Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gold standard: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:11, 29 March 2012 edit71.174.135.204 (talk) →POV tag added← Previous edit Revision as of 11:50, 30 March 2012 edit undoFistGoldmanMuppets (talk | contribs)7 edits →POV tag addedNext edit →
Line 323: Line 323:


7) Article states that prices were more volatile under a gold standard. The author makes no claim that this volatility was caused by the gold standard itself. Others point to regular bank panics and the fractional banking system causing large swings in the money supply as banks overlend leading to a boom, then go broke when they overextend themselves leading to a contraction in lending and a shrinking money supply. It is basic economics that the supply of money has a direct effect on price levels. ] (]) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 7) Article states that prices were more volatile under a gold standard. The author makes no claim that this volatility was caused by the gold standard itself. Others point to regular bank panics and the fractional banking system causing large swings in the money supply as banks overlend leading to a boom, then go broke when they overextend themselves leading to a contraction in lending and a shrinking money supply. It is basic economics that the supply of money has a direct effect on price levels. ] (]) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:Agreed. This is like living in Stalinist Russia, with reality twisted to ridiculous levels. You have to either be an idiot or a Keynesian (or most likely both) to believe some of the rubbish on the main page. Why does all research suggesting the gold standard worked have to be removed as fringe? - ] (]) 11:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:50, 30 March 2012

To-do list for Gold standard: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2019-02-05


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : Brits section, some biased comments there.
  • NPOV : Neutralize Bias throughout article. Integrate the pro/con list for a more neutral point of view
  • Update : Replace cited articles 3 and 4 with a more recent survey to reflect current views. The current sources are from 2012, and thus cannot be used to represent current opinion. Alisa Ayn Rosenbaum (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Verify : sources and quotes of the historical values of the amount of cash tied to a certain amount of gold per gram/kilogram. The source for the amount of £ for the UK pound is a bit dodgy since the source is not reputable nor has any address nor ISBN/page number.
Former featured articleGold standard is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 21, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 24, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
February 7, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNumismatics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHistory Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEconomics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 18, 2004.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Dates of adoption of a gold standard

|}

Disadvantages

Came back to see if artilce was still protected and yup, its still protected. Since I can't change anything I will point out a few defects in the ddisadvantages section.

On limited supply of gold - the amount of gold per person is about the same as 100 years ago under the gold standard. The supply of gold is no obstacle to a gold standard. The article comment that the limited supply of gold would limit its use under a gold standard is stupid. A gold standard requires the use of gold so how can it limit its use? Retarded!

Higher real interest rates under a gold standard as a disadvantage is also stupid. First there are more savers then debtors, so higher interest rates help more people. That's a benefit. The net interest is a wash - one outgo is another's income. That's a wash. In general debt is considered WAY worse then saving so anything that encourages savings is a net social plus. See all the debt crisis all over the world today caused by excessive debt. There is no crisis anywhere that has even been caused by excessive savings.

Anything that monkeys with a free market causes distortions reducing overall economic growth. Fiat is all about distorting the economy for the gain of a few, the bankers and governments.

Monetary policy is not determined by gold production. Under a gold standard there is no monetary policy to distort the economy and deduce overall growth.

Short run price instability is bogus. No claim has been made by the author or anyone else that the gold standard caused that price instability.

The only time the gold standard can be speculatively attacked is when claim on gold are greater then the supply of gold. That is not an issue under a 100% gold standard since every paper claim is backed 100%. It is only a probled under a partial gold standard when gold claims are not covered by gold on hand.

Under a gold standard a country by definition CAN'T devalue its currency. An ounce of gold will always be an ounce of gold. The gold standard is used specifically because gold money can't be devalued.

Most economists don't have two brain cells to rub together. Screwing with the free market reduces overall economic growth.

Central banks have caused every major financial disaster of the past 100 years. Putting shackles on the ability of a central bank to take any kind of action is a GOOD thing.71.184.188.254 (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

-You have a good point. The description of limited gold for currency should refer to there being less than 200 grams of extracted gold per person on the earth to serve as currency. That is one very small coin for each person. And that is only after we stop using gold in electronics, industry , dentistry, jewelry and historical artifacts. Frankly I suspect that an attempt to return to the gold standard would see a barter economy instead, since "true" gold standard believers would see gold as too valuable to be used in ordinary business transactions.

