Republicans to discuss return to gold standard at convention

[PeteEU]

Three pros for the gold standard:

1) 'From 1790 until 1973, when the U.S. publicly abandoned the last vestiges of the gold standard, the U.S. economy grew an average annual real rate of 3.96%. In the 38 years since then, our GDP growth rate has averaged 2.66%.

The slower economic growth rate under the fiat money regime has had an enormous negative impact. If our economy had continued to grow at 3.96% real from 1973 on, 2011 GDP would have been 61% larger. Everyone’s income would be at least 50% higher, and the federal budget would be running a $700 billion surplus, despite our current wildly excessive federal spending.'

A New Gold Standard Needs The Right Gold Price - Forbes

So America was far more prosperous under some form of gold standard then without one.

Not exactly true. You forget to mention how unstable the economy was. Sure the AVERAGE growth was big, but the fluctuations were massive and the amount of
economic crisis, bank crashes and so on were also far far more numerous.

It is also unfair to use 1793 to 1973, because the gold standard was abandoned before 1973, since the "standard" was tweaked to death basically in the 30 years or so up to the final abandonment in 1973. The "Gold standard" of 1960 have very little resemblance to that of 1973 or 1840. Also the economic growth numbers you show does not take into account things like WW2, rebuilding Europe, the industrial revolution and an expanding US.. all of which happened before 1973 and not after. Like it or not, major wars and conflicts and procurement of new lands tend to boost a countries GDP growth.

2) 'As mentioned, the great virtue of the gold standard was that it assured long-term price stability. Compare the aforementioned average annual inflation rate of 0.1 percent between 1880 and 1914 with the average of 4.1 percent between 1946 and 2003.'

Gold Standard: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

The Gold Standard, Price Deflation, and the U.S. Historical Record

So America's overall inflation rate was far lower under some form of a gold standard then without one.

Sorry but that is a myth. There are plenty of serious studies that debunk this myth. Of course you wont accept any of these studies because they debunk your idea of going back to the gold standard. If you just look at the yearly inflation numbers we have from the 1910s and 1920s you would know this. Inflation rate (annual) in 1920... 15.9%.. 1921... -10.85%.. aka deflation. Inflation rates were all over the place pre 1973 during the gold standard, and have been far more stable since.

and 3) the first chart on the list shows that fiscal discipline was FAR better under a gold standard.

Historical Tables | The White House

It was different times. You cant compare "Government" of the 1920s to that of 2012. So of course they had more fiscal discipline in the 1920s or 1890s... the size of government.. the things we wanted them to do.. was so much smaller. For one your military did not have over a million men and women under arms. Nor did you have SS or any sort of government healthcare.. or roads, or other infrastructure that you have today.

 

[imagep]

Three pros for the gold standard:

1) 'From 1790 until 1973, when the U.S. publicly abandoned the last vestiges of the gold standard, the U.S. economy grew an average annual real rate of 3.96%. In the 38 years since then, our GDP growth rate has averaged 2.66%.

The slower economic growth rate under the fiat money regime has had an enormous negative impact. If our economy had continued to grow at 3.96% real from 1973 on, 2011 GDP would have been 61% larger. Everyone’s income would be at least 50% higher, and the federal budget would be running a $700 billion surplus, despite our current wildly excessive federal spending.'

Good fact, but correlation doesn't prove causation. Right off the top of my head, I wonder if differences in immigration rates had anything to do with that. My other concern is that starting in the early 80's, disparity of income started drastically increasing, and since that time only the top few percent have benefited from increases in productivity, so I could care less if GDP grows, I'm more concerned about the median income growing.

A New Gold Standard Needs The Right Gold Price - Forbes
So America was far more prosperous under some form of gold standard then without one.

Again, thats an interesting fact, but it doesn't prove causation.

2) 'As mentioned, the great virtue of the gold standard was that it assured long-term price stability. Compare the aforementioned average annual inflation rate of 0.1 percent between 1880 and 1914 with the average of 4.1 percent between 1946 and 2003.'

