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