humans would never fall for holding a debt to receive the same goods in the future if they could get the real thing today. Human nature has always dictated that we buy what we need now instead of holding someone's IOU to receive it later. That nature is only changed through the "greed to obtain more." Like this: "I'll hold my wealth in dollars as long as my assets are going up. Later those increased assets will buy me a better lifestyle as I purchase more goods and services than I could buy now."

This is the hidden dynamic we see today. Just as destructive as "goods price increases," "credibility inflation" impacts our emotions to "hold on for the future, more is coming!" In every way, "credibility inflation" is just as much a product of an increase in the money stock as "regular price inflation" is. As cash money streams out to cover any and all financial failures, we begin to attach an ever higher credibility to the continued function of the fiat system. In effect, the more money that is printed, the higher we price the credibility factor.


Is this not where we are today? Interest rates – and with them, bond valuations – have run their 30 year course from 20% down to 0%. The credibility of paper assets has taken at least three severe beatings in the last decade. And now, to simply slow the acceleration of credibility DEflation, every manner of bailout and market rigging is being employed, practically in broad daylight. And this on the assumption that the global flock of sheep will only watch the numbers, not the men making them or the underlying economy from which they spring.

GDP is one of the great deceivers in the fiat money world. During the last century (??) or so, some form of GDP has always been used to measure the great mass of human endeavors. Yet, throughout this time, some form of fiat currency has always been in effect. Even during the Gold standard, fractional reserve banking expanded "gold note money" more so than the "gold money" in existence. Prior to 1929 this effect, if not creating outright "price inflation" during a time of Gold standard policy, was creating "credibility inflation" in the minds of investors. Using the backdrop of a growing GDP, people bought into inflating financial assets and ignored these signals as evidence that the fractional currency system was failing. Even though the dollar contained a policy statement to supply gold, back then a gold loan was still only good until everyone asked for gold.

The same thing is happening today. People destroy the currency structure by thinking it can deliver more than reality will allow. Instead of all debt failing slowly with each upward march of price inflation, prolonged "credibility inflation" snaps all at once as investors try to suddenly revert to a "buy now mentality." The inability of government authorities to contain the fiction of "good debt" is usually the feature behind the investor mood change. The "snap back" into a sudden "real price inflation situation" caused during this stage by a currency failure always breaks the whole structure. We approach this end today!

The GDP has been the relative gauge to mark all other measurements against. Even so, its numbers reflect little more than the result of an "expanding fiat money supply." Yes, there have been recorded downturns in GDP, but these contractions would have been worse if measured in real (gold) money. In opposite fashion, expansions paint a much brighter picture as all financial liabilities seem less a threat if held against a rising GDP. I submit that the GDP figures offer little more than a way to entice investors to increase their "credibility image" of our monetary system. Fiat moneys are always on a long term upward expansion, and they can hardly do less than bloat the picture.

Someone I know once said; "your wealth is not what your money say it is!"

A great historical example of credibility inflation with parallels to our present financial and monetary system was the system in France under the direction of the esteemed Scottish economist, John Law. In 1716 Law established the first French central bank, the Banque Générale, which was later nationalized and renamed the Banque Royale. Law used the Banque to introduce paper money in France.

Simultaneously, Law aggregated the trading companies in the French colony of Louisiana into a singular monopoly under the name "Company of the Indies" and sold shares of this company back in France. Law exaggerated the prospects of the company so well that he was actually appointed Controller General of Finances (essentially the first French Central Banker) by Philippe d'Orléans and given the official job of pumping this stock.

Wild speculation on the shares of the Company of the Indies led to the Banque Royale issuing more and more paper money to fund the monetary demands of the buying frenzy. And the "company profits" owed to the shareholders were also paid in fresh paper money. John Law's credibility was being entirely financed by his printing press.

Then, in late 1720, opponents of John Law's paper money attempted en masse to exchange their paper notes for gold. This forced the Banque Royale to cease physical gold "delivery," declare the essence of "force majeure" (which incidentally is a French term from French law), and admit it had issued much more paper than it had in gold. Both the Company stock value and the paper money itself plunged, ultimately to worthlessness. The monetary system in France was revamped six years later, but by the end of 1720 John Law had been disgraced, relieved of his official job, and had to flee France a poor man. He died in poverty nine years later.

