[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Miller, Jeremy JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us
Mon Jun 17 21:52:54 UTC 2002


> Jeme,  gold has intrinsic value,  but I don't argue that it's edible.

Yes it does have intrinsic value.  But... so does sand.  (We make lots of
nice things with it, such as glass and chips.)

You could probably make something nice out of glass (sand) and trade it for
food.  Just as you could trade gold for some food.

Why is gold (or anything else) so special that currency MUST contain or be
linked to it?  (Note: I'm not saying there aren't reasons... I'm asking what
they are.)  Next half of the question:  Is it possible/impossible for any of
the variables in those reasons to change over time?  (ie, is what made gold
valuable in Roman days the same as today?  The same forever?)

Again, I'm asking for information/response that you have on this.

> You are intellectually dishonest,  and a "vapid" fool with "arbitray"
> "notions" to boot,  although verly loquatious and vebose and 
> pompous and
> arrogant and ignorant,
> and I have already eaten you alive and spit out your bones 
> metaphorically in
> the last exchange,  why do you persist in making a constant fool of
> yourself.

Sorry, I thought it was rather witty, entertaining, and made a good point.
I expected a better response than a flurry of name-calling, but so far this
is disappointing.


> If you have a genuine interest go buy the book "How an 
> Economy Grows and Why
> it Doesn't" by Irwin Schiff.

Sure.  Perhaps I will read it.  But never rely on one source.  Best to get
sources from both sides of any argument, then go from there.

> He uses an island metaphor to get the simple concept of 
> food/gold connection
> across to those like yourself who are too busy arguing with yourself,

I'm pretty sure I follow, but why is this "gold" so important?  It is a
pretty, malleable metal that also has outstanding electrical conductive
properties.  It has limited supply.  (But lots of things are limited in
supply.)

I think his point was simply that the value of gold is potentially just as
arbitrary as the value of anything else.  I tend to agree.  (It is
traditionally valuable as currency, but just because it has held up
historically doesn't mean that it can't change.  That's fact number one...
things change.)


> arguing forest instead of tree,  to see what is the BOTTOM LINE.

What is this bottom line?  I'm interested.  Tell me.

> I tore up your last mail with one sentence responses that you 
> ignore.

Sorry, didn't see it that way.  Honestly, I just went back and read and
didn't see anything like that.  (Though I'm having some email issues here
and maybe I'm not seeing that email yet.)

> A
> little too simple for a budding wanna-be attorney-at-law I realize..

Enough name-calling, get back to arguing your position please.

> BOTTOM LINE,  get to it please.  If you even know what that 
> means, I know
> you don't,  because you are a muddle headed liberal who moves the line
> around wherever it suits you,  when cornered by logic and reason.
> 
> Face it.

Your original request was for people to discuss the topic with you
intelligently.  I thought it was going just fine, but then you started into
that long diatribe... fine.  People have opinions, and can agree to
disagree.  (And I do, but that is beside the point.)  But I'm not seing
anything here but an extended personal attack on a viewpoint.  What is the
point of that?

And what is my point?  Show me this logic and reason that you're talking
about.  The name-calling stuff doesn't qualify.  (FWIW, don't mistake me for
a liberal, either. Though I usually don't wield the term as if it were a
dirty word.)


Jeremy




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list