Max Keiser in The Journal.ie

meglome

Now I'm not the biggest fan of Max, or Russia Today for that matter. The mutual backslapping of the comments shows that many people do take Max Keiser seriously.

The Journal wrote:

FORMER STOCK TRADER Max Keiser has arrived in Ireland, bringing his outspoken brand of economic forecasting to bear on our financial situation.

Keiser shot to fame several years ago with a series of accurate predictions about the economic crash. He foresaw the role sub-prime mortgages would have in the meltdown, as well as the the collapse of US lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of the biggest casualties of the crisis.

The broadcaster is speaking at the Kilkenomics festival in Kilkenny this weekend. Ahead of his appearance he gave TheJournal.ie his take on Ireland’s plight, including:

Why Nama is a terrorist organisation
How rogue bankers should be brought to justice
Why Ireland needs regime change
Why the euro will eventually collapse
How RTÉ is a tool of the bankers

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/interview-max-keiser-on-ireland-bankers-and-why-the-euro-will-collapse/

I'm no expert in economics but most of what he says just seems like conspiracy theory rubbish to me. What do you think?

RichardAnd

meglome wrote: »

I'm no expert in economics but most of what he says just seems like conspiracy theory rubbish to me. What do you think?

Be wary of dismissing things as conspiracy theories. Governments have been deceiving people for centuries by feeding them false information or by keeping things under wraps. Alot of those dismissed as conspiracy theorists are only guilty of questioning the status quo.

When choosing what you wish to believe, don't ever dismiss someone just because what they say is so far against the grain. They might be wrong but there is always a chance they are right. In either case, progress is only ever made when people start asking questions.

andrew

Some of the stuff he says in that article is mind-bogglingly stupid. OP, you can safely ignore Max Keiser, whoever the hell he is.

wingsof daun

Max Keiser features on RT almost daily and he has been on Vincent Brown. I don't understand the negative comments regarding him. He seems to be a hero of the masses, but I always have my doubts about such people that they may be "planted" and paid by the bankers to essentially deceive everyone. I doubt that now. Someone could "get rid" of him someway or other if he emerges as a real threat to the banking cartel of the world.

Voltex

I find him more entertaining than informative. I follow him on FB and tbh its getting rather boring listening(reading) to his doom mongering.

zootroid

Some of those headlines: "regime change", "terrorist organisation"

Christ

andrew

zootroid wrote: »

Some of those headlines: "regime change", "terrorist organisation"

Christ

"Gold Standard"

shudder :P

Slydice

Yeah... cos everythings

fine here in Ireland... yep,

real fine

MungBean

Perhaps someone could argue against some points he has made or something rather than scoff and call stuff stupid.

Things like "regime change" and "terrorist organisation" are not incorrct terms to use given his viewpoint.

andrew

MungBean wrote: »

Perhaps someone could argue against some points he has made or something rather than scoff and call stuff stupid.

Things like "regime change" and "terrorist organisation" are not incorrct terms to use given his viewpoint.

How does calling nama a terrorist organization make any sense? Unless his viewpoint is that of an attention grabbing media whore (which I think he is)

MungBean

andrew wrote: »

How does calling nama a terrorist organization make any sense? Unless his viewpoint is that of an attention grabbing media whore (which I think he is)

Buy a dictionary and look up the words then try to think rationally instead of spouting insults. Considering your standard of posting in this "serious discussion" forum I wont be responding to you any further.

andrew

MungBean wrote: »

andrew wrote: »

How does calling nama a terrorist organization make any sense? Unless his viewpoint is that of an attention grabbing media whore (which I think he is)

Buy a dictionary and look up the words then try to think rationally instead of spouting insults. Considering your standard of posting in this "serious discussion" forum I wont be responding to you any further.

ah, I remember the first time I tried to troll someone.

saywhatyousee

andrew wrote: »

"Gold Standard"

shudder :P

A worse idea than imaginary pieces of paper ie fiat currency?
What makes me shudder is your the mod of a economics forum.

saywhatyousee

I like Max Keiser sure he is a bit of a eccentric he knows his stuff though.

