Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should we go back to a gold standard?

Bobjones555
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2017 7:32:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How about a Gold standard? As improbable as it sounds the current system is also completely unsustaible . Is a gold standard better? Follow up, should we be buying gold? If so, is it better to buy gold physically, or use vaulted gold like Goldmoney ?
Bi0Hazard
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2017 11:52:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2017 7:32:22 PM, Bobjones555 wrote:
How about a Gold standard? As improbable as it sounds the current system is also completely unsustaible . Is a gold standard better? Follow up, should we be buying gold? If so, is it better to buy gold physically, or use vaulted gold like Goldmoney ?

Well, here is what the "experts" got to say about it: http://www.igmchicago.org...

There is a consensus that the Gold Standard belongs in the dustbin. Central banks can't fight depressions and currency would depend upon the supply of Gold. Actually, there is an interesting book written on the subject of Gold and intervention influencing gold markets. It is called "The Gold Cartel: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper, and What This Means for Your Future" by Dimitri Speck. If a commodity such as gold is dependent upon external markets, this is highly problematic for the gold standard.
dc0404
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2017 4:27:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2017 7:32:22 PM, Bobjones555 wrote:
How about a Gold standard? As improbable as it sounds the current system is also completely unsustaible . Is a gold standard better? Follow up, should we be buying gold? If so, is it better to buy gold physically, or use vaulted gold like Goldmoney ?

I think we should. Eventually, it will happen whether anyone wants it or not due to the unsustainable economy as it exists. If we do, you would then either devalue the dollar, or you would increase the dollar price of gold until a certain ratio exists (dollars to gold), say a 4:1 ratio. The gold standard has been removed, then added back, then removed again. It is not as if it only went away once. The last time they went back to the gold standard, the dollar was devalued. I believe the next time, the dollar price of gold will increase, and it will increase a lot. Thus, gold is to me more of an insurance policy against a dollar that has lost a ton of buying power over several decades and will eventually fail.

Where the gold is stored is up to the individual. In a liquidity crisis, you will need access to your assets that you can quickly make liquid, so if it is held elsewhere, that may pose an issue as the "doors are locked"

DC
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2017 12:51:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The value of a nation is not shiny rocks in the dirt.
The value of a nation is the some total of its assets, less debt.
The natural resources, the waterways, the roads and bridges, the state owned buildings and land, the military, the manpower, more.

There is a lot of disagreement about the total net worth of the USA federal government. You may think the net worth of states should also be included.
Certainly it is in the tens of trillions of dollars. Some say 200 trillion.

If someone had all of the above ground gold in the world, every single ounce, it would not be enough to buy the USA at fifty cents on the dollar.
Eight trillion dollars would not buy the USA, even at a deep discount price.
dc0404
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2017 2:35:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2017 12:51:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
The value of a nation is not shiny rocks in the dirt.
The value of a nation is the some total of its assets, less debt.
The natural resources, the waterways, the roads and bridges, the state owned buildings and land, the military, the manpower, more.

There is a lot of disagreement about the total net worth of the USA federal government. You may think the net worth of states should also be included.
Certainly it is in the tens of trillions of dollars. Some say 200 trillion.

If someone had all of the above ground gold in the world, every single ounce, it would not be enough to buy the USA at fifty cents on the dollar.
Eight trillion dollars would not buy the USA, even at a deep discount price.

That is not right and you are missing one important point... it all depends on the dollar price of gold. If/when we move back to a gold standard, the dollar price of gold will be reset such that the amount of gold will support the dollars in circulation. This is why there will either 1) be a devaluation of the dollar (since so much has been printed), or 2) the dollar price of gold will go way up to support the dollars in circulation.

The first time we left and came back to the gold standard, a devaluation occurred and a lot of pain. So, the next time, we will likely see a massive increase in the dollar price of gold to support the money supply.

DC
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2017 4:12:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2017 2:35:40 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/3/2017 12:51:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
The value of a nation is not shiny rocks in the dirt.
The value of a nation is the some total of its assets, less debt.
The natural resources, the waterways, the roads and bridges, the state owned buildings and land, the military, the manpower, more.

There is a lot of disagreement about the total net worth of the USA federal government. You may think the net worth of states should also be included.
Certainly it is in the tens of trillions of dollars. Some say 200 trillion.

