Deregulating the banks?

[enoch150]

ARE YOU A PRODUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT SCHOOL SYSTEM?

[Travlyr]

...

It is actually a quite relevant question. It had been asked prior but went unanswered. Perhaps it didn't need to be in all caps, but isn't it interesting that asking someone if they were "educated" in a government school is considered an attack?

Here are a couple of realities:

1. A society that uses sound money, fully redeemable, is a free society.
2. Government schools do not teach sound money principles.

Black Flag has been on these forums the last several days attacking people who have studied sound money principles and how it relates to a free society as described by Dr. Ron Paul. He calls their principles "theories" and then claims that they are "crackpot theories." They are neither. Sound money principles are from natural law. They do not teach that in government indoctrination systems. Black Flag is either ignorant to the sound money principles (government school indoctrination) or he is here to obfuscate Ron Paul's message of sound money. Notice his response to HON. HOWARD BUFFETT's Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money

So, either Black Flag doesn't know what he is talking about ... or he knows exactly what he is doing.

[enoch150]

It is actually a quite relevant question. It had been asked prior but went unanswered. Perhaps it didn't need to be in all caps, but isn't it interesting that asking someone if they were "educated" in a government school is considered an attack?

Here are a couple of realities:

1. A society that uses sound money, fully redeemable, is a free society.
2. Government schools do not teach sound money principles.

Black Flag has been on these forums the last several days attacking people who have studied sound money principles and how it relates to a free society as described by Dr. Ron Paul. He calls their principles "theories" and then claims that they are "crackpot theories." They are neither. Sound money principles are from natural law. They do not teach that in government indoctrination systems. Black Flag is either ignorant to the sound money principles (government school indoctrination) or he is here to obfuscate Ron Paul's message of sound money. Notice his response to HON. HOWARD BUFFETT's Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money

So, either Black Flag doesn't know what he is talking about ... or he knows exactly what he is doing.

I've only first noticed Black Flag from this thread, so if he's said anything outlandish elsewhere, I'm not aware of it. But, in this thread, he has expressed views consistent with people like Gary North - a former Ron Paul staffer and well known and respected member of the libertarian community. An-cap libertarians and Constitutionalists agree on 90%+ of the direction the country should be headed, but there are some disagreements of theory and principles. Let's just keep the debate elevated.

[Travlyr]

Let's just keep the debate elevated.

I agree.

My disagreement with him stems from another thread where Black Flag intentionally misrepresented what I wrote to obfuscate the discussion. Here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4245838

And in this thread he continues his obfuscation by claiming

First theories do NOT determine facts at all. Facts do not need a theory to exist. And if you didn't know that, perhaps you need to go to school.

Theories attempt to explain an effect we witness in reality. We are trying to discover the "cause" that made "that effect", so that we can then make it a tool for us to use.

If we can learn that X causes Y, and one day we want a Y, we know that all we have to do is do an X... that is what we are trying to do with theories.

Theories start with an hypothesis ... an educated guess at a causation... that attempts to explain a consequence.
We then test this -usually by doing that thing- to see if we get the consequence.
If we do, we have a theory.
If we do not, we start again, making a better guess at the causation.

A CRACKPOT theory comes in many forms.

One is called "Confirming the conclusion" - that is, you already know what you want to be the answer, regardless of its reality, and you fabricate causes ad hoc that you claim will cause such a conclusion - such as "Anthropogenic Global Warming" where the conclusion - humans caused the warming - is confirmed no matter the reality; it snows - its caused by humans; it warms - it is caused by humans; it doesn't do either - it is caused by humans.

Another example is when a theorist goes down the hypothesis, test, conclusion path - and finds his hypothesis does not explain the consequence. Instead of starting over, and making a better guess, he holds on to this hypothesis and begins to add externalities to explain why the consequence didn't happen the way he said it would.

This is typical in economics - such as understanding the Theory of Money. You can get a sense of the crackpottery by merely following along.

First, one begins claiming gold is money but paper money is not money.
Yet, when you test this, you see people use paper money to buy things, but do not use gold to buy things.

So, instead of going "hmm, that's true, so maybe my money theory is wrong" - the gold bug makes up ANOTHER crackpot theory to explain that:
-yes, because the paper money is FAKE and all those people are fooled into believing it is money when it is not money and only gold is money but the people are fooled! Yes, that's it!