-Obviously the article is ambiguous since they meant a monetary policy as to what percentage of national currency is backed by gold. So actually you are referring to a 100% gold coinage standard when you say no monetary policy. In any case you have not cited a practical 100% gold coinage system (sizes/weights/denominations) for a real fully industrialized nation and the weight of gold required. Until you do most of us will think you have no idea of the mass of gold required and that you just assume on faith alone that a solution exists. Or maybe I misjudge your intelligence and ethics, I have met more practical Libertarians who are simply too polite to publicly say that their ideas include returning to 1830s level populations and industrial technology -- thus greatly reducing the amount of gold required.

-Actually gold or silver is famous for all the economic instability before the introduction of paper money. Its called panic and speculative gold hoarding. Under gold currency the first hint of economic goods failing results in everyone "burying" their coinage if they can afford -- resulting in a sudden crash as regional business slams to a stop due to lack of coins flowing in the markets. Later under partial gold reserves a slightly delayed form of this resulted in bank runs and when enough banks collapsed again a dramatic economic slow down.

-Gold coins are easy to devalue if actually placed into circulation. In fact devaluation is commonly not limited to government action but includes most private citizens. How? 100% gold coins are terrible coins because they are soft, bendable, and easily filed down. Because they do not hold shape well, its fairly easy to mix in a little base metal and recast forgeries - or recast with base metal slugs in the middle. You can make gold and silver coins resistant to casual civilian devaluation by hardening them with special alloy mixtures. But then the coins are not 100% gold or silver which bothers a lot of purists even if the marked value does not exceed the actual weight of gold and silver included. And of course once you alloy then governments can twiddle with the alloy percentages and coin weights which sets off the OCD types even if the government does not advertise bad gold or silver weights. Enough OCD false alarms and the common people stop listening then the government is really likely to put in less gold or silver during fiscal crisis.

-Why not just proclaim "a free market is a barter market"? Because with no easily available currency, there are few if any set prices. Many gold coin folk also think set prices are "rigged" prices. Something about bartering is supposed to reveal hidden true value or quality even if you know little about the product. I agree that in a barter economy what you "pay" depends on what you have to offer and your barter skill.

--And that is the REAL truth of every historical 100% gold coinage economy, coins were rarely used by the common people for any but the most expensive purchases in life. Almost all common business was good via goods exchange. Gold and silver coins were mainly a convenience for the well-to-do and rich and for significant business deals where no suitable goods exchange could be negotiated. The often referenced late 1800s were a rare exception due to the riches of the industrial revolution hitting a low population. But the American Western movie is still mostly a lie when you see gold coins being spent in a saloon. Silver and copper yes. But keep in mind a $20 gold piece was worth the equal of around $2000 USD today. The general store account is mostly true because goods tended to cost less than convenient coinage and coinage was short - and many an account settlement included home goods as well as coins.


72.182.15.249 (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what you are attempting to state above. A 100% backed paper money or a true gold standard (no legal tender paper) just means that this is the only money available and it will therefore be the only money used. It's value will be determined by the market. I pointed out above that the amount of gold available per person is roughly the same as it was 100 years ago under the 100% gold standard. The objections that there is not enough gold to serve as money is therefor plainly bogus.71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
If you knew anything about economics you would know that having a gold standard is something that actually works against free markets. For example, (although it is not exactly the same as a gold standard) the euro is one of the reasons that the Greek debt crisis has become so bad. Because the ECB handles interest rates on the euro for the entire Eurozone, Greece is not able to simply devalue its own currency to lighten its debt burden. Because it can't exercise monetary policy it has few options and this has led to greater speculative attacks on Greek government bonds, CDS and other assets which has only further worsened Greek credit ratings and yields. If they could have used a currency devaluation to reinstate investor confidence they could have rolled over or restructured their debts and combined this with reduced spending to make the situation much more manageable.142.151.169.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC).
The reason the Greek debt crisis got so bad in that Greece, as a member of the EU, was able to get loans as almost the same rate as Germany. Rates which it did not deserve. With a lot of help from Goldman Sachs it was also able to HIDE large portions of its debt from the markets, which continued to loan even more money at undeservedly low rates. Higher interest rates serve to limit the size of debt by reducing the debt load that can be carried, and by acting as a disincentive to get deeper in debt. Under the EU euro regime, both of these two market forces were nullified. If Greece had borrowed at true free market rates it would have reached its debt load limit many years ago and likely would not have done so because of punitive high interest rates acting to limit debt growth.71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
BTW In free markets people get to choose the money of their choice. Fiat, which is imposed on the markets, is by definition anti-free markets. Gold and silver have been the money of choice for thousands of years while every fiat ever produced has already failed and is worthless or will eventually fail and become worthless.71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