If someone had all of the above ground gold in the world, every single ounce, it would not be enough to buy the USA at fifty cents on the dollar.
Eight trillion dollars would not buy the USA, even at a deep discount price.

That is not right and you are missing one important point... it all depends on the dollar price of gold. If/when we move back to a gold standard, the dollar price of gold will be reset such that the amount of gold will support the dollars in circulation. This is why there will either 1) be a devaluation of the dollar (since so much has been printed), or 2) the dollar price of gold will go way up to support the dollars in circulation.

The first time we left and came back to the gold standard, a devaluation occurred and a lot of pain. So, the next time, we will likely see a massive increase in the dollar price of gold to support the money supply.

DC

Well, in your fairy tale land it will still be true that there will not be enough gold in the world to buy the USA.
That is, the USA dollar is currently backed by assets worth much more than all outstanding debt, whether currency, bonds, or debts of any sort.
Tens of trillions more $$$.
If the value of gold increases, to say $5000 an ounce, that will greatly increase our assets.
The gold in Fort Knox would increase from about $200 billion, to about a trillion $$$. Actually, that would be a drop in the bucket, compared to non gold assets. Strike that "greatly increase".

$5000 an ounce gold.
Wouldn't that turn the world economy upside down.
John_C_1812
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2017 7:39:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The United States never left the gold standard the market established that gold proved to be incapable of holding impartiality, thus, gold does not have a self-regulation built in to its value in comparison to a Note which acts as a self-regulating value and public receipt. How can gold be cited for proper use of its value, only by a stamp of weight and purity which must be checked. Notes along with many currencies provide independent serial numbers?

The same issue may be following Real Estate thanks to the Drug War which is the gold of the 21st Century. Again we know gold holds no self-regulation by asking one simple question about the United States Dollar. Describe in as few words a humanly possible. How a Dollar Note is not an imperial receipt issued to the economy?
dc0404
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2017 9:26:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2017 4:12:48 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/3/2017 2:35:40 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/3/2017 12:51:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
The value of a nation is not shiny rocks in the dirt.
The value of a nation is the some total of its assets, less debt.
The natural resources, the waterways, the roads and bridges, the state owned buildings and land, the military, the manpower, more.

There is a lot of disagreement about the total net worth of the USA federal government. You may think the net worth of states should also be included.
Certainly it is in the tens of trillions of dollars. Some say 200 trillion.

If someone had all of the above ground gold in the world, every single ounce, it would not be enough to buy the USA at fifty cents on the dollar.
Eight trillion dollars would not buy the USA, even at a deep discount price.

That is not right and you are missing one important point... it all depends on the dollar price of gold. If/when we move back to a gold standard, the dollar price of gold will be reset such that the amount of gold will support the dollars in circulation. This is why there will either 1) be a devaluation of the dollar (since so much has been printed), or 2) the dollar price of gold will go way up to support the dollars in circulation.

The first time we left and came back to the gold standard, a devaluation occurred and a lot of pain. So, the next time, we will likely see a massive increase in the dollar price of gold to support the money supply.

DC

Well, in your fairy tale land it will still be true that there will not be enough gold in the world to buy the USA.
That is, the USA dollar is currently backed by assets worth much more than all outstanding debt, whether currency, bonds, or debts of any sort.
Tens of trillions more $$$.
If the value of gold increases, to say $5000 an ounce, that will greatly increase our assets.
The gold in Fort Knox would increase from about $200 billion, to about a trillion $$$. Actually, that would be a drop in the bucket, compared to non gold assets. Strike that "greatly increase".

$5000 an ounce gold.
Wouldn't that turn the world economy upside down.

To get back to the previous ratios, it would be more like $10,000/oz. It does seem like a fairy tale, but not really since we used to be on a gold standard, and our money was much more sound at that time. It is not far fetched if in fact we operated on a gold standard, twice. The assets you speak of are really not hard assets, they are digital assets (numbers) on a screen that will vanish overnight in a liquidity crisis. Those assets are actually the fairy tale. Please tell me about these assets you speak of?

DC
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2017 11:40:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2017 9:26:46 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/3/2017 4:12:48 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/3/2017 2:35:40 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/3/2017 12:51:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
The value of a nation is not shiny rocks in the dirt.
The value of a nation is the some total of its assets, less debt.
The natural resources, the waterways, the roads and bridges, the state owned buildings and land, the military, the manpower, more.

