Arbyte Laptops & Desktops Driver

  1. Arbyte Laptops Amazon
  2. Arbyte Laptops For Gaming
  3. Arbyte Laptops Refurbished
  4. Arbyte Laptops Black Friday

This page has been created so you can quickly find (using Ctrl+F) the correct product page for your ROG products and ASUS graphics cards. It lists the most recent ROG hardware; for older hardware series, please go to the ROG main page on the ASUS website directly. Motherboard Rampage. Rampage VI Apex; Rampage VI Extreme; Rampage V.

I just discovered the article Libertarians and the Gold Standard onThe Calico Cat, whose author also writes atthe Gold and Silver Blog. It's a month old,but about a subject that interests me enough to get a reply anyway. Itargues that a return to the gold standard would hurt the United Statesand that libertarians should stop favoring it and focus on other issuesinstead. It begins with a tie-in to Atlas Shrugged:

The gold standard, or maybe more specifically gold currency, is stronglyendorsed in Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's huge 40,000 page novel. (I may haveexaggerated the number of pages by a modest amount.)

Drivers Installer for RD9700 USB2.0 To Fast Ethernet Adapter. If you don’t want to waste time on hunting after the needed driver for your PC, feel free to use a dedicated self-acting installer. It will select only qualified and updated drivers for all hardware parts all alone. To download SCI Drivers. Update the device driver In the search box on the taskbar, enter device manager, then select Device Manager. Select a category to see names of devices, then right-click (or press and hold) the one you’d like to update. Select Search automatically for updated driver software. Download new and previously released drivers including support software, bios, utilities, firmware and patches for Intel products. Staples has long sold technology (computers, laptops, printers etc.) and now wants to help you better manage those. Second, they are buying Arbyte of Moscow.

Because libertarians and other free-thinking contrarians have greatreverence for Ayn Rand, they tend to uncritically endorse her views, andthere seems to be a strong trend of 'return to the gold standard' thinkingamong libertarians.

While Atlas Shrugged is only a hefty one thousand pageslong, he's right that it has special appeal. One of the characters is apirate (Arrr!) named Ragnar Danneskjöld. And he'sadmirably (oooh, bad pun) good at acquiring gold through, uh, piracy. Yes,the book has pirates and gold! It getsa hearty endorsement from me.

Arbyte Laptops Amazon

And where else can you find such a marvelous plot that makes dialogue likethis possible?

He extended the package to Rearden, flipping the burlap open. Rearden sawthe starlight run like fire along a mirror-smooth surface. He knew, by itsweight and texture, that what he held was a bar of solid gold.

He looked from the bar to the man's face, but the face seemed harder andless revealing than the surface of the metal.

'Who are you?' asked Rearden.

'The friend of the friendless.'

'Did you come here to give this to me?'

'Yes.'

'Do you mean that you had to stalk me at night, on a lonely road, in order,not to rob me, but to hand me a bar of gold?'

'Yes.'

Alas, Ragnar doesn't have a very large role in the book. But enough aboutliterature, let's get back to economics…

Even if we returned to the gold standard, what would stop another FDR from being elected in the future and abolishing it once again? The only true guarantee of freedom is an electorate that values freedom combined with a Constitution that protects freedom from the tyranny of the majority (something that our own United States Constitution has only partially achieved).

Well, some of us think there's a plausible argument to be madethat the Constitution mandates a gold and/or silver standard, and that FDR'sactions here were as unconstitutional as many other things he did. Mypreference would interestingly not be to mandate a goldstandard, but rather to mandate commodity money and leave it up to the marketto decide which commodity or commodities would be best. I also would notforbid fractional reserve banking, although I'm an advocate of 100% reserves.

Arbyte laptops & desktops drivers

At the moment, there just isn't enough gold to back the U.S. dollar at the current gold price of $402.60/ounce. The U.S. would have to engage in a massive gold buying program which would cause the value of the dollar to fall and the price of gold to rise until the United States had sufficient gold reserves. Once the world knew why the U.S. was buying, the price of gold would rise pretty quickly. This would amount to a massive transfer of wealth from the United States to those who own gold. How does this benefit the nation? A massive transfer of wealth based on a political decision is exactly the kind of government activity that libertarians should be opposed to.

Of course there isn't enough gold at current prices. The resumption of usinggold for monetary purposes would represent an increase in real demand andwould obviously increase prices. But why should this be considered bad forthe United States? US gold reserves as of July 2004are 8136.4 metric tons out of a world total of 31736.5 metric tons. Thisomits private holdings but let's please put that aside. Also putting asidethe usual caveats about GDP figures, the 2003 US GDP was $10.98 trillionout of a 2003 GWPof $51.41 trillion. We have 25% of the world's gold but only 21% of theworld's production. If the whole world were to go back onto the goldstandard, we would be a net exporter of gold and wouldbenefit from its increased value.

