On the other hand, you can't eat gold and turnips don't keep.

To be clear, this video doesn't endorse returning to the gold standard.

On the contrary, it demonstrates why gold-backed currency is just plain stupid.

I thought I agreed with that.

Whoa.

A cute little piece that ignores supply and demand, especially of trust. It was a real zero summer. It equates increased human desires with diminishing natural resources ( a real croc!). Above all, it is a paean to government control. It is the basic Soviet Union model. How many millions need to be slaughtered unitl the basic lesson that command economies create commanders that command death?! I will take the free market of credit and money any time over this egregious model of death. Sorry I wasted my time - I was expecting something real.

Oh well, live and learn.

George,

Maybe you're a really smart guy who should make more effort to enlighten the rest of us.

Or if that would be wasting your time, perhaps you wouldn't mind referring us to books, experts, web sites, or what have you for more information about what you know.

Believe,

As a starter, start with Adam Smith, then go to Max Eastman. You might then want to cruise through the Paul Ehrlich vs. Julius Simon debate about resource depletion. Before you get too tired, read some accounts of the mass murder that the socialists have committed (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho...).

Assuming you support this little film clip, please explain why supply and demand was barely mentioned? Why the emphasis on the demise of the gold standard, without mentioning that real goods and services are much more valuable to a modern economy? Why no mention of the consolidation of power by government contollers of the economy?

This puppy died a long time ago. It is cannot be resusitated.

Many millions of people, today, could attribue their histories of financial and economic success, along with a better life style, one that does not use as many resources as would be expected on a static basis, to the availability of private debt. The modern industrial and post-industrail state thrives on the opportunities provided by such debt.

In short, what are you talking about?

George,

If you're really eager to return to gold-backed currency, you might wish to consider the candidacy of Congressman Ron Paul. He's written an entire book endorsing gold-backed currency. He's a former Libertarian running as a Republican, he's anti-war, anti-choice (i.e., let the states decide), and he has a documented history of bold public displays of good-ole-boy racism.

Something for nearly everyone it seems.

I won't be voting for him, however, I've had it up to here with political nobodies arising out of Texas.

To You: You might try reading George's post better.

Well, perhaps George should do a better job explaining why he was unhappy with the video.

I advertised a video that introduces how banks create money by lending money that doesn't exist.

It's unrealistic to expect any 47-minute video cover Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mau, Pol Pot, Ho, socialism, consolidation of power, goods and services, supply and demand, etc.

Believe,

The clip is a socialist tract, pure and simple. That is why it does not factor in supply and demand. Its 'answer' to the charging of interest and private banking, if one wants to call it an answer, is government control of the economy. It was this belief in state power that created the Stalins and Hitlers of our world.

Modern economies are enhanced by credit. If a young Steve Jobs told a banker that he had an idea for a personal computer, and the banker felt confident about him, the banker would make the loan (with interest). Jobs had something better than gold, an IDEA. He also had the freedom to pursue private credit, unlike in a socialist system.

Supply and demand are at work at all levels of a modern economy, from the level of natural resources and labor to confidence, money supply, credit availabity, interest rates, etc. In the end, it is the level of confidence in markets that creates available credit. Gold and other tangible assets are not necessary, except as a psychological prop. That is why the amount of gold in Ft. Knox his little bearing on the size of the U.S. economy.

Read Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom". It's a good place to start.

C'mon, George, spill the beans: Do you endorse shitcanning the Federal Reserve or not?

George -

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

But for what its worth, I enjoy your posts.

Believe,

The Fed was a political compromise in the early part of the 20th century to try to avoid financial 'panics'. It was, and is, a cobbled together thing, but many people believe in it, so it does contribute to stability in the financial markets. I would not get rid of it, at this point, but I would support alternative markets (free markets), where the loan/deposit ratio is determined by the free market. Essentially, that is what the stock market is, so I suppose we have about as much as can be expected.

The fundamental point, from my perspective, is that confidence runs up or down according to productivity and demand in the various markets. There are winners and losers. It is called freedom. The Fed responds to these trends, but it is slow to do so. Many people like it that way (9:1 ratio set in place); I prefer to let the ratio float according to supply and demand. I am in the minority, I can assure you.

You: Please refrain from language that a 10 year old should not learn.

George,

How can you say that the Fed contributes to stability? Bernake twitches and the market drops 400 points. The Fed was probably the greatest cause of the '29 crash. (Other government regulations were also important.)

The Fed affects the complete market and thereby causes wild swings. Without the Fed, some market sectors might have ups and downs, but not necessarily at the same time. Large swings would be unusual.

In my opinion, markets would be able to plan better and more long range if they didn't have to worry about the arbitrary actions of the Fed.

Get rid of the Fed.

Wray,

If enough people believe in the Fed, then it is a stabililizng factor. You don't mentions all the panics that didn't happen, because of the Fed.

The Fed is a concoction of populists/capitalist bankers/politicians pork barrel, influence peddling, etc. It is what it is, and from a political point of view, it is likely to stay that way.

People who try to read the tea leaves on Fed chairmen, are delusional. Nevertheless, they are out there. More serious investors look deeper into the trends. Really serious investors look at the fundmentals of the long term market, and ignore the current trends.

There are many markets out there (a very good thing!), so pick and choose your favorite flavor. The Fed is not an 800 lb gorilla, unless you choose to make it one.

George,

I didn't mention my 3rd son either. He wasn't conceived.

The Fed has the force of law. It isn't just some debating society.

Serious investors have to deal with the arbitrariness of Fed action.

I once heard Greenspan described as the most powerful man in the world. There was some truth to it.

Wray,

This is from Bernanke about three weeks ago:

"Credit market innovations have expanded opportunities for many households. Markets can overshoot, but, ultimately, market forces also work to rein in excesses. For some, the self-correcting pullback may seem too late and too severe. But I believe that, in the long run, markets are better than regulators at allocating credit."

Web Link

This is hardly the kind of thing that should scare off serious investors. The Fed is usually too conservative, but it also provides a security blanket for all the millions that demand it.

Identify good companies, with great managment, and invest in them. Forget about the Fed - not much you can do about it anyway.

I understood the point of the video, but George makes no sense.

One wonders if he even watched the video.