My Political Foundation Stone

[tzor]

I could be wrong as this is off the top of my head, but I think that supply and demand does cover the situation exactly. Supply increases slowly at best (we can't "print" more gold but we can mine more of it over time). Demand, IIRC, has been increasing globally as well. This includes nations adding to their supplies and stockpiles.

Commodity Online: China still lags behind others in gold reserves

BEIJING (Commodity Online) : Despite its recent efforts to increase Gold holdings, China the world’s largest gold producer, lags behind majors like US in gold reserves holding.

According to China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, country’s 1,054 tons of gold reserves account for a mere 1.6% of its foreign reserves and are only one-eighth the gold reserves held by the United States.

Russia led the pack by acquiring 181.5 tons of gold in the past 18 months, while South Korea, Mexico and Thailand bought 25 tons, 99.2 tons and 9.3 tons, respectively, in the past two months.

These countries' panic buying, which has contributed to the 20% rise in gold prices since November of last year, contrasts sharply to China's inertia, which boasts the world's largest foreign reserves.

Wow, I think any major nation's commitment to buying a commodity is going to push the price up, don't you agree?

[RobbyPants]

Doom, are you a teacher?

I think he's a professor.

[Draco_Argentum]

Answered via PM's.

Yep, chickenshit. Answer what was wrong with Frank picking the easiest source to find for a quote you admit is right in public.

You won't because no answer you can give will preserve a shred of your credibility.

[Username17]

Say, can you show me a quote where I made such predictions? That's news to me.

Remember that sixteen page thread? The one where you insisted, contrary to all evidence, that the Bureau of Labor Statistics had been conducting an elaborate conspiracy involving thousands of reporting agencies over a period of several decades to hide the fact that the US had secretly been undergoing hyperinflation for a generation? The one where you linked to a conspiracy theorist who, on further inspection, had no fucking data to back up his rantings? That one.

Because it's apparently so much easier to believe that Goldman Sachs hasn't bothered to check the BLS' numbers for the last six presidential terms while they have been defrauded of billions of dollars on inflation protected treasury bonds than it is to question whether the Austrian economic ideas you peddle might have an error or two.

-Username17

[Doom]

Remember that sixteen page thread?

-Username17

Of course I remember that thread, it shocked me that you kept making so many basic errors.

So, um, back up your claim that I predicted hyperinflation? I linked to dozens of websites showing data contradicting BLS numbers, after all. Where's the quote by ME. Hell, it may be worth your while to look up the definition of hyperinflation, to get an idea of how cosmically wrong you are on multiple levels about my claims (which was, simply, "for normal human beings, price inflation is higher than the official government figures which don't even include gasoline").

Also, back up your claim that I made an assertion re: US bankruptcy and interest rates.

As for the rest of your rant, you yourself linked an explanation contrary to what you say, and it's been explained to you multiple times. Such willful ignorance does not become you. You know games well, but past that...yowza.

So, yeah, back up those claims, or apologize. Or quietly drop this topic, an acceptible MO from you in the past.

[Doom]

Answered via PM's.

Yep, chickenshit. Answer what was wrong with Frank picking the easiest source to find for a quote you admit is right in public.

You won't because no answer you can give will preserve a shred of your credibility.

With all due respect Draco, this is a thread where I refer to "The Austrians" as a school of thought, and some nitwit thinks I'm talking about residents of Austria and starts posting non-Austrian citizens to show how wrong I am....it would take me several pages to correct such confusion over two words, I'm not about to waste that kind of time when someone DOES ask an honest question requiring more than a few words to answer.

If you really need to read a coherent answer, PM me as an adult and I'll do so, cut-and-pasting the answer I gave already.

[Draco_Argentum]

With all due respect Draco, this is a thread where I refer to "The Austrians" as a school of thought, and some nitwit thinks I'm talking about residents of Austria and starts posting non-Austrian citizens to show how wrong I am....

lulwhut

If you really need to read a coherent answer, PM me as an adult and I'll do so, cut-and-pasting the answer I gave already.

Oh, so you have this amazing answer but to want to put it in public, sure thing. No point in PMing me, I promise to repost it.

[Username17]

No one is confused about Austrian economics and Austrian people. People are dumbfounded that you believe that only Austrian Economists predicted the housing collapse, because that is totally fucking insane. Let's consider what Keynesians were saying in the run up to the housing bubble. They actually warned about the real problems we really had.

The Austrians get zero points. First of all, they predicted a collapse every year for fifty years straight. If you predict a hurricane every day, you aren't prescient when one actually shows up. Secondly, their description of the crisis was wrong. The crisis they predicted had hyperinflation and a retrenchment of production. Where's my twenty dollar a gallon gasoline and my increased industrial output? That shit did not happen.

In short: the Austrians predict a crisis all the time that still hasn't happened because economic crises don't actually work the way they model them. Meanwhile, the Keynesians were and are able to accurately model the crisis we are in and the effects of policies enacted in the real world on our economy.