There is a lot of disagreement about the total net worth of the USA federal government. You may think the net worth of states should also be included.
Certainly it is in the tens of trillions of dollars. Some say 200 trillion.

If someone had all of the above ground gold in the world, every single ounce, it would not be enough to buy the USA at fifty cents on the dollar.
Eight trillion dollars would not buy the USA, even at a deep discount price.

That is not right and you are missing one important point... it all depends on the dollar price of gold. If/when we move back to a gold standard, the dollar price of gold will be reset such that the amount of gold will support the dollars in circulation. This is why there will either 1) be a devaluation of the dollar (since so much has been printed), or 2) the dollar price of gold will go way up to support the dollars in circulation.

The first time we left and came back to the gold standard, a devaluation occurred and a lot of pain. So, the next time, we will likely see a massive increase in the dollar price of gold to support the money supply.

DC

Well, in your fairy tale land it will still be true that there will not be enough gold in the world to buy the USA.
That is, the USA dollar is currently backed by assets worth much more than all outstanding debt, whether currency, bonds, or debts of any sort.
Tens of trillions more $$$.
If the value of gold increases, to say $5000 an ounce, that will greatly increase our assets.
The gold in Fort Knox would increase from about $200 billion, to about a trillion $$$. Actually, that would be a drop in the bucket, compared to non gold assets. Strike that "greatly increase".

$5000 an ounce gold.
Wouldn't that turn the world economy upside down.

To get back to the previous ratios, it would be more like $10,000/oz. It does seem like a fairy tale, but not really since we used to be on a gold standard, and our money was much more sound at that time. It is not far fetched if in fact we operated on a gold standard, twice. The assets you speak of are really not hard assets, they are digital assets (numbers) on a screen that will vanish overnight in a liquidity crisis. Those assets are actually the fairy tale. Please tell me about these assets you speak of?

DC

Hey, just make it an even $100,000 an ounce.
As for assets, the grand canyon.
All national parks and the resources on them
USS Nimitz
All weapons, aircraft, vehicles, of all armed forces, Coast Guard and reserves included
The manpower of the armed forces
The waterway, lakes, coastal waters of the USA
All federal infrastructure.
You get the idea. Sound like hard assets to me.
John_C_1812
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 12:59:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2017 9:26:46 PM, dc0404 wrote:

To get back to the previous ratios, it would be more like $10,000/oz. It does seem like a fairy tale, but not really since we used to be on a gold standard, and our money was much more sound at that time. It is not far fetched if in fact we operated on a gold standard, twice. The assets you speak of are really not hard assets, they are digital assets (numbers) on a screen that will vanish overnight in a liquidity crisis. Those assets are actually the fairy tale. Please tell me about these assets you speak of?

DC

DC_404
You"re saying it is a commodity like gold and not the Constitutional Judicial, and Federal Reserve Note impartiality which made the currency stable? Any commodity cannot bring a stability it has to be transported from place to place at a high cost. Stability of impartiality is created and maintained and has a public indication that can be measured.
dc0404
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 1:52:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2017 11:40:58 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/3/2017 9:26:46 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/3/2017 4:12:48 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/3/2017 2:35:40 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/3/2017 12:51:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
The value of a nation is not shiny rocks in the dirt.
The value of a nation is the some total of its assets, less debt.
The natural resources, the waterways, the roads and bridges, the state owned buildings and land, the military, the manpower, more.

There is a lot of disagreement about the total net worth of the USA federal government. You may think the net worth of states should also be included.
Certainly it is in the tens of trillions of dollars. Some say 200 trillion.

If someone had all of the above ground gold in the world, every single ounce, it would not be enough to buy the USA at fifty cents on the dollar.
Eight trillion dollars would not buy the USA, even at a deep discount price.

That is not right and you are missing one important point... it all depends on the dollar price of gold. If/when we move back to a gold standard, the dollar price of gold will be reset such that the amount of gold will support the dollars in circulation. This is why there will either 1) be a devaluation of the dollar (since so much has been printed), or 2) the dollar price of gold will go way up to support the dollars in circulation.

The first time we left and came back to the gold standard, a devaluation occurred and a lot of pain. So, the next time, we will likely see a massive increase in the dollar price of gold to support the money supply.