But then you say, all those people are fools? 300 million people are fooled into using and accepting paper money to buy things, but the money is fake, and they are all being fooled into using this money to buy things... yet, people ARE trading away goods and services and buying things just fine so... why is it fake if it is doing exactly the job "real" money would do...anyway? Doesn't that mean its money?

And, now, really twisted in a knot the theorist having another chance to quit and go back and re-evaluate his monetary theory... but oh no! It must go on by providing another one on top of the last one that was on top of the last one to explain why foolish people are very successful in using fake money as good or better than the real money that no one uses!

...and so on.

While I do call Federal Reserve Notes "Funny Money"... I do that to emphasize that FRNs lose value every day. In my opinion, valueless money, or money that is worth less today than yesterday, is inferior to valuable money. That is not a "crackpot theory."

I question Black Flag's intentions on this forum. He is a smart guy, but I'm not convinced he is on Ron Paul's side working toward liberty.

[Black Flag]

I agree.

My disagreement with him stems from another thread where Black Flag intentionally misrepresented what I wrote to obfuscate the discussion. Here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4245838

And in this thread he continues his obfuscation by claiming
While I do call Federal Reserve Notes "Funny Money"

...and you called it fake money and that it was not money.
It is these concepts of yours that actually gets in the way of understanding - and getting in the way of understanding creates serious errors.

Similarly, this concept of "losing" value is also seriously wrong.

The value YOU place on economic goods changes everyday depending on how your day goes - you don't value bandages much, but if today (god forbid) you get into an accident, those bandages become very valuable.

The economic nescients assign magical powers to money, such as "it should not lose value" which usually means it will gain in value.

But then another group of nescients *gasps* claiming the bugaboo of "deflation" (which is when money becomes more valuable) and then the economically nescient demand something should be done - which can only mean making money less valuable - causing the first nescients to *gasp*.

This bouncing around inconsistent, contradictory demands upon the money all requires one thing:
intervention

To steer the river of monetary flow, men get in with their hands and pervert the banks of the river - erosion occurs where there was no erosion before, undermining structures that before were safe - and now become threatened.

Ignorantly unaware that is was the mucking in the river that created the threat, more mucking in the river of monetary flow is deemed necessary, changing the flow again and eroding another area that was once considered safe - leading to more and more mucking in the river.... until nothing is safe, everything is under threat and everyone has forgotten where the river once was and were it was going.


All of this is avoided by educating the nescient to understanding what is money and removing baseless concepts that these people -full of good intentions and eagerness to learn (why are you here at RP's site if not to learn?) - so that they can go forth into society, and teach the totally ignorant.

I question Black Flag's intentions on this forum. He is a smart guy, but I'm not convinced he is on Ron Paul's side working toward liberty.

Ron Paul does not need me.

And I am neither working for or against anyone.

I am working for truth and whomever sides on that is an ally and those that resist that are adversaries - and where RP decides to sit is not in my power to force.

[Travlyr]

...and you called it fake money and that it was not money.
It is these concepts of yours that actually gets in the way of understanding - and getting in the way of understanding creates serious errors.

Similarly, this concept of "losing" value is also seriously wrong.

The value YOU place on economic goods changes everyday depending on how your day goes - you don't value bandages much, but if today (god forbid) you get into an accident, those bandages become very valuable.

The economic nescients assign magical powers to money, such as "it should not lose value" which usually means it will gain in value.

But then another group of nescients *gasps* claiming the bugaboo of "deflation" (which is when money becomes more valuable) and then the economically nescient demand something should be done - which can only mean making money less valuable - causing the first nescients to *gasp*.

This bouncing around inconsistent, contradictory demands upon the money all requires one thing:
intervention

To steer the river of monetary flow, men get in with their hands and pervert the banks of the river - erosion occurs where there was no erosion before, undermining structures that before were safe - and now become threatened.

Ignorantly unaware that is was the mucking in the river that created the threat, more mucking in the river of monetary flow is deemed necessary, changing the flow again and eroding another area that was once considered safe - leading to more and more mucking in the river.... until nothing is safe, everything is under threat and everyone has forgotten where the river once was and were it was going.


All of this is avoided by educating the nescient to understanding what is money and removing baseless concepts that these people -full of good intentions and eagerness to learn (why are you here at RP's site if not to learn?) - so that they can go forth into society, and teach the totally ignorant.




