by MrBill » Mon 23 Jul 2007, 09:51:49
Tanada wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')iat money is completly arbitrary and its value changes on whims or market forces based against other fiat currencies if you prefer.
Sorry, I am not trying to pick on you per se, but pick apart arguments like these that I read everyday. Feel free to disagree with me. Everyone else does.
Do you work in a mine? Do you work in the energy industry? I am just curious because if you do not then why do you expect to be paid in gold or energy credits for your labor?
If you merely work in the service sector or produce products not directly related to supplying miners and oil workers with the tools they need to extract more gold and energy from the ground then why in Heaven's name would you be expected to be paid in a 'hard currency' backed by those other people's 'real labor' as opposed to your secondary, and less important, contribution?
I mean if a currency backed by ones and zeros is worthless then what does that say about computer programmers and anyone else that produces such worthless labor? They should be paid in worthless zeros and ones if that is all they produce.
The value of a FIAT currency is backed by the overall credit worthiness of a country the same as a corporate bond or a company's share price is based on the company's financial health and future prospects. They are also not fixed in absolute value. They can appreciate overtime through good stewardship or they can plunge in value due to irresponsible borrowing or poor investment decisions.
But gold or energy is also not constant in value either. It also varies by supply and demand as well as general price inflation or the cost of other goods & services like food, clothing and shelter.
It seems highly naive to me to assume that a currency backed by all the assets of a country, plus its ability to tax its citizens both now and in the future, is of less value than the price of a fixed supply of gold? If so, then the Sharpe Ratio is wrong. You really should invest by putting all your eggs in one basket.
To be sure governments have abused their sovereignage, but mainly to give their electorate all those goodies they demanded like pensions they have never really paid for, but want anyway. As well as medical insurance that is not really insurance, but a taxpayer give away. Or even that those taxpayers even paid for all that they consumed, but passed along the remaining costs to foreign creditors and/or unborne generations of taxpayers.
You can feel pretty crummy about your government mortgaging your future, but your generation is mortgaging your children's future as well. They will pay for your debts and deficits to keep your lifestyle going through inflation and/or lower living standards. Which is worse, eh?
Why is it that people assume what they do adds value, but what others produce is less valuable? If we accept the premise that money supply, via a fiat currency, artificially creates economic growth versus 'real output' then should we not also assume that in its absense that many of you here would be unemployed and not happily earning your current salary paid in good old gold backed notes, but everything else would be cheaper?
It seems to me that many of you are disconnected from reality, and your true place in society or value to society? But that's just my opinon! ; - )
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.