DC

Well, in your fairy tale land it will still be true that there will not be enough gold in the world to buy the USA.
That is, the USA dollar is currently backed by assets worth much more than all outstanding debt, whether currency, bonds, or debts of any sort.
Tens of trillions more $$$.
If the value of gold increases, to say $5000 an ounce, that will greatly increase our assets.
The gold in Fort Knox would increase from about $200 billion, to about a trillion $$$. Actually, that would be a drop in the bucket, compared to non gold assets. Strike that "greatly increase".

$5000 an ounce gold.
Wouldn't that turn the world economy upside down.

To get back to the previous ratios, it would be more like $10,000/oz. It does seem like a fairy tale, but not really since we used to be on a gold standard, and our money was much more sound at that time. It is not far fetched if in fact we operated on a gold standard, twice. The assets you speak of are really not hard assets, they are digital assets (numbers) on a screen that will vanish overnight in a liquidity crisis. Those assets are actually the fairy tale. Please tell me about these assets you speak of?

DC

Hey, just make it an even $100,000 an ounce.
As for assets, the grand canyon.
All national parks and the resources on them
USS Nimitz
All weapons, aircraft, vehicles, of all armed forces, Coast Guard and reserves included
The manpower of the armed forces
The waterway, lakes, coastal waters of the USA
All federal infrastructure.
You get the idea. Sound like hard assets to me.

Great assets indeed. The problem is there is not enough liquidity to support the credit bubble that exists. When you consider the derivatives and swaps, which are contractual obligations that are not supported by enough hard assets, the wealth the US has will vanish overnight in an extreme crisis. The grand canyon and the like will not help in this type of situation, but it makes a good place to hide. The idea of increasing the dollar price of gold to support the current money supply is a step in the right direction back to sound money.

DC
John_C_1812
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 2:25:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It"s not a credit bubble there is a plagiary issue with credit. Along with a reluctance that has been created with collateral damage created by the Drug War. As some of the issues of the Drug War have violated precedent already legally set by such things as Narcotics, Prohibition, and Alcohol.

The clear advantage in the use of impartiality over Gold is there is absolutely no fear of some-one ever stealing impartiality out of Fort Knox and selling it on the open market, or try something like contaminate or destroy impartiality in order to create lasting shortage. A Nation can quickly justify the expense of War to overthrow if it can provide a profit of Gold, Germany proved this already in WWII. A Nation is much harder to take if the assets are not owned by the Nation itself. The Technology is diversified by impartial axiom and spread out so if an attack would take place. The technology could be united once more under impartiality guidance.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 12:05:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2017 1:52:57 AM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/3/2017 11:40:58 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/3/2017 9:26:46 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/3/2017 4:12:48 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/3/2017 2:35:40 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/3/2017 12:51:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
The value of a nation is not shiny rocks in the dirt.
The value of a nation is the some total of its assets, less debt.
The natural resources, the waterways, the roads and bridges, the state owned buildings and land, the military, the manpower, more.

There is a lot of disagreement about the total net worth of the USA federal government. You may think the net worth of states should also be included.
Certainly it is in the tens of trillions of dollars. Some say 200 trillion.

If someone had all of the above ground gold in the world, every single ounce, it would not be enough to buy the USA at fifty cents on the dollar.
Eight trillion dollars would not buy the USA, even at a deep discount price.

That is not right and you are missing one important point... it all depends on the dollar price of gold. If/when we move back to a gold standard, the dollar price of gold will be reset such that the amount of gold will support the dollars in circulation. This is why there will either 1) be a devaluation of the dollar (since so much has been printed), or 2) the dollar price of gold will go way up to support the dollars in circulation.

The first time we left and came back to the gold standard, a devaluation occurred and a lot of pain. So, the next time, we will likely see a massive increase in the dollar price of gold to support the money supply.

DC

Well, in your fairy tale land it will still be true that there will not be enough gold in the world to buy the USA.
That is, the USA dollar is currently backed by assets worth much more than all outstanding debt, whether currency, bonds, or debts of any sort.
Tens of trillions more $$$.
If the value of gold increases, to say $5000 an ounce, that will greatly increase our assets.
The gold in Fort Knox would increase from about $200 billion, to about a trillion $$$. Actually, that would be a drop in the bucket, compared to non gold assets. Strike that "greatly increase".

