Comments on: Will Jared Loughner discredit the gold standard? Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: timtak Tue, 19 Jun 2012 06:54:32 +0000 I hope it is not because I am going mad but it seems to me that Loughner’s use of the language of currency to refer to language is interesting and may perhaps be useful for explaining Derrida’s deconstruction.

Derrida is well known for being particularly obscure and perhaps even more so than Loughner.

Derrida criticises the Western philosophy of the sign, which in Husserl or Saussure for instances, consists of signifier and signified, that latter being an idea. The Saussurian model is easiest to state. I have an idea. I choose an appropriate signifier, such as the word “choose,” and I write it here. You then read my word choose and somehow replicate or at least understand the idea that I wanted to express.

Derrida claimed that this duality of the sign is merely a belief. It may be an essential belief, but nevertheless it does not really conform to the reality of the situation. He claimed essentially that the world is not-dual, that there is not another realm of idea, “signifieds” (Saussure) or irreels, (Husserl) transcendental entities, very akin to Plato’s ideas.

Okay so what is Derrida’s new model of the sign? In place of the idea, he argued I think that signification is always a standing in place of something else. In a sense they are simply exchanged for other things. Thus rather than there being a “difference” between the signifier and the signified, there is a “differal” or “differance,” the chain of predicted exchanges, standing in place of, in the the future.

I don’t know if I have understood Derrida at all correctly but this latter notion of “differance” seemed particularly opaque.

However, it seems to me that Loughner’s analogy between fiat currency and language presents a good way of explaining the “differance” that Derrida espouses. I.e. that we presume that our words gain their meaning and value by being pegged to ideas, in the treasury of the mind (and if shared, “the mind of god”) but in fact our language is a fiat currency backed up only by the expectation of future exchange – differance.

I am not sure how to quote Loughner, or even whether I should if this is the analogy he was making then I find it a persuasive and explicative one.

The tragedy that he caused was of course horrible. I do not mean to suggest any merit whatsoever to his acts. He appears to me, layman, to be insane.

By: niyan Mon, 18 Apr 2011 06:53:15 +0000 well this is what i think of this post,- money we are using now is a symbol of the resources we posses. money/notes/coins without gold or what it represent is just a worthless piece of paper. or like a monopoly game money. worth nothing..jared thought so also. this is what is the discussion is about “Is the U.S government printing money without value?”. if it is isn’t it a global offense. who’s monitoring the value of the money? if the notes have no value, we can give is any value you like. it just makes no sense..right..

By: Redshield Mon, 17 Jan 2011 06:17:00 +0000 This piece is very bad journalism–not the sort of class work that Reuters used to be known for. Others have covered just some of the reasons. One needs to wonder WHY this piece was included. Does Reuters feel they have to discredit someone? Did someone, say George Soros, order them to?
The Gold Standard, or the Gold Exchange Standard as it became at the beginning of the 20th century, is a more complicated subject than the author predumably lets on–or knows. Same goes for the putative defenders of the Gold Standard. Few remark on the 40% increase in the world’s gold supply 1890-1914; a gold inflation due to new ore discoveries (South Africa, Australia & Alaska) plus a new processing method’s (the cyanide process) making low-grade ores commercially feasable. That is a big factor in making the Gold Standard work so well. Even then a growing economy led to tight supplies of currency/circulating medium and money leading to frequent panics in America; the solution which was starting to be reached before the Fed’s founding in 1913 was “contra-accounting” what we know today as checks. Think of it–a check is your own currency acceptible only to the extent of your character; as J. P. Morgan put it, character matters more in a transaction than collateral or the ability to pay, for “a man I could not trust could not get money from me on all the bonds in Christendom”.
So, Reuters, shape up. Get somebody decent to do blogs for you.

By: CPA1976 Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:51:50 +0000 Anyone who thinks this guy is right wing or left wing is deluded or just a pundit and a worthless piece of work. He’s psychotic.

By: vox9 Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:52:01 +0000 Unfortunately I think the new currency he is hinting at is bullets. His writings seem to demonstrate the consequences of the doublethink that is required to operate in modern society. He appears to espouse the gold standard and a new currency at the same time out of a desperate attempt to resolve the dilemma. In this case he did not have the knowledge nor guidance to find a socially acceptable solution and reverted to the animal instinct of using violence as currency.

By: Publius1791 Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:24:39 +0000 Chadwick Matlin was obviously up against a deadline when he wrote this.

I’ll bet investigators could find irrational ramblings and ‘inappropriate’ content during a review of his hard-drive and personal files as well.

Is this really the significant issue involved here, or is Mr. Matlin trying to create one? Let’s let experts and the courts determine Loughner’s motives and mental strengths or limitations.

Matlin’s ‘pot stirring’ here serves no worthwhile purpose.

By: MTGradwell Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:06:51 +0000 While you admit, eventually, that Loughner “is clearly a man not in control of his faculties”, your cherry-picking of quotes contrives to make him appear much more lucid than is actually the case.

Here’s part of the text of his “How to:Your new currency!” video:
“If I’m possessing 0 new coins, and add 0 new coins to the new money system then my treasury is 0 new coins. I’m possessing 0 new coins, and add 0 new coins to the new money system. Therefore, my treasury is 0 new coins. 0(coins) + 0(new coins)=0(treasury).
If I’m possessing 0 new coins, and add 1 new coin to the new money system then my treasury is 1 new coin. I’m possessing 0 new coins, and add 1 new coin to the new money system. Therefore, my treasury is 1 new coin. 0(coins) + 0(new coins)=0(treasury).”
Ron Paul this is not. It isn’t even Dick and Jane, although I have to admit that the maths is impeccable.

I think it’s a safe bet that nobody else will quote this,or any other of the less lucid parts of Loughner’s videos, since it messes up all the silly little theses which are based on Loughner being rationally influenced by and supportive of some coherent ideology.

By: Fishrl Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:02:23 +0000 For all I know, the guy did it because his neighbor’s dog told him to. Nobody is waiting for the facts. That’s what investigations are for. Left-wing? Right-wing? How about bad wiring?

By: zotdoc Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:58:48 +0000 I forgot to mention, that this crazy man professed that among his favorite books were the works of Karl Marx, something that many on the left have a kinship with, so report that also.

By: zotdoc Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:55:31 +0000 This truly crazy person killed a bunch of inocent people. It’s really scary that anyone could be killed out of the blue for no reason, but it seems to be a fact of modern life. Now liberal journalists are trying to link this nut to conservatives. Isn’t this the same type of exhorting the journalists are accusing the “right wingers” of?