Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

lethalmiko

Regulars
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lethalmiko

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Zambia
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Occupation
    Philosophy, Physics, Music, Art, Economics

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. As a related question, which of the three gold standards is the best and why? viz, the gold specie standard, the gold exchange standard or the gold bullion standard?
  2. Thomas, what you are saying therefore means that when we want to "divide" the currency, larger notes have to be widthrawn from circulation and replaced with smaller note denominations. For example, a thousand Dollar note can represent an ounce and when it needs to be divided, it can be burned and a thousand one Dollar notes printed. All this sounds alright so far but then why for example was there a shortage of Silver coinage in the 1790s in England, since they could have easily just melted the available coins and minted smaller ones? Indeed many times in history, gold was abandoned as soon as
  3. Thomas, thanks for that explanation although I still have a problem. In my scenario, people are not using much of the gold itself for transactions in form of coins. Rather, they are using paper currency equal to the amount of gold (or electronic debit cards if you wish). If for example they fixed the currency as $100 per ounce, the total amount of the currency is only $1 million, equivalent to the 10,000 ounces of gold which is locked in a mini Fort Knox. So when demand for money increases beyond the $1 million cash in circulation, what happens to the currency? softwareNerd, increasing supp
  4. Thomas, I do not disagree with a gold standard. I am just seeking clarification on the "finite quantity problem". Your assumption that prices fall with more production is only true if demand does not increase correspondingly. Which is why I introduced the thought experiment above to take things to the extreme and see how well the gold standard holds up. So far, your explanation does not address my island situation in which demand and supply have increased almost equally, thereby increasing demand for money to transact (unless I am missing something). agrippa1, your explanation sort of makes
  5. Imagine there is only $1 million worth of gold in a small island community and all transactions are covered with $50,000 left over in the bank. Productivity and consumption goes up 100% across the board due to a baby boom. The total value of all the productivity is now worth more than the $1 million but there is no new gold being added. How can it possibly be true that "Money supply does not have to necessarily increase as an economy grows"? The Deflation argument assumes that demand for goods/services has dropped, necessitating a reduction in prices. But in the scenario above, demand has a
  6. Someone needs to explain how a gold standard can cover all the transactions in the economy since the quantity of gold in the world is finite but money supply has to necessarily increase as the economy grows.
  7. I am aware that Dollar Bills originally were representations of the gold and silver you have in the bank, but under the current system where the Dollar has been divorced from gold by Richard Nixon, it may not be easy to go back just like that, short of introducing a new currency since there are more Dollars than gold. It is possible to have Dollars printed and used as money without necessarily being tied to gold as long as it is left to private banks. Dollars can compete against and work alongside gold. Currently, about 165,000 metric tons of gold have ever been mined, valued at US$9.2 tri
  8. Having spent the last two years further studying this issue, I have come back to give an update on my conclusions so far. 1. Every paranormal activity can be rationally explained without recourse to the supernatural. The magician James Randi was instrumental in helping me finally realize this. 2. Whether God exists or not is probably impossible to answer because of the fundamental problem of defining who or what exactly God is. Every religion has a different definition and every faction within every religion has its own ideas what or who God is. For example, The Jehovah's Witnesses do no
  9. Wrong. Having a gold standard does not necessarily mean that the price of gold against a currency should be fixed as it was in America at one time at $35 per ounce. The price of gold in Dollar terms should be allowed to freely fluctuate since there is not enough gold in the world to match all economic activity. Currency is NOT money. Gold and silver is the real money. Currency is just worthless pieces of paper. Any govt that over prints its currency will be put in check because it will lose value and people will stop accepting it and insist on gold/silver. The govt will then be forced to also
  10. Govt intervention in the economy is ALWAYS a very bad idea as history endlessly shows. Professor Walter Block in his book "Defending the Undefendable" in Chapter 21 put it eloquently. "... all government involvement in the economy has been marked by inefficiency, venality, and corruption, and the evidence suggests that this is not merely accidental.... A government “enterprise” can be expected to be inefficient because it is immune to the selective process of the marketplace.... This continual process of the selection of the fittest ensures the efficiency of entrepreneurs. Since the governm
  11. I agree that the govt is ultimately to blame almost 100%. Every bubble, depression and severe recession is always WITHOUT EXCEPTION due to govt interference in the economy at some level, which is why I agree with Ayn Rand that there should be separation of State and Economy. The specifics are varied and complex but there are some basics which in my view account for the bulk: 1. Cheap credit from Chinese money courted by govt 2. Artificially low Fed interest rates (in 2000 Greenspan reduced to 1%, less than inflation and Ron Paul predicted the very following year that the bubble would co
  12. Let me clarify my actual position on God before I carefully read the new posts. I am at the moment neutral (Agnostic). If the arguments against God are irrefutable, I shall be the first to acknowledge that god does not exist. I am not trying to convince anyone about this, only debating it with people who are on one side of the issue. I have also debated against religious people by the way. I shall research more on the evolution and other issues and respond as I have been accused of evasion.
  13. PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE? Is it impossible for you to imagine an entity (God) existing in some dimension in "empty space"? I do not have any DIRECT evidence for the existence of God but there seems to be INDIRECT evidence like the DNA and Entropy arguments which you are yet to answer. There are many things in life that have no direct evidence (e.g. black holes) but we still can argue for their existence using indirect evidence. If God created the universe, it does NOT follow logically that this means there is no existence. Maybe God was existence until the universe was created as an extens
  14. It is rather interesting how a lot of you in this forum seem to have have an affinity for claiming ignorance on my part without understanding fully what I am saying nor showing where the ignorance lies. In any case, there is nothing wrong with ignorance which is why we even have these discussions in the first place. Your initial response to the "fish to elephants issue" is a classic case of focussing on the example rather than the essence of the argument. I clearly stated "Which is why I talked about fish (or if you wish, some other water based ancestor) turning into elephants." Did you ac
  15. Now we are getting somewhere with this debate! BIG BANG The Wrath said "the Big Bang emerged from a singularity that existed for a tiny fraction of a second." No matter how small this time was, it still was time elapsing. In any case, there is still the problem of how the singularity came to exist. If there was no "before" the singularity, does it mean there was no universe until the singularity "manifested"? There is a book (a collection of seven lectures) by Stephen Hawking called "The Theory Of Everything: The Origin And Fate Of The Universe". In the fifth lecture on pages 84-85, he say
×
×
  • Create New...