Eisspeedway

Talk:Gold standard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs)
234,552 edits
m Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Gold standard/Archive 4.
Added to.
Line 186: Line 186:


and what the heck is with the wholesale deletion of neutral historic data on coinage and the gold silver ratio?[[Special:Contributions/71.184.188.254|71.184.188.254]] ([[User talk:71.184.188.254|talk]]) 17:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
and what the heck is with the wholesale deletion of neutral historic data on coinage and the gold silver ratio?[[Special:Contributions/71.184.188.254|71.184.188.254]] ([[User talk:71.184.188.254|talk]]) 17:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

== Removed material from the Disadvantages ==
This section (*Economic growth would be constrained by the gold supply.) was removed. The information is sourced. [[User:Somedifferentstuff|Somedifferentstuff]] ([[User talk:Somedifferentstuff|talk]]) 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:00, 15 January 2012

Former featured articleGold standard is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 21, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 24, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
February 7, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Dates of adoption of a gold standard

|}

Disadvantages

Came back to see if artilce was still protected and yup, its still protected. Since I can't change anything I will point out a few defects in the ddisadvantages section.

On limited supply of gold - the amount of gold per person is about the same as 100 years ago under the gold standard. The supply of gold is no obstacle to a gold standard. The article comment that the limited supply of gold would limit its use under a gold standard is stupid. A gold standard requires the use of gold so how can it limit its use? Retarded!

Higher real interest rates under a gold standard as a disadvantage is also stupid. First there are more savers then debtors, so higher interest rates help more people. That's a benefit. The net interest is a wash - one outgo is another's income. That's a wash. In general debt is considered WAY worse then saving so anything that encourages savings is a net social plus. See all the debt crisis all over the world today caused by excessive debt. There is no crisis anywhere that has even been caused by excessive savings.

Anything that monkeys with a free market causes distortions reducing overall economic growth. Fiat is all about distorting the economy for the gain of a few, the bankers and governments.

Monetary policy is not determined by gold production. Under a gold standard there is no monetary policy to distort the economy and deduce overall growth.

Short run price instability is bogus. No claim has been made by the author or anyone else that the gold standard caused that price instability.

The only time the gold standard can be speculatively attacked is when claim on gold are greater then the supply of gold. That is not an issue under a 100% gold standard since every paper claim is backed 100%. It is only a probled under a partial gold standard when gold claims are not covered by gold on hand.

Under a gold standard a country by definition CAN'T devalue its currency. An ounce of gold will always be an ounce of gold. The gold standard is used specifically because gold money can't be devalued.

Most economists don't have two brain cells to rub together. Screwing with the free market reduces overall economic growth.

Central banks have caused every major financial disaster of the past 100 years. Putting shackles on the ability of a central bank to take any kind of action is a GOOD thing.71.184.188.254 (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-You have a good point. The description of limited gold for currency should refer to there being less than 200 grams of extracted gold per person on the earth to serve as currency. That is one very small coin for each person. And that is only after we stop using gold in electronics, industry , dentistry, jewelry and historical artifacts. Frankly I suspect that an attempt to return to the gold standard would see a barter economy instead, since "true" gold standard believers would see gold as too valuable to be used in ordinary business transactions.

-Obviously the article is ambiguous since they meant a monetary policy as to what percentage of national currency is backed by gold. So actually you are referring to a 100% gold coinage standard when you say no monetary policy. In any case you have not cited a practical 100% gold coinage system (sizes/weights/denominations) for a real fully industrialized nation and the weight of gold required. Until you do most of us will think you have no idea of the mass of gold required and that you just assume on faith alone that a solution exists. Or maybe I misjudge your intelligence and ethics, I have met more practical Libertarians who are simply too polite to publicly say that their ideas include returning to 1830s level populations and industrial technology -- thus greatly reducing the amount of gold required.

-Actually gold or silver is famous for all the economic instability before the introduction of paper money. Its called panic and speculative gold hoarding. Under gold currency the first hint of economic goods failing results in everyone "burying" their coinage if they can afford -- resulting in a sudden crash as regional business slams to a stop due to lack of coins flowing in the markets. Later under partial gold reserves a slightly delayed form of this resulted in bank runs and when enough banks collapsed again a dramatic economic slow down.

-Gold coins are easy to devalue if actually placed into circulation. In fact devaluation is commonly not limited to government action but includes most private citizens. How? 100% gold coins are terrible coins because they are soft, bendable, and easily filed down. Because they do not hold shape well, its fairly easy to mix in a little base metal and recast forgeries - or recast with base metal slugs in the middle. You can make gold and silver coins resistant to casual civilian devaluation by hardening them with special alloy mixtures. But then the coins are not 100% gold or silver which bothers a lot of purists even if the marked value does not exceed the actual weight of gold and silver included. And of course once you alloy then governments can twiddle with the alloy percentages and coin weights which sets off the OCD types even if the government does not advertise bad gold or silver weights. Enough OCD false alarms and the common people stop listening then the government is really likely to put in less gold or silver during fiscal crisis.

