On our current monetary system, the only legal representative of the economy is the government, and the strength of the economy is directly related to the strength of the government.
On a gold system, the economy belongs to whoever has the gold.
On our current monetary system, the only legal representative of the economy is the government, and the strength of the economy is directly related to the strength of the government.
On a gold system, the economy belongs to whoever has the gold.
The government is not the economy. The economy is people everywhere making voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions. The government is a creation of those people, initially to protect rights, uphold contracts, and punish/deter those would force their hand. The constitution was written to limit its power so that those within it could not do more with their powers than what they were asked, and so that particular groups in society wouldn't use it to vote themselves, directly or effectively, other people's property, among other coercions.
That our government is so much larger and knee-deep in its own ponzi schemes makes it no stronger than Madoff at the height of his plunder. Our appearance of "strength" is a function of foreigners continuing to buy our bonds like clockwork and recycling the interest. All we do is issue debt under an abused reserve currency status we gained under gold. We borrow, consume other people's production with it, and then borrow more or counterfeit to pay the interest on prior loans. That's all we do, our economy is an unsustainable progression with a counterfeiting element.
Economic power belongs to whoever has the most production and savings. That's why China has us by the balls right now. Having gold is merely the ultimate reflection of that, because ultimately the only thing that facilitates stable trade between products is a proof of production (gold), not promises (iou). We used to have a lot of it because we used to do those things, and it was generally well-dispersed among the populace (in redeemable notes).
Ha, so then why did you relinquish it to those people in the first place? Going back is certainly not going to be painless, but the mistake has been made.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,858
- 6,394
- 126
1) Fiat Currency is a relatively recent developement. I'm not sure of any more than a Century in age.
2) No, the US was short of Gold. The rest of the Economy didn't matter, just the lack of Gold. That is why the Gold Standard is BS.
3) No, of course not. Fiat Currency is based on a True Fiscal and Economic situation within a Nation. It's value has direct correlation to its' Economy and not to how much Gold it has. The Economy turns to crap, so does Fiat Currency, it is a True indicator.
4) Every Nation has Exports. Without Exports Economies eventually Fail. Resources are Limited, eventually you need other Peoples Resources to continue Producing. Fiat Currency works better than Gold for Trade. It's far easier to Move, far easier to Store, and doesn't rely on whether your Nation can pull it from the ground or not.
5) He used "Intrinsic value", because you assign Gold, Intrinsic Value. Perhaps you didn't say it directly, but you imply it nontheless.
6) Dumping Gold onto the Market. The Soviet Union had huge reserves of Gold and that was a concern to the US during the Cold War.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
The world can have one currency when the whole place has the same system of government, the same industries, and there are no major regional trade imbalances.
So, never.
So, never.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_banks
Basically, all these ideas were born, or evolved, from corruption, either from government or the market, banks in particular.
This is a good listen.
For somebody who heaps derision upon me for talking down to people, you are remarkably adroit at doing the same. Hypocrisy much?
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Fiat, fractional reserve, and central banks are not "new" ideas unless "new" to you is 100-200 year old ideas, that's what I rightfully mocked you for. Your links don't mean jack since you don't actually understand what you're linking to, which is why you'll wimp out of this thread because you can't articulate what you're actually referencing.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,858
- 6,394
- 126
Thanks for the links. Link 1 points out the biggest problem with the Gold Standard--there' not enough Gold. That was the reason why it was abandoned in the first place(1971). There was more Paper Money than Gold in existance.
The other 2 don't really apply to Gold Standard/Fiat discussion.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Evan, try to actually follow what's going on in the thread before spouting nonsense. I wasn't trying to say that these ideas are new, in fact I was informing of the opposite.
Your trolling, personal attacks, and failing to understand what exactly is going on makes you look like an idiot.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
rofl, no wonder I missed that shit, it's so utterly contradictory as to be quite sad. By your own admission fiat, fractional reserve, and central bank policies aren't new ideas yet we've been massively better off with these ideas and institutions for centuries, both at home and abroad. You couldn't tell us if your life depended on it what is wrong with them because you don't have the first clue, just some nonsense about how they were "all born out of corruption" or some such Libertarian newsletter-fed nonsense. The fact that these are old ideas invalidates your entire point in practically every thread you claim we've "lost our way".