Gold Standard: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

The Gold Standard, Price Deflation, and the U.S. Historical Record

So America's overall inflation rate was far lower under some form of a gold standard then without one.

As long as the wages keep up with inflation, inflation is little more than an irratation.

and 3) the first chart on the list shows that fiscal discipline was FAR better under a gold standard.

Historical Tables | The White House

To the extent that going off the gold standard has allowed us to print too much money, then sure. But it's quite likely that the part of our budget that our gov borrows from overseas has little to do with going off the gold standard, thats really a trade deficit issue, which sort of disproves any need to go on a gold standard as foreign countries are more than happy to accept fiat dollars that they don't even have an immediate need for, and then to lend them back to us.

 

[Daize]

Edit: nvm, there were alot of posts I hadn't read before posting this one. Ignore please

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Good fact, but correlation doesn't prove causation. Right off the top of my head, I wonder if differences in immigration rates had anything to do with that. My other concern is that starting in the early 80's, disparity of income started drastically increasing, and since that time only the top few percent have benefited from increases in productivity, so I could care less if GDP grows, I'm more concerned about the median income growing.

Don't leave out the industrial revolution, or the fact that pre 1750 gold and other medal were currency since before Jesus was around. And things grew at a snails pace for about 2500 years.

 

[Kushinator]

Good fact, but correlation doesn't prove causation. Right off the top of my head, I wonder if differences in immigration rates had anything to do with that. My other concern is that starting in the early 80's, disparity of income started drastically increasing, and since that time only the top few percent have benefited from increases in productivity, so I could care less if GDP grows, I'm more concerned about the median income growing.

Great point!

One of the main focuses in steady state economics is determining when the population growth rate's contribution to economic growth is both maximized and minimized. Keynes actually had some pretty deep analysis on the matter:

The Widow’s Curse - Keynes’ made a proposal in his Treatise on Money [13] for economic stability at the limits of growth, what we would now call a “sustainable design” for capitalism. It was not at all well received. It was for some future time when increasing capital investment would naturally meet diminishing returns for the system as a whole. Continuing increases in investment by the wealthy would then cause over-investment and result in “conditions sufficiently miserable” to bring the net savings rate of the economy to zero. He called the solution to the problem “the widows curse”, after a bible story of Elijah coming to stay with an old widow[14] and making her cup of oil inexhaustible.

source

 

[Cardinal Fang]

'From 1790 until 1973, when the U.S. publicly abandoned the last vestiges of the gold standard, the U.S. economy grew an average annual real rate of 3.96%.

Load of right-wing crap alert: There are no accepted data for GNP prior to the rather crude but still reasonable decadal estimates that begin in 1869. Claims to have data for years such as 1790 are just more fourth-grade BS.

This point has been raised before and of course ignored. Never let a good lie go to waste.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Good fact, but correlation doesn't prove causation. Right off the top of my head, I wonder if differences in immigration rates had anything to do with that.

Interesting if different topic. But consistent measurement of the foreign born population didn't begin until the 1860 Census. What the data since have shown has been a fairly consistent level of around 15% that persisted into the 1920's, then nose-dived in the face of racism and then the transit-limiting effects of the Great Depression and WWII. Recovery began in the 1960's, but we are still not back to pre-WWI levels.

 

[DA60]

Load of right-wing crap alert: There are no accepted data for GNP prior to the rather crude but still reasonable decadal estimates that begin in 1869. Claims to have data for years such as 1790 are just more fourth-grade BS.

This point has been raised before and of course ignored. Never let a good lie go to waste.

Do you have a link to unbiased, factual evidence that what you claim is true - yes or no?

I am guessing no - which would be at least the fourth time I have asked you to back up your words that you refused.

JP Hochbaum backs up his words with links to facts/data.

Yet you, for some reason, think that I will actually take the word of some nameless, faceless nobody on a chat forum.

Ummmm.....not quite.


Have a nice day.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Do you have a link to unbiased, factual evidence that what you claim is true - yes or no?

This again? Define unbiased. Define factual.

I am guessing no - which would be at least the fourth time I have asked you to back up your words that you refused.