SupaNova

There is an irrational fear of gold in some quarters, and i hear the dumbest stuff regurgitated as an argument against gold, stuff like "you can't eat gold" or the comment Buffet repeated asking would you prefer 67foot cube of shiny metal or all the land in the US. Most gold haters don't understand the gold standard or the history of it. It was ended to fund World War I, not because it was a bad system.

The classical gold standard is actually much better than what we have now. The gold standard had a natural mechanism of balancing international trade and putting checks on inflation. The international monetary system we have now doesn't do well on either front and gives one country the privilege of being reserve currency, a truly horrible and unfair system which will end.

While we might not get a classical gold standard again, a re-emerging role for gold is not really an out there view. World Bank president, Robert Zoellick has said we are moving in this direction. If you look at the make up of the ECB's reserves, at launch, reserves were 30% gold, 70% foreign currencies, now reserves are about 65% gold and 35% foreign currencies which is interesting in itself. Also go to the World Gold Council's website and you can find a graph showing how Central Banks have gone from being overall net sellers of gold to net buyers. Adding the pieces of the puzzle it doesn't take much clairvoyance to imagine gold playing an important role again.

meglome

RichardAnd wrote: »

Be wary of dismissing things as conspiracy theories. Governments have been deceiving people for centuries by feeding them false information or by keeping things under wraps. Alot of those dismissed as conspiracy theorists are only guilty of questioning the status quo.

When choosing what you wish to believe, don't ever dismiss someone just because what they say is so far against the grain. They might be wrong but there is always a chance they are right. In either case, progress is only ever made when people start asking questions.

Oh I've spent many a day posting and reading over in the CT forum so I think I can spot conspiracy rubbish when I see it. And by golly does he love the sound of his own voice. Quite honestly any good points he makes are lost in the nonsense and rhetoric he spouts.

SupaNova wrote: »

There is an irrational fear of gold in some quarters, and i hear the dumbest stuff regurgitated as an argument against gold, stuff like "you can't eat gold" or the comment Buffet repeated asking would you prefer 67foot cube of shiny metal or all the land in the US. Most gold haters don't understand the gold standard or the history of it. It was ended to fund World War I, not because it was a bad system.

My understanding was there is not enough gold in the world to back the monetary system. And well... you can't eat gold.

The Journal wrote:

On why Ireland needs ‘regime change’:

The IMF is extracting wealth from the Irish people, through weapons of mass financial destruction, as Warren Buffett calls them. If the government are not going to represent the interests of the people who elected them, then the people have to assume that they need to be replaced. A regime change is necessary.

So I would say to the Irish people, see what people did in Cairo, see what people did in Tunisia. They were intolerant of financial terrorism, they sought a regime change, and they got it. That’s what this Occupy movement round the world is all about – because people understand that only regime change is going to get them independence from banking terrorists.

We as a nation borrowed big and lost. We supported a system that whomever gave away the most was elected. These comment above from his interview are just crap.

MungBean

meglome wrote: »

Oh I've spent many a day posting and reading over in the CT forum so I think I can spot conspiracy rubbish when I see it. And by golly does he love the sound of his own voice. Quite honestly any good points he makes are lost in the nonsense and rhetoric he spouts.

Perhaps you've spent too much time in the CT forum. Sounds like you've come across Max before and your very eager to throw a few digs based on the fact that he's probably popular among conspiracy folk.

We as a nation borrowed big and lost. We supported a system that whomever gave away the most was elected. These comment above from his interview are just crap.

We as a nation voted in FG and Labour with a mandate to stop bondholders being paid at the expense of the people. We as an nation didnt bring about this collapse, the banks did by over exposing themselves to the property market. We as a nation are not the banks.