Ron Paul does not need me.

And I am neither working for or against anyone.

I am working for truth and whomever sides on that is an ally and those that resist that are adversaries - and where RP decides to sit is not in my power to force.

Why did you misrepresent what I wrote? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4245838

[Black Flag]

Travylr

HON. HOWARD BUFFETT's Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money

You do understand that Buffett is not an economist, but a politician?

You do understand that Buffett is not a philosopher, but a politician?

You do understand, then, that maybe Buffett does not understand the implications of what he is saying, though -in his own mind- he sees this as a political salvation to a problem caused by politics?

I like Buffet - he was a good man standing in the way of the flood of Statism, and unfortunately, did not slow it down even a second. His use, today, is reflection - that is, we see today in reality what he espoused in the past. That allows us to apply cause/consequence and turn around and use it forward into future-vision.

But all of that - you must test anyone's theories with your own, well-sharpened tools of reason, logic, knowledge and intellect - and not so easily surrender to concepts merely because someone else you deemed authoritative said so.

[Travlyr]

Travylr


You do understand that Buffett is not an economist, but a politician?

You do understand that Buffett is not a philosopher, but a politician?

You do understand, then, that maybe Buffett does not understand the implications of what he is saying, though -in his own mind- he sees this as a political salvation to a problem caused by politics?

I like Buffet - he was a good man standing in the way of the flood of Statism, and unfortunately, did not slow it down even a second. His use, today, is reflection - that is, we see today in reality what he espoused in the past. That allows us to apply cause/consequence and turn around and use it forward into future-vision.

But all of that - you must test anyone's theories with your own, well-sharpened tools of reason, logic, knowledge and intellect - and not so easily surrender to concepts merely because someone else you deemed authoritative said so.

I understand all of that. Why did you misrepresent what I wrote? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4245838

[Black Flag]

Why did you misrepresent what I wrote? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4245838

You take your claim of unfairness out of context - you do not deny you have said "fake" or deny you have assigned magical powers to money "hold value".

Further, in another thread, where you briefly dispelled these concepts, I explicitly expressed agreement with your comments regarding consequences.

I am an academic in many areas and one of those areas is economic theory.
That means I do not call purple sore bump on your arm a "bruise" - I called it a "hematoma" - because the terms ARE important to describe the underlying concepts.

The bigger bigger picture:
The greatest threat to modern society is not government nor war nor starvation via collapse - these things are consequences of the "Great Threat".


The great threat is pervasive ignorance.

Today, change happens so fast that most people -by the time they get enough information to understand what is happening to them, it is no longer happening to them and something else is happening.

Because of this, people are losing the ability to understand their world.

But in an era where the totally ignorant and the wise get exactly the same vote - 1 per man - this is incredibly dangerous. Over time, ignorance out votes wisdom.

Then things go to hell in a hand basket.

[WilliamC]

"Gold is a valuable thing to store. However, it is not a store of value.

Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable. However, it does not have intrinsic value.

I mention this, because, at some point, you will read about gold as a store of value. You will read of gold's intrinsic value. Every time you read either of these phrases, you will know that the author does not understand economic theory."

Semantics and fuzzy definitions.

Those things which are 'stores of value' by definition are those things which are valuable to store, that is things which do not diminish in value when stored over time.

The 'intrinsic properties' which make a thing have value are by definition the intrinsic value of said thing, which are related to the physical properties of said thing.

The fact that it is human desire which creates this value is self-obvious, since we as yet have not encountered non-human sentient beings with which to trade.

So yes, you remove the intrinsic value of an object if no humans exist to interact with it, but then you also remove all economic and other human actions as well, so I fail to see what is gained by this point of view.

[Travlyr]

You take your claim of unfairness out of context - you do not deny you have said "fake" or deny you have assigned magical powers to money "hold value".

Further, in another thread, where you briefly dispelled these concepts, I explicitly expressed agreement with your comments regarding consequences.

I am an academic in many areas and one of those areas is economic theory.
That means I do not call purple sore bump on your arm a "bruise" - I called it a "hematoma" - because the terms ARE important to describe the underlying concepts.

The bigger bigger picture:
The greatest threat to modern society is not government nor war nor starvation via collapse - these things are consequences of the "Great Threat".