financial repression and "Some economists"

Roubini knows about and states it negatively impacts economic growth http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=262716 Krugman knows about and is engaging in selective blindness, since he thinks none of it is going on any longer (even a village idiot should be able to see that current US interest rates paid out to savers are lower then the inflation rate.) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/financial-repression/ It gets heard in investment conferences a lot - http://lewrockwell.com/wiggin/wiggin-addison11.1.html The Bond King Bill Gross warns about it http://www.midasletter.com/index.php/bill-gross-illuminates-financial-repression-by-central-banks/ The IMF posts papers on it on its website http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2011/res2/pdf/crbs.pdf

"some" is low balling the number71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"some economists" and lengthening of Great Depression

Per personal experience I believe that the "some economists" believe that the Great Depression was extended by the gold standard to be an gross exageration. I consider myself well read on economic matters and this article is the first place I have run across which blames the length of the Great Depression on the Gold Standard.

Unless cites can be provided showing that this position is supported by more then "a few" economists I will be changing that "some" to "a few".71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

still waiting to see if anyone can provide evidence for "some". So far I know of "two".71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Continuing to wait!71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
some is two if precedence means anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
When the total number of economists is probably in the ten's of thousands, "some" implies more then 2.71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The relation between the gold standard and the Great Depression is an important point in the literature. I'm surprised as you have not come across this given that you claim to be well read on economic matters. Just to give a couple of examples. Eichengreen has a well known piece on how staying on the gold standard delayed recovery from the Depression. Bernanke has a paper on the international propagation of the crisis through the mechanisms of the gold standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.25.181 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Eichengreen can claim that the moon is made of green cheese as well and that would jibe about as well with reality. Canada left the gold standard in 1929, Great Britain in 1931 the US in 1934, France in 1937. There is no substantial difference in the course of the Great depression in these 4 countries. The Great Depression did not end 8 years earlier in Canada then it did in France or 5 years earlier then it did in the US.71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Short-run price instability

Here is the part of the research paper where it mentions short-run price instability as a disadvantage to the gold standard:

"The advantage of adhering to the gold standard is that it provides a market-driven mechanism to ensure long-run price stability. The disadvantage is that it involves significant resource costs and makes aggregate price level volatility depend on real shocks. Nevertheless, the gold standard has long been viewed as superior to an inconvertible fiat regime in providing for price stability. But a fiat regime based on a credible nominal anchor provides the price stability benefits of the gold standard with neither the resource costs nor the short-run variability associated with the gold standard."

I don't see how it in good faith can be claimed that what is said in the article is misrepresenting what is being said above.