What he's saying is if the government are not doing what the people want them to do then a change is in order. How is that talking crap ?

meglome

MungBean wrote: »

Perhaps you've spent too much time in the CT forum. Sounds like you've come across Max before and your very eager to throw a few digs based on the fact that he's probably popular among conspiracy folk.

Oh I've come across posts about Max many times over in the CT forum. And I've seen nothing in this most recent interview that paints him in a better light.

MungBean wrote: »

We as a nation voted in FG and Labour with a mandate to stop bondholders being paid at the expense of the people. We as an nation didnt bring about this collapse, the banks did by over exposing themselves to the property market. We as a nation are not the banks.

What he's saying is if the government are not doing what the people want them to do then a change is in order. How is that talking crap ?

Personally I saw it as electing a government to try to fix the mess. And I had no doubt whatsoever that there would be a lot of pain. Maybe it's me but morally if you borrow money you should pay it back. I'd like to think by playing ball with the EU we'll get more out of it in the long run.

But let's be very clear it's our overspending that is the biggest threat to this country. Must easier though to keep shouting about the banks and avoiding the elephant in the room.

SupaNova

meglome wrote: »

My understanding was there is not enough gold in the world to back the monetary system. And well... you can't eat gold.

There are different ways of using gold in an international monetary system. If you wanted to go back to a classical gold standard, the problem isn't that there isn't enough gold, it's just a question of price. The problems with going back to a classical gold standard are costs of transition and politcal will. It aint goin to happen voluntary, the political will could emerge as a way to rescue things in an unlikely worst case scenario.

The main reason i think gold is re-emerging as an international reserve asset is counterparty risk. When the Chinese receive paper dollars and buy american debt, they are dependent on the ability of future generations of American's to pay back that debt. They may get paid back nominally but when they go to cash in their dollars they will find that they have got a raw deal. If gold was used to pay for trade deficits, China and other countries that before received dollars are no longer dependent on the promise of single nation to produce in the future, but can use their gold to purchase the production of any nation worldwide. A return of gold in this role would stop out of control trade balances as countries who import more than they export will have to reverse course when they run out of gold.



Your not supposed to eat gold or paper debts.


Oh and Max Keiser is a loon.

The Outside Agency

I'd say the SDR will be new reserve currency eventually.

The IMF are suggesting it will provide stability in global markets.

The economic mods on this site are quite the experts...once dismissing any notion of IMF intervention in Ireland.

The same experts also dismissed privatisation of water and other structural readjustments.

Don't worry, Ireland's in good hands...we have highly educated economists.

MungBean

meglome wrote: »

Oh I've come across posts about Max many times over in the CT forum. And I've seen nothing in this most recent interview that paints him in a better light.

Ah yes, so its not other peoples opinions your after at all its just an opportunity to throw a few digs at him under the guise of a discussion.

Personally I saw it as electing a government to try to fix the mess. And I had no doubt whatsoever that there would be a lot of pain. Maybe it's me but morally if you borrow money you should pay it back. I'd like to think by playing ball with the EU we'll get more out of it in the long run.

FF were demolished because of their policies in dealing with the issue, FG and Labour were elected based on their policies to fix it. Both parties stated they would re-negotiate on behalf of the people the terms agreed with the EU and that they would negotiate with the banks and would not continue the complete repayment. They have a mandate to do what they said pre election, not to do whatever they want.

Your "morally if you borrow money you should pay it back" you do understand that the people didnt borrow the money, developers and banks borrowed the money right ? The majority of people dont owe any more than a mortgage.

But let's be very clear it's our overspending that is the biggest threat to this country. Must easier though to keep shouting about the banks and avoiding the elephant in the room.

If you want to be clear you might want to try looking at the actual situation rather than ignoring it while coming up with a solution.

The deficit would have been reduced with the proceeds of what could have been saved in the repayment of Anglo bondholders. But "Much easier to take it from the people than to take it from the bondholders".

