A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Coins
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

PING: oly



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 18th 10, 11:28 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
oly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,111
Default PING: oly

On Apr 18, 4:32*pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message

...

...
The greatest currency debasements in history arose from the needs to
finance World War I, World War II and Vietnam.

True, but I wouldn't stop there. *At this point, you can't ignore the
cumulative effects of our adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan on the
soundness of the dollar.

On another level, Soviet expenditures in the Cold War and Afghanistan
probably sapped the ruble more than enough to qualify as a contributing
factor in the fall of the USSR.

The cost of war in blood, treasure, and the pursuit of happiness is orders
of magnitude beyond the ken of most people. *Even when we do learn it as a
hard-knocks lesson in hindsight, every nation in the "civilized" world seems
to forget it every generation or two.

To tie this back to coin relevance: *Devaluation of any currency makes the
lowest denominations more and more superfluous. *The mill is long gone, as
are the half-cent, 2- and 3-cent pieces. *These used to have useful places
in monetary transactions. *Now, people are asking "Of what use, sir, is the
penny?" *Furthermore, the recent slide in demand for new higher-denomination
coinage has forced the Mint to reduce its output of what used to be their
core business in business strikes.

Needless to say, all of this does not bode well for, and is detrimental to
the interests of collectors. *IMO we are best served under the conditions of
a sound economy and a stable dollar.


I tend to agree that it is almost incomprehensible why there has not
been more inflation in the U.S.A. as of early 2010. But perhaps the
vast military spending and financial industry bailouts have been more
than offset by the collapse in house and commercial real estate prices
and the unwillingness of lenders to advance new monies to borrowers at
a sufficient pace to spur prices.

oly





Ads
  #12  
Old April 18th 10, 11:41 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Mr. Jaggers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,523
Default PING: oly

oly wrote:
On Apr 18, 4:32 pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message

...

...
The greatest currency debasements in history arose from the needs
to finance World War I, World War II and Vietnam.

True, but I wouldn't stop there. At this point, you can't ignore the
cumulative effects of our adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan on the
soundness of the dollar.

On another level, Soviet expenditures in the Cold War and Afghanistan
probably sapped the ruble more than enough to qualify as a
contributing factor in the fall of the USSR.

The cost of war in blood, treasure, and the pursuit of happiness is
orders of magnitude beyond the ken of most people. Even when we do
learn it as a hard-knocks lesson in hindsight, every nation in the
"civilized" world seems to forget it every generation or two.

To tie this back to coin relevance: Devaluation of any currency
makes the lowest denominations more and more superfluous. The mill
is long gone, as are the half-cent, 2- and 3-cent pieces. These used
to have useful places in monetary transactions. Now, people are
asking "Of what use, sir, is the penny?" Furthermore, the recent
slide in demand for new higher-denomination coinage has forced the
Mint to reduce its output of what used to be their core business in
business strikes.

Needless to say, all of this does not bode well for, and is
detrimental to the interests of collectors. IMO we are best served
under the conditions of a sound economy and a stable dollar.


I tend to agree that it is almost incomprehensible why there has not
been more inflation in the U.S.A. as of early 2010. But perhaps the
vast military spending and financial industry bailouts have been more
than offset by the collapse in house and commercial real estate prices
and the unwillingness of lenders to advance new monies to borrowers at
a sufficient pace to spur prices.


I seem to remember a discussion of this on a talking heads show. The
consensus was that the inflation of 1979-80 was the delayed result of
accumulated, unbudgeted Vietnam War expenditures. I certainly hope that
your assessment above is accurate.

By the way, I'm not going to try to find it, but you made a prediction early
in 2009 about how many banks would fail by the end of the year. How did
that all shake out, high, low, or fairly accurate?

James the Moneychanger


  #13  
Old April 19th 10, 01:50 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
oly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,111
Default PING: oly

On Apr 18, 4:41*pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
oly wrote:
On Apr 18, 4:32 pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message


....