Supposing the price of gold rose to $2000/oz (an amount that a lot of the pro-gold websites seem to think gold is destined to reach), and the world knew it would stay there because we were returning to the gold standard, then this would make gold mining a lot more profitable, and there would be a huge investment in gold mining. But all that gold mining would be worthless activity that wouldn't enhance the world's actual productivity. Instead of investing in new computer chips or new factories, people would be investing in digging metal out of the ground. In fact, this activity is more than worthless, it harms the environment because large amounts of sodium cyanide are needed to extract gold from the ore.

Arbyte Laptops & Desktops Driver

It's commonly believed, even among Austrian economists, that the total moneysupply is basically irrelevant and that there's no benefit to increasing thequantity of money. However, there's an interesting recent paper in theQJAE that argues there arebenefits to an increasing monetary gold stock. The paper is 'On theOptimum Quantity of Money' by William Barnett II and Walter Block and canbe downloaded from the QJAE archives.(Incidentally, I've posted about Barnett's interesting papers before.) Thebasic argument is that people would voluntarily add to the gold monetarystock in order to reduce transaction costs. The quantity issue is, I thinkobviously, a relevant factor even from the simple observation that the worldwas on a gold standard as opposed to a copper or platinum standard. Copperis too abundant, and platinum too rare. The fact that silver was commonlyused in addition to gold is empirical proof that transaction cost concernsare strong — strong enough to drive the use of a different commodity forsmall transactions where transaction costs are most noticeable.

The paper also has the funniest academic footnote I've ever read. Theyfootnote a mention of 'market failure' with 'The authors of the present paperhave resolved never to employ that phrase in the absence of quotation marks.'That's laugh-out-loud funny to someone like me. But as you surely alreadyknow, I'm a little weird.

There are a host of other reasons why a return to the gold standard is impractical for the United States. Constant deflation, bank runs, and depressions (including the Great Depression) have all been blamed on the gold standard. Writing about all of this is certainly beyond the scope of this essay. Instead, I will end this essay with advice for Libertarians. Stop supporting extreme positions such as a return to the gold standard and focus on core issues such as reducing the size of federal government, lowering taxes, and deregulating society, the issues that Ronald Reagan supported but the current administration seems to have abandoned.

Video

Yes, the gold standard has been blamed for deflation, bankruns, and depressions, and the Great Depression. But it's ascapegoat in all of those cases. It's fractional reservebanking, and government complicity by means of things like bank holidays,that deserve the blame. Deflation — a decrease in the quantity of money --is impossible under a 100%-reserve commodity money (exceptin the negligible amounts lost in shipwrecks and the like.) With 100%reserves, bank deposits are totally secure against bank runs. Finally, it'sstaple Austrian economic theory that while the proximate cause of depressionsis deflation, the actual cause is malinvestments caused by previous inflationin unbacked fiduciary media — and there wouldn't be any under a 100%-reservecommodity money.

© 2004 Kyle Markley (permalink)

I just discovered the article Libertarians and the Gold Standard onThe Calico Cat, whose author also writes atthe Gold and Silver Blog. It's a month old,but about a subject that interests me enough to get a reply anyway. Itargues that a return to the gold standard would hurt the United Statesand that libertarians should stop favoring it and focus on other issuesinstead. It begins with a tie-in to Atlas Shrugged:

The gold standard, or maybe more specifically gold currency, is stronglyendorsed in Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's huge 40,000 page novel. (I may haveexaggerated the number of pages by a modest amount.)

Because libertarians and other free-thinking contrarians have greatreverence for Ayn Rand, they tend to uncritically endorse her views, andthere seems to be a strong trend of 'return to the gold standard' thinkingamong libertarians.

While Atlas Shrugged is only a hefty one thousand pageslong, he's right that it has special appeal. One of the characters is apirate (Arrr!) named Ragnar Danneskjöld. And he'sadmirably (oooh, bad pun) good at acquiring gold through, uh, piracy. Yes,the book has pirates and gold! It getsa hearty endorsement from me.

And where else can you find such a marvelous plot that makes dialogue likethis possible?

He extended the package to Rearden, flipping the burlap open. Rearden sawthe starlight run like fire along a mirror-smooth surface. He knew, by itsweight and texture, that what he held was a bar of solid gold.

He looked from the bar to the man's face, but the face seemed harder andless revealing than the surface of the metal.

'Who are you?' asked Rearden.

'The friend of the friendless.'

'Did you come here to give this to me?'

'Yes.'

Arbyte Laptops For Gaming

'Do you mean that you had to stalk me at night, on a lonely road, in order,not to rob me, but to hand me a bar of gold?'

Arbyte

'Yes.'

