MR. DECKER AND THE ROLE OF GOLD : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Ken I feel compelled to respond to your posts on "gold."

You and I have a fundamental disagreement on the appropriateness of the role (use?) of gold when applied to the economies of the late 20th century. You have indicated that you believe it is something of much less significance than that given it by those of us that tout its importance. I on the other hand believe one makes a serious error in underestimating gold's significance.

I do not have the time to make my case at length on this forum, so I will attempt to motivate you to reconsider your position by suggesting that you re-examine one or more of your premises.

When viewed in strictly an economic context, many of the points you continually make concerning gold are indeed correct. In what I would argue as being a much too "narrow" context, there is indeed nothing inherently compelling about gold that would distinguish it from any one of other numerous substances of potential economic value.

However, economics is but one science. Like every other science, it exists within a philosophical context - a framework from which each science through the application of its "rules," its disciplines, thereby establishes its validity. One of the branches of philosophy, the one that determines the entire "arena" within which all of the potential economic transactions that might occur within "an economy" are carried out, is politics.

This then is the first premise I would ask you to reconsider. Economic evaluations, decisions, and actions all exist within the political environment governing the workings of an economy. What purpose might gold serve within the various forms of political environments that have existed in the past and exist now? In the absence of something such as gold to serve that purpose, what shall serve as the replacement - the substitute? Finally, would your views concerning gold be the same if the political environment were to change?

As a further point, consider this. If it were now 1921 in Germany and you were asked the questions in the preceding paragraph what would be your response? If it were 1933, 1968, or 1980, in America how might you react? Were it any one of dozens of other periods of history occurring within other economies/political environments around the world in the last several hundred years, would you continue to adhere to your belief that there is nothing of special economic/political significance when it comes to gold?

As a final point I offer an analogy. Let us assume that instead of the science of economics, we are discussing the science of astronomy. Instead of a central bank providing management of the key "tool" an economy utilizes - i.e. the money supply, it is instead the Vatican that is providing the management of the key "tool" of the science of astronomy, the telescope. The following questions now become glaringly evident.

"Do you think that the results of the observations reported by the Vatican would have been the same as those reported by Galileo?"

"Do you think that the supply/cost/availability/quality of money provided by politically appointed men, will be the same as that provided by the disciplines imposed by the supply of gold?"

Ken I know this brief article in no way "proves" anything. I only wish to perhaps have triggered a different context within which you should consider the role of gold in economics - economics as but a part, albeit a crucially important part, of the overall society within which we human beings must function.

When Jefferson first opposed Hamilton over the issue of a central bank, it was because he feared where the establishment of a central bank would lead. The source of his fears were rooted in the same set of human attributes that led all of the founders of our country to seek to disperse political power to the point of making it difficult and cumbersome to wield. He also wanted the economic power that emanates from an economy's central nervous system - the money supply, dispersed in the same manner and for the same reasons. Gold serves as the means by which this "dispersion" can first be implemented and then is maintained.

This is not to say that responsible individuals cannot, using their integrity and sound judgment, seem to provide the same function, as does gold. It is to say however, that when that function becomes but one of numerous "other" functions these people must serve, then because of human nature - because of the same attributes of each of us that when seen from the perspective of all of us, produce economic certainties such as "the laws of supply and demand," so too will be produced the political certainty of "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." With respect,

-- Dave Walden (, September 28, 1999


You took the words right out of my mouth, Dave.

-- cody (, September 28, 1999.

Thank you Dave Walden.

History should never be forgotten, and historically gold is a product that stores wealth. It's that simple; is it not Mr. Decker?

If any answer is short and lucid it will be easier to conclude its not in the spin cycle.

-- Will (, September 29, 1999.

It would seem appropriate to respond to posts in the same threads as the posts to which one is responding.


-- Jerry B (, September 29, 1999.

Since this thread is "Subject: MR. DECKER AND THE ROLE OF GOLD" I see no problem.

On the other hand, if I've broken some rule of etiquette.......pardon me.

-- Will (, September 29, 1999.


Are you also Dave W?

My previous post was a reference to Dave's opening statement: "Ken I feel compelled to respond to your posts on "gold.""


-- Jerry B (, September 29, 1999.


Thank you for the post. You're ability to make a conversation (as oppossed to be contentious) is to be imitated by Polly and Doomer alike.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, September 29, 1999.


No, I'm not Dave.

I took your observaton to mean I was leading the thread astray, that's all.

I think a new thread was needed for this clarification between Dave and Mr. Decker, too bad the latter remains absent.

-- Will (, September 29, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