[Deuce]

While complete capitalism has never been tried the gold standard has and has never proven satisfactory for any but limited amounts of time

You hold the contradictory positions that it is irrelevant to promote a pure gold standard; but not irrelevant to promote pure capitalism. You attempt to justify this clear contradiction with the above comments. Actually, neither has ever been completely tried. Each has been modified from day one. Splitting non-existent hairs does not cover up the fact that your pov on one contradicts your pov on the other.

It is remarkable how the 200 yr. old lies of the Jeffersonians still hold sway…

Neither you nor I knew these two gentlemen. We both rely on perceptions from historical records. We are both aware that, by birth, Jefferson was the aristocrat. I am basing my opinion on their respective philosophical position when I say Hamilton was an elitist. Is it really your position that no knowledgeable person can conclude as I have despite the fact that there are authoritative historical records on both sides of the issue ? If so, why?

No country will ever close down its central bank because to do so will collapse its economy.

No country will ever voluntarily close down its central bank UNTIL the central bank causes the collapse of the financial infrastructure---and only then, if people wake up to the fact that central planning conducted on behalf of the general interest is merely sub-optimal BUT central planning on behalf of the elite is far worse.

But it is false that the economy of the U.S. was not negatively affected by the closing of the Bank in the U.S. Both times depression resulted the second one was the worst until 1929. Only because of the chance discovery of gold in 1848 did it lift because of the increased money supply.

Your facts are both sparse and inaccurate. For example, there was a severe depression in the early 1820s following the Panic of 1819, DURING the 2nd Bank’s reign. The UNPOPULAR bank closed in 1832 and was followed by 4 boom years followed by the Panic of 1837 caused by the Specie Circular in Dec of 1836. As someone who has studied this era, I have never seen your interpretation before and would be interested in a citation so that I can pursue it myself.

If the money supply does not increase when business activity increases the velocity of circulation must also increase or else the increase is shut off. Velocity cannot increase that rapidly with a gold standard. Thus, using the simple quantity theory equation P*Q=M*V one can see that output (P*Q) cannot increase unless either M, V or both increase.

Wrong. As the formula clearly allows, Q can go up while p goes down, for the same MV levels. It is how progress is reflected in an honest monetary system.

It is not the absolute quantity of money which is significant but the per capita amount.

It is neither. Any amount of money (AS LONG AS IT IS SUFFICIENTLY DIVISIBLE) can finance any size economy with any number of people, no matter how big or how small.

I don't quite understand your comment about the distribution of an increase in the MS. Sorry.

Currently, the banking system chooses who gets the increased MS by creating liabilities against itself to extend loans. I reject that process as both unjust and unsound.

I don't believe the Central banking systems of advanced countries have ever collapsed particularly not recently. Nor do I believe it likely to happen.

I believe it is DEMONSTRABLY inevitable. Furthermore, the only reason it has not yet happened is because of the huge welfare that you and I give the monetary elite. But, like a needle to a heroin addict, that welfare not only puts off the inevitable but makes it worse as well.

I will be happy to comment on your proposal but don't pretend to be a monetary expert so its value is limited.

You sell yourself short. Just as one does not have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, one does not have to be a monetary expert to see the merit in a monetary system that benefits everyone rather than a small but powerful elite. I will post the article separately.

[justshutupandtakeit]

My position is that a true gold standard is impossible not that its pursuit is irrelevant. The decision to produce one would be a governmental decision but capitalism arises without governmental initiation. Left to it self capitalism works and thrives left to itself the gold standard runs aground and is immediately changed. Thus, I see no contradiction in my position.

An elitist is different from an aristocrat in my view but even with that term Jefferson spoke often of the desirability of the government and society being run by an "aristocracy of virtue" Hamilton on the other hand often took cases of poor men even escaped slaves without fee. He never looked down on the working man and counted many among his followers in NYC. His political opponent in the state, George Clinton, represented the land owning interests. Being concerned with non-agricultural development does not make one an elitist. What is your evidence from his deeds that he viewed the world like an aristocrat? Almost all evidence about Jefferson shows precisely that he was an aristocrat and he lived like one until his death. He put on an act for his democratic followers which seems to have had a lasting impact but it was a show.

Hamilton was a realist not an aristocrat and never lived like one rather like a middle class lawyer. My belief that any significant study of the two men confirms exactly what I have said. Hamilton never believed in currying favor with the lower class by acting the Super-democrat and feared the rule of the lowest class that is true but this does not make him an aristocrat.

I can't tell you offhand which writings I relied upon for that era but will determine them and get back to you.

You are correct that is a theoretic possiblity and seems to have been the case in the last quarter of the 1800s but it is rare and not typical. During that period there was great hardship and political organizing to alleviate those hardships. Great strikes and massive increases in labor organization accompanied the reductions of wages necessary to adjust to the decline in the money supply. Deflation produces falling nominal wages and even if real wages are increasing the "money illusion" of the working class generates strife. It was feared that communist or anarchist revolution was upon us during those years because of the labor unrest. This had its political results and pressure for an increased money supply to raise prices and wages.

Lack of divisibility is the achilles heel of the gold standard and its unweildly nature.