One observation we can make is that in the long-line cycles of monetary history, technical (momentum) trading emerges in the very late stages of cycles in its most frenetic fashion. This is when it draws the most people into the unproductive activity of trading for trading's sake. And this is when it draws in the greatest profits, right before it delivers a catastrophic total loss.

In the early stages of these long-line cycles the greatest profits in society come from productive enterprises like building large companies from the ground up. But in the very late stages the greatest profits seem to come from paper churning and speculation in things that were previously traded mostly on fundamentals, based on actual, physical use.

We can see this in the famous bubbles like the tulip bubble, the Mississippi bubble, the South Seas bubble, the dot com bubble and the housing bubble. But it also occurs at the end of currency cycles. History is full of stories of traders frantically trying to trade out of their positions at the end of long-line cycles, while the currency burns around them. Look at any list of historic hyperinflations to find examples.

The modern version of this late-stage trading fad is most prevalent in the West, because that is where modern currency flows into financial assets at the highest rate relative to their real world, physical counterparts. For example, Western paper gold traders look to the seasonal preferences of Eastern physical gold users to plan their buys and sells. The Asian harvest season, after which farmers invest some of their year's surplus income in gold is closely watched by Western traders. As is the Indian wedding season where every year Indian brides are adorned with physical gold.

Western paper gold traders love front-running these Eastern gold-buying seasons.


This paper trading mentality works really well right up until the moment it doesn't. And that's when it can deliver a total loss. I sometimes wonder if it should even be considered a profitable activity when a split second of fundamental phase transition can take away a decade of technical trading profits. Or the inverse, when the price of a fundamental misjudgment can be the opportunity cost of generations' worth of wealth. In a way, this is the hard question Freegold poses.

Above I mentioned that the snap-back effect when a fiat currency loses its credibility (hyperinflation) is one of the obvious concepts intentionally ignored by deflationists and mainstream economists alike. Another obvious concept they remain oblivious to is that the two primary functions of money are in no way necessarily tied together. Those two functions being: "medium of exchange" and "store of value." Just because we have suffered their apparent fixation for centuries, they are most definitely not fixed by nature.

As long as you have the freedom to spend your money – the freedom to spend the fruits of your labor, which exists everywhere outside of outright whips-and-chains slavery – you have the choice of how to save your money. If you can spend your money then you can save your wealth in something other than money.

This is the essence of Freegold.

And this is the system I am talking about. No gold standard. No fractional reserve banking.

In this example the scrip money at the fair had value only through its use at the fair, not intrinsic in itself. After the fair, if you ended up with a trade surplus (extra scrip money), you turned in your medium of exchange for gold coins, the tradable store of value at the time. Can you imagine how this concept could work in a fair that's open for business 24/7/365?

So how can we possibly have one thing as a medium of exchange and something else as the store of value in our modern world? Has this ever been tried before in recent times? Of course it has! We have been doing it all along!! But the problems that ultimately come arise from those stores of value that are denominated in, and tied to, the durability of the scrip money, the medium of exchange.

Once upon a time, when the medium of exchange was physical gold coin, it was very durable. And stores of value denominated in that durable medium of exchange, denominated in gold, were quite durable for a time. But through the gold standards of the past century that "paper denominated in gold" became the medium of exchange. And now gold will once again become the store of value.

You see, these two monetary functions play off each other in a see-saw fashion. As "assets" (claims really) denominated in the medium of exchange fail and collapse, true physical "store of value" assets alternately rise to the occasion. It is only our ingrained misconception that both monetary functions must be somehow fixed at parity with each other that leads us to foolish ends. And understand also that the Giants (The super Rich) of this world know better.

Today all governments of the world hold only two assets in reserve, meaning "for a rainy day." They hold claims against counterparties denominated in the medium of exchange and they hold gold, the store of value. And some of the more forward-thinking governments are already floating their gold reserves on the books, for all to see.

