Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

soph · 2003-04-18 07:42:08

A.J., I've got two economics doctorates in the house. I've read everything from Adam Smith (parts of Wealth of Nations) to the Communist Manifesto, and other economics requirements. Learn history? I think you should go back and learn history.

It WAS done with multiple currencies, both foreign and domestic. As I noted above, the state currencies were unsatisfactory. This wasn't because people got confused, it was because the states debased their currencies. A national currency was supposed to prevent that from continuing (and under the gold standard it actually worked).

It wasn't done nearly as efficiently as it is done with a uniform dollar. And European trade will be much more efficient than the Euro. When you have multiple languages, you have a communication barrier. Sure, things can get done, but it is obviously easier and more efficient when people can actually communicate normally.

The reason they adopted an American currency was, first, to express America's new nationhood (and the Euro is an attempt to create a European nationhood, BTW). Second, the state currencies were unsatisfactory for reasons I'll go into later.

The Euro is also an economic attempt to reduce trade barriers and compete with America on a reasonable scale. The American government also established the dollar to establish the federal government's position in the country. A government will have a hard time running on 13 different state currencies.

And no, the American economy did not grind to a halt because private citizens were too stupid to keep track of multiple currencies.

No, but it boomed afterwards. Different currencies are inefficient, and they slow the economy down. It may not grind to a halt, but I thought it was fairly obvious that I meant that the economy is much less efficient and prosperous as it would be with a uniform currency.

f it's harder, it's still not anyone's place to decide which words and grammatical constructions people have to know or which currency that have to transact in.

Except when the government has to post everything from street signs to collecting taxes. The government needs a uniform language and currency for the sake of administration. Imagine, a $2 trillion budget split among 50 currencies. And then posting street signs in 5 different languages.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-04-18 12:08:47

soph;

It wasn't done nearly as efficiently as it is done with a uniform dollar.

So you concede!

"Not as efficiently" is different from not at all, which is what I was replying to. You're welcome to fall back to a more defensible position, if you want. I'll even grant that your new position is indeed easily defended, and full of rivers, mountains, and other natural barriors disinclining me to attack. Just admit that's what you're doing.

I never said there shouldn't be an official currency. But people who wish to trade in other currencies should be free to do so (as they are in America now).

Except when the government has to post everything from street signs to collecting taxes. The government needs a uniform language and currency for the sake of administration. Imagine, a $2 trillion budget split among 50 currencies. And then posting street signs in 5 different languages.

Don't look now, but America has no official language. The government does everything in English because that's how they've always done it, and because the vast majority of the American public speaks English. So we already see that no official language doesn't mean street signs in five languages. As a matter of fact, street signs are, by treaty, the same shapes and colors everywhere, so you don't have to know what those squiggly lines mean because you know what red and eight-sided means. And as I said, the only people who have to use dollars is the U.S. government. Everyone else in the country and many outside it use the dollar because of convenience or because it's more stable than the alternatives, or because it carries over borders better than local money (and it doesn't need official sanction to do it).

soph · 2003-04-18 13:39:28

Don't look now, but America has no official language.

Try getting a driver's license without knowing English. I am aware that there is no legal official language, but society has created one for itself.

"Not as efficiently" is different from not at all, which is what I was replying to. You're welcome to fall back to a more defensible position, if you want. I'll even grant that your new position is indeed easily defended, and full of rivers, mountains, and other natural barriors disinclining me to attack. Just admit that's what you're doing.

If it makes you feel better, fine. But I still hold that if America were to remove the dollar as its uniform currency, we would experience an economic catastrophe, much worse than the Depression. The economy would come as close to nothing as possible.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-04-18 14:04:14

soph;

Try getting a driver's license without knowing English. I am aware that there is no legal official language, but society has created one for itself.

Which would seem to prove that we don't need a "legal official language" that everyone is legally required to learn, eh?

If it makes you feel better, fine.

My feelings are less significant than the fact that it happens to be true.

But I still hold that if America were to remove the dollar as its uniform currency, we would experience an economic catastrophe, much worse than the Depression. The economy would come as close to nothing as possible.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Individuals can already do business in other currencies; they simply prefer dollars for various reasons. Do you mean a law against using dollars? A stop being put on printing more? A policy of conducting government business in some other currency? Or in the dollar plus some other currency or currencies?

What do you have in mind?

soph · 2003-04-18 14:11:17

What do you have in mind?

Removing the gold standard (however meaningless it is if people ever wanted their net worth in cash) comes to mind as a way of eliminating the dollar as currency.

Which would seem to prove that we don't need a "legal official language" that everyone is legally required to learn, eh?