The great threat is pervasive ignorance.

Today, change happens so fast that most people -by the time they get enough information to understand what is happening to them, it is no longer happening to them and something else is happening.

Because of this, people are losing the ability to understand their world.

But in an era where the totally ignorant and the wise get exactly the same vote - 1 per man - this is incredibly dangerous. Over time, ignorance out votes wisdom.

Then things go to hell in a hand basket.

The point is why did you misrepresent what I wrote? If you wanted an honest discussion, then you would be honest. If you are in academia then you should know that to take a quote out-of-context and misrepresent it as something that it is not ... is dishonest. Did you do it to be dishonest?

[Black Flag]

"Gold is a valuable thing to store. However, it is not a store of value.

Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable. However, it does not have intrinsic value.

I mention this, because, at some point, you will read about gold as a store of value. You will read of gold's intrinsic value. Every time you read either of these phrases, you will know that the author does not understand economic theory."

Semantics and fuzzy definitions.

No, exactly opposite.

Clarity and specific definitions.

Those things which are 'stores of value' by definition are those things which are valuable to store, that is things which do not diminish in value when stored over time.

Not true - since value changes over time, so how can you possibly store it?

Do you really believe gold holds its value?
Well, in 1980 it was traded 850 FRN per oz, and in 1999 it traded 250 FRN per oz. - it's "store of value" sucked.

So we must discard such a concept - and replace it with a description of reality - "it is a valuable thing to store".

The 'intrinsic properties' which make a thing have value are by definition the intrinsic value of said thing, which are related to the physical properties of said thing.

No, it is not.

Value is imputed by the individual to the object.

So how can there be something intrinsic if it must be imputed???

Why is this concept important?

Because it brings our gaze to a point for our attention - not the object, but the individual as the source of defining value.

That means what another man demands is valuable DOES NOT MEAN it must be forced upon other men who do not see such value.

And that simple concept changes a lot in our world.

[Black Flag]

The point is why did you misrepresent what I wrote? If you wanted an honest discussion, then you would be honest. If you are in academia then you should know that to take a quote out-of-context and misrepresent it as something that it is not ... is dishonest. Did you do it to be dishonest?

Be specifically clear to what you feel was unclear - re-quote it, with as much context you think is appropriate.

[Travlyr]

Be specifically clear to what you feel was unclear - re-quote it, with as much context you think is appropriate.

This is bull$#@!. Your post was a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. You accomplished this misrepresentation by misquoting me. Everything is documented. If you want an honest discussion, then you have to be honest.

[WilliamC]

/snip

The bigger bigger picture:
The greatest threat to modern society is not government nor war nor starvation via collapse - these things are consequences of the "Great Threat".


The great threat is pervasive ignorance.

Today, change happens so fast that most people -by the time they get enough information to understand what is happening to them, it is no longer happening to them and something else is happening.

Because of this, people are losing the ability to understand their world.

But in an era where the totally ignorant and the wise get exactly the same vote - 1 per man - this is incredibly dangerous. Over time, ignorance out votes wisdom.

Then things go to hell in a hand basket.

I would say the greatest threat, and the difference between now and other times in human history (up to ~100 years ago) is overpopulation and the fact that humans have essentially run out of places to migrate to.

When there was more of nature than there was of humans then there were times when resources were over-abundant and free to whomever found them first.

When there were still unknown and unsettled (or sparsely settled) lands then those who wanted to badly enough had somewhere to go to get away from whomever was oppressing them.

Well we have now reached a time when Earth is all there is, and unless we expand we will surely go extinct like every other species which has ever evolved in the last 4 billion years or so.

Whether or not it is even possible to colonize into the solar system is questionable, but we certainly won't get there so long as most people are so stupid that they'd rather spend waste resources on war and killing than exploration and expansion.

Short-term thinking from barely literate primates using behavioral evolutionary tactics selected to operate in past environments won't save us, and that's what most economics seems to me to be.

But I'm also pretty damn poor and have never had any ability or power to influence people to my way of thinking, so what do I know?

[Black Flag]

This is bull$#@!. Your post was a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. You accomplished this misrepresentation by misquoting me. Everything is documented. If you want an honest discussion, then you have to be honest.

To what you are pointing at with you waving at your computer, I cannot see -

Repost, and let us all see.