For the same reasons as implied above. The question is packed with what are often called "weasel words" for rather obvious reasons. It is meanwhile YOUR claim to have GNP data from 1790. Where are they? What was your "unbiased, factual" source for those?

JP Hochbaum backs up his words with links to facts/data. Yet you, for some reason, think that I will actually take the word of some nameless, faceless nobody on a chat forum. Ummmm.....not quite.

You know, from the number of times and number of ways your arguments have been upended, you really should have built a better picture by now.

 

[DA60]

This again? Define unbiased. Define factual.

Links to non-partisan sources (like the CBO for example) that show statistical evidence of your claim (as opposed to unproven theoretical claims).


Of course, we both know you fully understand the statement (surely you cannot be THAT ignorant), you just realize that you cannot prove the statements in question and are just doing what you always seem to do when you are wrong - refuse to admit it by deflecting the conversation and/or insulting the source of the question.

For the same reasons as implied above. The question is packed with what are often called "weasel words" for rather obvious reasons. It is meanwhile YOUR claim to have GNP data from 1790. Where are they? What was your "unbiased, factual" source for those?

Take it up with the person(s) who wrote the article that I quoted.

You maybe right - but there is NO WAY I am taking your word for it, considering - as shown at the bottom - how you have made up statement(s) before.


'you typed: 'There is nothing about new jobs in the ARRA.'

And yet:

'From Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money

'*THE RECOVERY ACT

On Feb. 13, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 at the urging of President Obama, who signed it into law four days later. A direct response to the economic crisis, the Recovery Act has three immediate goals:

Create new jobs and save existing ones'

The Recovery Act

http://www.debatepolitics.com/econo...rease-government-reven-30.html#post1060874319


Have a nice day.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Allow me to cut through all the Republican BS: This is just throwing a bone to the libertarian wing of the party, who the Republicans will always see as nothing more than strung out college kids to be placated and manipulated. In reality, the Republicans would NEVER permit a return to the gold standard, because it would be so detrimental to the wealthy elite to whom they are lapdogs. It's patronizing **** like this, "considering the gold standard" garbage that really grinds my gears about Republicans (that and their inherent racism). **** them and their fiat money.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Links to non-partisan sources (like the CBO for example) that show statistical evidence of your claim (as opposed to unproven theoretical claims).

That's a little odd, given the quality of sources typically cited in attempts to back your own often phony and typically off-the-wall notions, but in that case, please see The Statistical History of the United States: From Colonial Times to the Present. This was a Bicentennial product of the Census Bureau, presenting full and detailed histories for a broad range of official data. And also explanations of why those data sometimes simply stop, as GNP data do at 1869.

Take it up with the person(s) who wrote the article that I quoted.

I see. So you absolve yourself of any responsibility at all for having cited lying morons. Just circumstances beyond your control, I guess.

'you typed: 'There is nothing about new jobs in the ARRA.'

Cross-posted into multiple threads and incorrectly each and every time. Once again, the statement noted that there is no distinction made between jobs saved and created in the overall jobs estimates that are found in CBO and other public and private sector analyses of ARRA performance. Their findings are all consistent with 3+ million jobs having been present in the economy that would not have been there without ARRA and that's the end of it. You were either incapable of comprehending the statement as originally written or have deliberately distorted it out of entirely devious and inappropriate intention.

 

[DA60]

That's a little odd, given the quality of sources typically cited in attempts to back your own often phony and typically off-the-wall notions, but in that case, please see The Statistical History of the United States: From Colonial Times to the Present. This was a Bicentennial product of the Census Bureau, presenting full and detailed histories for a broad range of official data. And also explanations of why those data sometimes simply stop, as GNP data do at 1869.


I see. So you absolve yourself of any responsibility at all for having cited lying morons. Just circumstances beyond your control, I guess.


