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 : Graham and Doddsville -- Value Investing In The New Era -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (1375)	2/27/1999 4:26:00 PM
From: porcupine --''''>	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1722

"I think that is a subject that is open for debate. I wish I had the data and a more complete understanding of all the issues. Unfortunately, no one does. That's why there's still a debate." Gold Bug T.G. Donlan, Barron's editorial page head, wrote a column attempting to argue away the "cross of gold" assertion that when the only money is gold, then only gold bugs will have money -- a very devisive issue of the late 19th Century. It was among the many causes that led to the creation of the Fed in 1913. I have the issue in a big stack -- if someone with Barron's Online can provide the cite, I'll dig it out. "But the questions are simple. "Does that portion of investment that does not come from profit and savings but "fiat credit creation" produce higher standards of living? "If it causes busts, does the eventual use of those investments represent a vindication of "fiat credit" or just time passing and new real savings accumulating and growing into their use? (the only result of "fiat credit" then is inflation, the resultant miscalculation and recession)" This is a logically valid possibility -- but it is also yet another way to avoid ever accepting any evidence as disproving the thesis, particularly as the AS resists numerical demonstration. "If it does contribute to some increase in overall standards of living, is it enough to make the business cycle of boom, inflation, bust worth living with for those who are always on the short side of that process? (which is most) It's not just office buildings and other hard assets that fiat money finances. The percentage of the U.S. adult population that has been drawn into the labor pool is at or near an all time high. People who have been out of the labor force for thirty years are returning. Inexperienced workers are getting company financed training. Suppose the portion of this increased labor participation that is the result of fiat money must eventually result in these people being unemployed until savings and profits catch up and re-employ them. Is society not better off because they acquired job experience and new skills sooner rather than later? Would it be better if these people remained unemployed until enough gold certificates were in circulation to employ them --???>