...
The greatest currency debasements in history arose from the needs
to finance World War I, World War II and Vietnam.


True, but I wouldn't stop there. At this point, you can't ignore the
cumulative effects of our adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan on the
soundness of the dollar.


On another level, Soviet expenditures in the Cold War and Afghanistan
probably sapped the ruble more than enough to qualify as a
contributing factor in the fall of the USSR.


The cost of war in blood, treasure, and the pursuit of happiness is
orders of magnitude beyond the ken of most people. Even when we do
learn it as a hard-knocks lesson in hindsight, every nation in the
"civilized" world seems to forget it every generation or two.


To tie this back to coin relevance: Devaluation of any currency
makes the lowest denominations more and more superfluous. The mill
is long gone, as are the half-cent, 2- and 3-cent pieces. These used
to have useful places in monetary transactions. Now, people are
asking "Of what use, sir, is the penny?" Furthermore, the recent
slide in demand for new higher-denomination coinage has forced the
Mint to reduce its output of what used to be their core business in
business strikes.


Needless to say, all of this does not bode well for, and is
detrimental to the interests of collectors. IMO we are best served
under the conditions of a sound economy and a stable dollar.


I tend to agree that it is almost incomprehensible why there has not
been more inflation in the U.S.A. as of early 2010. *But perhaps the
vast military spending and financial industry bailouts have been more
than offset by the collapse in house and commercial real estate prices
and the unwillingness of lenders to advance new monies to borrowers at
a sufficient pace to spur prices.


I seem to remember a discussion of this on a talking heads show. *The
consensus was that the inflation of 1979-80 was the delayed result of
accumulated, unbudgeted Vietnam War expenditures. *I certainly hope that
your assessment above is accurate.

By the way, I'm not going to try to find it, but you made a prediction early
in 2009 about how many banks would fail by the end of the year. *How did
that all shake out, high, low, or fairly accurate?

James the Moneychanger- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The inflation that you recall as condensed into the Carter years was
really a steady, mounting phenomena from 1966 to 1984 or so. For
instance, Nixon instituted "price controls" in 1971.

I don't recall and can't find my bank failure prediction easily
either. Actually, there were 140 bank failures in 2009. Asset-wise,
total assets in failed banks in 2009 was totally off-the-charts
because of the failure of giant-sized Washington Mutual.

If anyone can find what I posted, I would be interested.

Professionally, I was told an official prediction of 250 bank failures
in 2010, and I thought that sounded plausible. However, as of
4/19/2010, we are maybe 50 banks or so behind that pace.

There remains a shortage of trained bank examiners and qualified bank
liquidation personnel. The makes it impossible to go as fast as
desirable in evaluating and closing problem shops.

oly
  #14  
Old April 19th 10, 02:48 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Mr. Jaggers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,523
Default PING: oly

oly wrote:
The inflation that you recall as condensed into the Carter years was
really a steady, mounting phenomena from 1966 to 1984 or so. For
instance, Nixon instituted "price controls" in 1971.

I don't recall and can't find my bank failure prediction easily
either. Actually, there were 140 bank failures in 2009. Asset-wise,
total assets in failed banks in 2009 was totally off-the-charts
because of the failure of giant-sized Washington Mutual.

If anyone can find what I posted, I would be interested.

Professionally, I was told an official prediction of 250 bank failures
in 2010, and I thought that sounded plausible. However, as of
4/19/2010, we are maybe 50 banks or so behind that pace.

There remains a shortage of trained bank examiners and qualified bank
liquidation personnel. The makes it impossible to go as fast as
desirable in evaluating and closing problem shops.


Actually, it was on 2/21/09 that Arizona Coin Collector posted the
following:

"I have been tracking the number of U.S. BANKS that have
failed and was taken over by FDIC for 2009. As of
02/20/09, a total of 14 banks have failed this year.

http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2009/index.html

For all of the year 2008, 25-banks failed.

