Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Adams who wrote (106894)	6/6/2001 1:09:24 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

My response is going to come out of left field, probably. As a preamble, I would like to point out that if you study US and world economic history, you will find that the history of money was never halcyon. Those who point to the gold standard as Paradise Lost fail to mention that there were frequent depressions and panics both before the enactment of the Federal Reserve system and afterwards, e.g., the Panic of 1907, the Crash of 1920-1921, nor do they bother to mention the constant tinkering - which we see today - it has been never-ending. Surely in the deep recesses of your mind you remember William Jennings Bryant, Bi-Metalism, "Thou shalt not crucify humanity on a cross of gold." One of the sticking points between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists was whether there should be a central bank. It took the Bank Panic of 1907 to convince a majority that it was a good idea, but clearly to this day there are doubters, and no doubt there always will be. The direction taken since WWII, the Bretton Woods Accord, which we still adhere to, although we ditched the exchange rate set up then, of every nation establishing a central bank which cooperates with the others, is something completely new. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? As Jay Chen likes to say, just is. Like it or not, we aren't going back to the old way anytime soon. Is the European Economic Union a good thing or a bad thing? Too late now, it's a done deal. One of the most fascinating things for me is reading economic research done by people living in countries like Brazil and India - they've lived through things that we can only imagine - conditions which we would consider economic tragedy - and persevered. There's a Peruvian economist named Hernando de Soto - really - who is one of the most inspiring, original thinkers of the day. basicbooks.com OK, you were talking about deflation as a result of overproduction. That's supply and demand, right? If demand is inelastic, an increase in supply leads to a decrease in price which leads to a throttling back on output in order to keep the price high enough to justify output. Or you could look for new markets in order to increase demand. I think there are a lot of people in places like Mexico and further south who don't have enough to eat, good roofs over their heads, much less too many consumer goods. Maybe we should help develop them as a market? Just a thought . . . .

To: Mark Adams who wrote (106894)	6/6/2001 1:30:16 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

your rambling (not to slight you in the least) shows the part of the inadequacies of a monetary policy aimed at the targetting of the stability of certain price levels or price indexes through the setting of short-term interest rates. Right off, it doesn't allow for changing preferences over time. It also tends to short-circuit individual price swings that might prove beneficial in the longer term ... If AG doesn't know what money is, how can we be sure BLS has the right basket of goods in their CPI? Guess it doesn't matter -- the whole thing is a ruse to allow them to inflate whenever they want to and to tell us we aren't worse off for it. But back to your "pushing on a string" -- the whole idea is backwards -- trying to stimulate or move the demand of the markets because somehow they've gotten it wrong -- no, the underlying cause is the distortion introduced by the meddling banker in the first place -- there is natural corrective feedback in the marketplace that can work, but it is frustrated by the monetary policy (i.e. tampering with the amount and / or cost of funds).

To: Mark Adams who wrote (106894)	6/6/2001 1:31:33 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

you rambling (not to slight you in the least) shows the part of the inadequacies of a monetary policy aimed at the targetting of teh stability of certain price levels or price indexes through the setting of short-term interest rates. Right off, it doesn't allow for changing preferences over time. It also tends to short-circuit individual price swings that might prove beneficial in the longer term ... If AG doesn't know what money is, how can we be sure BLS has the right basket of goods in their CPI? Guess it doesn't matter -- the whole thing is a ruse to allow them to inflate whenever they want to and to tell us we aren't worse off for it. But back to your "pushing on a string" -- the whole idea is backwards -- trying to stimulate or move the demand of the markets because somehow they've gotten it wrong -- no, the underlying cause is the distortion introduced by the meddling banker in the first place -- there is corrective feedback that can work, but it is frustrated by the monetary policy (i.e. tampering with the amount and / or cost of funds).

To: Mark Adams who wrote (106894)	6/6/2001 1:31:33 PM
From: yard_man	Respond to of 436258

you rambling (not to slight you in the least) shows the part of the inadequacies of a monetary policy aimed at the targetting of teh stability of certain price levels or price indexes through the setting of short-term interest rates. Right off, it doesn't allow for changing preferences over time. It also tends to short-circuit individual price swings that might prove beneficial in the longer term ... If AG doesn't know what money is, how can we be sure BLS has the right basket of goods in their CPI? Guess it doesn't matter -- the whole thing is a ruse to allow them to inflate whenever they want to and to tell us we aren't worse off for it. But back to your "pushing on a string" -- the whole idea is backwards -- trying to stimulate or move the demand of the markets because somehow they've gotten it wrong -- no, the underlying cause is the distortion introduced by the meddling banker in the first place -- there is corrective feedback that can work, but it is frustrated by the monetary policy (i.e. tampering with the amount and / or cost of funds).