And in response to the repeated claim that Misplaced Pages does not allow presenting correlations without explicit claims of some specific causal relationship, this is simply not true. WP:SYN says that you cannot put together facts so as to imply a correlation between them, if the sources used do not note that correlation. But if the sources are pointing out a correlation, it is perfectly acceptable for the article to do that too.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The language above states that the gold standard is superior to fiat. How is that a disadvantage?71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It does not. It, like the article, says that the gold standard provides long-run price stability. It says that the conventional wisdom is that the gold standard is more stable than fiat regimes. But it then goes on to say that in reality, a rule based fiat currency regime, like the Taylor rule or inflation targeting, is even more stable throughout than the gold standard. And if it wasn't clear enough, the paper repeats it in the next paragraph when it says: "As Irving Fisher argued, we find that if a central bank wants price stability for the short-term, then stabilizing a broad price index clearly dominates the classic gold standard." If I had the chance to do so, I would find the Irving Fisher piece referred to, and we would have yet another source agreeing with the argument in the article.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Which part of "the gold standard has long been viewed as superior to an inconvertible fiat regime in providing for price stability." is difficult for you to understand? Being superior is not a disadvantage. With respect to this "But a fiat regime based on a credible nominal anchor provides the price stability benefits of the gold standard with neither the resource costs nor the short-run variability associated with the gold standard." he makes no claim that any fiat has ever been based on a "credible nominal anchor". Fiat is by definition unbacked paper, is inconvertible, and has no anchor. If it was backed then it woudn't be fiat. Then it would be a "backed currency".71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

association does not equal causation

http://en.wikipedia.org/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship.

Capische? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just said it above, but apparently you didn't hear that, nowhere in Misplaced Pages policy does it say that you cannot mention a correlation which is mentioned in a source without also including a guess at a causal reason for the correlation. This is a criteria you have made up. Reliable sources say there is a relationship between two phenomenons, then we can say the same. We are not here to find the Truth, we are merely here to tell readers information which can be verified by reliable sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Again: for it to be under disadvatage you need to show that it is a disadvatage.71.184.188.254 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
And again, it is expressed the conclusion of the research paper that higher short run price instability is a disadvantage with the gold standard. This is further backed up by the following sentence which explains that short run price instability may cause financial instability. And to the part about primary sources you cited below, the encyclopedia article referenced is a secondary source. Therefore this point is actually much better covered when it comes to secondary sources than many other points in the Advantages and Disadvantages sections, seeing as many of those do not cite secondary sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The paper states that it is "associated' with the gold standard. The paper makes no claim that this is a disadvantage. The paper claims that the gold standard is "superior" to fiat but that some sort of currency can be developed that is superior to the gold standard. For instance a currency that grows at the same rate as the economy or a currency backed by a basket of commodities. AGAIN association does not mean causation. The use of additional Schwartz material is "synthesis" as it is in support of a point never made. Read above correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy71.184.188.254 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I can just say that I think you are deliberately misreading the source. I think it would be clear to anyone who isn't pushing a POV like you that the sources are saying that one of the disadvantages to the gold standard is the short run price instability historically associated with it. If someone else were actually backing your reading of the sources, then I might change my mind. But until then, I just have to say that you have shown to be so committed to POV pushing over improving the encyclopedia that I cannot take your opinions on this matter seriously. You are clearly apply widely different standards to what is acceptable for what you think can be included under Advantages and what can be included under Disadvantages.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Show me where the author states that the gold standard causes that short run price instability. Association means jack. The gold standard was also associated with sailing ships. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
And you really should show where the author states that this short term price instability was worse under gold then under fiat. Having a smaller variation is beneficial as it provides stability (good for business as it reduces uncertainty in business conditions).71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A book review is a secondary source

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

and in case the above is not sufficient

Policy: Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality flag added

Due to the wholesale deletion of backed pro gold material and the insertion of unbacked anti gold material, I am adding a neutrality flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) A\]


Among the disputes

Continuing addition of "gold is associated with short term fluctuation" as a negative - association does not equal causation. As written the article implies that gold standard causes short term price fluctuation which then result in bank panics. Historically it is the opposite. Bank panics cause short term fluctuation as people hoard money and economic uncertainty causes them to hunker down and put a little money aside for a rainy day (which is staring them in the face during a bank panic).

Repeated deletion of quotes attributed to Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman and other mainstream economists in favor of a fringe/minor theory.

Repeated deletion of material from economists that show that minor/fringe thesis is flawed.

Placement of fringe/theory in the top slot to make it look more popular - so far only two economists have been shown to support it.