Debtocracy

The status of Max Keiser is likely to rise in the future as his post-Lehmans predictions (currency devaluation, peak resources, peak credit, uprisings in Western societies) start to match the success of his pre-crash predictions. He also has the ability to move back and forth across the political and economic spectrum depending on the issue at hand. This gives him a wider potential audience than say Alex Jones who has a consistent underlying right wing agenda. The stuff about terrorism (e.g. waterboarding Bernanke) and the guillotine is not supposed to be taken seriously. It’s a ploy to keep an audience’s attention on what is normally boring material.

In fairness though he does not seem to have researched much about the Irish situation. Maybe he can’t grasp the fact that a government would bail out the financial sector without there being some form of corruption involved.

Some of his guests can be pretty decent like Steve Keen and this guy.

andrew

SupaNova wrote: »

There are different ways of using gold in an international monetary system. If you wanted to go back to a classical gold standard, the problem isn't that there isn't enough gold, it's just a question of price. The problems with going back to a classical gold standard are costs of transition and politcal will. It aint goin to happen voluntary, the political will could emerge as a way to rescue things in an unlikely worst case scenario.

The problem is that as the economy grows, the same amount of gold has to support a growing amount of production. Unless the 'price,' or rate of convertibility is, adjusted (analogous to an increase in money supply), then you get deflation. If the rate of convertibility is adjusted too much though, the standard loses credibility, and fails. This is a problem inherent in having a fixed money supply, and it's (partly) why very few actual economists (the Phd. having, lecture giving, research producing type) are in favour of a return to a fixed standard. I've only ever seen investor types (like Keiser and Schiff) advocate such a return, and I've always got the impression that they're bigging up gold because they've invested in gold, and have an interest in maintaining it's value.

SupaNova

andrew wrote: »

The problem is that as the economy grows, the same amount of gold has to support a growing amount of production. Unless the 'price,' or rate of convertibility is, adjusted (analogous to an increase in money supply), then you get deflation. If the rate of convertibility is adjusted too much though, the standard loses credibility, and fails. This is a problem inherent in having a fixed money supply, and it's (partly) why very few actual economists (the Phd. having, lecture giving, research producing type) are in favour of a return to a fixed standard. I've only ever seen investor types (like Keiser and Schiff) advocate such a return, and I've always got the impression that they're bigging up gold because they've invested in gold, and have an interest in maintaining it's value.

You seem to hold the belief that you need a money supply to grow in line with the economy, this would only be a problem if gold coins were used instead of cash or debit card at the point of sale, which nobody who has taken any time studying the gold standard advocates. Your reason for wanting a growing money supply seems to be fear of deflation, which there is also an irrational fear of.

I read a document from ECB just for the hell of it yesterday, and while they state the dangers of a rising CPI due to an increase in the money supply, they gloss over how deflation measured by the CPI that does not result from a collapse in the money supply but from productivity gains is a good thing. Hayek and Mises showed in clear daylight the problems with a policy of price stability.

To be fair though the ECB are open and honest in their documents about the problems, and try and make distinctions pointed out by Austrian economists. The reason i hear given for this fear is the Keynesian fear of hoarding, Which may hold true for sharp deflationary credit crash, but certainly wouldn't be true for -1% CPI measurement. For example price levels of phones and computers have dropped year on year for decades, and we haven't had a problem with hoarding yet. The ECB document quickly glosses over this argument.

There are plenty of phd types who advocate a gold standard, google Guido Hulsmann or De Soto, i could go to trouble of giving you more. De Soto has a treatise on Money and Credit. Modern economists who support a gold standard do so for reasons primarily the same as Mises, Hayek and Rothbard, and i haven't found anything that invalidates their work. The reason they advocate a gold standard are, it doesn't allow international trade to become imbalanced, and it limits the ability of governments and banks to inflate thus limiting the destructive misallocation of resources caused by the business cycle. The reason we don't have a gold standard is banks and governments don't want their ability to inflate restricted, simple as.

