[A-List] substance and rationality

["ewc" <ewc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for all comments on my last, replies follow below.

First I will add some facts to the gold standard debate, matters that
seem to me relevant and important, which have not been raised, at
least in the several months I have been tracking the discussion.

It seems to me that a move towards a gold standard - whether it be
away from paper, copper or silver, runs a risk of being deflationary.
And while I agree with Anne that inflation can be very destructive,
deflation is arguably worse.  Directly worse for the working
population, who get lower wages and unemployment.  Potentially worse
for capital owners in the long run, who can run the risks of
disruption, and in extremis, damage and loss of property and life, if
they over cook the goose.

On 20th May Anne posted this comment to the list

> from financial advisor Harry Schultz:

> in my view we should fight for a pure
> gold standard, the old-fashioned form, because it worked! And not
just for
> fiscal reasons! It forced nations to limit their debt, spending and
> socialist schemes, which meant sound behavioural habits were formed
around
> those limitations, and those habits rubbed off on everyone. People
were more
> honest, moral, decent, kind, because the system was honest and
moral.

I disagree with Harry Schultz about this matter.
And I suspect that no amount of speculative debate would bridge that
gap.  So we have to turn to facts.  Henry already did this in regard
to Anne's position - referencing stuff about mercantilism that turns
up in history of economics books.  But no one else did   Given the
facts that are available, I find this disappointing.

So here are what I take to be some relevant facts about how honestly,
morally, decently and kindly people acted under gold.

1)  Ancient Rome - the class war began at the cessation of copper
issue around 130 BC, pitching the empire (further) towards a precious
(gold/silver) standard.  It culminated in the civil war.  Memorable
incidents include the battles between Spartacus' slave army (which
actually likely  included lots of small farmers cleared off their land
by wealthy monopolists) and the private army of the plutocrat,
Crassus.  Do I recall correctly  that Crassus crucified 6,000
prisoners?

2) Ancient China - Wang Mang took China off a gold standard in 7 AD
and launched the world's first full blown fiduciary  system - to
counteract the poverty, slavery etc that the gold system was
producing.  There was a backlash against Mang by traditional wealth,
grouped around a Han prince, and a backlash, against both Mang and
Han, by huge anarchist armies, the red eyebrows.  Within 20 years
contemporary histories suggest that 50% of the population was dead.
By the early 20's AD the famine was so bad that the red eyebrows were
reportedly breaking down city gates to get in and eat the urban
populations.  (A list of people involved in suppressing the history of
this event in 20th century literature would include both American and
Chinese diplomatic staff, and professors at Oxford and Columbia)

3) Medieval Europe.  Florence first started the move back to a gold
standard in earnest in Europe in 1252.  England followed in 1344.  In
England this was soon followed by the peasants revolt (1381) one of
whose targets was the Lombardy bankers advising on currency matters.
In Europe as a whole, civil life gradually fell apart.  The later
crusades were in great part driven by Christian Kings bribing
freebooting private armies, run by gangsters, to go and plunder
foreign Moslem (and Christian) populations who did not pay taxes to
European kings, instead of Christian populations who did.

4) England increasing abandoned both copper and silver in the first
half of the 18th century, by the second half virtually  all coinage
was struck in gold.  Wages apparently dropped to their lowest levels
in 6 centuries.  Much modern economic debate tracks to the people
dealing with the problems this caused.  (In my own opinion, the
fundamental facts of that situation are sometimes somewhat clouded by
 later more abstract ideas, like 'capitalism' and 'industrial
revolution'.  Simple old fashioned ideas about gold, greed and
monopoly sometimes get forgotten.)

5) Britain went back onto the gold standard in 1925.  Britain had its
only general strike in 1926.

6)  Me - not that important to anyone else maybe, but even so - my
grandfather was young before Bretton Woods and was conscripted to
fight at the Somme.  My father in law was young before Bretton Woods
and was conscripted to fight at Stalingrad.  I was young after Bretton
Woods, stayed home and even got spare time to read a few books.

I do not claim any of the above is decisive.  I do claim however that
Harry Schultz's argument very poor indeed

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for all the comments - :

Sabri
I take no pleasure in spoiling James' day by criticising Plato.
However, what I said was all true, and very mild compared with what I
could have justifiably said.  I certainly advise all to read up on
Plato.  He has been at the root of most authoritarian elitist
ideologies in Europe for the last 2,500 years, and in my view vital
reading if anyone is to understand 20th century ideological conflicts.
I would recommend Popper (Open Society), also Russell (History of
Western Philosophy) as critics.  For an honest supporter of Platonism,
maybe Collingwood (New Leviathan)

Stan
Afraid you mis-read me.  I do not think war should be the organising
principle of society.  Plato (to a degree) and Lord Shang (entirely)
thought it should be.  Paine and Cobbett thought it was in practice,
but that should not be, and tried to change things.  I get the
impression that Machievelli just thought, (like Swift), that he had
been unlucky to get born on this planet.  Thanks for the offer of
discussion about Marx, but I wrote 'Marxists' - and that is what I was
talking about.

Louis
Afraid you have perhaps misinterpreted me too - but the point is a
helpful one.  I can see the point you are making about the
consequences of external aggression. USA vs USSR.   Thinking of
Cambodia alone I hardly want to be disagreeing with you!  But these
matters are not things I have studied.   The comment I would make is,
that it seems to me that the cold war was used as a pretext to
organise what went on inside people's heads by both sides.  By people
like McCarthy and by Stalin.  And both sides were wrong

Michael
I have, do, and will do my best to  present clear arguments based on
facts.  Others must judge for themselves how successful I am, on the
basis of my past and current postings.  I would welcome clarification
of what you mean by my being 'too empirical'

Anne
On 'war and society' I was just adding to the material already posted,
which seemed significantly deficient to me.  I look forward to further
postings on this interesting topic in due course.  Can I add that
really like your criticism of the economic status quo a lot.  It is
just your solution I do not like, (especially as represented in some
of the stuff from other people that you recycle).

Best to all

 Robert



.