[Black Flag]

I would say the greatest threat, and the difference between now and other times in human history (up to ~100 years ago) is overpopulation and the fact that humans have essentially run out of places to migrate to.

Poppycock!

This has been a claim since Malthus in the 17th Century and it remains as untrue then as now.

Holland is one of the most densely populated places - ever been to Holland?
They have vast farms, they are rich, and they are mostly pretty happy.

Not really a problem in my mind.

People - human beings - are the greatest problem solvers in the known Universe. Frankly, we are utterly amazing at it.

One needs only to look outside and marvel at how good we do it.

The more people - the more problems solved.

We are vastly more rich today because there are more people solving problems - because, sir, that is what wealth is - successful solutions to human problems

As far as living space.....

Remember Star Wars, and the planet got destroyed, and Obi Wan was so impacted by the screams of billions of beings dying....

..then remember that "little moon" that was a death star and it blew up - and nobody felt the impact of the screams of the dying?

Well, that huge planet had a few billion living on its surface...

...but that little death star had a few hundred billion trillion people living inside it.

Even if 99.9% of that death star was engine and infrastructure - there would be hundred trillion people inside of it.

3D space is amazingly larger than 2D space...

Don't worry much about "where we will live or go" - we have lots of room still left on ol' planet earth.

[Travlyr]

To what you are pointing at with you waving at your computer, I cannot see -

Repost, and let us all see.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4245838

Ron Paul Forums - Thread "The downside to deflation in a debt-based monetary system?" Page 17 your post #162. Is not honest. Why? What is your purpose in misquoting me? I've got all day... but I don't want to spend it on worthless crap. FRNs come to mind ... along with your bull$#@!.

[Travlyr]

Black Flag? Did you run out of words?

[MooCowzRock]

Not true - since value changes over time, so how can you possibly store it?

Do you really believe gold holds its value?
Well, in 1980 it was traded 850 FRN per oz, and in 1999 it traded 250 FRN per oz. - it's "store of value" sucked.

So we must discard such a concept - and replace it with a description of reality - "it is a valuable thing to store".

LOL Way to choose a the highest pre-1990 point you could find in its value, and measure it up to the lowest post 1990 value you could find...Just because it had a very temporary boom and bust in 1980 does not make it a poor store of value:



It is the only thing in the past few millenia that has maintained its value. Not to mention the only reason that boom happened was because of the high inflation in 1980.

[WilliamC]

No, exactly opposite.

Clarity and specific definitions.

It neither clarifies nor specifies, it obfuscates and muddles.

Not true - since value changes over time, so how can you possibly store it?

Gold and silver, for instance, have been both valuable and stores of value since before human history.

So for them at least there is an intrinsic value, so long as there have been humans that is.

Do you really believe gold holds its value?

I don't have to 'believe' it, it is demonstrably true.

Gold and silver have been valued throughout recorded human history, since before Homer and before the Bible waswritten, do you deny this is correct?.

Now, as I stated, in the absence of humans, well there is no reason to any discussion of economics, so of course any discussion of value becomes irrelevant.

Well, in 1980 it was traded 850 FRN per oz, and in 1999 it traded 250 FRN per oz. - it's "store of value" sucked.

I tend to take a slightly longer view, like thousands of years. But if you wish to base your entire argument on the value of gold on these two specific dates then by all means do so, I just don't accept your timeframe.

So we must discard such a concept - and replace it with a description of reality - "it is a valuable thing to store".

Semantics. By definition a valuable thing to store is a store of value.

Why would one wish to store things that are not valuable, or that lose their value over time?

So no, I'll not discard the concept.

No, it is not.

Value is imputed by the individual to the object.

So how can there be something intrinsic if it must be imputed???

Why is this concept important?

Because it brings our gaze to a point for our attention - not the object, but the individual as the source of defining value.

That means what another man demands is valuable DOES NOT MEAN it must be forced upon other men who do not see such value.

I have no desire to force you to believe gold and silver, for instance, are valuable.

If you do not wish to own any then don't.

But most of humans throughout most of human history would tend to disagree with you.

Without humans, as I said, the entire discussion is irrelevant.

And that simple concept changes a lot in our world.

But not the fact that gold and silver, for instance, are intrinsically valuable precisely because humans have valued them since before recorded history.