The reason many phd economists don't advocate a gold standard is they probably know little about it and never investigated it. The appeal to an authority is how most people dismiss the gold standard, even using senseless Buffet quotes. The approach doesn't have much weight, when a nobel prize winning economist can't tell you his thoughts on the economy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFdnA5UNmVw

Cavehill Red

Kaiser's documentary on Ireland is well worth a watch. No conspiracies here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5zXU1bQ3tQ

beeftotheheels

SupaNova wrote: »

You seem to hold the belief that you need a money supply to grow in line with the economy, this would only be a problem if gold coins were used instead of cash or debit card at the point of sale, which nobody who has taken any time studying the gold standard advocates. Your reason for wanting a growing money supply seems to be fear of deflation, which there is also an irrational fear of.

I read a document from ECB just for the hell of it yesterday, and while they state the dangers of a rising CPI due to an increase in the money supply, they gloss over how deflation measured by the CPI that does not result from a collapse in the money supply but from productivity gains is a good thing. Hayek and Mises showed in clear daylight the problems with a policy of price stability.

To be fair though the ECB are open and honest in their documents about the problems, and try and make distinctions pointed out by Austrian economists. The reason i hear given for this fear is the Keynesian fear of hoarding, Which may hold true for sharp deflationary credit crash, but certainly wouldn't be true for -1% CPI measurement. For example price levels of phones and computers have dropped year on year for decades, and we haven't had a problem with hoarding yet. The ECB document quickly glosses over this argument.

There are plenty of phd types who advocate a gold standard, google Guido Hulsmann or De Soto, i could go to trouble of giving you more. De Soto has a treatise on Money and Credit. Modern economists who support a gold standard do so for reasons primarily the same as Mises, Hayek and Rothbard, and i haven't found anything that invalidates their work. The reason they advocate a gold standard are, it doesn't allow international trade to become imbalanced, and it limits the ability of governments and banks to inflate thus limiting the destructive misallocation of resources caused by the business cycle. The reason we don't have a gold standard is banks and governments don't want their ability to inflate restricted, simple as.

The reason many phd economists don't advocate a gold standard is they probably know little about it and never investigated it. The appeal to an authority is how most people dismiss the gold standard, even using senseless Buffet quotes. The approach doesn't have much weight, when a nobel prize winning economist can't tell you his thoughts on the economy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFdnA5UNmVw

Huh??? you're advocating some kind of religious adherence to an old school of economics on the basis that "[you] believe in it therefore it must be right, regardless of empirical evidence to the contrary"?

Burn the bondholders and set the markets free, whaaaaat????

andrew

SupaNova wrote: »

You seem to hold the belief that you need a money supply to grow in line with the economy, this would only be a problem if gold coins were used instead of cash or debit card at the point of sale, which nobody who has taken any time studying the gold standard advocates. Your reason for wanting a growing money supply seems to be fear of deflation, which there is also an irrational fear of.

Are you sure you understand what a gold standard is? Cash and debit money may not literally have to be gold, but they have to be backed by a certain quantity of gold under a gold standard.

I read a document from ECB just for the hell of it yesterday, and while they state the dangers of a rising CPI due to an increase in the money supply, they gloss over how deflation measured by the CPI that does not result from a collapse in the money supply but from productivity gains is a good thing. Hayek and Mises showed in clear daylight the problems with a policy of price stability.

To be fair though the ECB are open and honest in their documents about the problems, and try and make distinctions pointed out by Austrian economists. The reason i hear given for this fear is the Keynesian fear of hoarding, Which may hold true for sharp deflationary credit crash, but certainly wouldn't be true for -1% CPI measurement. For example price levels of phones and computers have dropped year on year for decades, and we haven't had a problem with hoarding yet. The ECB document quickly glosses over this argument.

