-
I don't think so. A Chinese man can take American dollars to his central bank and it will coordinate with the FED and let him exchange his American fiat for Chinese fiat. A gold-backed currency forces the holder of the currency to get something from the country it was issued from: either goods or gold.
-
If the US had a 100% gold-backed currency, and Americans bought Chinese electronics with that currency, China would have (essentially) just two options. It can either use that currency to purchase American goods or it can redeem that currency for the gold it is backed up by. In either scenario, our import will be matched by export. The question is will
-
Wait... I can't tell. Is this saying that the free market (or a string belief in and adherence to free market ideology) leads to mass incarceration?
-
I think this issue has been well covered by everyone so far, so I just feel the need to point out some trivial detail here. Why does the prostitute sell sex for €100 when she must sleep with her client in a hotel room that costs €100? She makes no profit... She just had sex with a man who paid for the hotel room, essentially, for no gain.
-
No, that is not what I'm saying. To be clear, I can't judge whether someone enjoys their present situation over a previous situation. I can say that, economically, the majority of people would be worse off, in the sense that there will be a smaller supply of goods to go around, the goods that are available will be more expensive and of reduced
-
Sure, and the majority of individuals comprising various countries may demonstrate a gain in utility from adopting national socialism, where foreign imports are heavily discouraged through prohibitively high tariffs. But the < or = 50% - 1 that did not vote to adopt national socialism may not see a gain in utility from having fewer choices. So it
-
[quote]I still have a point about utility theory.[/quote] No, you do not. A nation cannot have utility gains or losses, because a nation cannot act. Only individuals can have utility gains or losses. Again, you only have a "point" if it is assumed that individuals do not act, are irrelevant, and essentially nonexistent. Still waiting on a
-
Sure, if you define "0" as "1" you could say that 0=1. And if you clarify that by "country chooses X" you mean that < or = 50% - 1 did not choose X, sure. It wouldn't negate the fact that the individuals that make up the < or = 50% - 1 did not demonstrate a preference for collectivism and may not see increased
-
As was stated earlier, countries cannot choose. Only individuals can. Also, countries cannot vote. Again, only individuals can. While a majority of individuals can vote to ban the importation of automobiles from foreign countries, it cannot be said that a country "voted" or "chose" to ban said automobiles. To entertain your theory
-
People weren't commanded to kill disrespectful sons or stone adulterers for Christ's sake. Christ had not yet existed. :)