- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,424
- 19,563
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
And the MC and poor have been robbed by inflation ever since.it really doesn't. how did the gold standard stop roosevelt? he changed the "standard" on a daily basis.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And the MC and poor have been robbed by inflation ever since.it really doesn't. how did the gold standard stop roosevelt? he changed the "standard" on a daily basis.
The Gold standard works fine for those who don't want to manipulate the supply of money.
And the MC and poor have been robbed by inflation ever since.
According to this (publicly available) data, the price-level (CPI) has increased by about a factor of 10 since 1948. But the average nominal wage rate has increased by a factor of 25...The figure above implies that the real wage (the nominal wage divided by the price-level) has increased by a factor of 2.5 since 1948. This is undoubtedly a good thing because it implies that labor (the factor we are all endowed with) can produce/purchase more goods and services. More output means an increase in our material living standards...
Please show from 2008 to 2014 or disregard that chart.yeah, nah. purchasing power in the US has increased 2.5x in real terms:
http://andolfatto.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/ron-pauls-money-illusion-sequel.html
your implicit assertion that inflation does not occur under a gold standard is also demonstrably incorrect.
or even to 2012Please show from 2008 to 2014 or disregard that chart.
Gold has been the true value of money since the start of time. It is also why China and India have been loading up on the stuff. When the US dollar goes under, China will replace it with a currency backed by gold.Currencies linked to gold have collapsed as well.
Tell me, what is it about gold that has so much inherent value?
If everyone stopped believing gold had value tomorrow, it would be a shiny worthless chunk of metal. And it costs money to store it and protect it.
Please show from 2008 to 2014 or disregard that chart.
Gold has been the true value of money since the start of time. It is also why China and India have been loading up on the stuff. When the US dollar goes under, China will replace it with a currency backed by gold.
Gold has been the true value of money since the start of time. It is also why China and India have been loading up on the stuff. When the US dollar goes under, China will replace it with a currency backed by gold.
Wages have collapsed in most countries except Australia. Unrest in Egypt and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia due to US dollar led inflation. Oil is sold in US dollars. The Fed Reserve keeps printing worthless dollars. The end result, oil sold in US dollars has eroded purchasing power. Especially in the Middle East. Not to mention that if they used the same measurement of inflation as in 1990, inflation in the U.S. is running at about 10%.huh? why? you asserted that inflation had been robbing people "ever since [roosevelt]". i showed you data that illustrates your assertion is just ideological bias. you DO realise that the time period you request is a period of deflation/record low inflation, yeah? it won't help your argument at all.
I didn't dodge the question. The question was false to start with. Gold has stood the test of time. Gold doesn't have the same volatility as worthless money. Only government manipulation can cause that.LOL no it hasn't and no it isn't.
You dodged the question too: what is the worth of gold based on?
I'll tell you the answer: The same thing fiat currency is based i.e. nothing but human belief in its worth.
People use whatever the **** is handy as currency, if they need currency in their life (not everyone does).
i'm not making a stand here, i am merely pointing out the facts. of course a country does pretty well when it benefits from heaps of investment during the good times and then avoids shelling out when things go **** up. that should be pretty obvious to everyone. would be like me taking out a loan for a house, not paying the loan back and keeping the house. of course things would look pretty good for me!
well, if we're being technical the RBA could simply print more money; ergo the amount of debt wouldn't increase. also, the amount of debt caused by the GFC was huge in the US, but TARP was pretty negligible in the long term (as most of it got paid back).
I didn't dodge the question. The question was false to start with. Gold has stood the test of time. Gold doesn't have the same volatility as worthless money. Only government manipulation can cause that.
Wages have collapsed in most countries except Australia. Unrest in Egypt and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia due to US dollar led inflation. Oil is sold in US dollars. The Fed Reserve keeps printing worthless dollars. The end result, oil sold in US dollars has eroded purchasing power. Especially in the Middle East. Not to mention that if they used the same measurement of inflation as in 1990, inflation in the U.S. is running at about 10%.
If you believe soThe question was not false, your reality is false so you can't answer it without admitting you don't know what you're talking about.
So your answer is "Because we used to use it".
Solid reasoning, very academic.
Wages have collapsed in most countries except Australia. Unrest in Egypt and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia due to US dollar led inflation. Oil is sold in US dollars. The Fed Reserve keeps printing worthless dollars. The end result, oil sold in US dollars has eroded purchasing power. Especially in the Middle East. Not to mention that if they used the same measurement of inflation as in 1990, inflation in the U.S. is running at about 10%.
Your missing my/the point, if the banks is nationalised of course the government should help, because its the countries debt as they own the company. if the company is owned by private citizens then its the responsibility of those private citizens to sort their s**t out.
Banks are required to facilitate money between people, that is true.
There is no logical reason for them to run as a for profit business though.
We have the safest (i.e. lowest risk) and most profitable banks in the world, and also the most expensive retail banking sector in the world by far.
Put them back into the hands of the people that created them and overnight every Australian would be thousands of dollars better off every year.
I'm not sure this was a mystery.....our pollies are simply weak.
Banks are required to facilitate money between people, that is true.
There is no logical reason for them to run as a for profit business though.
We have the safest (i.e. lowest risk) and most profitable banks in the world, and also the most expensive retail banking sector in the world by far.
Put them back into the hands of the people that created them and overnight every Australian would be thousands of dollars better off every year.
The people who created them sold them.
As for the "logical reason", by that logic no business should exist.
There's demand for their services, that's why they're profitable.