[Domalais]

The only explaination for a flat price of gold between 1983 and 2003 is that no inflation or devaluation of the dollar occured over those two decades. Otherwise, gold did not maintain its value.

I'll leave it up to you to pick which possibility is true.

[WilliamC]

Poppycock!

This explains a lot methinks.

I am sorry to tell you, but exponential growth rates in the presence of finite resources will always end in population in population crashes and instabilities for all biological populations, human or otherwise. It is simply not possible to expand forever with limited resources.

This has been a claim since Malthus in the 17th Century and it remains as untrue then as now.

Everyone dies, all species become extinct, and humans are not different than bacteria in a petri dish when it comes to reproducing and consuming resources, it's simple mathematics.

If we don't figure a way to either expand off of the Earth or to voluntarily manage our birth rate there will continue to be mass starvation, epidemics, wars and genocides just have there always been in human history, and they will get worse as time goes on instead of better.

Holland is one of the most densely populated places - ever been to Holland?

Yes.

They have vast farms, they are rich, and they are mostly pretty happy.

Not really a problem in my mind.

Yet the world is much bigger, and much poorer than Holland.

My point is that, despite the fact that we haven't done so yet we will reach our ultimate carrying capacity, we can easily see it coming.

People - human beings - are the greatest problem solvers in the known Universe. Frankly, we are utterly amazing at it.

Oh I have no doubt that humans must solve our own problems and are capable of doing so, but I am less than optimistic that we actually will.

We have wasted most of our resources so far on war and preparation for war and perhaps don't have enough left to begin the serious work of long-term space colonization and long-term survival of the species.

One needs only to look outside and marvel at how good we do it.

The more people - the more problems solved.

We are vastly more rich today because there are more people solving problems - because, sir, that is what wealth is - successful solutions to human problems

I'm not arguing against human ingenuity, but simply that it won't be enough to overcome the simple mathematical fact that exponential growth with limited resources always leads to population crashes, and sometimes those crashes result in extinction of the species involved.

I'd rather that not happen, at least not for a few more million years, and I don't see this as possible as long as we are constrained to living on a single planet.

As far as living space.....

Remember Star Wars, and the planet got destroyed, and Obi Wan was so impacted by the screams of billions of beings dying....

..then remember that "little moon" that was a death star and it blew up - and nobody felt the impact of the screams of the dying?

Well, that huge planet had a few billion living on its surface...

...but that little death star had a few hundred billion trillion people living inside it.

Even if 99.9% of that death star was engine and infrastructure - there would be hundred trillion people inside of it.

3D space is amazingly larger than 2D space...

Don't worry much about "where we will live or go" - we have lots of room still left on ol' planet earth.

Oh I don't doubt the possibility, but I don't see us as going in that direction at this point, and a big part of the reason is that the wealth of our humanity is being squandered on war and killing, and part of that is the monetary system that supports the elite at the expense of the many.

A free-market in currency, which includes but is not forcibly limited to using gold and silver, would help us reach these goals.

[Black Flag]

It is the only thing in the past few millenia that has maintained its value.

Sir, your graph shows only that its price in reference to the US$ changes regularly.

This has NOTHING to do with value.

Not to mention the only reason that boom happened was because of the high inflation in 1980.

Hmm... which actually was a consequence of Nixon closing the gold window in 1971.
Your graph does not go back to when gold was $35/oz....

[Black Flag]

Gold and silver, for instance, have been both valuable and stores of value since before human history.

They have been valuable to store - but again, they do not store value.

How can you explain that gold was $35, now $1700, was $850 and $250... while at the same time, claiming it is storing such value?

What does "storing value" mean?

I store my grain in a bin - I expect to have the same grain when I open my bin at a point in the future.
So if I store value - I expect to have the same value at a point in the future.

But value changes all time - every second depending on your personal circumstance.

So how can you possibly say that you are storing value - keeping it the same for the future - when it is never the same in the future?

You have a conceptual contradiction.

[Black Flag]

The only explaination for a flat price of gold between 1983 and 2003 is that no inflation or devaluation of the dollar occured over those two decades. Otherwise, gold did not maintain its value.

I'll leave it up to you to pick which possibility is true.

So let's test your claim that no inflation occurred of the dollar.

Inflation = "increase in the money supply", therefore it is a simple exercise to go and get the facts about whether the money supply increased over that time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...supply.svg.png

A review between 1980 toward the present shows a near-linear increase in the money supply.
Therefore the claim regarding inflation "not occurring" doesn't seem right.