Now, the claims held in reserve have two vulnerabilities; the solvency of the counterparties and the durability of the scrip they are denominated in. Of course new scrip can be easily conjured on the national balance sheet to keep the counterparties technically solvent so most assuredly it will be the scrip itself that fails. The gold in reserve, on the other hand, has no counterparty and plenty of durability. So what monetary asset do you think will rise to fill the global monetary reserve void when the scrip finally fails? Palladium?

Bear in mind too that these Giant balance sheets can move the price (value) of gold more in a split second than all of us could in a lifetime of buying. And with any such tectonic shift in the importance of gold on international balance sheets, you can say goodbye to the fractionally reserved commodity (paper) gold trading arena and anything remotely associated with it.

First of all I would like to clear up probably the most common misconception about hyperinflation. What most people believe is that massive printing of base money (new cash) leads to hyperinflation. No, it's the other way around. Hyperinflation leads to the massive printing of base money (new cash).

Hyperinflation, in most people minds, conjures images of trillion dollar Zimbabwe notes. But this image is simply the government's reflexive response to the onset of hyperinflation, which is actually the loss of confidence in the currency. First comes the loss of confidence (hyperinflation), then, and only then, comes the massive printing to keep the government and its obligations afloat.

And what sets the stage for hyperinflation is a period of high credibility inflation followed by the loss of credibility. During our period of high credibility inflation the dollar was invisibly hyperinflated in a near-monetary sense. This has already happened. We are already there.

When I say the dollar has already hyperinflated in a near-monetary sense, I am talking about the number of dollars people, entities and even foreign nations think they have in reserve. Not in a shoebox, but in contractual promises of dollars to be delivered more or less on demand by somebody else. Claims denominated in dollars. This is how the vast majority of "dollars" are held; as promises to deliver more dollars. And this is why they are held this way. Because of the more in "more dollars." "Let me spend your dollars today and I will give you more dollars tomorrow!"

I think it is fair to say that we have finished our 30-year run of high credibility inflation and we are now in the early stages of credibility deflation. The real question now is, can the credibility of the financial system deflate without tripping a breaker, without causing a credibility waterfall in the currency in which it is denominated?

The difference between today and a few years ago is that a few years ago credibility inflation was being fed by private credit (debt) expansion. Asset values, like homes, were being sustained and driven higher with the arrival of new marks. But today the Ponzi cycle of credibility inflation has peaked, there are no more new marks, and its decline is being managed centrally with the government expansion of new base money to conceal the failures one at a time.

And as in any Ponzi scheme there comes a point when redemptions can no longer be financed by new marks. I think the tipping point of credibility must come once it is clear that Bernie Madoff, I mean Uncle Sam is writing redemption checks that can never be cashed. The point is, we are already past the tipping point. So timing isn't really a question anymore. The credibility waterfall has already happened. But somehow we still have early marks continuing to stockpile rubber checks as if they are worth something. Does this mean credibility still exists? I think not.

I suppose this begs the question, is all that dollar debt out there in the world really worth anything anymore? If you answer yes simply because you cashed some of it in today for new underwear, then I say you didn't answer the question. The question is, is all that dollar debt out there in the world really worth anything anymore? The answer is no, it is not. Only at the margin, where you reside, can it still be cashed in for new underwear. But in aggregate, it is worthless, even today.

And then the next logical question should be, what is gold really worth today? If you answered $1,551 per ounce simply because you bought a gold Eagle today for $1,551, then I say you didn't answer the question. The question is, what is gold REALLY worth today? And the answer is it is priceless, but probably could be had in extremely large volumes for somewhere between $10,000 and $50,000 per ounce. (How much physical gold could China realistically get today if it tried to cash in $2T in debt paper for gold? At today's price it could get more than 50,000 tonnes, but only if that's the real value of gold.)

Only at the margin, where you reside, can physical gold still be had for $1,551 per ounce. But in aggregate, in the vaults of the world's central banks as the only reserve asset not tied to the medium of exchange, it is priceless, in the truest sense of the word.

