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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1571)	10/25/2005 7:14:25 PM
From: smolejv@gmx.net	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218030

How do you create Quid? Can I buy some? From you or whom? I happen to have some Quid, are you a buyer? Pardon me for for being inquisitive, but how do you handle in Quid, just via the usual quid pro quo mechanism? Argh, to be honest it sounds very neandertalic (or 20th centurish) to me. But, for the arguments sake, let's agree not to dispute the basics of exchange economy (we need to start somewhere OK?) If this is so, then who th is quis in this equation or expression? and who's quem? You're a quid dreamer, Mq. A quid Trotsky - take it as a compliment (I assume you want to be taken seriously, but you let us know just in case). Suggestion: what about a shot of ...er... hm ... Voltaire(?) for your/our own well-being?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1571)	10/25/2005 8:29:43 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 218030

Hello Maurice, it is a sign of the coming times that the WSJ publication is getting into the discussion about what is money ... and they do not mention QUID EDITORIAL COMMENTARY October 24th, 2005 The Dollar's Long Dive Money is primarily a symbol of promise, and its worth is always questionable By THOMAS G. DONLAN THE IDEA THAT ONE PICTURE CAN BE WORTH even a small fraction of a thousand words is alien to a writer's mind. But we were partially convinced recently when we happened upon the chart below that takes up the space for several hundred words normally found on this page. The dollar has almost evaporated as a store of value. We see it here as the flip side of inflation. In this view, prices don't rise, the dollar falls. Either way, the lesson is the same: Put not your faith in princes, even during the reigns of monetary royalists like Alan Greenspan. Paper money is first and foremost paper. We reiterate the caution in the chart's caption that the vertical scale is a log scale: Equal distances along the vertical scale indicate equal percentage changes, not equal units. On this scale, we see that the loss of purchasing power is the same when a dollar erodes to 50 cents as when a 50-cent "dollar" erodes to a 25-cent "dollar." Observe the erratic course of the purchasing power of the dollar during the periods when the currency was tied to gold. Not so consistently or thoroughly devalued, it's true, but the dollar swung from strength to weakness, along with the fortunes of the nation's gold miners. And the supply of gold, let us remember, is tied only to the luck of miners. In no way can it respond to the needs of a large economy. When the supply of gold could not grow as fast as the economy, deflation was the result, need it or not. And when random discoveries of new lodes brought new gold to the Treasury, inflation was the result, want it or not. Nowadays, the dollar price of gold has been swinging again, from a low of $255 an ounce in 2001 to a recent $462 an ounce, a price rarely seen since the early 1980s. Barron's has always stood for the ideal of a dollar "good as gold," but in reality, even gold is not good enough. Economists with theories as varied as those of John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman have concluded that gold alone does not maximize the utility of the dollar as a means of exchange and a store of value. Keynes believed, simply put, that a little bit of inflation would fool the working class into thinking that they were constantly getting richer. Thus fooled, they would spend more enthusiastically, and thus spending, they would heat up the economy and make it grow faster, to the benefit of all. Friedman, again simply put, despaired of central bankers and miners. Neither could ever create the right amount of money at the right time to accommodate economic growth, so he advised that the use of paper money, inflated by a firmly fixed few percentage points a year, would come the closest to the moving target. These theories have been taken up and distorted by American political leaders of left and right. Their practical application may be seen in the near-vertical line that depicts the cumulative effect of a little bit of inflation every year since World War II, punctuated by a little more inflation occasionally. It shows that the damage to the dollar's purchasing power in the post-war period came not in the onslaught of historically high inflation during the 1970s, but in the continuous drip-drip of compounding some inflation every year. That's how a loaf of bread that sold for a quarter in the early 1950s gets to cost $2.50. That's how a gentleman's haircut made its way to $20 from the boy's $2 trim. Looking at the decline of the dollar is apt to make any old codger long for the money of his youth. It's tempting to recall the example of Charles de Gaulle, who lopped two zeros off the French franc to make it have a respectable exchange rate with the currencies of the Anglo-Saxons. If America knocked a zero off the dollar today, there would be a sentimental appeal to doing the week's grocery shopping with a $20 bill -- offset by the frightening thought of losing 90% of one's nominal savings. Of course, it would make little or no difference economically, unless the U.S. also brought back gold and silver coinage, halted in 1933 and 1965, respectively. Paper is paper, ink is ink, electrons are electrons. The absolute size of the numbers makes little if any difference. Money is a symbol of a promise to provide something of real value to its holder. Indirectly, your paycheck contains a promise that your employer will provide all the things you want, up to a total value of X. It also should be a promise by the government and banking system that X will not move. Holders of gold have one advantage: they know there's no promise backing them up, just the experience that gold holds its value in the marketplace. Considering the value of the political and financial promises illustrated in the chart, we ought to demand similar market security for our money.