Eurozone to prepare for Greek exit

Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
When did I say it is not declining? In fact, I admitted it since I said we target 2% inflation. And look at that graph from after 1971- looks pretty damn good.


The USDX is vs. a basket of foreign currencies, which is more volatile than the basket of goods in core CPI or PCE. Anyway, stop arguing that gold is more volatile than the USD factoring in the Fed right now- it simply is not true. The numbers including volatility numbers are out there. The only thing you can argue is gold keeps its value better in the long-run, but as I showed that does not matter because consumers need relative stability in the short run.

You said the dollar is stable, decline is not stable, like a sinking ship is not stable
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
Actually people do, otherwise the government could just keep it stable. Again
MV=PY


Just because other currencies have failed means nothing (ironically a lot of failed currencies can be explained through the body of work that supports my argument anyway). Furthermore, there have been many many civilizations who used various types of gold currency which have also failed. Gold itself survived because it is an element! What kind of argument are you making? It's like saying, oxygen has survived all these years because we care about it.

That aside, gold would be so impractical to use in real life- how the hell are you going to divide up gold? Do you realize how small a piece of gold worth $1 is?

But seriously, I am not even going to get into the practicality of using the currency because the monetary argument for gold in itself fails, especially in the manner that you are presenting and supporting it in.
if our currency was backed by gold it would be inflation resistant.


The prabability of our currency surviving through a political calapse is very low.
Your arguement is still very weak

And the fed controlls how much money is made, they determine the supply, the people do not. If you have a trillion of something then it is less valuble then if you had a thousand of something. Being that people don't ment their own money they dont have the ability to control supply, the fed dose. How on earth do people control the value of a dollar without controlling supply
 
Jun 2012
36
0
The financial markets initially responded with relief on Monday as elections in Greece ushered in a party that supports the outlines of an international bailout. But the reaction was short-lived as borrowing costs in Spain and Italy reminded investors that the troubles facing the euro zone were far from resolved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/business/global/daily-euro-zone-watch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Some relief for the Greece nation but is it still something that they will need to look at again within a few months or sooner? Receiving bailouts will only do so much before the rest of the country collapses.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
You said the dollar is stable, decline is not stable, like a sinking ship is not stable

I said relatively stable. And that 2% is probably the most stable we'll ever realistically get so I'll take it.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
You can't use actual prices of a gallon of milk from 1971 to now as a measure of inflation. Because the supply and demand of milk has changed a lot since then too and that has nothing to do with inflation.
How much has supply and demand changed on milk, if you know it's alot, explain how you know this
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
And the fed controlls how much money is made, they determine the supply, the people do not. If you have a trillion of something then it is less valuble then if you had a thousand of something. Being that people don't ment their own money they dont have the ability to control supply, the fed dose. How on earth do people control the value of a dollar without controlling supply

The Fed controls supply to counter changing velocity (which the market controls- demand for money). MV=PY


Your arguement is still very weak
You know what? There are people who spend their whole lives studying these things. There is a large body of academic work studying these matters. And you not only do not know even the simplest facts we have gotten through that, but you vehemently oppose what all of that work says. And then you call my argument based on it weak. I don't know what you are trying to say here, is it that all of acedemia is part of some huge conspiracy? Well I'll tell you the answer is no and if you still want to believe it then I don't care. You have failed to understand the simplest concepts of money yet you think my argument is weak. My argument is the argument that everyone who matters understands even if they might not agree with it. You don't even understand my argument yet. I think I am done here. I suggest you read more about monetary theory and policy, you just do not understand even the basic points of it and I am tired of saying the same things over and over again. No disrespect intended, I think you are a nice guy and I thank you for the respectful and polite debate.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
Um, there were 2 lines on that graph- one was in REAL terms.

So all that graph shows is demand for gold dosent follow demand for comodities, such as cars and milk, it dosen't really show volitity of gold, based on a non volitile benchmark, how is it relevant
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
The Fed controls supply to counter changing velocity (which the market controls- demand for money). MV=PY



You know what? There are people who spend their whole lives studying these things. There is a large body of academic work studying these matters. And you not only do not know even the simplest facts we have gotten through that, but you vehemently oppose what all of that work says. And then you call my argument based on it weak. I don't know what you are trying to say here, is it that all of acedemia is part of some huge conspiracy? Well I'll tell you the answer is no and if you still want to believe it then I don't care. You have failed to understand the simplest concepts of money yet you think my argument is weak. My argument is the argument that everyone who matters understands even if they might not agree with it. You don't even understand my argument yet. I think I am done here. I suggest you read more about monetary theory and policy, you just do not understand even the basic points of it and I am tired of saying the same things over and over again. No disrespect intended, I think you are a nice guy and I thank you for the respectful and polite debate.
You talk out of both sides of your mouth, and you deny human nature, you dont understand simple concepts, like 50 being the same number as 50. You way over generalize and you put way to much into so called "academia" when academia says things against history, it is almost always wrong.

I have shown you more graphs that show that not only are you mistaken but you are dead wrong.

If you have a dollar, and you control the value than change it out for 100 dollars.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
You talk out of both sides of your mouth, and you deny human nature, you dont understand simple concepts, like 50 being the same number as 50. You way over generalize and you put way to much into so called "academia" when academia says things against history, it is almost always wrong.

I have shown you more graphs that show that not only are you mistaken but you are dead wrong.

If you have a dollar, and you control the value than change it out for 100 dollars.