There should be an official language for the affairs conducted on Mars. The state of English hegemony has only come about because America was so heavily Anglo-Saxon from its conception, and this perpetuated itself. An international Mars mission/base/colony will need a means of intercrew communication.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-19 00:49:01

I like how some people somehow magically think their credentials make their argument superior.

I think the original poster really intended an offical language to be the language that everyone practiced when they went to Mars. No offical documents or anything, just what everyone ?spoke.? I think that sort of thing really depends on who gets to go, really.

So we really do have a situation where Chinese could be the offical language of Mars. If not for the sheer number of them.

soph · 2003-04-19 06:53:16

I like how some people somehow magically think their credentials make their argument superior.

If I had a doctorate in astrophysics, and we were talking about the Big Bang, wouldn't that lend weight to my argument, Josh? Come on, you are getting very petty these days.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-19 09:04:17

If I had a doctorate in astrophysics, and we were talking about the Big Bang, wouldn't that lend weight to my argument, Josh?

Not if you were making gross generalizations that stand in the face of fact. I don't care how many doctorates you have.

Come on, you are getting very petty these days.

Not at all, it's just silly that you do that whenever you're clearly missing the point of the discussion.

soph · 2003-04-19 09:29:46

Not at all, it's just silly that you do that whenever you're clearly missing the point of the discussion.

In other words, whenever I disagree with you, and you can't find any other way to get around what I have to say.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-04-19 13:59:25

soph;

Removing the gold standard (however meaningless it is if people ever wanted their net worth in cash) comes to mind as a way of eliminating the dollar as currency.

We've been off the gold standard for a while.

There should be an official language for the affairs conducted on Mars. The state of English hegemony has only come about because America was so heavily Anglo-Saxon from its conception, and this perpetuated itself. An international Mars mission/base/colony will need a means of intercrew communication.

You're assuming it'll be international. We don't know that. If it is, people will probbly use English with or without a policy requiring it, because more people know English as a second language than any other language, and native English speakers are less likely than most to know second languages (and will likely be well represented). If I had to bet on what an international settlement would speak, I'd say English with lots of new words picked up from the other languages. Then again, maybe a colony will be American-only or Chinese.

soph · 2003-04-19 14:12:18

We've been off the gold standard for a while.

The dollar is still based on the value of gold. Even with the removal of the official gold standard in the 70s, the country still uses gold as one of the base indicators.

Greenspan has even said:
?In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.?

So, in a real sense, the country still runs on the gold standard, which has been ingrained into the economy since before the Depression.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-04-19 14:26:20

No, we're off the gold stardard. You cannot go to a government office and demand gold for your money, which means the dollar isn't backed by gold (or anything else other than the expectation others will take it).

Greenspan is right, which is why I'd like to see the gold standard come back, but even though the money supply is open to manipulation fiat money does function.

soph · 2003-04-19 14:47:59

The economy is still based on the value of gold, so, as I said before, the gold is, in a practical sense, still the standard for our economy. Currencies and commodities adjust to the price of gold-ask any economist.

We still run on gold, whether or not it is the official standard of our economy.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-04-19 14:51:34

Whatever. If you'll never accept that gold isn't the basis of our currency, your condition for abandoning the dollar will never happen, so this whole discussion is pointless.

soph · 2003-04-19 15:02:30

Whatever. If you'll never accept that gold isn't the basis of our currency, your condition for abandoning the dollar will never happen, so this whole discussion is pointless.

Wow, whatever. A priceless argument! I still hold, as has been shown through economics, that the gold price still determines the flow of the economy. Take away the gold foundation, and the economy collapses. If you care to actually refute me with something other than "whatever" please do.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-04-19 15:22:58

I did refute you. You're just too immature to handle it.

Your EXACT WORDS:

Removing the gold standard (however meaningless it is if people ever wanted their net worth in cash) comes to mind as a way of eliminating the dollar as currency.

The gold standard was removed in the 1970s, and didn't eliminate the dollar as currency. Game over, you lose.

You've been insisting that even without the gold standard we have gold standard, because the gold "determines" the dollar somehow, and it does that because, well, it just does. Fine. A "gold standard" is a currency set at a certain amount of gold per unit, backed by reserves a currency-holder can obtain at will, but if you'd rather shift and squirm, go ahead. It makes your original statement meaningless, since it's evident that removing the gold standard will never happen in your judgement.

So, whatever. I've got better things to do.

soph · 2003-04-19 15:38:08

Shift and squirm? No. It's an economic fact, which I have been saying in no uncertain terms, that the price of commodities and currency is still based on gold. Why? Because banks hold gold in reserve, as a second resort to the dollar. As the value of gold changes, so does the value of currency and commodities.