-Why not just proclaim "a free market is a barter market"? Because with no easily available currency, there are few if any set prices. Many gold coin folk also think set prices are "rigged" prices. Something about bartering is supposed to reveal hidden true value or quality even if you know little about the product. I agree that in a barter economy what you "pay" depends on what you have to offer and your barter skill.

--And that is the REAL truth of every historical 100% gold coinage economy, coins were rarely used by the common people for any but the most expensive purchases in life. Almost all common business was good via goods exchange. Gold and silver coins were mainly a convenience for the well-to-do and rich and for significant business deals where no suitable goods exchange could be negotiated. The often referenced late 1800s were a rare exception due to the riches of the industrial revolution hitting a low population. But the American Western movie is still mostly a lie when you see gold coins being spent in a saloon. Silver and copper yes. But keep in mind a $20 gold piece was worth the equal of around $2000 USD today. The general store account is mostly true because goods tended to cost less than convenient coinage and coinage was short - and many an account settlement included home goods as well as coins.


72.182.15.249 (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you are attempting to state above. A 100% backed paper money or a true gold standard (no legal tender paper) just means that this is the only money available and it will therefore be the only money used. It's value will be determined by the market. I pointed out above that the amount of gold available per person is roughly the same as it was 100 years ago under the 100% gold standard. The objections that there is not enough gold to serve as money is therefor plainly bogus.71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you knew anything about economics you would know that having a gold standard is something that actually works against free markets. For example, (although it is not exactly the same as a gold standard) the euro is one of the reasons that the Greek debt crisis has become so bad. Because the ECB handles interest rates on the euro for the entire Eurozone, Greece is not able to simply devalue its own currency to lighten its debt burden. Because it can't exercise monetary policy it has few options and this has led to greater speculative attacks on Greek government bonds, CDS and other assets which has only further worsened Greek credit ratings and yields. If they could have used a currency devaluation to reinstate investor confidence they could have rolled over or restructured their debts and combined this with reduced spending to make the situation much more manageable.142.151.169.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

financial repression and "Some economists"

Roubini knows about and states it negatively impacts economic growth http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=262716 Krugman knows about and is engaging in selective blindness, since he thinks none of it is going on any longer (even a village idiot should be able to see that current US interest rates paid out to savers are lower then the inflation rate.) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/financial-repression/ It gets heard in investment conferences a lot - http://lewrockwell.com/wiggin/wiggin-addison11.1.html The Bond King Bill Gross warns about it http://www.midasletter.com/index.php/bill-gross-illuminates-financial-repression-by-central-banks/ The IMF posts papers on it on its website http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2011/res2/pdf/crbs.pdf

"some" is low balling the number71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"some economists" and lengthening of Great Depression

Per personal experience I believe that the "some economists" believe that the Great Depression was extended by the gold standard to be an gross exageration. I consider myself well read on economic matters and this article is the first place I have run across which blames the length of the Great Depression on the Gold Standard.

Unless cites can be provided showing that this position is supported by more then "a few" economists I will be changing that "some" to "a few".71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

still waiting to see if anyone can provide evidence for "some". So far I know of "two".71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing to wait!71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short-run price instability

Here is the part of the research paper where it mentions short-run price instability as a disadvantage to the gold standard:

"The advantage of adhering to the gold standard is that it provides a market-driven mechanism to ensure long-run price stability. The disadvantage is that it involves significant resource costs and makes aggregate price level volatility depend on real shocks. Nevertheless, the gold standard has long been viewed as superior to an inconvertible fiat regime in providing for price stability. But a fiat regime based on a credible nominal anchor provides the price stability benefits of the gold standard with neither the resource costs nor the short-run variability associated with the gold standard."

I don't see how it in good faith can be claimed that what is said in the article is misrepresenting what is being said above.

And in response to the repeated claim that Wikipedia does not allow presenting correlations without explicit claims of some specific causal relationship, this is simply not true. WP:SYN says that you cannot put together facts so as to imply a correlation between them, if the sources used do not note that correlation. But if the sources are pointing out a correlation, it is perfectly acceptable for the article to do that too.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The language above states that the gold standard is superior to fiat. How is that a disadvantage?71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. It, like the article, says that the gold standard provides long-run price stability. It says that the conventional wisdom is that the gold standard is more stable than fiat regimes. But it then goes on to say that in reality, a rule based fiat currency regime, like the Taylor rule or inflation targeting, is even more stable throughout than the gold standard. And if it wasn't clear enough, the paper repeats it in the next paragraph when it says: "As Irving Fisher argued, we find that if a central bank wants price stability for the short-term, then stabilizing a broad price index clearly dominates the classic gold standard." If I had the chance to do so, I would find the Irving Fisher piece referred to, and we would have yet another source agreeing with the argument in the article.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of "the gold standard has long been viewed as superior to an inconvertible fiat regime in providing for price stability." is difficult for you to understand? Being superior is not a disadvantage. With respect to this "But a fiat regime based on a credible nominal anchor provides the price stability benefits of the gold standard with neither the resource costs nor the short-run variability associated with the gold standard." he makes no claim that any fiat has ever been based on a "credible nominal anchor". Fiat is by definition unbacked paper, is inconvertible, and has no anchor. If it was backed then it woudn't be fiat. Then it would be a "backed currency".71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

association does not equal causation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship.