I am guessing a 100 banks fail in 2009 at the current
rate."

A discussion involving me, you, and others then ensued. From my review of
this thread, I didn't find that you had made any predictions.

James the Archivist


  #15  
Old April 19th 10, 08:19 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Tony Clayton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 557
Default PING: oly

In a recent message Peter wrote:

On Apr 18, 7:59*am, oly wrote:

There would be no means to "converge" unless the intrinsic values of
the coins of the two countries were exactly the same.


Well, yes. That was a part of my point. Both countries used the
groat (4 pence). It was the Scots that were using less silver in the
coin. I am guessing that in a united kingdom, there would be pressure
that the same coin should have somewhat similar properties.


When James VI of Scotland became King of England also as James I, the two countries
remained separate despite having a single monarch.

It was not until the Act of Union in the reign of Anne that the decision was
made to have a common currency, and the Edinburgh Mint worked hard to produce
UK type coins to replace the old Scottish currency.

--
Tony Clayton
Coins of the UK :
http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS using VirtualAcorn-SA running on a PC
.... He's not dead, Jim, he's just metabolically challenged.
  #16  
Old April 19th 10, 10:01 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
mazorj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,169
Default PING: oly


"oly" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 4:32 pm, "mazorj" wrote:

....
To tie this back to coin relevance: Devaluation of any currency makes the
lowest denominations more and more superfluous. The mill is long gone, as
are the half-cent, 2- and 3-cent pieces. These used to have useful places
in monetary transactions. Now, people are asking "Of what use, sir, is the
penny?" Furthermore, the recent slide in demand for new
higher-denomination
coinage has forced the Mint to reduce its output of what used to be their
core business in business strikes.

Needless to say, all of this does not bode well for, and is detrimental to
the interests of collectors. IMO we are best served under the conditions
of
a sound economy and a stable dollar.

I tend to agree that it is almost incomprehensible why there has not
been more inflation in the U.S.A. as of early 2010. But perhaps the
vast military spending and financial industry bailouts have been more
than offset by the collapse in house and commercial real estate prices
and the unwillingness of lenders to advance new monies to borrowers at
a sufficient pace to spur prices.

oly


To the extent that economics is "the dismal science," the first part is
patently clear to anyone who has delved into it. But like all the other
behavioral disciplines, it's "science" component only goes so far. After
that, it depends on the art of the practitioner. Even then, economists are
at the point where the earliest (al)chemists were centuries ago. They could
accurately measure chemical characteristics before and after reactions; but
they had no idea what was going on in the process, and they were limited to
crude depictions of physical analogs such as atoms being little solid balls
of matter.

So even after the economists have drawn all the graphs and tables and
iterated all their equations, like the ancient chemist's test beaker, a
national economy still is a mysterious black box. Events and data go in one
end, behavior comes out the other. Remember stagflation, where two
supposedly offsetting events (a stagnant economy and inflation) left
economists scratching their heads? That wasn't in the traditional models,
but that's what we got from the black box. Explanations and revisions of
theory came well after the fact.

Ditto for the lack of inflation and a continuing strong dollar at a time
when you might expect the opposite. IMO you're right, the Great Recession
and the financial sector meldowns and other forces have been a major damper
on inflation and a sinking dollar. (And let's not forget the damping effect
of troop deployment on unemployment rates.)

So at some point we will face the seemingly contradictory situation that
with recovery will come certain bad things like pent-up inflation and
erosion of the dollar and a bump in unemploment. The crucial question will
be whether those effects can be held to a "soft landing" or will they flare
into the cataclysmic Weimar scenario that you are wont to remind us of.

All we can do for now is stare at the black box and wait to see what
emerges.

Nominal numismatic reference: If we end up with a Weimar scenario, forget
new coinage. It'll take a bank box of presibux to buy a candy bar. That
Weimar loaf of bread will require an armored car delivery. Common U.S.
coins will be sold by the pound to give budding young numismatists and
collectors in other countries something cheap to sift through.

