They'd get us out of this

This is what happens when you let just anyone print up a story with an economic component and mix it with the current news trend to reportorialize (I just made that up for reporting and editorializing - but I'm not sure it works; the noun is 'to publish a reportorial').

"In addition, since gold and silver regularly fluctuate in value, they could not easily function as a stable currency."

from http:www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6217403.shtml

This is outright ignorant on the face of it, since if gold, silver, or a basket of gold/silver were the money standard, they would of course not fluctuate.

Further, and perhaps unbeknown to some readers, but perhaps known to a reporter on economic issues - there is a value judgment in the statment. That value judgment is that we should not be on the gold standard. There is a debate in economics about whether money should be allowed to fluctuate or remain stable. The stabilization crowd (which I am a part of) generally advocates gold for the standard, precisely because gold does NOT fluctuate.

Let's look at "fluctuation". Dollars fluctuate, and do not easily function as a stable currency. For example - in the last 120 days the dollar varied between 1.3572 Euros and 1.512 Euros, or about 11.4%. Since no real economic values can vary 11.4% in 120 days or 38.8% annually, the remaining fluctuation must be due to the regular fluctuation in value of the currency. It is no argument to say that the fluctuation can be explained on the Euro side, since we are not talking about Dollars, per se, we are talking about the regular fluctuations in currencies.

Gold, on the other hand, is stable by definition. It is believed maybe 140,000 tonnes of gold has been produced ever (maybe less) and we presently produce about 2,600 tonnes annually.  This is taken from a variety of internet sources that seem to match - although the exact numbers are inconsequential as the underlying mechanism is known. It takes a long period of time to ramp up gold production, we cannot flood the world market with presently un-produced gold if we wanted to. Therefore, the fundamental economics of gold are stable for the foreseeable future.

Gold currently fluctuates in currency values, because the currencies are fluctuating. Gold is the thing that's the same. We can discuss another time why it might be desirable for stable currencies or fluctuating currencies, but for this discussion we can leave it at this: much of what you read, hear, and see that is produced to inform you is garbage - through either intention or ignorance.

I want to briefly discuss one of the more insidious arguments that is utilized often these days. Sorry Mr. Obama - you get two of my examples because you are an egregious offender of this method. It is used by those who torture, totalitarian regimes, and the witch hunting crowd, so if you use this you are in good company.

Here is the basic method: set up your opponent so that the only way they can get what they need is by using something you are arguing for. Then, when they use the thing you are arguing for, try to prohibit them from arguing against that thing by noting they get something they need from it.

That's a bit abstract - here are a couple of examples. First, during the health care debates, anyone who was getting their health care through Medicare that argued against the increased usage of government funded care was ridiculed, because they got their own health care through the government. Second, Obama has recently been ridiculing people for taking credit for particular stimulus package initiatives, while voting against the stimulus package. Of course, both of these criticisms are nonsense - those on Medicare typically cannot help being on Medicare because insurance companies cannot provide competitive health care packages to seniors with Medicare standing in the corner. If a lawmaker needed a road, bridge, etc. built in his district, pretty much the only way to get that going in January/February 2009 was to put it into the stimulus package.

Other areas where this argument is common include - debates on public schooling (your kids are in public school, or you can't afford private school) and debates on social security (old people depend upon social security), although there are many other places where it is used.

These arguments suffer from many flaws.

First, the person making the argument for the thing is usually in a position to force the person making the argument against the thing into utilizing the service involved (thus the name "involuntary branding"). This is a bootstrapping problem - I am in a position of power and therefore I can define what the logical response to a given situation is - which is of course nonsense. (Imagine me requiring everyone to sign an affidavit that the sun is the moon before they can drive - and then using that as evidence that the sun is the moon; other uses of this argument differ only in degree)

Second, the argument depends upon static analysis. E.g. in the public school debate - private school is unaffordable because public school crowds out the low-cost private schooling that would be available in the absence of public schooling. We don't know how many of the poor would not be able to afford it, how big straight subsidies would have to be (as opposed to government-provided education), etc. The idea that the presently available, expensive private schools are unaffordable to all is simply irrelevant to the debate. It's as if Tiffany's were the only store around because the government runs the Wal-Marts, and then arguing that we need to have public retailers on that basis.

Third, there is a general asshole-ishness to these arguments because, again, the one making it is often the one that created (or has the power to perpetuate) the situation.

So, if you find yourself making this argument, you may be engaging in boot-strapped logic, static analysis, or general asshole-ishness. If the person you are arguing with has free choice and is still taking advantage of the thing they are arguing against, you may have found an example of hypocrisy, but that's not an argument for anything (as we covered in Bad Arguments). If someone is using this argument against you, look for their boot-strapped logic or static analysis to attack their points (their general asshole-ishness is not relevant to the argument, and will probably be apparent without having to look very closely).

A high school friend (I knew her, but we were not close - like everyone else I went to high school with I suppose) just died of heart failure. We've lost others, but they've largely had explanations. She was a very nice person, and I do have well wishes for her family, etc.

I'm always a little torn on the Facebook posts (or e-mails, etc.). I want something that just acknowledges posts - I have nothing to particularly add, but I feel the poster and I want them to know they were read and appreciated. I think I'm going with a simple post of "present". The "like" button just doesn't work for me on a post lamenting a dead classmate.

I'm at the point where this is equal parts shocking because we've lost a classmate to "natural" causes and because it's not really that shocking. I won't be surprised at not being surprised in a few years, but I guess I still am right now.

I have no personal use for religion, and I think if God exists we could neither understand or interact with him/her/it. He certainly has no time for the petty disputes we try to invoke him in. However, I'm not generally hostile to religion.

Pat Robertson illustrates the worst side of religion, the side that tempts me to go all Richard Dawkins and crusade against the whole business. It's also the side that Islamic terrorists invoke when they get folks to strap bombs to themselves and touch off at a checkpoint or pre-school. The danger of religion, just like State Sovereignty, is that is is one of a very small number of institutions that claims to be of greater value than human life itself, opening the door to the taking of human life with proclaimed justification.

I can't find any meaning in an 11-year old girl being trapped under rubble and screaming for 48 hours before succumbing to her injuries shortly after finally being freed. We all end up in the same place taking the dirt nap at the end, but there is surely a disturbance in the Force and it troubles us all when events like what happened in Haiti this week and so many people are taken outside the normal pace of things. My response would be to re-dedicate ourselves to our quest to understand and master that much of nature as we are able. We need things like understanding how to deliver units of food and medicine into total chaos as quickly as possible, how to detect and remove people from rubble, how to predict earthquakes and tsunamis, etc. However, I'm sympathetic to the urge to turn some of those things over to God and to imagine there is a deeper meaning there that we just can't understand.

However, inventing some shit about pacts with the devil and other general de-humanization of the sufferers, who could have never had anything to do with the alleged sins that the garbage sack comes up with is just too far for me. I'm a guy that generally doesn't take much interest in the affairs of others, and I don't care what other people think even if I would disagree with them. In this particular  case, it doesn't really even matter if he's wrong so it's unusual that I would even take note of him. However, Pat Robertson in this instance is just too much for me. I don't have constructive argument to make in his regard, so I'll just indulge in a little old-fashioned cussing - still Fuck You Pat Robertson.

Hey, I feel better.

I just read this again in yet another column. Who said this? Well, somebody probably did but it wasn't Gordon Gecko. How many times does something become a thing, only it ain't? There are many examples of permanently accepted mis-quotes, and this particular one has been trotted out many times lately.

Gecko said "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." (Who by the way was a crook and an inside trader which has nothing to do with the wisdom of greed. It may well be that Charles Manson has a great pie recipe, which would not of itself be an indictment of great pie.)

"For lack of a better word" is pretty important, especially if you listen to the rest of the speech. And while you're at it, read Francisco D'anconias (really Ayn Rand's, of course) speech about money. And then we can talk about, for lack of a better word, greed.