Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unmvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: The gold standard. Message-ID: <653@unmvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 01:07:27 EST Article-I.D.: unmvax.653 Posted: Sat Feb 9 01:07:27 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 05:07:56 EST References: <613@ukma.UUCP> <368@harvard.ARPA> <650@unmvax.UUCP> <21296@lanl.ARPA> Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque Lines: 36 > > The gold standard is not as tolerant of the Fed tampering with the money > > supply as the fed wanted would have liked. It is easy to dupe the citizens > > into a false sense of security with fiscal tricks. This sort of thing is > > encouraged by our political system, because it allows the politicians to > > look good while in office whilst passing off serious problems to the next > > guy. Take a look at the national debt for an example of the sort of fiscal > > buck passing that goes on... > > > > > > --Cliff > > Wait a minute Cliff! You're the one that just finished saying that the > government ir real rich and can only get richer. How is it that you now > claim that it has a debt problem? Yes, I did claim that the government is real rich. I also claim that if someone has enough credit cards and goes heavily into debt, but owns and lives in a luxury yacht that he person is rich, even if he is up to his ears in debt. I don't claim that the debt is not a problem, but until the yacht is repo'd the person is rich. I never said that the government can only get richer. I have know idea what motivates you to claim that I said anything of the sort. > The Fed gave up the gold standard in 1933 due to rapid deflation causing > a run on the gold reserves. The proper course (to maintain the gold > standard) would have been to cut back on the money supply. The liberal > politicians then in office didn't think this would be good, and they > wanted a quicker, more responsive, solution. Once off the gold standard, > it's hard to return. I agree with this assessment. I am surprised to see the absense of vitriolic attacks. In a previous letter J. Giles maintained that my lack of economic knowledge should suggest that I stop posting to the net... I do maintain that the gold standard would be quite preferable to the tinkering Fed we have now. > J. Giles