$5000 an ounce gold.
Wouldn't that turn the world economy upside down.

To get back to the previous ratios, it would be more like $10,000/oz. It does seem like a fairy tale, but not really since we used to be on a gold standard, and our money was much more sound at that time. It is not far fetched if in fact we operated on a gold standard, twice. The assets you speak of are really not hard assets, they are digital assets (numbers) on a screen that will vanish overnight in a liquidity crisis. Those assets are actually the fairy tale. Please tell me about these assets you speak of?

DC

Hey, just make it an even $100,000 an ounce.
As for assets, the grand canyon.
All national parks and the resources on them
USS Nimitz
All weapons, aircraft, vehicles, of all armed forces, Coast Guard and reserves included
The manpower of the armed forces
The waterway, lakes, coastal waters of the USA
All federal infrastructure.
You get the idea. Sound like hard assets to me.

Great assets indeed. The problem is there is not enough liquidity to support the credit bubble that exists. When you consider the derivatives and swaps, which are contractual obligations that are not supported by enough hard assets, the wealth the US has will vanish overnight in an extreme crisis. The grand canyon and the like will not help in this type of situation, but it makes a good place to hide. The idea of increasing the dollar price of gold to support the current money supply is a step in the right direction back to sound money.

DC

Tell me, who are a few of the noteworthy economists who advocate the gold standard?
I'd like to see what they have to say.
dc0404
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 1:44:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2017 12:05:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Great assets indeed. The problem is there is not enough liquidity to support the credit bubble that exists. When you consider the derivatives and swaps, which are contractual obligations that are not supported by enough hard assets, the wealth the US has will vanish overnight in an extreme crisis. The grand canyon and the like will not help in this type of situation, but it makes a good place to hide. The idea of increasing the dollar price of gold to support the current money supply is a step in the right direction back to sound money.

DC

Tell me, who are a few of the noteworthy economists who advocate the gold standard?
I'd like to see what they have to say.

Check out some books, podcasts, etc., on both James Rickards and Peter Schiff.

DC
John_C_1812
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 2:02:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem is that the gold standard is suggesting government has a right to own land. As land is a part of the gold Standard. By basic principle there is an instigation being created when a governing body moves away from a impartiality and undertakes profiteering through taxation.

If Gold was truly a sound asset you would be able to describe how it holds a governing body impartial to trade. It"s not hard it has been done here several times with currency and the Federal Reserve Note. It is not just a value it is a registered impartial receipt that is given in the economy for service or good.

Meaning neither the buyer nor the seller write, or really own the receipt given as it has a registered value held else ware.
TheMarketLibertarian
Posts: 543
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 4:06:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2017 11:52:38 PM, Bi0Hazard wrote:
At 3/2/2017 7:32:22 PM, Bobjones555 wrote:
How about a Gold standard? As improbable as it sounds the current system is also completely unsustaible . Is a gold standard better? Follow up, should we be buying gold? If so, is it better to buy gold physically, or use vaulted gold like Goldmoney ?

Well, here is what the "experts" got to say about it: http://www.igmchicago.org...

There is a consensus that the Gold Standard belongs in the dustbin. Central banks can't fight depressions and currency would depend upon the supply of Gold. Actually, there is an interesting book written on the subject of Gold and intervention influencing gold markets. It is called "The Gold Cartel: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper, and What This Means for Your Future" by Dimitri Speck. If a commodity such as gold is dependent upon external markets, this is highly problematic for the gold standard.

A fully automatic Gold Standard isn't a good idea- though tying the dollar to Gold, but not limiting the money supply to the supply of Gold, might be a good idea for other reasons. Central Banks do not fight Recessions- they cause them.
A better idea is to have a stable monetary base that grows in accordance to our GDP annually.
dc0404
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 4:54:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2017 4:06:27 PM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
At 3/2/2017 11:52:38 PM, Bi0Hazard wrote:
At 3/2/2017 7:32:22 PM, Bobjones555 wrote:
How about a Gold standard? As improbable as it sounds the current system is also completely unsustaible . Is a gold standard better? Follow up, should we be buying gold? If so, is it better to buy gold physically, or use vaulted gold like Goldmoney ?

Well, here is what the "experts" got to say about it: http://www.igmchicago.org...