Except for self-serving congressional mandates for commems and odd-ball
designs, the Mint's entire production will shift to meet the skyrocketing
demand for bullion coins. (Although we shouldn't totally rule out the
possibility of a few runs of base metal coins in the $1,000 - $100,000
range.) Hoard all PM specimens and spend all your common modern business
strikes while you can still buy something with them. And a note (so to
speak) to investors - stock up on the stock of whatever companies supply
Uncle Sam with the special paper and presses and high-tech security gimmicks
used in printing currency. As currency printing goes into 24/7 overdrive,
their value might even stay a step ahead of the hyper-inflation.




  #17  
Old April 19th 10, 10:10 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
oly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,111
Default PING: oly

On Apr 19, 1:19*pm, Tony Clayton wrote:
In a recent message Peter wrote:

On Apr 18, 7:59*am, oly wrote:


There would be no means to "converge" unless the intrinsic values of
the coins of the two countries were exactly the same.


Well, yes. *That was a part of my point. *Both countries used the
groat (4 pence). *It was the Scots that were using less silver in the
coin. *I am guessing that in a united kingdom, there would be pressure
that the same coin should have somewhat similar properties.


When James VI of Scotland became King of England also as James I, the two countries
remained separate despite having a single monarch.

It was not until the Act of Union in the reign of Anne that the decision was
made to have a common currency, and the Edinburgh Mint worked hard to produce
UK type coins to replace the old Scottish currency.

--
Tony Clayton * * * * *
Coins of the UK * * *:http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS using VirtualAcorn-SA running on a PC
... He's not dead, Jim, he's just metabolically challenged.


I think we know well enough about the historical part - the question
is more along the lines of what constituted "money" in those days,
compared to today.

The order of the State could not force the valuation and circulation
of a coin at a much higher tariff than its intrinsic value in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Thus the two systems could not
"converge" unless the coins were physically the same.

Today, the fabric of the coin is typically divorced from its value.
The State can and does order the token coin's acceptance in the
marketplace.

It is important to note that the State couldn't do that, that people
resisted such fiat three and four centuries ago - if James I had
arbitrarily ordered that Scottish coins be accepted at the same value
as the English coins, all the English coins would have disappered
overnight and only the base(baser) coins would have been left in
circulation.

But I think we've been over the topic of the evolution of the "United
Kingdom" fairly recently.

oly
  #18  
Old April 21st 10, 12:25 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Peter[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 401
Default PING: oly

On Apr 19, 3:19*pm, Tony Clayton wrote:
In a recent message Peter wrote:

On Apr 18, 7:59*am, oly wrote:


There would be no means to "converge" unless the intrinsic values of
the coins of the two countries were exactly the same.


Well, yes. *That was a part of my point. *Both countries used the
groat (4 pence). *It was the Scots that were using less silver in the
coin. *I am guessing that in a united kingdom, there would be pressure
that the same coin should have somewhat similar properties.


When James VI of Scotland became King of England also as James I, the two countries
remained separate despite having a single monarch.

It was not until the Act of Union in the reign of Anne that the decision was
made to have a common currency, and the Edinburgh Mint worked hard to produce
UK type coins to replace the old Scottish currency.

--
Tony Clayton * * * * *
Coins of the UK * * *:http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS using VirtualAcorn-SA running on a PC
... He's not dead, Jim, he's just metabolically challenged.


Oops, yes.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ping: Wes John Ahnen Coins 5 November 22nd 05 04:06 AM
Ping - Wes John Ahnen Coins 2 May 7th 05 01:58 PM
PING: Ira Phil DeMayo Coins 0 May 6th 05 11:50 PM
PING: Ira Heezer Bumfrool Coins 20 April 23rd 05 11:01 PM
PING SF George D Coins 11 December 18th 03 12:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.