I am not going to argue about this, but I will prove that you do not yet understand my argument (and hence are not in a position to bash it as you do):

1- You still do not understand real vs. nominal, hence your issues with the first graph I posted

2- You do not understand MV=PY and how velocity matters

3- You continue to neglect the short term and pretend that people only use money once ever 100 or so years because you just compare long-term values.

If you can explain to me #1 and #2, I will continue this debate if you wish. But if you still don't understand what real vs nominal and MV=PY means after all that I've explained, I suggest you pick up a textbook.

On a side note, I hope you realize that even the people who advocate hard currency in academia understand MV=PY and real vs. nominal terms and they have different reasons for why they support a gold currency or whatever (such as gold volatility would go down if it was used as currency). So ironically, even the notable figures who advocate gold currency would not agree with your arguments.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
I am not going to argue about this, but I will prove that you do not yet understand my argument (and hence are not in a position to bash it as you do):

1- You still do not understand real vs. nominal, hence your issues with the first graph I posted

2- You do not understand MV=PY and how velocity matters

3- You continue to neglect the short term and pretend that people only use money once ever 100 or so years because you just compare long-term values.

If you can explain to me #1 and #2, I will continue this debate if you wish. But if you still don't understand what real vs nominal and MV=PY means after all that I've explained, I suggest you pick up a textbook.

On a side note, I hope you realize that even the people who advocate hard currency in academia understand MV=PY and real vs. nominal terms and they have different reasons for why they support a gold currency or whatever (such as gold volatility would go down if it was used as currency). So ironically, even the notable figures who advocate gold currency would not agree with your arguments.
You still have no idea, your graph shows gold next to comodities, i used several comodities as a basis for my argument and you were not understanding. You said milk, cars, anything i used as an exaple were subject to supply and demand. All commodities are subject to supply and demand. So your graph is flawed. Unless there is a comodity
That is not.

2% intrest compunded every year is exponitial decline, on a graph it would be represented as a parobolic curve, reaching infinity eventually people will not use the dollar. Because the worth of it or it's buying power will be on the parobolic curve approching zero. This is highschool level math. Gold dose not do that because it can not inflate because you can't make more.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
You still have no idea, your graph shows gold next to comodities, i used several comodities as a basis for my argument and you were not understanding. You said milk, cars, anything i used as an exaple were subject to supply and demand. All commodities are subject to supply and demand. So your graph is flawed. Unless there is a comodity
That is not.
It is gold vs. the real USD. There are 2 lines, I don't see how you keep denying that especially after acknowledging it.

2% intrest compunded every year is exponitial decline, on a graph it would be represented as a parobolic curve, reaching infinity eventually people will not use the dollar. Because the worth of it or it's buying power will be on the parobolic curve approching zero. This is highschool level math. Gold dose not do that because it can not inflate because you can't make more.

Did I ever say it is not exponential? My whole point here is, so what? I am done though. You accuse me of high school level mistakes, but everyone can see who knows what they are talking about here. (also you called me condescending before- what do you think your "high school" remark is?)
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
If it is gold vs dollar, it proves me right, because the comodities line is fluxuating radically

Exponitial growth is not stability
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
If it is gold vs dollar, it proves me right, because the comodities line is fluxuating radically
The gold-USD line is fluctuating a lot- that is the problem. The other line doesn't even matter in this debate. You still don't understand the graph though, so you can keep telling yourself you are right or admit to yourself that you don't understand the graph and the point I am making and try to learn how to interpret that graph (you don't even have to say it to me because frankly I don't care but you should want to do it for yourself)

Exponitial growth is not stability
Depends how you define stability. Either way it is less volatile than gold would probably be especially because you can't counter changes in V with changes in M (at least not as easily and you hit a wall pretty quickly even when you can- although with your plan you probably wouldn't want those changes in M either since you think the central bank inflates because it likes to).
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
The gold-USD line is fluctuating a lot- that is the problem. The other line doesn't even matter in this debate. You still don't understand the graph though, so you can keep telling yourself you are right or admit to yourself that you don't understand the graph and the point I am making and try to learn how to interpret that graph (you don't even have to say it to me because frankly I don't care but you should want to do it for yourself)


Depends how you define stability. Either way it is less volatile than gold would probably be especially because you can't counter changes in V with changes in M (at least not as easily and you hit a wall pretty quickly even when you can- although with your plan you probably wouldn't want those changes in M either since you think the central bank inflates because it likes to).
Stability is defined already.

The graph shows instability, because the bench mark is dollars, switch it around, make the bench mark ounces pf gold, the dollar line will be all wacky too.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
Stability is defined already.
It is all relative. Perfect stability (0% inflation) is not possible, especially in the short run when it matters.

The graph shows instability, because the bench mark is dollars, switch it around, make the bench mark ounces pf gold, the dollar line will be all wacky too.
The dollars don't matter! You still don't know what real means.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
how do you detirmine the value of the gold without the dollar?

0% inflation is impossable with currency that has no tangible value, my point all along
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
how do you detirmine the value of the gold without the dollar?
Because it is a reference point that is neutralized by adjusting for inflation- hence why we call it the REAL price of gold.


0% inflation is impossable with currency that has no tangible value, my point all along
It is impossible with any currency period. Including gold*
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
A small correction in my argument (because I am not afraid to admit I am wrong when I am wrong): inflation targeting was not used until the early 1990s- prior to that we targeted exchange rates and before that money supply (M). All post-Bretton Woods of course. This leaves my argument and its validity unchanged, but I just wanted to offer my correction.
 
Top