And yet... the Austrians won't shut up about how right they were. Because they don't believe in facts. Simply claiming that they were right is enough in their eyes to have actually been right. And the fact that they were and are wrong? No consequence to their world view.

-Username17

[Doom]

I appreciate you at least abandoning those claims, which I'll take as equivalent to retraction. Thank you.

I watched the video; in my opinion, Krugman saying "there could be a slowdown" isn't the same thing as "the bubble is going to pop", and Krugman saying "might need a plan just in case a recession shows up" isn't quite the same as "there will be a crash followed by a severe economic downturn". You choose to believe otherwise, and I can accept that. Even if you someone misinterpret what he said as a dire warning, the fact still remains he advocated the housing bubble.. A bad day, perhaps, for Krugman to take his cues from The Onion, but the horrid thinking goes much worse.

The sad fact is (EDIT BY MOD REQUEST: sad for followers of Keynesianism), Keynesians ALSO ignore empirical evidence; they support the current fiat currency experiment after all, even though all previous empirical fiat currency experiments ended in disaster. Remember Keynes' answer acknowledging the flaw: "In the long run, we're all dead."

You fap to this guy Krugman all the time, and it's pretty funny, because this insane Keynesian (at the risk of repeating myself), is the poster boy for economic madness. Krugman recently said it would be an incredible economic boon for a space alien invasion to happen to humanity which would cure our economic problems within 18 months (by killing 6.2 billion people, perhaps?). Even if the invasion never materializes, he claims, it'll help humanity. It's only 90 seconds, and well worth watching that.

Think about that: Keynesian theory says the best thing for humanity right now is to starve ourselves to death building a massive supply of nuclear missiles to 'protect' against an alien invasion that will (probably) never come (and such missiles probably won't help anyway).

The bottom line, Keynesians are so insane that they can literally put on a mask, cape, and tights, and spout economic plans worthy of a comic book villain, and it's not even much of a surprise.

The odd part is how many people will attack any criticism of this insanity, rather than just acknowledge the goofiness of it all.

[Chamomile]

Doom, is your argument seriously that:

1) Nuclear missiles probably wouldn't thwart an alien invasion anyway, and
2) Someone from a comic book had that idea, therefore it must be wrong?

See, the second one is basically appeal to ridicule, and while I don't think the first has a fancy latin name, it is rather missing the point (so maybe non sequitir, or red herring?).

[fbmf]

The sad fact is, it's Keynesians that ignore empirical evidence;

Interesting...

EDIT: Didn't realize the WHISPER function blows.

[Doom]

(situation resolved)

[Chamomile]

You guys are doing whispers wrong.

EDIT: And Doom, you're a prick. FYI.

[Doom]

I just assumed he was doing it that way, as a 'stage whisper' to undermine things. I guess the board is just buggy, but still it's a pretty nasty thing to do, both in terms of wildly misrepresenting what I said, and using whisper when 'PM' is pretty easy to use.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Whispers have always been buggy on this board.

[Chamomile]

That is something of a flaw. Although at least it doesn't show up in the quote box.

[DSMatticus]

Wait, what? I thought this whisper thing was a gag. Whispers are a thing? On a forum? Is this common?

Krugman recently said it would be an incredible economic boon for a space alien invasion to happen to humanity which would cure our economic problems within 18 months

"You have a sense of humor. Therefore your argument is invalid." Intelligent response, Doom. You do yourself a lot of credit.

they support the current fiat currency experiment after all, even though all previous empirical fiat currency experiments ended in disaster.

Doom in with breaking news! Governments that fail have indeed failed. More at 11:00, when Doom is asked to display the causal or even evidentiary link between fiat currencies and the failure of governments and he flounders like a retarded trout. (That makes this episode a repeat.)

Seriously, what's your argument here? "Fiat currencies have failed, therefore fiat currencies will always fail." Do we really need to tell you how retarded that is? Let's switch around the argument: "Gold-backed currencies have failed, therefore gold-backed currencies will always fail." The premise of each of these arguments is true, so if you think the first is a compelling case you also must think the second is a compelling case because they are logically analogous. But you worship gold, and therefore disagree with the conclusion of the second argument and therefore you must disagree with the form of the argument. But considering the first has the same form, you necessarily must disagree with it as well.

That's right. You can't even agree with yourself. That's bad. Also, funny story: there are exactly zero gold-backed government-issued currencies today (if you turn up a few, let me know, and I'll adjust). There are non-zero fiat government-issued currencies today. Ergo, the failure rate of gold is 100% and the failure rate of fiat is less. Fiat wins by this metric, and we all move on.

Keynesian theory says the best thing for humanity right now is to starve ourselves to death building a massive supply of nuclear missiles to 'protect' against an alien invasion that will (probably) never come (and such missiles probably won't help anyway).

Hahaha, what? Where do you get all this straw?

[Doom]

But you worship gold,

Per usual, what you have to say is charitably described as regrettable ignorance, arguing for the sake of arguing, and nothing more. But, no, I don't worship gold, would love to have a better investment option, and will leave gold within seconds of having such an option.

