Wikileaks - Why Is China Buying Gold?

Even with the unspoken knowledge that to make it to the top of large Chinese Chinese companies there must be some ties to/association with/backing by the communist party, I don't think the Chinese economic scene can be classified as communist to any extent. True Marxist economics was tried and failed.
Commies or not, it's always a bit easier to see the whole picture from afar. I'm not as well versed on the subject but can't imagine India's take on the PM v.s. currency issue to be much different from the Chinese

Anarcho-capitalists. It just doesn't have the same ring when you use this word. It advocates the elimination of the state in favour of individual sovereignty in a free market.

The Austrian school states that prices are determined by subjective factors like an individual's preference to buy or not to buy a particular good. What they toss out is objective costs of production that help determine the price and that the prices are determined by the equilibrium of demand and supply.

The Austrian school uses logic thinking - something that a person can think on his/her own without relying on the outside world. This is the very method that thousands of religions use when they argue their opposing beliefs, and the fact that the world has thousands of religions proves the fallibility of this approach.

Other mainstream schools of economics, make use of data and mathematical models to prove their point objectively.

Some thoughts from the leaders.

Rockwell = "Civil rights legislation is the worst regulatory intervention in labor markets.

Mises = "It is perfectly legitimate to assume that the races are different in their cognitive abilities and in their willpower and accordingly are unequally suited for the task of setting up societies, and that the better races are characterized in particular by their special ability to strengthen social bonds."

A frequent Austrian boast is that Hayek accurately predicted the Great Depression.

Actually, this prediction was a easy, since the U.S. had experienced at least five depressions before the Great One, it was a matter of saying it often and another one would take place. It therefore took no acumen whatsoever to predict an economic downturn. What is more striking is what Hayek didn't predict: that depressions would disappear worldwide in all countries that adopted Keynesian monetary policies.

Now here is what you really have to think about.

Finally, Austrians claim that "The Nobel Prize that Hayek received in 1974... caused an explosion of academic interest in the Austrian School and free-market economics in general. After Hayek won the Nobel, academia reviewed Austrian theory and promptly rejected it. However many businessmen began pumping millions of dollars into the movement.

There use to be a saying - Follow the Money Trail.

Interesting concept about the value of the dollar since the early 1900's. I don't buy it though and for good reason. Our standard of living is much higher than then.

The middle class is much larger and people have both more free time and more money to buy non-essentials in life.

Wage are also up and this part of the debate is always not even mentioned.

So I may have to ask how much have wages gone up and how has this offset any decrease in the value of a 1913 dollar?

Average income in 1913 = $12,000 Average income in 2011 = $45,000.

My point is that the value of the dollar by itself is a meaningless fact. More of the population lives far better today than they did in 1913 regardless of the value of the dollar. Thus maybe the gold standard was not a great thing.

You do know what was signed into law in 1913? The Federal Income Tax.

I do agree that the government does need some trimming.

The middle class is being wiped out on a daily basis. Food is more expensive, health care is more expensive, school tuition is more expensive. The cost of everyday living in general is more expensive. Yea wages are higher but what good does that do when the purchasing power of your money has gone down almost 90%.

Where are you living? Peru? You make it sound like 1930.

You do know health insurance wasn't around in 1913? You do know that most people just had enough to live on in 1913? Most people in fact grew or raised their own food. You do know in 1913 few people went to college because they had no way to afford it.

The middle class is still going strong today. Not sure where you live but the middle class where I am is still very robust. Maybe it is the people, who knows but we just don't sit around waiting for bad things.

You do know we were on the gold standard and went into a Great Depression.

I mean I understand having a different theory of the economy but I never get the wanting a system to fail to prove your point. Well in any event you should try to support your theory, I did enjoy the talking points.
When you have something different I will continue the conversation but for now I am a little bored. Though I enjoyed it. I wish you well but please do some more reading other than the Rockwell files.

For the record it is a good practice to read, learn and understand opposing points of views, it is healthy for a clear understanding. Though you must take the time to read everything just not what you believe in.

I can't say when we will get better or when the government will learn to stop the debt slide. I have the bullion if I'm wrong but I have a feeling it will never be needed.

Ron have a good evening and I wish you well.

It cost very little because there was not much a 19th/early 20th century doctor could do for you. Medical diagnostic equipment was nonexistent, vaccines consisted of spreading cowpox pus into an open wound, and many pharmaceuticals were cocaine or opium-based concoctions that tended to do more harm than good. Oh yeah, the average life expectancy was about 50 years of age(vs almost 80 years now) if you were lucky enough to escape the childhood diseases that now only exist in medical textbooks and third world countries.

Not to support the existing north american medical system because I too feel it has become more of a business than an essential service, but in the case of CT scans, do take into account the cost for developing, manufacturing, and maintain the 6 figure machine, let alone paying for the salaries of technicians that had to go through years of schooling to be able to correctly read the CT.



This argument is getting my head spinning... Dollar worth less and we have more to buy to maintain our 2011 standard living? Dollar worth less SO we have a better standard of living?
In the perfect world would the dollar be worth the same (at least stable inflation) while the standard of living increases?

These off-topic threads are a fun read :)