Capische? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just said it above, but apparently you didn't hear that, nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it say that you cannot mention a correlation which is mentioned in a source without also including a guess at a causal reason for the correlation. This is a criteria you have made up. Reliable sources say there is a relationship between two phenomenons, then we can say the same. We are not here to find the Truth, we are merely here to tell readers information which can be verified by reliable sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again: for it to be under disadvatage you need to show that it is a disadvatage.71.184.188.254 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And again, it is expressed the conclusion of the research paper that higher short run price instability is a disadvantage with the gold standard. This is further backed up by the following sentence which explains that short run price instability may cause financial instability. And to the part about primary sources you cited below, the encyclopedia article referenced is a secondary source. Therefore this point is actually much better covered when it comes to secondary sources than many other points in the Advantages and Disadvantages sections, seeing as many of those do not cite secondary sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The paper states that it is "associated' with the gold standard. The paper makes no claim that this is a disadvantage. The paper claims that the gold standard is "superior" to fiat but that some sort of currency can be developed that is superior to the gold standard. For instance a currency that grows at the same rate as the economy or a currency backed by a basket of commodities. AGAIN association does not mean causation. The use of additional Schwartz material is "synthesis" as it is in support of a point never made. Read above correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy71.184.188.254 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can just say that I think you are deliberately misreading the source. I think it would be clear to anyone who isn't pushing a POV like you that the sources are saying that one of the disadvantages to the gold standard is the short run price instability historically associated with it. If someone else were actually backing your reading of the sources, then I might change my mind. But until then, I just have to say that you have shown to be so committed to POV pushing over improving the encyclopedia that I cannot take your opinions on this matter seriously. You are clearly apply widely different standards to what is acceptable for what you think can be included under Advantages and what can be included under Disadvantages.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where the author states that the gold standard causes that short run price instability. Association means jack. The gold standard was also associated with sailing ships. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you really should show where the author states that this short term price instability was worse under gold then under fiat. Having a smaller variation is beneficial as it provides stability (good for business as it reduces uncertainty in business conditions).71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A book review is a secondary source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and in case the above is not sufficient

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality flag added

Due to the wholesale deletion of backed pro gold material and the insertion of unbacked anti gold material, I am adding a neutrality flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) A\][reply]


Among the disputes

Continuing addition of "gold is associated with short term fluctuation" as a negative - association does not equal causation. As written the article implies that gold standard causes short term price fluctuation which then result in bank panics. Historically it is the opposite. Bank panics cause short term fluctuation as people hoard money and economic uncertainty causes them to hunker down and put a little money aside for a rainy day (which is staring them in the face during a bank panic).

Repeated deletion of quotes attributed to Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman and other mainstream economists in favor of a fringe/minor theory.

Repeated deletion of material from economists that show that minor/fringe thesis is flawed.

Placement of fringe/theory in the top slot to make it look more popular - so far only two economists have been shown to support it.

Newly added unbacked material purported to show that the limited supply of money under a gold standard would act to slow economic activity. History shows that economies grow best under a stable money then an unstable one. Switzerland versus Zimbabwe come to mind. Cite states that "economy cannot grow unless more gold is mined" is so fringe that it is on a par with UFO's are based inside a hollow earth.

and what the heck is with the wholesale deletion of neutral historic data on coinage and the gold silver ratio?71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed material from the Disadvantages

This section (*Economic growth would be constrained by the gold supply.) was removed. The information is sourced. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Kindleberger, Charles P. (1993). A financial history of western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. M1 60–63. ISBN 0-19-507738-5. OCLC 26258644.
  2. ^ Newton, Isaac, Treasury Papers, vol. ccviii. 43, Mint Office, 21 Sept. 1717.
  3. ^ "The Gold Standard in Theory and History", BJ Eichengreen & M Flandreau [1]
  4. ^ The Pocket money book: a monetary chronology of the United States. Great Barrington, Massachusetts: American Institute for Economic Research. 2006. pp. 4–6. ISBN 0-913610-46-1. OCLC 75968548. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  5. ^ a b c d e f Encyclopedia:. "Gold Standard | Economic History Services". Eh.net. Retrieved 2010-07-24.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F471577347