There is a consensus that the Gold Standard belongs in the dustbin. Central banks can't fight depressions and currency would depend upon the supply of Gold. Actually, there is an interesting book written on the subject of Gold and intervention influencing gold markets. It is called "The Gold Cartel: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper, and What This Means for Your Future" by Dimitri Speck. If a commodity such as gold is dependent upon external markets, this is highly problematic for the gold standard.

A fully automatic Gold Standard isn't a good idea- though tying the dollar to Gold, but not limiting the money supply to the supply of Gold, might be a good idea for other reasons. Central Banks do not fight Recessions- they cause them.
A better idea is to have a stable monetary base that grows in accordance to our GDP annually.

Well sure, but if they were going to do that, they should of started decades ago. Nonetheless, I agree this would be a good approach yet our politicians and the Fed are completely inept in making and promoting good and sound monetary/fiscal policy. The more practical fix is a reset to a gold standard and yes, it will come with some short term pain.

DC
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 5:50:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2017 1:44:36 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/4/2017 12:05:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Great assets indeed. The problem is there is not enough liquidity to support the credit bubble that exists. When you consider the derivatives and swaps, which are contractual obligations that are not supported by enough hard assets, the wealth the US has will vanish overnight in an extreme crisis. The grand canyon and the like will not help in this type of situation, but it makes a good place to hide. The idea of increasing the dollar price of gold to support the current money supply is a step in the right direction back to sound money.

DC

Tell me, who are a few of the noteworthy economists who advocate the gold standard?
I'd like to see what they have to say.

Check out some books, podcasts, etc., on both James Rickards and Peter Schiff.

DC

I am familiar with both of those gold bugs.
Schiff has no economy degrees, Rickards does have a master's in international economy.
As far as I know, neither has the support of any of the top 20 living economists.
http://superscholar.org...

Huffington post lists 26 economists worth following on Twitter. No sign of Rickards or Schiff.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I found a list of 2400 leading economists who are authors.
https://ideas.repec.org...
Guess who is not on the list.

IOW, I do not consider them to be noteworthy economists.
dc0404
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 7:19:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2017 5:50:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/4/2017 1:44:36 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/4/2017 12:05:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Great assets indeed. The problem is there is not enough liquidity to support the credit bubble that exists. When you consider the derivatives and swaps, which are contractual obligations that are not supported by enough hard assets, the wealth the US has will vanish overnight in an extreme crisis. The grand canyon and the like will not help in this type of situation, but it makes a good place to hide. The idea of increasing the dollar price of gold to support the current money supply is a step in the right direction back to sound money.

DC

Tell me, who are a few of the noteworthy economists who advocate the gold standard?
I'd like to see what they have to say.

Check out some books, podcasts, etc., on both James Rickards and Peter Schiff.

DC

I am familiar with both of those gold bugs.
Schiff has no economy degrees, Rickards does have a master's in international economy.
As far as I know, neither has the support of any of the top 20 living economists.
http://superscholar.org...

Huffington post lists 26 economists worth following on Twitter. No sign of Rickards or Schiff.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I found a list of 2400 leading economists who are authors.
https://ideas.repec.org...
Guess who is not on the list.

IOW, I do not consider them to be noteworthy economists.

But that is your problem, you are listening to "noteworthy" economists that keep getting it wrong... you and the government. And, based on their "expertise", they have created severe conditions and the diagnosis is bleak. Economists, many of them, cannot see the forest through the trees and really need to be looking at noteworthy outside perspectives that understand the severity of the situation far better, because they see it, and they understand financial markets far better than economists, and that is the part of "economics" I am talking about here. Sure, economists may understand the social impact better, but they are too short sighted with regards to financial markets.

DC
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 10:36:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2017 7:19:21 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/4/2017 5:50:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/4/2017 1:44:36 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/4/2017 12:05:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Great assets indeed. The problem is there is not enough liquidity to support the credit bubble that exists. When you consider the derivatives and swaps, which are contractual obligations that are not supported by enough hard assets, the wealth the US has will vanish overnight in an extreme crisis. The grand canyon and the like will not help in this type of situation, but it makes a good place to hide. The idea of increasing the dollar price of gold to support the current money supply is a step in the right direction back to sound money.

DC

Tell me, who are a few of the noteworthy economists who advocate the gold standard?
I'd like to see what they have to say.

Check out some books, podcasts, etc., on both James Rickards and Peter Schiff.