Cross-posted into multiple threads and incorrectly each and every time. Once again, the statement noted that there is no distinction made between jobs saved and created in the overall jobs estimates that are found in CBO and other public and private sector analyses of ARRA performance. Their findings are all consistent with 3+ million jobs having been present in the economy that would not have been there without ARRA and that's the end of it. You were either incapable of comprehending the statement as originally written or have deliberately distorted it out of entirely devious and inappropriate intention.

And once again folks, for the FIFTH TIME, Cardinal Fang fails to be able to answer/provide links to evidence to back up statements he makes.

I keep asking and all you do is keep spinning and trying to deflect from your ignorance through insults and arrogance.

I have grown more then tired of this.

It is.clear you simply are almost all bark and almost no bite.

You seem to have many interesting statistics/pieces of information at your disposal; but are apparently too arrogant and too politically biased to understand them in the larger context.

Maybe when your posts are not a morass of bias, bile and spin doctoring (with an occasional interesting fact/piece of info thrown in) you would be worth my time.

Unfortuanately, that day is not today...and judging from my experiences on chat forums, probably never will be.


Have a nice day.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

And once again folks, for the FIFTH TIME, Cardinal Fang fails to be able to answer/provide links to evidence to back up statements he makes.

What "folks" do you imagine yourself to be speaking to?

I keep asking and all you do is keep spinning and trying to deflect from your ignorance through insults and arrogance. I have grown more then tired of this. It is.clear you simply are almost all bark and almost no bite.

Hmmm. Another tough day over at the Hurt Feelings Club, I suppose. But given the absence of humble apology here, it doesn't seem like you've had a chance yet to check out The Statistical History of the United States: From Colonial Times to the Present, even though it is plainly one of the factual, unbiased sources you suggested earlier your endorsement and approval of. If for some reason you do not have a personal copy of this handy five-pound reference tome, you can get one on the internet for a song, and of course, any decent libary will have a copy. You do live near a decent library, do you not? Almost everybody does. In any case, information about GNP/GDP can be found beginning on page 215 and in Tables F1 through F348. Of course, there won't be any GNP data prior to 1869.

You seem to have many interesting statistics/pieces of information at your disposal; but are apparently too arrogant and too politically biased to understand them in the larger context.

Actually, I have been paid (rather handsomely, too) for more than four decades for an ability not just to understand such context, but to develop it and then explain it in non-partisan terms to others. You're pretty much getting my charity rate here, but for some reason you don't appreciate it.

Maybe when your posts are not a morass of bias, bile and spin doctoring (with an occasional interesting fact/piece of info thrown in) you would be worth my time. Unfortuanately, that day is not today...and judging from my experiences on chat forums, probably never will be.

That's once again a bunch of venting and self-serving emotional bluster but not much else. The high road does not belong to those who deliberately twist and distort the data and lie about history. That's something you might want to keep in mind.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Cardinal:

This link provides the numbers that you keep referencing:

The Gold Standard, Price Deflation, and the U.S. Historical Record

These data come from the Historical Statistics of the United States.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Cardinal:
This link provides the numbers that you keep referencing:
The Gold Standard, Price Deflation, and the U.S. Historical Record
These data come from the Historical Statistics of the United States.

That's just the original cite that I have been disputing. The data alleged by the author do not appear within the official tabulations published by the Census Bureau in The Statistical History of the United States. There are no officially recognized data for GNP prior to 1869. Lots of people have taken a crack at deriving estimates for those time periods (McCusker, Gallman, Weiss, etc.) but there are degrees of data and methodoligical weakness in that work that have and no doubt will continue to leave these estimates well short of any official status.

 

[pdog]

That's just the original cite that I have been disputing. The data alleged by the author do not appear within the official tabulations published by the Census Bureau in The Statistical History of the United States. There are no officially recognized data for GNP prior to 1869. Lots of people have taken a crack at deriving estimates for those time periods (McCusker, Gallman, Weiss, etc.) but there are degrees of data and methodoligical weakness in that work that have and no doubt will continue to leave these estimates well short of any official status.