Newly added unbacked material purported to show that the limited supply of money under a gold standard would act to slow economic activity. History shows that economies grow best under a stable money then an unstable one. Switzerland versus Zimbabwe come to mind. Cite states that "economy cannot grow unless more gold is mined" is so fringe that it is on a par with UFO's are based inside a hollow earth.

and what the heck is with the wholesale deletion of neutral historic data on coinage and the gold silver ratio?71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Material removed from the Disadvantages

This section (*Economic growth would be constrained by the gold supply.) was removed by another user even though it's based on sourced information. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is wacko fringe opinionj and has no place in a wiki article. The author claims that under a gold standard economic growth would cease if gold mining stopped. There are 3 things that contribute to economic growth. Ideas for making old products better or at lower cost (assembly line), thinking up new products some of which can make older products cheaper or faster ( computers and automated assembly lines) and more hands to do the work. For the authors opinion not to wacko fringe, somehow a stop in gold mining would make people cease thinking of better ways to make new products, cease thinking of new products, and somehow would make people stop having babies. As it stands, that opinion is about as popular as UFO's are based inside a hollow earth. aka WACKO FRINGE!71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Fringe opinions have no place in a wiki article. Like 3RR, your ignorance of wiki policy continues to shine.71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You removed material that is based on sourced information. One of the sources is from a professor at Iowa State University. I placed an edit warring warning on your talk page a little earlier. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Per wiki policy, fringe opinions have no place in a wiki article, and anybody that thinks closing gold mines will stop people from having babies is as wacko as they come.71.184.188.254 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
That's not quite how it works on wikipedia. You need to prove whatever you think is fringe. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Fringe opinion has no place in a wiki article. Look it up!71.184.188.254 (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll say it again. You need to PROVE that it's fringe. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
NO. YOU need to prove that it's not fringe, and good luck with proving closing gold mines stops people from having babies. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW: Your continuing deletion of quotes by Friedman and other economists weaken your case. At a minimum you look like you have a double standard. Notice that wiki has a NPOV policy as well and you deleting material direct from the mouth of the most influential economist of modern times while pushing some drivel from a third string economist (at best) shows your lack of a neutral point of view.71.184.188.254 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Your continuing distortion of wiki policies makes me continue to doubt your good faith. Wiki policy is that the CHALENGED party needs to provide the backup.71.184.188.254 (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fringe opinion

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.71.184.188.254 (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Good. So your claim is that it's "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". Now you need to prove that because you're the one disputing the addition. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Did I mention I find you two faced? Per wiki policy, the onus is on the one ADDING the material to prove it is not fringe. Like I said, good luck finding people who think closing gold mines will stop people from having babies, or from thinking up better ways of doing things.71.184.188.254 (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking at your edit, I see nothing resembling the claim that "closing gold mines will stop people from having babies". As far as I can tell, you're the only one advancing that position. Furthermore, the source for that statement was from a collection of course materials compiled by Iowa State University Economics professor Eun Kwan Choi for an Econ. 355 class, and the main text for that class appears to be "International Economics: Theory and Policy" by Paul R. Krugman, who is a widely cited economist and almost certainly not a member of the "wacko fringe". 68.52.208.245 (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Even a graduate of public miseducation should know that economic growth depends, in part, on population growth. A larger population can produce more goods and services then a smaller one. It's one reason why the US has a bigger economy then Switzerland. If closing gold mines stops economic growth, then it must also stop population growth. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the "public miseducation" comment above - but continuing deletion of mainstream material by Somedifferentstuff is pi(&^&* me off.71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW: Krugman is probably the last diehard Keynesian out there. He is one of the people that pushed (a decade ago) for money printing with the intent of causing a housing bubble. Look where that got us. He hasn't got up to speed on what happens to pump priming when you are already deep in debt. Pump priming works (somewhat) in a low debt environment, but when you are already deep in debt and facing default then the harm caused by getting deeper in debt outweighs the benefits of pump priming. To quote "you can't solve a debt problem by getting deeper in debt". 71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument that since "economic growth depends, in part, on population growth," therefore "if closing gold mines stops economic growth, then it must also stop population growth" is both logically unsound (based on the information provided) and a violation of Misplaced Pages policy to push in the manner you have chosen. First, there can be multiple variables impacting economic growth and the change of a single variable can impact economic growth requiring other variables to change in consequence. To assert otherwise requires that you provide a reliable source. Otherwise, you are pushing original research and possibly synthesizing an argument. Second, your assertion that Krugman "pushed (a decade ago) for money printing with the intent of causing a housing bubble" is possibly a violation of our policy on living persons. You are essentially asserting that Krugman intended to cause an economic crash and you must provide a reliable source to back up that claim, or you are in violation of policy. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There are in fact a multitude of things that effect economic growth. My objection was to the insertion of language in the article that a stop in gold production would stop economic growth. I hope we can agree that stopping gold production would not stop economic growth and that any such opinion is about as wacko fringe as UFO's are based inside a hollow earth.71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Credit-boom