Alas, Ragnar doesn't have a very large role in the book. But enough aboutliterature, let's get back to economics…

Even if we returned to the gold standard, what would stop another FDR from being elected in the future and abolishing it once again? The only true guarantee of freedom is an electorate that values freedom combined with a Constitution that protects freedom from the tyranny of the majority (something that our own United States Constitution has only partially achieved).

Well, some of us think there's a plausible argument to be madethat the Constitution mandates a gold and/or silver standard, and that FDR'sactions here were as unconstitutional as many other things he did. Mypreference would interestingly not be to mandate a goldstandard, but rather to mandate commodity money and leave it up to the marketto decide which commodity or commodities would be best. I also would notforbid fractional reserve banking, although I'm an advocate of 100% reserves.

At the moment, there just isn't enough gold to back the U.S. dollar at the current gold price of $402.60/ounce. The U.S. would have to engage in a massive gold buying program which would cause the value of the dollar to fall and the price of gold to rise until the United States had sufficient gold reserves. Once the world knew why the U.S. was buying, the price of gold would rise pretty quickly. This would amount to a massive transfer of wealth from the United States to those who own gold. How does this benefit the nation? A massive transfer of wealth based on a political decision is exactly the kind of government activity that libertarians should be opposed to.

Of course there isn't enough gold at current prices. The resumption of usinggold for monetary purposes would represent an increase in real demand andwould obviously increase prices. But why should this be considered bad forthe United States? US gold reserves as of July 2004are 8136.4 metric tons out of a world total of 31736.5 metric tons. Thisomits private holdings but let's please put that aside. Also putting asidethe usual caveats about GDP figures, the 2003 US GDP was $10.98 trillionout of a 2003 GWPof $51.41 trillion. We have 25% of the world's gold but only 21% of theworld's production. If the whole world were to go back onto the goldstandard, we would be a net exporter of gold and wouldbenefit from its increased value.

Driver

Supposing the price of gold rose to $2000/oz (an amount that a lot of the pro-gold websites seem to think gold is destined to reach), and the world knew it would stay there because we were returning to the gold standard, then this would make gold mining a lot more profitable, and there would be a huge investment in gold mining. But all that gold mining would be worthless activity that wouldn't enhance the world's actual productivity. Instead of investing in new computer chips or new factories, people would be investing in digging metal out of the ground. In fact, this activity is more than worthless, it harms the environment because large amounts of sodium cyanide are needed to extract gold from the ore.

It's commonly believed, even among Austrian economists, that the total moneysupply is basically irrelevant and that there's no benefit to increasing thequantity of money. However, there's an interesting recent paper in theQJAE that argues there arebenefits to an increasing monetary gold stock. The paper is 'On theOptimum Quantity of Money' by William Barnett II and Walter Block and canbe downloaded from the QJAE archives.(Incidentally, I've posted about Barnett's interesting papers before.) Thebasic argument is that people would voluntarily add to the gold monetarystock in order to reduce transaction costs. The quantity issue is, I thinkobviously, a relevant factor even from the simple observation that the worldwas on a gold standard as opposed to a copper or platinum standard. Copperis too abundant, and platinum too rare. The fact that silver was commonlyused in addition to gold is empirical proof that transaction cost concernsare strong — strong enough to drive the use of a different commodity forsmall transactions where transaction costs are most noticeable.

Arbyte Laptops Refurbished

The paper also has the funniest academic footnote I've ever read. Theyfootnote a mention of 'market failure' with 'The authors of the present paperhave resolved never to employ that phrase in the absence of quotation marks.'That's laugh-out-loud funny to someone like me. But as you surely alreadyknow, I'm a little weird.

There are a host of other reasons why a return to the gold standard is impractical for the United States. Constant deflation, bank runs, and depressions (including the Great Depression) have all been blamed on the gold standard. Writing about all of this is certainly beyond the scope of this essay. Instead, I will end this essay with advice for Libertarians. Stop supporting extreme positions such as a return to the gold standard and focus on core issues such as reducing the size of federal government, lowering taxes, and deregulating society, the issues that Ronald Reagan supported but the current administration seems to have abandoned.

Arbyte Laptops Black Friday

Yes, the gold standard has been blamed for deflation, bankruns, and depressions, and the Great Depression. But it's ascapegoat in all of those cases. It's fractional reservebanking, and government complicity by means of things like bank holidays,that deserve the blame. Deflation — a decrease in the quantity of money --is impossible under a 100%-reserve commodity money (exceptin the negligible amounts lost in shipwrecks and the like.) With 100%reserves, bank deposits are totally secure against bank runs. Finally, it'sstaple Austrian economic theory that while the proximate cause of depressionsis deflation, the actual cause is malinvestments caused by previous inflationin unbacked fiduciary media — and there wouldn't be any under a 100%-reservecommodity money.

© 2004 Kyle Markley (permalink)