My advice: Get as much of this priceless reserve asset as you can while it's still going for $1,551 at the margin. Seems like a bargain to me.

http://fofoa.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/credibility-inflation.html
 
Last edited:

aerokan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,024
Likes
817
Country flag
Agreed. But why do you need something else? Why not use what you have? Why not use a time immemorial thing used for generations?



But I say let the people who can rake up currency out of thin air do that. You stand out of their way by holding something which they cannot rake out of thin air. You take away their power to control you and your life. Debt is the way they control the poor countries and the people within this world. Let them print. Let them kill the currency to protect their life style. Why should you let them control your life? Why not keep your surplus production out of their reach?



Why do you need a basket of metals? Jim Sinclair recently backtracked on this too. He was pro-basket of metals. Not anymore. Have you heard of the silverites?



You say basket of metals backing a currency - I ask you this,' What do the Central Banks around the globe hold as a reserve?' And Why? And why not something else?
I like cryptic messages when i am the one who is giving it :D
But for now, could you please give your preferential system?
I sure did mention that each has it's own disadvantages. Basket of metals or others is just a good start as i mentioned before, not the end product. If we can manage to totally shift to the best possible system without a gradual process, i am more than willing to look into it. Please tell what model do you have in mind.
I haven't read the recent big post you made since i am in a hurry for the long long weekend. Will read and reply in a week if possible :)
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
The article says it all. It gives more than sufficient reasons to not go back to the gold standard. Add some of my last posts about this problem and the picture looks much more complete.
What would be your solution to stopping inflation? Gold Standard is better than the current system, because, it binds the value of each currency unit to something that is stable. Does the current system guarantee stability of currency? No. Neither does Gold Standard, in the rare event of, say someone finding a lot of Gold. Yet, it is much stabler than the current system. So, I disagree. The article has not given sufficient reasons not to go back to the Gold Standard.

Barter is good if you have the exact things one wants to exchange but there was a reason why we did away with it. Remove the prices from any economy and everything crumbles down. What you would then get instead of prices would be dealers(helping in barter) in between and they being human would perform worse.
Agree. That was rhetorical. I for one would not go back to the barter system, but then, that does not take away the merit of the system, where, you know what you are dealing with. That is not the case with a dwindling currency.

You alone do not control the currency and no one does. As I pointed in above some posts, $ has been stable and hence had been the preferred currency of exchange. If that belief erodes, which has many reasons to erode, no one would give a shit about dollar. Go back to barter system, I am sure the guy must be joking about it(Would you like to sell me your laptop for 1000 underwears I just manufactured)!!!
Agree with the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph is incorrect. The US dollar is not stable. It has been unstable for decades. If it was stable, we would be paying 13 cents per gallon of gas, not $3.69. People still trade in the dollar because its instability is less compared to other currencies, but to say it is stable is completely incorrect.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,761
What would be your solution to stopping inflation? Gold Standard is better than the current system, because, it binds the value of each currency unit to something that is stable. Does the current system guarantee stability of currency? No. Neither does Gold Standard, in the rare event of, say someone finding a lot of Gold. Yet, it is much stabler than the current system. So, I disagree. The article has not given sufficient reasons not to go back to the Gold Standard.
That is where the common person does mistake in understanding economics- looking at things in isolation. Inflation is not just a monetary concept but has intricate linkages to supply-demand side of the economy. There is no way to completely insure oneself against it. As far as gold standard is concerned, one, it is not feasible and two, it is more deflationary and susceptible to depressions. Look at the history of post American civil war period till the great depression, to convince yourself of this fact.

Agree. That was rhetorical. I for one would not go back to the barter system, but then, that does not take away the merit of the system, where, you know what you are dealing with. That is not the case with a dwindling currency.
Obviously it is great to know what you are dealing with. But that is the only merit of the system.

