This is a political science thread. Science because silver and gold are great for technology, but political because they are the basis of currency. We have these two metals that are great for Comducting electricity. As our electronic devices develop, they will be limited by the rate in which they process information. Copper can only process electricity at a rate of so much. So copper has its limits in the field of technology. Silver is the best conductor, gold is also great but more practical since it doesn't corrode. As currency, gold and silver become too expensive to use as a commercial product which will eventually limit a products' marketability. We need a new type of currency that is based on something else, not gold and silver.
In the coming years it's gonna be oil, food and water. There are gonna be many wars fought over those three things in the next 100 years.
Well, gold is impractical to use as a currency now; it would cause massive deflation (which would be catastrophic for you and I) as the US does not have near enough gold reserves to back the current money supply. Fiat currency allows for the manipulation of money supply based on the needs of the market, and also allows for the accumulation of capital through de facto uncompensated labor. Gonzo Times has a great article on this ...
Gold is the best money. It was true thousands of years ago, it's true today, and it will be true in the future.
It's impractical - the money supply would be constrained too much and the economy wouldn't be allowed to expand. The maximum rate of expansion would be maybe 1% per annum. It would be catastrophic for living standards and would exacerbate the poor economic conditions in the US.
Pure fallacy. Economic expansion has nothing to do with monetary expansion. The greatest period of economic growth the world has ever seen was the US in the late 1800's, and it happened on a gold standard. Monetary expansion is never required. The fact that gold can't be inflated at the whim of governments and central banks is exactly its greatest virtue.
... you realize that growth in capital requires growth in the money supply? Something that gold can no longer provide? here and here I think it's safe to say you shouldn't touch economics, Lay Low, or at least you shouldn't learn economics from youtube videos.
So say you are stuck on an uninhabited island by yourself. What you are saying is that without money, you wouldn't be able to create any capital. You wouldn't be able to build anything at all, no tools, no nothing, unless you had money? How would having money change such a situation? Don't link a book, just answer the question.
And technology. The nation that rules technology, rules the world. That has been true for centuries. The nation that develops the ability to wage war without killing people on their side will conquer. Robots are the new threat in the military. China and the US are currently in an arms race with technology, US I think has a lead but how long will that hold up? We all know them Asians are some smart fucking people. The US doesn't really have the best education system right now. I see a rise in power with the east and they will emerge dominate. The 21st century will definately belong to china.
[quote name='"LSYouTiger"'] And technology. The nation that rules technology, rules the world. That has been true for centuries. The nation that develops the ability to wage war without killing people on their side will conquer. Robots are the new threat in the military. China and the US are currently in an arms race with technology, US I think has a lead but how long will that hold up? We all know them Asians are some smart fucking people. The US doesn't really have the best education system right now. I see a rise in power with the east and they will emerge dominate. The 21st century will definately belong to china.[/quote] Ehh. No one will emerge. Someone is gonna end up shootin nukes and then it's all over. But you must remember America isn't alone. NATO has the US back in any situation with China. So you have all those NATO countries sharing technology against countries like North Korea and Iran that can barely build a nuke and we did it in the 1940s! People keep talking about China emerging in the 21st century but I call bullshit. They strive off our consumer lifestyle and with out it there economy would crumble. There economy crumbles and there goes there military. Also hasn't China been the 2nd largest economy for like 100 years? Sounds pretty stag mite to me. I think countries like Brazil and India have a better chance.
Existing alone on an island is not a complex market economy; there can be no capital in that situation. It's just you and Wilson. It's what I had bookmarked Bjork is sexy, though, I'll give Iceland that.
China is actually stagnating. They, as a capitalist nation, are invariably tied to the larger world economy. As they derive most of their income from exports and outsourced labor, and depend so heavily on consumer demand in other countries, they are now experiencing an economic slump. If the rest of the world doesn't recover soon, China will fall right in behind us. There have actually been increasing strike actions and worker militancy in light of their recent recession; especially after their own stimulus spending in 2008-2009 did jack squat.
So capital is only capital in a complex economy? Why is it then a simple economy if it's no longer capital? What's the difference? Do you even know what capital is?
Chinese people have a capacity to learn and they will innovate technology in the 21st century. They are also the ones building all of our technology so I'm sure they know much more about our laptops, computers, iPhones, and many other electronic devices than the west.I'm sure many more Japanese and Chinese people know more about the iPhone than anyone else. They build the shit for a living. And the west uses it and most do not know how to fix a cracked screen. They have the knowledge and the experience. They are learning from US, and we are fueling their rise
So a simple economy doesn't need money to grow, but a complex economy does? For some magical reason that you can't explain. This is why I try not to debate socialists on economics. It's a joke.
Just so everyone is clear: One person alone on an island can build capital. A tool is capital, anything that person builds to help him improve his chances of living or increasing quality of life, by making tasks easier with technology, is capital, Since that tool was produced with human labor. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics)
How do you categorize yourself on an otherwise uninhabited island as a "simple economy" or any kind of market economy at all? How can capital exist in such a situation? I don't think Wilson will want to exchange anything with you, and I doubt he'll have any private land holdings. Even if you have a proto-capitalist mercantile economy, growth is limited by the currency. It doesn't have to be a dollar, or what-have-you. You simply cannot grow beyond the limitations of your money supply, whether it's coconuts as a commodity-money (in which you're limited by the supply of coconuts), or paper fiat money. I'm curious as to how you expect an economy to grow beyond the limitations of its money supply .... let me guess, Ron Paul Pixie Dust (tm)?