Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” Speech

socratic-form-microscopy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” Speech

#11

Post by apo »

The dispute over bimetallic currency is now more than a hundred years old and has been made entirely moot by the floating US dollar and the post-Bretton Woods international monetary order.

Setting aside the technical detail (gold vs. silver), the debate was really over hard vs. soft money. The issue is as relevant today as it was in the 1800s.

Hard (scarce, gold) money policies favor lenders, who care very much about getting the full real value of their loans back. Inflation eats into their returns by decreasing the future value of money.

Soft money policies favor borrowers, who pay back loans in ever cheaper currency through inflation. Buy a farm today with a 10-year loan, and every year the real value of the money you pay back (factoring inflation) decreases.

What we see with a lot of the interest in Bitcoin is a direct reaction to decades of soft-money policies by the world's governments.

Here's the money quote:

... There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them. ...

This is what the Cross of Gold speech was about, in a nutshell.

Re: William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” Speech

#12

Post by smacktoward »

philwelch wrote: post #6
smacktoward wrote: post #5

> Bryan decided that he wanted America to have a bimetallic currency. Unfortunately, there was a political class united in its opposition to this policy. That meant he needed a president that favoured it. This gets the causality backwards. What Bryan decided was that he wanted to be President , and that in order to become President he would need to associate himself with an issue hot and controversial enough to attra…

He also ran for President for three out of four elections between 1896 and 1908 without winning. That's unheard of these days. The last major party losing candidate to run again was Richard Nixon in 1968. Ross Perot also ran, and lost, in 92 and 96. It's very strange that losing a Presidential general election is seen as the end of a political career when in years past, candidates like Bryan, Stevenson, or Dewey were…

> It's very strange that losing a Presidential general election is seen as the end of a political career when in years past, candidates like Bryan, Stevenson, or Dewey were still seen as viable.

It's true, but it's worth noting that while in modern times losing is generally a career-ender for candidates it is much less so for the operatives behind the scenes, some of whom spend their whole careers cycling from one losing campaign to another. The most striking example of this is Democratic consultant Bob Shrum, who was behind the curtain for a remarkable eight losing presidential campaigns. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9895-2004Sep9... for a good profile of Shrum, written as he was on his way to his eighth defeat in 2004.)

Re: William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” Speech

#13

Post by tptacek »

apo wrote: post #11

The dispute over bimetallic currency is now more than a hundred years old and has been made entirely moot by the floating US dollar and the post-Bretton Woods international monetary order. Setting aside the technical detail (gold vs. silver), the debate was really over hard vs. soft money. The issue is as relevant today as it was in the 1800s. Hard (scarce, gold) money policies favor lenders, who care very much about…

Isn't this really reductive? Interest rates and inflation are intimately linked.

Re: William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” Speech

#14

Post by DubiousPusher »

I find the "Free Silver" movement fascinating because it sheds a light on how much we take our current economy for granted. Before I started to read about economics on my own I heard many times about the evils of easy credit and inflation but never had I heard about the problems of deflation and scarce money.

Re: William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” Speech

#15

Post by DubiousPusher »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #4

According to Wikipedia and it's citations, William J. Bryan was satirized as the Cowardly Lion by L. Frank Baum in "The Wizard of Oz".

The guy cut quite a swath across American culture in the early 20th century. He was the attorney for the prosecution in the Scopes Monkey Trial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

Re: William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” Speech

#16

Post by Steko »

apo wrote: post #11

The dispute over bimetallic currency is now more than a hundred years old and has been made entirely moot by the floating US dollar and the post-Bretton Woods international monetary order. Setting aside the technical detail (gold vs. silver), the debate was really over hard vs. soft money. The issue is as relevant today as it was in the 1800s. Hard (scarce, gold) money policies favor lenders, who care very much about…

Moderate inflation is easily factored into repayment terms. What inflation penalizes is keeping your money under your mattress. This creates demand to use money now which creates economic activity.

> a lot of the interest in Bitcoin is a direct reaction to decades of soft-money policies by the world's governments

Bitcoin came from and was nurtured by monetary cranks but they are a small fraction of why people are interested in it lately. Today it's an investment asset or a means to do something illicit like dodge currency controls or launder money.

Re: William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” Speech

#17

Post by philwelch »

smacktoward wrote: post #12
philwelch wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also ran for President for three out of four elections between 1896 and 1908 without winning. That's unheard of these days. The last major party losing candidate to run again was Richard Nixon in 1968. Ross Perot also ran, and lost, in 92 and 96. It's very strange that losing a Presidential general election is seen as the end of a political career when in years past, candidates like Bryan, Stevenson, or Dewey were…

> It's very strange that losing a Presidential general election is seen as the end of a political career when in years past, candidates like Bryan, Stevenson, or Dewey were still seen as viable. It's true, but it's worth noting that while in modern times losing is generally a career-ender for candidates it is much less so for the operatives behind the scenes, some of whom spend their whole careers cycling from one lo…

I can't find a simple list of his eight losing campaigns. I can see that he worked for Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, McGovern in 1972, Ted Kennedy in 1980, Bob Kerrey in 1992, and both Gephardt and Dukakis in 1988, but that only adds up to seven. It turns out he also worked on Ed Muskie's campaign in 1972.

To be fair, though, between the years of 1972 and 2004, the only two winning Democratic candidates were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Re: William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” Speech

#18

Post by philwelch »

gowld wrote: post #9
philwelch wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also ran for President for three out of four elections between 1896 and 1908 without winning. That's unheard of these days. The last major party losing candidate to run again was Richard Nixon in 1968. Ross Perot also ran, and lost, in 92 and 96. It's very strange that losing a Presidential general election is seen as the end of a political career when in years past, candidates like Bryan, Stevenson, or Dewey were…

This is likely because the number of viable candidates today is much larger due to population growth and access to media. In 1904, getting famous was much harder than now, so someone already known to the voters, even as a loser, could have a better chance than a yet-unknown.

I wonder if negative campaigning also plays a role. Candidates like Hillary Clinton and Al Gore have faltered due to the cumulative effect of years of attacks, while candidates like Obama who appeared out of nowhere were more successful.

Re: William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” Speech

#19

Post by wutbrodo »

tptacek wrote: post #13
apo wrote: post #11

The dispute over bimetallic currency is now more than a hundred years old and has been made entirely moot by the floating US dollar and the post-Bretton Woods international monetary order. Setting aside the technical detail (gold vs. silver), the debate was really over hard vs. soft money. The issue is as relevant today as it was in the 1800s. Hard (scarce, gold) money policies favor lenders, who care very much about…

Isn't this really reductive? Interest rates and inflation are intimately linked.

The dynamic he's describing is about inflation relative to its expected value at the time of the deal. If you expect inflation to avg X% over the course of the loan and it ends up being so, then it's factored into the nominal rate of the loan and neither of the situations he describes come to pass. It's also mainly applicable for fixed rate loans only. So yea, it's pretty reductive.
Post reply on HN