Platinum Coin - Discuss

[quote name='Msut77']Be more specific please, you make references to it in the present tense. What exactly do you think makes it so relevant?[/QUOTE]

I mentioned them because they printed a lot of money during the 1920s in one of the earlier posts. So tell me what you know about that.
 
Once the economy starts to recover, the government will then need to worry about inflation. I believe selling off its debt to reclaim dollars is a method they'd presumedly use to prevent it. At this exact moment, though, it isn't an issue, from what I've heard and read.
 
After over 4 decades of being wrong about hyperinflation, you cant really blame people if they stop listening to the people crying it.

Printing didnt have anything to do with Germany's economic hardship, if you want to get technical. Now using it to pay reparations, thats another story. Germany was also dumping their own currency to buy foreign currencies, which we wouldnt be doing either. As soon the US credit rating was lowered the last time, people FLOODED into bonds. That is to say, as soon as our bonds were declared less reliable, people flocked to them. We're currently borrowing at negative rates, and paying out is not particular problematic. Just about nothing from Germany applies or could even apply. Same goes for Greece. Greece is not in control of their currency. There are no scenarios where we can become Greece.

The Coin isnt necessary to ignore the debt ceiling. The administration could just go, '14th amendment bitches, sue me" and continue paying the bills. They can let 5 conservative Supreme Court Justices force a default if they want, but even Roberts has more sense than to do that.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']I mentioned them because they printed a lot of money during the 1920s in one of the earlier posts. So tell me what you know about that.[/QUOTE]

That was 1/100th of it. As dr. kart pointed even aside from the fact they were a broken country they had to pay in specie and purchase other currency. It is not the parallel you wish it to be.
 
He thinks it applies because he sees "some people" as socialists (ie Nazis in his mind). So we're printing money, inflation is going to be a problem, then those evil leftists swing in and the next thing you know, we're all goose stepping down the street.

That about right?
 
[quote name='Msut77']That was 1/100th of it. As dr. kart pointed even aside from the fact they were a broken country they had to pay in specie and purchase other currency. It is not the parallel you wish it to be.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Excessive printing alone was not the sole reason for economic failure but it was a major part for it.
http://www.spiegel.de/international...any-in-the-era-of-hyperinflation-a-641758.htm

Clak, please stop talking out of your ass. The past two days I have been in this section of the forum, you brought absolutely nothing to the table but insults. Pick up a book man and educate yourself.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']I disagree. Excessive printing alone was not the sole reason for economic failure but it was a major part for it.[/quote]

It is not even close to the same thing, it was a symptom not a cause. Also the context is different to put it mildly.

Also, posting a link you didnt read that didnt work obviously isn't a great way to establish your bonafides.


I have an idea, find me a stable industrialized country that went through true hyperinflation. You people always point to something that happened when my grandfather was in elementary school or Zimbabwe.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It is not even close to the same thing, it was a symptom not a cause. Also the context is different to put it mildly.

Also, posting a link you didnt read that didnt work obviously isn't a great way to establish your bonafides.


I have an idea, find me a stable industrialized country that went through true hyperinflation. You people always point to something that happened when my grandfather was in elementary school or Zimbabwe.[/QUOTE]
Hmm k
"There is a point at which printing money affects purchasing power by causing inflation," warned socialist Eduard Bernstein in 1918. But his words and those of others went unheeded. The mountain of bank notes continued to grow, while the volume of goods gradually declined.

It was a classic constellation. Too much money and too few goods could lead to only one thing: Inflation.
Click to expand...
 
So this Doug Casey is pretty intelligent guy who has been pretty successful in finance. He seems like a Libertarians wet dream though. He is calling for the US to default on our debt. Honestly I am not versed in economics one bit so maybe the long term results would be alright but in the short term it seems like a default would be horrible. His talk of punishing the government also makes me question his bias on the matter. Link has an article and a short video interview.

Edit: Anyone know why he would include 18 trillion in FDIC guarantees in the debt? Are they really that many banks failing that result in this much coverage by the government? Or is this just theoretical debt?

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/america-declare-bankruptcy-doug-casey-124119100.html
 
His default assumption seems predicated on the idea that our unfunded liabilities are vastly underestimated (or we're being lied to about their size). He thinks they're around $86 Trillion - which, yeah, okay, that's way beyond the debt ceiling.

What's clear is that he's taking medicare and social security liabilities into account - what's NOT clear is (a) how far into the future he's looking in order to get that $86T estimate, or (b) what methods he's using to assess the size of the liabilities in future years.

In other words, we can estimate what our outlays for social security in 2030 are going to look like today, but are they accurate, are they based on worst-case scenarios in terms of inflation, revenue, GDP, employment, population growth? Are they based on best-case scenarios? And so on - and, more to the point, based on how close we can accurately assess those future potential deficits (because they are potential deficits, they aren't real until they occur), should we actually implement policy today? If there's a confidence interval for that $86T of, say, $150T, well, maybe we shouldn't implement any policy today.

Here's the odd thing about right-wing policy; the same people who fervently deny the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change (that our actions today will have aggregated, substantially detrimental and irreversible effects in the decades to come) seem to be the same people who apply the absolute *inverse* of this logic to fuzzy estimates of future financial outlays in those same decades to come. In short, it doesn't matter if we're irreversibly fucking the climate up, but we better do something today to sure that we don't overspend in 30 years.

What should we do today? Let's raise the social security age!
Why? So we don't have to cut social security benefits in the future!

:joystick:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top