Phones don't have a price level. Computers don't have a price level. They are both components of the price level. Please give me evidence that sustained deflation isn't harmful. An empirical study, or a paper outlining the theoretical reasons why. Why is debt deflation not bad?

There are plenty of phd types who advocate a gold standard, google Guido Hulsmann or De Soto, i could go to trouble of giving you more. De Soto has a treatise on Money and Credit. Modern economists who support a gold standard do so for reasons primarily the same as Mises, Hayek and Rothbard, and i haven't found anything that invalidates their work. The reason they advocate a gold standard are, it doesn't allow international trade to become imbalanced, and it limits the ability of governments and banks to inflate thus limiting the destructive misallocation of resources caused by the business cycle. The reason we don't have a gold standard is banks and governments don't want their ability to inflate restricted, simple as.

Please do give me more. I know of De Soto, but assuming we're talking about the same De Soto, his work is more about property rights than it is about money. Also, regarding the bolded bit; why is the ability to affect the nominal exchange rate bad? Why is trying to affect the economy in the short run bad?

The reason many phd economists don't advocate a gold standard is they probably know little about it and never investigated it. The appeal to an authority is how most people dismiss the gold standard, even using senseless Buffet quotes. The approach doesn't have much weight, when a nobel prize winning economist can't tell you his thoughts on the economy.

Seriously? That's it? You think they don't advocate a gold standard, because they don't understand it? Don't you think maybe, just maybe, they don't advocate it because it's a bad idea, theoretically? Learning about different monetary systems is a staple of pretty much every undergrad economics course. I doubt it'd be possible to get a economics degree and not understand the gold standard; it's not very difficult. And if very few mainstream economists go with the gold standard, and nowhere in the world is currently on such a standard, and pretty much every economist thinks deflation is a bad thing, does maybe that not mean it's not a great idea? And this isn't an appeal to authority; the gold standard isn't a bad idea just because economists say it is, it's a bad idea because of the theoretical arguments they have which say it's a bad idea. [An appeal to authority is where you say someone's right because of their position, not because of their theoretical knowledge of the subject]

SupaNova

andrew wrote: »

Are you sure you understand what a gold standard is? Cash and debit money may not literally have to be gold, but they have to be backed by a certain quantity of gold under a gold standard.

Yes an your point is?

Phones don't have a price level. Computers don't have a price level. They are both components of the price level. Please give me evidence that sustained deflation isn't harmful. An empirical study, or a paper outlining the theoretical reasons why. Why is debt deflation not bad?

Sustained price deflation measured by the CPI that is a result of increased productivity isn't harmful, i haven't said debt deflation is good.

Please do give me more. I know of De Soto, but assuming we're talking about the same De Soto, his work is more about property rights than it is about money. Also, regarding the bolded bit; why is the ability to affect the nominal exchange rate bad? Why is trying to affect the economy in the short run bad?

Got to Mises.org and you can find more. As for why inflation is bad you can read to ECB's own opinion as to why monetary inflation is bad, they aren't miles away from Mises, Hayek and Rothbard, they gloss over deflation in their own documents. Go read some Hayek to find out why monetary inflation is destructive.

Seriously? That's it? You think they don't advocate a gold standard, because they don't understand it? Don't you think maybe, just maybe, they don't advocate it because it's a bad idea, theoretically?

Well the mindless comments regarding gold would suggest that some economists need to brush up on this, as well as other basic stuff like value theory and supply and demand.

And if very few mainstream economists go with the gold standard, and nowhere in the world is currently on such a standard, and pretty much every economist thinks deflation is a bad thing, does maybe that not mean it's not a great idea?

Governments and Banks don't want a gold standard because it restricts their ability to inflate, not because it is a terrible system. If that's a criticism or flaw of the gold standard fair enough, its a flaw i would like to have.

You have to differentiate monetary deflation from price deflation. No one will disagree that monetary deflation is a bad thing. Price deflation brought about by productivity gains is not a bad thing.

