[A-List] New address

[Lucio Flávio Rodrigues de Almeida <lubejo@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

  I would receive your messages, but I on other address:

                lucflavio@xxxxxxxxxxx

   Thank you.

                 Lúcio Flávio Rodrigues de Almeida

----- Original Message -----
From: "ewc" <ewc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 7:24 AM
Subject: [A-List] substance and rationality


> 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
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>