Re: objection - Our overall conclusion is that the gold standard was neither the cause nor the solution to the credit-boom problem.

Another cite which you keep deleting states that the Federal Reserve specifically created to make money "elastic" meaning expandable at will. The creation of the federal Reserve negated the "inelastic" property of the gold standard and allowed an expanding money supply which could then act as fuel to a credit boom. gold money is "inelastic" because it "can't be printed at will".

Perhaps you should read what you are deleting sometime.71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


BTW a cite needs to show that someone stated something. If they quote someone else later on, that's part of showing different viewpoints. Have you ever heard of the term "on the other hand"?71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

elastic Federal Reserve notes

What is the objection to language referring to inelastic gold money being replaced by elastic Federal Reserve money repeatedly deleted from the article? With only a 40% backing you can issue 2.5 times as much currency compared to 100% backed money. Under the 100% backed classical gold standard money was inelastic, while elastic 40% gold backed notes were created under the early 20'th Century partially backed gold standard.

The issue here is gold money is inelastic and cannot be continually created to fuel credit booms, while a change from a 100% gold standard to a 40% gold standard allows a 2.5 fold increase in the money supply, which can be used to fuel a credit boom. When the 40% limit is reached then money can't be printed any more since the backing would drop below 40%. Money then again becomes inelastic since it can't be printed at will.71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is a minor theory getting top billing

"Prolongation of the Great Depression" starts of with a minor theory which states that the gold standard was responsible for extending the Great Depression. Major theories are as follows

The Great Depression was extended by crappy government policies which screwed up the free market, making recovery more difficult,

The Great Depression was extended by crappy Federal Reserve policies, like the monetary tightening around 1937 which caused the economy to slide back into depression.

The Austian School view that the Great Depression was horrible because of the size of the credit bubble created in the 20's by the Fed. The Austrian School view is "the bigger the bubble the worse the crash".

Also why do alternate views to this minor theory keep getting deleted. Friedman's opinions kept getting deleted and now similar views by Economist Robert Murphy keep getting deleted.71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Critisism of that minor theory keeps getting deleted

CITED criticism of this minor theory which shows that the authors didn't even get the order of countries leaving the gold standard correct, keeps getting deleted. Why? 71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Canada left the Gold standard in 1929, Great Britain in 1931, The US in 1934 and France in 1937. The Great Depression followed pretty much the exact same course in all of these countries. Is itr any wonder that this is a low popularity/fringe theory?71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Update

User: 71.184.188.254 (talk) has been blocked for a month which can be seen on his talk page. He added the POV tag to this article and I will remove it unless there are any objections. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed POV tag. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Something's gotten chewed up here:

I can't tell what this sentence is supposed to mean, mostly because it's one long subject with no predicate:

"As notes devalued; or silver ceased to circulate as a store of value; or there was a depression as governments, demanding specie as payment, drained the circulating medium out of the economy."