It's just funny you keep posting this garbage.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
I wouldn't say that's the problem with a gold/silver standard, but nevertheless that is not exactly what I would argue for. I would be open to competing currencies, or some kind of hard-backed dollar. But the amount of gold/silver available really isn't a problem, because as the demand increases and the value increases, the lesser the amount of gold/silver it would take to buy goods/services.
Well, they do and they don't.
My point was that they as well are not new ideas. I guess the question one must ask himself is why did our country start without those ideas, why our founders opposed those ideas, why were gold/silver only to be legal tender. And I think you'll find the reasoning for this was very similar to the reasons for other aspects of our system of government. Again, it isn't an argument for gold/silver specifically, but the reasoning and principle behind the idea.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
WTF are you talking about? Can you not follow the thread?
sandorski and I are having an intelligent conversation, and you're just trolling, spouting nonsense, and throwing around personal attacks. Invalidates my point? Yeah, the fact that fiat currency is an old idea invalidates my point that fiat currency is an old idea. Ok.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Originally posted by: bamacre
WTF are you talking about? Can you not follow the thread?
sandorski and I are having an intelligent conversation, and you're just trolling, spouting nonsense, and throwing around personal attacks. Invalidates my point? Yeah, the fact that fiat currency is an old idea invalidates my point that fiat currency is an old idea. Ok.
:laugh:
You admit that fiat currency is an old idea, yet can't see the contradiction you've created by also simultaneously claiming fiat doesn't work when it has, in fact, been used around the world for decades/centuries with obvious huge success, and currently dominates the whole of the world without notable exception. There's an obvious and inherent contradiction there, it'll take your own brain power to figure it out.
Bottom line is that it's a tried and tested idea, and you came to that conclusion without knowing it. That's pretty sad in my book.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: bamacre
WTF are you talking about? Can you not follow the thread?
sandorski and I are having an intelligent conversation, and you're just trolling, spouting nonsense, and throwing around personal attacks. Invalidates my point? Yeah, the fact that fiat currency is an old idea invalidates my point that fiat currency is an old idea. Ok.
:laugh:
You admit that fiat currency is an old idea, yet can't see the contradiction you've created by also simultaneously claiming fiat doesn't work when it has, in fact, been used around the world for decades/centuries with obvious huge success, and currently dominates the whole of the world without notable exception. There's an obvious and inherent contradiction there, it'll take your own brain power to figure it out.
Bottom line is that it's a tried and tested idea, and you came to that conclusion without knowing it. That's pretty sad in my book.
I guess slavery and totalitarianism are tested, tried and true, as well? Fascism, tried and true? Genocide, tried and true?
Because something is an old or new idea doesn't mean it's a good/bad idea.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: bamacre
I wouldn't say that's the problem with a gold/silver standard, but nevertheless that is not exactly what I would argue for. I would be open to competing currencies, or some kind of hard-backed dollar. But the amount of gold/silver available really isn't a problem, because as the demand increases and the value increases, the lesser the amount of gold/silver it would take to buy goods/services.
Well, they do and they don't.
You really think an economy under semi-permanent deflation is something you want?
Defaltion is probably the single biggest problem with hard currencies, and it's a doozie.
Why dont you just tatoo "666" on your forehead, and hire some figure to be the Anti-Christ?
Just take a look at the open borders and how easy it is for terrorists to move around Europe. The People in the EU can not agree on a currency. Look at Brittian, they dont want into the EU one Currency Plan.
This might work if all contries were actually democratic. As long as you have some country with an Agenda to wipe out another country, I can not see this working. It might be possibe to have an Amero if Mexico could get rid of its giant drug gangs.
More realistically, maybe the USA and Canada could decide on a single currency and just expand it for other South and North American Countries one at a time. This kind of cooperation would require countries to agree on a common set of laws for commerce, business, and trade. It would take a lot of diplomacy and cooperation.
Just take a look at the open borders and how easy it is for terrorists to move around Europe. The People in the EU can not agree on a currency. Look at Brittian, they dont want into the EU one Currency Plan.
This might work if all contries were actually democratic. As long as you have some country with an Agenda to wipe out another country, I can not see this working. It might be possibe to have an Amero if Mexico could get rid of its giant drug gangs.
More realistically, maybe the USA and Canada could decide on a single currency and just expand it for other South and North American Countries one at a time. This kind of cooperation would require countries to agree on a common set of laws for commerce, business, and trade. It would take a lot of diplomacy and cooperation.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter