R
roguefaction
It surprised me to see that Dochen's thread on FOFOA's sudden 'surge' of posts got relatively few reads here. I would have thought there to be keen interest in the topic, but being new to the forum, I know nothin... nothin a'tall.
Starting this new thread is one way for me to learn a bit about people's positions here. Apologies in advance for any breaches of protocol which the uninitiated may be guilty of.
Anyways, the exchange between Edwardo and FOFOA is a valuable distillation of the underpinnings of the freegold thesis - and for those who can appreciate, but not necessarily buy into that thesis - affords a chance to evaluate it relative to the rest of the pm world. Here's the quote I find of compelling interest:
So... even though FOFOA can make fun of the gold\manipulation conspiracy advocates, and laugh at the naivete of other 'goldbug' approaches, freegold shares in common with them all the underlying belief that behind the curtain exists 'rational actors' - people\powers\players, whatever, whose motives and methods can be understood and anticipated based upon tools such as logic, rational self-interest, social stability and the like. The end of a defective system will necessarily bring about the arrival of a superior system to replace it - because the actors are 'rational' -and markets are capable of overcoming the many and various well known and documented means of distorting their function in human economic life.
Just to keep this brief, I will simply invite comment on the proposition as laid out - which, to sum up, is this - the entire superstructure of logic which the freegold thesis is built up with rests upon the foundational belief that rational human action can be relied upon to guide the performance of the players who control our destinies from behind the scenes as the future unfolds.
Pretty shaky foundation as an investment thesis imo. I'd be happy to say why, if there is any interest in this critique of the pm communities' unspoken "rational actor" consensus.
Starting this new thread is one way for me to learn a bit about people's positions here. Apologies in advance for any breaches of protocol which the uninitiated may be guilty of.
Anyways, the exchange between Edwardo and FOFOA is a valuable distillation of the underpinnings of the freegold thesis - and for those who can appreciate, but not necessarily buy into that thesis - affords a chance to evaluate it relative to the rest of the pm world. Here's the quote I find of compelling interest:
The way I view Freegold, I think that it actually is inevitable. Mainly because Freegold is simply the end of the current status quo, and that end is inevitable. The necessary conclusion that follows is that gold will no longer be undervalued because the system that undervalues it will have failed to keep physical flowing.
So... even though FOFOA can make fun of the gold\manipulation conspiracy advocates, and laugh at the naivete of other 'goldbug' approaches, freegold shares in common with them all the underlying belief that behind the curtain exists 'rational actors' - people\powers\players, whatever, whose motives and methods can be understood and anticipated based upon tools such as logic, rational self-interest, social stability and the like. The end of a defective system will necessarily bring about the arrival of a superior system to replace it - because the actors are 'rational' -and markets are capable of overcoming the many and various well known and documented means of distorting their function in human economic life.
Just to keep this brief, I will simply invite comment on the proposition as laid out - which, to sum up, is this - the entire superstructure of logic which the freegold thesis is built up with rests upon the foundational belief that rational human action can be relied upon to guide the performance of the players who control our destinies from behind the scenes as the future unfolds.
Pretty shaky foundation as an investment thesis imo. I'd be happy to say why, if there is any interest in this critique of the pm communities' unspoken "rational actor" consensus.