Just because most economists think price deflation is bad, that doesn't mean it is.

SupaNova

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Huh??? you're advocating some kind of religious adherence to an old school of economics on the basis that "[you] believe in it therefore it must be right, regardless of empirical evidence to the contrary"?

Burn the bondholders and set the markets free, whaaaaat????

Reading and understanding Hayek makes me religious believer? If you bother to read and understand Hayek and his description of monetary inflation and the associated problems, you will find he doesn't really differ much at all from the ECB on the subject, but goes into far greater detail and gives far more explanation. I don't think there is much point discussing anything with someone who cries people are religious believers than actually make a point.

andrew

Got to Mises.org and you can find more. As for why inflation is bad you can read to ECB's own opinion as to why monetary inflation is bad, they aren't miles away from Mises, Hayek and Rothbard, they gloss over deflation in their own documents. Go read some Hayek to find out why monetary inflation is destructive.

I know a guy who got a post on Mises.org, while in second year, who isn't even doing an economics degree. It's not a very reputable site; are there any other sources?

Well the mindless comments regarding gold would suggest that some economists need to brush up on this, as well as other basic stuff like value theory and supply and demand.

What mindless comments? What economists? What makes you think they need to brush up on supply and demand? And what about the question: if so many economists don't advocate a gold standard, why do you think this is?

Governments and Banks don't want a gold standard because it restricts their ability to inflate, not because it is a terrible system. If that's a criticism or flaw of the gold standard fair enough, its a flaw i would like to have.

I know inflation is a bad thing; but it's better than deflation, no? And not all monetary interventions lead to inflation; what about contraction monetary policy, do you think it's good that that policy option be removed too?

Sustained price deflation measured by the CPI that is a result of increased productivity isn't harmful, i haven't said debt deflation is good.

You have to differentiate monetary deflation from price deflation. No one will disagree that monetary deflation is a bad thing. Price deflation brought about by productivity gains is not a bad thing.

Just because most economists think price deflation is bad, that doesn't mean it is.

A fall in a single price, say of computers (btw, the price of an entry level computer hasn't really fallen), is not deflation. The deflation to which I'm referring is monetary deflation, a fall in the general price level. It's not deflation brought on by productivity because I'm pretty sure productivity gains don't bring about a general fall in the price level. So I'm saying gold standard = monetary deflation. You agree it's a bad thing; so we're in agreement, no?

SupaNova

andrew wrote: »

I know a guy who got a post on Mises.org, while in second year, who isn't even doing an economics degree. It's not a very reputable site; are there any other sources?

Lol i hope you are you really being deliberately stupid rather than actully being stupid. Economists with Phd's and MA's regularly contribute to Mises.org, and its easy to track them down by going to the site and you go and talk about a forum poster. Mother of God :rolleyes:. Roger Garrison is another very good Austrian economist off the top of my head.

What mindless comments? What economists? What makes you think they need to brush up on supply and demand? And what about the question: if so many economists don't advocate a gold standard, why do you think this is?

Krugman for a start. And i'm not going on a runabout for someone being deliberately stupid.

I know inflation is a bad thing; but it's better than deflation, no? And not all monetary interventions lead to inflation; what about contraction monetary policy, do you think it's good that that policy option be removed too?

A fall in a single price, say of computers (btw, the price of an entry level computer hasn't really fallen), is not deflation. The deflation to which I'm referring is monetary deflation, a fall in the general price level. It's not deflation brought on by productivity because I'm pretty sure productivity gains don't bring about a general fall in the price level. So I'm saying gold standard = monetary deflation. You agree it's a bad thing; so we're in agreement, no?

You seem to be having a hard time separating monetary inflation/deflation from price inflation/deflation. Prices across the board can fall in relation to a fixed supply of money due to an increasing supply of goods and services. This type of deflation is not bad. Prices across the board fell from the start of the 19th Century to the end, because the money supply increased at a slower rate than the amount of goods and services.