The gold standard was removed in the 1970s, and didn't eliminate the dollar as currency. Game over, you lose.

So you think this is a black and white game? Try taking an economics course. The gold standard doesn't have to be official to exist. You're talking nonsense. The government can't say it's gone and it vanishes, especially when their own banks are backed by gold!

It makes your original statement meaningless, since it's evident that removing the gold standard will never happen in your judgement.

No, the gold standard will be removed when our banks stop using gold reserves to back the dollar, and gold is no longer the measure of currency value and commodity prices!

I did refute you. You're just too immature to handle it.

Whatever!

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-20 01:39:46

Um, gold is like any other commodity, now. There is no such thing as a Gold Standard. So, how do we get rid of something that doesn't exist? Ban gold again like we did before? The Gold Standard is a figment of your imagination, soph.

Please, explain to us all how this Gold Standard of yours functions, and how we can get rid of it.

soph · 2003-04-20 07:59:13

Weren't you paying attention? Here, let me copy and paste it for you:

" Because banks hold gold in reserve, as a second resort to the dollar. As the value of gold changes, so does the value of currency and commodities."

The gold value is still the basis for the price of commodities and currencies. It is not just another commodity. This is economic ignorance.

Banks still use gold as a reserve for currency, and thus, gold is still the unofficial standard of the economy. If the central banks removed their gold reserves, the gold backing would no longer exist. It is really quite simple.

Please, don't believe me, ask any economist.

Gennaro · 2003-04-20 19:42:30

Here's a two cents of worth.

Ever since the Nixon administration was forced to drop the gold standard and the Bretton Woods monetary system in 1969, in order to finance expenditures for the war in Vietnam (basically by printing paper money), the world economy has been in more or less an unbalanced state and temporary turmoil.
If you think this is a good thing, think again.

Getting down to it, a greenback bill is but a receipt, assuring the holder his claim for a corresponding value to be payed out in gold from the central bank at his or hers request.
Nothing more.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-21 03:42:34

soph, you didn't answer my question. How do we get rid of this supposed, ?unoffical Gold Standard??

soph · 2003-04-21 05:51:09

Josh, once again, I will quote myself:

"If the central banks removed their gold reserves, the gold backing would no longer exist. It is really quite simple."

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-22 14:10:21

Um, what incentive do the central banks have for removing their gold holdings, soph?

I didn't ask, ?What?? I asked, ?How.?

soph · 2003-04-22 14:19:52

Josh, you completely missed the point. The point was that if the central banks removed the gold backing of the dollar, the economy would collapse.

Why? Because the extremely vast majority of transactions in this country are done using dollars.

Why? Because it is the official, uniform currency.

I am not proposing we remove the gold backing, I was describing what would happen if we did, and why that would happen.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-09 09:02:30

ugh. I am not answering the gold curancy question but the language question. . .I am for picking something phonetic. . .I am deaf and I learn my vocabulary by reading and I learned very quickly at a young age just how badly english is abused (english abuse should be a crime) and how far off the phonetics were. . .I wish I learned russian or spainish (with phonetic alphabets) so that my speaking english would be better (its actually pretty good for a deaf guy) and I guess I'll study those two sometime just for the knowledge and challege. . .I hope the international language is anything but mandarin and english. . .after all mandarin has no alphabet.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2003-04-18 07:42:08

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#77 2003-04-18 12:08:47

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#78 2003-04-18 13:39:28

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#79 2003-04-18 14:04:14

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#80 2003-04-18 14:11:17

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#81 2003-04-19 00:49:01

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#82 2003-04-19 06:53:16

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#83 2003-04-19 09:04:17

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#84 2003-04-19 09:29:46

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#85 2003-04-19 13:59:25

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#86 2003-04-19 14:12:18

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#87 2003-04-19 14:26:20

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#88 2003-04-19 14:47:59

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#89 2003-04-19 14:51:34

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#90 2003-04-19 15:02:30

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#91 2003-04-19 15:22:58

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#92 2003-04-19 15:38:08

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#93 2003-04-20 01:39:46

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#94 2003-04-20 07:59:13

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#95 2003-04-20 19:42:30

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#96 2003-04-21 03:42:34

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#97 2003-04-21 05:51:09

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#98 2003-04-22 14:10:21

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#99 2003-04-22 14:19:52

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

#100 2003-07-09 09:02:30

Re: Languages - Parlo Italiano - What langauge should be the Official?

Board footer