And I did not give a rhetorical argument there. What I meant was prices act in the sense of invisible hand and removes control of individuals over transactions. You bring in barter and you would have dealers who would help in trade and hence would like to keep the most tradable goods with them. And if the dealer in your region hates you, you would not be able to exchange anything. Prices remove that barrier and I believe are the biggest achievement of human civilization.

Agree with the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph is incorrect. The US dollar is not stable. It has been unstable for decades. If it was stable, we would be paying 13 cents per gallon of gas, not $3.69. People still trade in the dollar because its instability is less compared to other currencies, but to say it is stable is completely incorrect.
The stability is always relative as you correctly pointed out and not to mention the fact that it is almost stable for transactions over shorter horizon. And there is not just one factor determining the price of gas. Add the world demand-supply into picture and you would understand what I mean(looking at just one factor blurs the understanding). As far as longer horizon is concerned if you know the rate of expansion of monetary aggregates, then it is a stable environment for various calculations. Historically that has been almost stable for US, except during the recessions.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
I like cryptic messages when i am the one who is giving it :D
But for now, could you please give your preferential system?
I sure did mention that each has it's own disadvantages. Basket of metals or others is just a good start as i mentioned before, not the end product. If we can manage to totally shift to the best possible system without a gradual process, i am more than willing to look into it. Please tell what model do you have in mind.
I haven't read the recent big post you made since i am in a hurry for the long long weekend. Will read and reply in a week if possible :)
In gist this represents the model I am subscribing to. I am but a simple person. It is not my idea.

I call it FREEGOLD.

Freegold explained for my Grandmother (and Epic Fail Moron):

For a monetary system to work, anyone, anywhere, must be able to exchange the currency for gold at a floating rate. This is FREEGOLD. It is all of the natural consequences that will flow from the ending of fractional reserve bullion banking, an unsustainable modern carryover from the official gold standard of yesteryear.

The definition of store of value as a monetary function is how long participants are willing to hold any excess of said money for the purpose of storing value. The separation of this role from transactional currency means that excess currency will be spent rather than stored for its long term value. What you spend it on is up to you. Freedom of choice, bra!! But the "focal point" of this global activity will probably not be baseball cards.

Please do read the long post. Its worth the 60 minute reading time.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,761
You are somewhat correct, but don't let your not so generous views on Ron Paul cloud your judgment. :)

I do have some confusion on certain issues, and might revise my stance, but Ron Paul or no Ron Paul, I still have very little faith in fluctuating and inconsistent currencies, and of course, economic 'models,' if that word is at all appropriate, that are based on these fluctuating currencies.
As long as humans and nature are involved there would be fluctuations in any economic model which generates growth!! Only stagnant, ill-fed and poor economies can afford the luxury of a dormant economy.

I like Ron Paul's libertarian stance, but his economic views are pretty much immature and he appears almost retarded while talking about abortion!!
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
As long as humans and nature are involved there would be fluctuations in any economic model which generates growth!! Only stagnant, ill-fed and poor economies can afford the luxury of a dormant economy.

I like Ron Paul's libertarian stance, but his economic views are pretty much immature and he appears almost retarded while talking about abortion!!
Uh oh - no abortion business here. Open a new thread if you want to talk about that.

Ok, coming back to the basics now:

You claim that unless there is inflation, i.e. printing money out of thin air, economy will collapse. So, we have to constantly keep inflating the currency. That's fine as well. Now, if this continues, over a period of time, the value of any currency will keep going down.

Let us say, for example, we have an inflating currency, where:
x[SUB]k-1[/SUB] = x[SUB]k[/SUB] + γx[SUB]k-1[/SUB]
(P.S.: This is similar to the Reward Function in Q-Learning)

And let us set γ = 0.01 at a constant, and k represents the time point, say years.

Do you know what is going to happen? The value of the currency (x axis) will tend to zero over time (y axis), and the curve will look like this, after prolonged inflation:


And we will be carrying currency bills that look like this:


You call that economic model? Man, that is nothing but a ridiculous plan to put the flames off while the fire is still seething, i.e. making short term gains and brushing things under the carpet, with no solution when ultimately everything falls apart.

This ain't gonna work bud!
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top