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 : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Shea who wrote (6433)	5/7/1999 9:25:00 PM
From: ~digs	Respond to of 57584

Kevin, It's difficult for me to comment on the current monetary and fiscal policies as compared to what they had been in the past because I simply am not aware of old regulations. In other words, because I have not been taught what was standard in the past, I cannot pass judgement on the current policy in comparison to the old. Consequently, my understanding of the current state of affairs is rather blurry. I mean, I didn't start studying things like inflation rates and GNP growth until after everything started booming. I don't know what it's like to live in a period of high inflation like the seventies. My mind has only recently become interested in the ongoings of business and commerce in our society. Any type of assessment of our economy that is done by me is heavily weighted in ignorance and an unavoidable lack of wisdom. Having said all that, I would argue that gold is not as valuable anymore because it simply isn't (bear with me here). My understanding is that when gold was initially introduced as currency it was used because it had intrinsic value. 'I will give you this rifle in exchange for some gold because I KNOW I can turn around and exchange that gold for clothing.' The gold was valuable because it was not only was it beautiful, it was rare. However, in today's society, there are things that are much more valuable than their weight in gold. (Visit starbridgesystems.com for an example) The real value in gold (its beauty) has been going down on a continual basis as our standard of living goes up. For instance, I like the look of a herringbone around my neck, but I'd swap the necklace for a faster, more reliable internet connection in a heart beat. In medieval times, a hunk of gold was 'special,' but now it's really nothing more than a flash in the pan <bg>. There are simply too many things that we'd rather have in our possession. When governments decided to begin using fiat money as a means to increase liquidity and efficiency in transactions, the devaluation of gold was enhanced. The gov't essentially said, "Hey, you don't actually want the gold anyway... what you want is the convenience and security it provides you because of its ability to be traded for something else in return. Instead of lugging around that heavy stuff, we're going to create a new currency that is easier to deal with and back it with our 'word' that it will retain its value." In actuality though, the American dollar has value because of the goods and services that have been produced in order to obtain it. IMO, what essentially gives paper money it's 'intrinsic' value, if you can call it that, is the inherent value in our nation's GNP (except for gov't spending???). Without such goods and services, the dollar would be worthless. BTW Kevin, I've been voting reform ever since I was given the privilege to do so. More and more of my peers are beginning to do the same as well, for reasons that I deem obvious. I'm definitely not a Clinton backer. When asked about Clinton, many of those people within my demographic whom are for him will reply, "Yeah, I mean, the economy's doing well, isn't it?" The next question to ask is if they know who Greenspan is. More often than not, they don't. Bottom line IMO, is that the economy is being driven by the boomer's spending, and has little, if anthing, to do with Clinton.