[tzor]

Wait, what? I thought this whisper thing was a gag. Whispers are a thing? On a forum? Is this common?

If it were really working I would definitely use them in forum based Paranoia games.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

But you worship gold,

Per usual, what you have to say is charitably described as regrettable ignorance, arguing for the sake of arguing, and nothing more. But, no, I don't worship gold, would love to have a better investment option, and will leave gold within seconds of having such an option.

Real estate. Specifically, huge tracts of land. The buildings on the land can be more trouble than they're worth, but unless you live in Holland they ain't making any more land. Property values rise and fall just like anything else, but not nearly as much as Gold does, the gold you pay 1,200 an ounce for might be one tenth that in a couple years.

Alternately, Silver is traditionally a far better investment than gold, and has been since before I was born. Silver is not nearly as volatile as gold in price.

Third, stuff your money in your mattress. Gold investment right now is really silly, it's stupidly expensive right now. I would do what Glenn Beck does (sell gold if you got it) and not do what he says (buy gold).

[Doom]

Real estate. Specifically, huge tracts of land. The buildings on the land can be more trouble than they're worth, but unless you live in Holland they ain't making any more land. Property values rise and fall just like anything else,

This is good advice; unfortunately, I find it unlikely I'll be good at farming or hunting, and real estate taxes (and liability, and other issues) make such an investment unattractive to me. But I do acknowledge this is a good investment possibility. Also, I don't have the several hundred k for huge tracts of land.

but not nearly as much as Gold does, the gold you pay 1,200 an ounce for might be one tenth that in a couple years.

Actually, real estate price fluctuations can be extreme as well, and it's *much* harder to liquidate real estate when things go down. Gold might well drop...but the current situation makes that a bit less likely than real estate. If, in the future, the "great economic times" that would cause gold to drop dramatically actually happen, I'm totally fine with that--I'll do fine in great economic times anyway, and won't need the gold.

Alternately, Silver is traditionally a far better investment than gold, and has been since before I was born. Silver is not nearly as volatile as gold in price.

Actually, silver has been called the "poor man's gold" because if you trade in it much, you'll be a poor man...at least, that's how it was up until about 10 years ago. Actually I think I showed earlier in this very forum (but not this thread) that if one had saved but one ounce of silver a week for the last 10 years (not much of a weekly investment for the first 9 of those years), that would be a big sum relative to what was invested.

That's the past. Investment, of course, is about 'now, and the future'. There are many, many, reasons that silver should be much more valuable, and being as valuable as gold is not without precedent (it happened in the early 20th century, even); why it isn't so valuable now is a bit puzzling. I have some silver, acknowledge that it's probably a better investment than gold (even at the high price now), but silver's crazy pricing rather scares me...I might well take your advice and buy more silver soon.

Third, stuff your money in your mattress.

Yikes. No. As long as there's a FDIC, a bank makes more sense than a mattress.

Gold investment right now is really silly, it's stupidly expensive right now.

It's worth noting, for 10 straight years, people have been saying this. Heh, I remember some trolls shrieking at me for being so stupid to buy gold-related investments at 400...and 500...and 600...and 800...and on and on (I slowed down alot past $1500). Some folks did listen, though, so it's all good.

And yet, again I still find myself agreeing with you...it's HARD to pay nearly 2k now for something identical to what cost me less than $400 a decade ago.

Thanks for your advice.

[Chamomile]

Third, stuff your money in your mattress.

Yikes. No. As long as there's a FDIC, a bank makes more sense than a mattress.

Yes, that's rather the point. A bank is going to make more sense than a mattress basically until the collapse of civilization as we know it, but a mattress will still be a better idea than something as volatile and expensive as gold.

[Whatever]

But, no, I don't worship gold, would love to have a better investment option, and will leave gold within seconds of having such an option.

You and everyone else. The price of gold is going to drop like a brick as soon as the economy picks back up and investing in business makes sense again. Buying now is basically a bet that you'll be one of the first to sell when that happens, because everyone else is going to lose big.

[tzor]

Real estate. Specifically, huge tracts of land. The buildings on the land can be more trouble than they're worth, but unless you live in Holland they ain't making any more land.

Good point. They stopped making land in NYC many decades ago. (My boss has a photo of downtown Manhattan from the mid 30's complete with a zepolin overhead. He compared it to a modern map trying to locate as many points of reference he could. It was amazing how much the island "grew" (mostly because of fill) towards the Husdon River in just the 20th century alone.
Here is an interactive map form 1660 to 2004 of just lower Manhattan

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Third, stuff your money in your mattress.

Yikes. No. As long as there's a FDIC, a bank makes more sense than a mattress.

Yes, that's rather the point. A bank is going to make more sense than a mattress basically until the collapse of civilization as we know it, but a mattress will still be a better idea than something as volatile and expensive as gold.

I don't know, I don't think money is going to be valuable after the collapse either way.

Then again, I don't think gold is going to be worth much either. It's pretty, but you can't eat it. A turnip farmer would be the richest guy in town.