FOFOA's Dilemma

[Blondie]

FOFOA's dilemma:

"When a single medium is used as both store of value and medium of exchange it leads to a conflict between debtors and savers.
FOFOA's dilemma holds true for both gold and fiat, the solution being Freegold, which incidentally also resolves Triffin's dilemma."

This dilemma is the kernel of all our monetary problems; they all emanate from the conflict this dilemma produces; they will all resolve themselves when the dilemma itself is resolved.

This post: http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010/07/debto ... avers.html is an excellent place to begin examining the nature of this dilemma, but the fact of the matter is that everything FOFOA has posted on his blog is directly related to FOFOA's dilemma.

Triffin's dilemma, which is but one of the monetary problems caused by FOFOA's dilemma is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma. (Note how this dilemma produces imbalances.)

As stated within the dilemma itself, Freegold is the resolution.

[d2thdr]

I think this term was coined by The Motley Fool who posts on the FOFOA blog. I wonder if this term will get a mention in mainstream economics. FOFOA should get a economics Nobel prize for this. People have won it for a lot lot less.

[Paul]

ridicilous
thats what it is

a few nicknames deciding the nobelprice should go to a fellow nick
it is the butcher judging own meat
be real please

also
when system collapses,
swedish bankster nobelprice is there for the takers. the people could care less ...

[d2thdr]

Nobel prize is a joke. Hence I recommended the same. Hope you would take it in the same spirit.

[fjutt]

Sorry to derail this thread, as this is slightly off topic, but I felt I had to respond to the Nobel Prize posts (especially as a Swede ).

I find the Nobel prize to be extremely valuable as one of the finest things you can win as a scientist or writer. It really makes such a big difference, both for the science community, but also for the general public. It makes the normal news papers actually write about science that is a little bit more advanced, highlights certain fields and makes people actually a little bit more interested. The effect the literature prize has for example is amazing, so many books sold by writers that very few would read otherwise. So really, I do not think you can over estimate the effect the prize has, and how much good it has.

The prize in economics is a bit different though. First be aware that it is not a "real" Nobel prize, in that that it was not created by Alfred Nobel himself, but by the Swedish central bank (in memoriam of Nobel) 1968, so it is a lot younger than the rest of the prizes. The big difference though is that much in the field of economics is much less science than for example chemistry or medicine (literature of course even more a matter of taste), and very seldom can the things you get the economy prize for actually be proven. So in that way the prize is harder to validate as a legit real accomplishment. The trends (or whatever you want to call it... maybe models is a better word) that often result in becoming a laureate very often describe mechanics in the society though that has a huge impact on people's lives. And thus, very often extremely valuable and worth to get the extra attention the prize means.

So you may think what you want about the entire system with fiat, gold etc, but it does not mean that the prize, or rather the things that has got the prize is a joke or has very little bearing on reality.

This is of course just my view of the whole, and I am sure I am missing a lot, but don't be too quick to dismiss the prize

[eduro]

Sorry to derail this thread, as this is slightly off topic, but I felt I had to respond to the Nobel Prize posts (especially as a Swede ).

I find the Nobel prize to be extremely valuable as one of the finest things you can win as a scientist or writer. It really makes such a big difference, both for the science community, but also for the general public. It makes the normal news papers actually write about science that is a little bit more advanced, highlights certain fields and makes people actually a little bit more interested. The effect the literature prize has for example is amazing, so many books sold by writers that very few would read otherwise. So really, I do not think you can over estimate the effect the prize has, and how much good it has.

The prize in economics is a bit different though. First be aware that it is not a "real" Nobel prize, in that that it was not created by Alfred Nobel himself, but by the Swedish central bank (in memoriam of Nobel) 1968, so it is a lot younger than the rest of the prizes. The big difference though is that much in the field of economics is much less science than for example chemistry or medicine (literature of course even more a matter of taste), and very seldom can the things you get the economy prize for actually be proven. So in that way the prize is harder to validate as a legit real accomplishment. The trends (or whatever you want to call it... maybe models is a better word) that often result in becoming a laureate very often describe mechanics in the society though that has a huge impact on people's lives. And thus, very often extremely valuable and worth to get the extra attention the prize means.

So you may think what you want about the entire system with fiat, gold etc, but it does not mean that the prize, or rather the things that has got the prize is a joke or has very little bearing on reality.

This is of course just my view of the whole, and I am sure I am missing a lot, but don't be too quick to dismiss the prize

So actually you look to it like, it's a promotionprice to get the attention from the public. For me it's an insider party in today's view. value in the past is no guaranty for the future

[YtRebil]

There is a flaw in that wiki page, a measure affecting the dollar as worlds 'reserve currency' wouldnt change a thing, because during Bretton Woods 'Gold window', the other currencies were inflated based on the newly created dollar inflow, effectively expanding the 'too many of 'm' problem to all involved currencies. See, Bretton Woods wasn't a gold standard, it was a gold <> dollar exchange standard for goverments/institutionals only. Measures to reduce the amount dollars wouldn't reduce the amount foreign currency that was piled upon those dollars in all those countries. It would require a worldwide reduction and that in turn would render the measure useless in regards to its goal.
That wiki says that 'people/citizens' would buy US federal gold stocks empty, but in the Bretton Woods standard, the dollars were not redeemable by 'people/citizens', only by governments and their institutionals. The US govt/institutionals weren't forced to sell THEIR gold stock to people/citizens. The 'people/citizens' that wanted to buy gold with dollars, had to do it on the market (and thus prone to pay the consequential higher prices). It wouldn't empty the federal stocks.
Please correct me if I'm wrong somewhere (and include a source if you know one).

[Rasta]

Instead of reading the contents of the wiki page Triffin_dilemma, I would focus on the works of Robert Triffin himself. Wiki pages are known to be (sometimes) subjective, incomplete, or under heavy dispute.

Try other sources. e.g. The Triffin dilemma revisited

Speech by Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB,
at the Conference on the International Monetary System:
sustainability and reform proposals, marking the 100th anniversary of Robert Triffin (1911-1993),
at the Triffin International Foundation, Brussels, 3 October 2011.