Perhaps somebody who has followed this article in the past can figure out what happened to that and the passages on either side of it. Poihths (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Gold in Industry

Have there been any reports done on how a gold standard would be affected now that we use gold as practical industrial material? I know for most of its history, gold had no large scale function, but is incredibly valuable for computer technologies today. I don't really know how to phrase this, so googling it hasnt worked out. I just didnt see it mentioned anywhere. I have no plans to request an update to the page, unless such a report can be found. So if anyone knows of one, that would be a good thing to put in. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The gold exchange standard was in place during the interwar period not before WWI. Before WWI, the classical gold standard operated.

176.251.25.181 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

A higher savings rate leads to a higher growth rate

Seems clear that per Solow and his model as well as earlier models " a higher savings rate leads to a higher growth rate, although human inventiveness plays a higher role ... see language below. This language is also relevant to the wacko/fringe theory that closing gold mines under a gold standard will kill economic growth. All it will do is increase the value of gold money - i.e lead to deflation, such as was common in the high growth era of the 19th century.

A country with a higher saving rate will experience faster growth, e.g. Singapore had a 40% saving rate in the period 1960 to 1996 and annual GDP growth of 5-6%, compared with Kenya in the same time period which had a 15% saving rate and annual GDP growth of just 1%. This relationship was anticipated in the earlier models, and is retained in the Solow model; however, in the very long-run capital accumulation appears to be less significant than technological innovation in the Solow model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.135.204 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


As with most of your recent edits please read WP:SYNTH ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

POV tag added

Added POV tag due to continuing deletion of pro gold standard material and the insertion of bogus anti-gold material

1) Deletion of US Constitutional Convention language designed to ban paper money and insure US stayed on a silver and gold coin standard. Cites include language hosted at avalon.com run by Yale law School, from the notes of James Madison. Language attributed to James Madison of Federalist 44 and Language from US Supreme Court rulings also cited.

2) Deletion of material on the inter-war gold standard showing it was a dismal shadow of the true gold standard. Cites include Bordo and Eichengreen. Both authors are cited extensively elsewhere in the article.

3)Deletion of material showing that increased savings under a gold standard lead to higher economic growth. Check the history books - growth since the last ties to gold were dropped by Nixon in the 70's have been the most dismal in US history, while growth in the 19th century under the old school gold and silver coin standard were highest.

4)Material contrary to Eichengreens position that staying on the gold standard lengthened tge Great Depression. Plainly low popularity/fringe since NOBODY blames the US 1937 last gasp recession on the gold standard.

5) NOBODY Has shown that Eichengreens position (4) is anything other then low popularity/fringe yet it gets outsize mention.

6) Wacko Fringe dufus opinion that not mining gold under a gold standard will end economic growth is still in article. Economic growth depends on the number of people available to work, and newer better methods of production coming on line. Lastly to stop gold production under a gold standard you need to close every mine out there. Good freaking luck on that.

7) Article states that prices were more volatile under a gold standard. The author makes no claim that this volatility was caused by the gold standard itself. Others point to regular bank panics and the fractional banking system causing large swings in the money supply as banks overlend leading to a boom, then go broke when they overextend themselves leading to a contraction in lending and a shrinking money supply. It is basic economics that the supply of money has a direct effect on price levels. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This is like living in Stalinist Russia, with reality twisted to ridiculous levels. You have to either be an idiot or a Keynesian (or most likely both) to believe some of the rubbish on the main page. Why does all research suggesting the gold standard worked have to be removed as fringe? - FistGoldmanMuppets (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. Kindleberger, Charles P. (1993). A financial history of western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. M1 60–63. ISBN 0-19-507738-5. OCLC 26258644.
  2. Newton, Isaac, Treasury Papers, vol. ccviii. 43, Mint Office, 21 Sept. 1717.
  3. "The Gold Standard in Theory and History", BJ Eichengreen & M Flandreau
  4. The Pocket money book: a monetary chronology of the United States. Great Barrington, Massachusetts: American Institute for Economic Research. 2006. pp. 4–6. ISBN 0-913610-46-1. OCLC 75968548. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  5. ^ Encyclopedia:. "Gold Standard | Economic History Services". Eh.net. Retrieved 2010-07-24.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
Categories:
Talk:Gold standard: Difference between revisions Add topic