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.

Non-Tech : The Woodshed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SwampDogg who wrote (30769)	7/22/2005 8:35:42 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60907

Yes, I noticed two days ago when he said it. Message 21525620 My post received a predictable response from one "gpowell", a typical irresponsible Monetarist. .

To: SwampDogg who wrote (30769)	7/23/2005 5:58:44 PM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 60907

Greenspan is correct. Central Banks, since 1986, have done about as well as one would expect from a system of Central Banks under a gold system – whether one assumes fractional reserve banking, or not. You might consider what that really means, and find your way to understanding that centralized control of the money supply can only be optimized under conditions of complete knowledge and perfect foresight, which, of course, means never. The only way to consistently match marginal supply of money to the marginal demand is through free banking, meaning leaving the creation of money totally to the market, but that is far from what is advocated by most individuals who believe they are “free market” advocates, especially ones that insist on a gold standard. Most of those advocating a gold standard are really wishing for a constant money stock, which is not an inherent feature of using gold backed money, and further is no better than a constantly growing money stock. Both of these options, constant stock and constant money growth, have been proposed by monetarists, btw.