To check our work, let's look at the CPI inflation rate ...yes it is flawed, but we can essentially discount its flaws by comparing it to itself - compare a rotten apple to a rotten apple and note what changes .... the rot cancels itself out....

Ok, CPI of 1980
1980-01-01 78.000

2003-01-01 182.600

...so, confirming our money supply data that indeed inflation was fully engaged.

But as you noted the price of gold was flat.

Therefore, the price of gold was FLAT so it had to be losing its buying power relative to the entire market! or, in the misused lingo of the posters here

..it was losing value....

Hell of "store" huh?

[WilliamC]

They have been valuable to store - but again, they do not store value.

That which is valuable to store is by definition a store of value.

If you don't accept the premise then I suppose we won't be able to communicate very well.

How can you explain that gold was $35, now $1700, was $850 and $250... while at the same time, claiming it is storing such value?

The time frames I'm looking at are far longer than those you are.

does "storing value" mean?

Store--to put away for an indefinite period of time

Value--an object that humans find useful for trade.

Of course I just made that up, but it seems to fit.

How do you define it?

I store my grain in a bin - I expect to have the same grain when I open my bin at a point in the future.

How far in the future? IF you are talking weeks or months perhaps. But years or decades and you'd be foolish to entrust your wealth to grain for so long a period of time.

Gold and silver are unique in that they can remain unchanged and store value over all of recorded human history. Nothing else comes close.

So if I store value - I expect to have the same value at a point in the future.

Why? The quantity may change depending on you medium of storage.

Which gets back to why gold and silver are pretty much unique, no matter what else has been used as such throughout history. They don't change over time.

But value changes all time - every second depending on your personal circumstance.

Value is an abstract concept but objects which retain value can be constant. Gold and silver being the prime examples in human history. The exact amount that they will be valued may change, but they will almost always have value in any realistic human economy, as they always have throughout human history.

So how can you possibly say that you are storing value - keeping it the same for the future - when it is never the same in the future?

Well based on all of recorded human history, (i.e., the past) I predict that humans in the future will continue to value gold and silver and will assign to discreet physical pieces of gold and silver a value when measured in other physical objects. The precise quantity of that value will change, indeed the objects themselves will change as humans create new technology, but there is nothing to suggest that gold and silver will somehow loose their value as all paper money throughout history has done in the past.

You have a conceptual contradiction.

No, I merely recognize the fact that gold and silver are the definition of wealth and value throughout recorded human history more than any other physical object.

They aren't the only stores of value, just the most enduring.

[Black Flag]

I am sorry to tell you, but exponential growth rates in the presence of finite resources will always end in population in population crashes and instabilities for all biological populations, human or otherwise. It is simply not possible to expand forever with limited resources.

The flaw in your thinking:
You see the earth with your very flawed eyes and understanding and do a calculation.

You cannot see, comprehend or calculate the future innovation, tools, technology, knowledge or capacity of the human race- so you ignore this.

You run your calculator and it gives you a number to which you compare to something you ignored and discount, and become fearful.

You take this fear and demand solutions to solve this fear that must come from the very arena you discounted above:
future innovation, tools, technology, knowledge or capacity of the human race

[Black Flag]

That which is valuable to store is by definition a store of value.

If you don't accept the premise then I suppose we won't be able to communicate very well.

You have not provided any premise.

You are confusing concepts.

You are trying to equate, two, exclusive concepts to be the same.

Something valuable to store is NOT the same as a store of value.

I think my letters home to my wife are valuable, so I store them.
They do not store any value, because if one day I have to decide between them and my wife's life - they will burn.
So the value they have changes - and therefore, you cannot store it (see grain example)

[Travlyr]

The flaw in your thinking:
You see the earth with your very flawed eyes and understanding and do a calculation.

You cannot see, comprehend or calculate the future innovation, tools, technology, knowledge or capacity of the human race- so you ignore this.

You run your calculator and it gives you a number to which you compare to something you ignored and discount, and become fearful.

You take this fear and demand solutions to solve this fear that must come from the very arena you discounted above:
future innovation, tools, technology, knowledge or capacity of the human race

WilliamC is not flawed in this thinking my friend. He makes a lot of sense.