Even at $1.11 for a used copy, I don't really want to wait for the text to show up assuming it is correct:
The Statistical History of the United States: From Colonial Times to the Present: Ben J. Wattenberg: 9780465082032: Amazon.com: Books

However, by way of:
Statistical Abstracts - Publications - US Census Bureau (Bicentennial Edition: Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 - part 1)

With regard to the statistical reliability of the estimates, the following quotation, relating to the decade rather than the quinquennial averages presented here is relevant:

For the comprehensive totals of national product and their major components such as flow of goods to consumers, gross value of producer durables, gross construction, the maximum error in the estimates for the decades before 1919 can be said to be 15 percent; for the later three decades [1919-28, 1924-33, 1929-38] less than 10 percent. The maximum errors may be somewhat larger for the various categories of the flow of goods to consumers; and, on a percentage basis much larger for the the net totals - net producer durables, net construction, changes in inventories, changes in claims against foreign countries, particularly the last two.
Owing to the possible shortages in the underlying data or errors inherent in some of the assumptions, the comprehensive totals for the 1869-78 decade may be understated by as much as 10 percent; for the 1875-83 decade by as much as 5 percent; for the subsequent decades through 1899-1908 by as much as 2 to 3 percent. (Simon Kuznets, Nation Product Since 1869, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, 1946, pp. 85-86.)

This statement, though made with respect to an earlier set of estimates, is also applicable to the revised figures presented here, but since the present estimates refer to quinquennial periods, the allowance for maximum error should be increased.

With a 15% error in the data post 1869 would it not be easy to accept cardinal's assertion regarding the inaccuracy of data prior to that is a reasonable one? I'm even wondering how much stock I should be putting into periods prior to 1919 .

If not Historical Statistics of the United States, 1789 - 1945:

No statement is made by Blodget as to the source material underlying either of these two tabulations [referencing 1805 back to 1774 in the paragraph prior]

... The total so derived for the value of "houses, lands, and slaves" was 1,902 million dollars (...) according to Timothy Pitkin's A statistical View of the Commerce of the United States (1835 edition), p. 313. Of this total, Pitkin estimates the value of slaves included at roughly 300 million dollars.

Since under-assessment has been the rule rather than the exception in property tax administration, the total given by Pitkin is probably an under-assessment. It is moreover, too low to be consistent with Blodget's figure. But important partly because it illustrates the crude beginning of the method later developed by the Census...

....During the period of 1850-1922, that is, from the seventh Decennial Census to the date of estimates included int he FTC report on national wealth and income, there was a rapid development, both in technique and in basic data for statistics of wealth.

 

[solletica]

Someone who gets it. We have no basis for the dollar today except on the value of other fiat currencies. Now we just have inflation that increases every year and Cardinal thinks its A-OK. Europe is in trouble, we are right behind them, and China is now looking grim. We are just repeating history but with way more at stake, and Cardinal thinks business as usual is the way to go. Hilarious.

Leaving the gold standard back when they did just allowed them to print print their way out. We are repeating the same process and it is going to go kaboom in their faces.

It doesn't matter what unit of currency people use, as long as as the currency is inherently secure from outside tracking*. All forms of money change value from time to time, even gold. And currency can always be traded.

* - note that no form of money in circulation today comes close to meeting this requirement, for all practical purposes.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Even at $1.11 for a used copy, I don't really want to wait for the text to show up assuming it is correct:

Well, once it arrived, it would be useful for all kinds of things. The $1.11 copies are probably pretty beat up though, perhaps with some pages missing. I'd go for at least the $5.00 version.

With a 15% error in the data post 1869 would it not be easy to accept cardinal's assertion regarding the inaccuracy of data prior to that is a reasonable one? I'm even wondering how much stock I should be putting into periods prior to 1919 .

GNP data have been well prepared in their original form since those for 1929. Those back to 1919 were close to comparable, but BEA still chooses not to publish them. The further back one goes from there, the worse things start to become. Kuznets' evaluations and tests were instrumental in setting the decadal 1869-78 numbers as the earliest that are officially recognized. As already noted, there are multiple attempts at earlier estimates that are credible, but they all come with a lot of guesswork or extrapolation that the later data simply have a lot less of. They had to draw the line somewhere.