DC

I am familiar with both of those gold bugs.
Schiff has no economy degrees, Rickards does have a master's in international economy.
As far as I know, neither has the support of any of the top 20 living economists.
http://superscholar.org...

Huffington post lists 26 economists worth following on Twitter. No sign of Rickards or Schiff.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I found a list of 2400 leading economists who are authors.
https://ideas.repec.org...
Guess who is not on the list.

IOW, I do not consider them to be noteworthy economists.

But that is your problem, you are listening to "noteworthy" economists that keep getting it wrong... you and the government. And, based on their "expertise", they have created severe conditions and the diagnosis is bleak. Economists, many of them, cannot see the forest through the trees and really need to be looking at noteworthy outside perspectives that understand the severity of the situation far better, because they see it, and they understand financial markets far better than economists, and that is the part of "economics" I am talking about here. Sure, economists may understand the social impact better, but they are too short sighted with regards to financial markets.

DC

Well, when I said "Tell me, who are a few of the noteworthy economists who advocate the gold standard?", you should have replied (if you wanted to be honest), sorry, I can not do that.
dc0404
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 11:26:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2017 10:36:14 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/4/2017 7:19:21 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/4/2017 5:50:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/4/2017 1:44:36 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/4/2017 12:05:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Great assets indeed. The problem is there is not enough liquidity to support the credit bubble that exists. When you consider the derivatives and swaps, which are contractual obligations that are not supported by enough hard assets, the wealth the US has will vanish overnight in an extreme crisis. The grand canyon and the like will not help in this type of situation, but it makes a good place to hide. The idea of increasing the dollar price of gold to support the current money supply is a step in the right direction back to sound money.

DC

Tell me, who are a few of the noteworthy economists who advocate the gold standard?
I'd like to see what they have to say.

Check out some books, podcasts, etc., on both James Rickards and Peter Schiff.

DC

I am familiar with both of those gold bugs.
Schiff has no economy degrees, Rickards does have a master's in international economy.
As far as I know, neither has the support of any of the top 20 living economists.
http://superscholar.org...

Huffington post lists 26 economists worth following on Twitter. No sign of Rickards or Schiff.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I found a list of 2400 leading economists who are authors.
https://ideas.repec.org...
Guess who is not on the list.

IOW, I do not consider them to be noteworthy economists.

But that is your problem, you are listening to "noteworthy" economists that keep getting it wrong... you and the government. And, based on their "expertise", they have created severe conditions and the diagnosis is bleak. Economists, many of them, cannot see the forest through the trees and really need to be looking at noteworthy outside perspectives that understand the severity of the situation far better, because they see it, and they understand financial markets far better than economists, and that is the part of "economics" I am talking about here. Sure, economists may understand the social impact better, but they are too short sighted with regards to financial markets.

DC

Well, when I said "Tell me, who are a few of the noteworthy economists who advocate the gold standard?", you should have replied (if you wanted to be honest), sorry, I can not do that.

Well maybe, but then you are operating on the presumption that economists know best when clearly the leading economists that set monetary/fiscal policy do not. If they did, we would have a sustainable system built on sound money.

I am hard pressed to find economists that support this. I read an article about how 40 of the leading economists do not support it, all 40, saying it would not improve nor create a sustainable growing economy, even though it did for years. It is actually taboo for economists to support moving back to a gold standard. Most leading economists do not support this only because of its unpopularity and so instead they debate it away as "old fashioned" (won't work for today) because they are pressured to come up with some more sophisticated solution, but they are unable to do so. Certainly the current economic system is unsustainable, you can see that right?

So how about you? Do you know any noteworthy economists that support the gold standard? And, since most do not, what is your suggestion, and your economists suggestion, back to sound money outside the gold standard that also staves off a pending liquidity crisis?

DC
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 11:43:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I did find a noteworthy economist that supports the gold standard.
Nathan Lewis.
Here is a colleague's comment, who sort of likes Mr Lewis.
"Nathan Lewis continues to embarrass himself
I've written about this before. Nathan has written an excellent and inspiring series of articles about traditional urbanism, beginning with The Eco-Metropolis. But he's also a gold-standard crank. This poses a difficulty for me. How can I recommend his site to people, when they will find some really bad writing on economic issues there?
<snip>
It is really frustrating for me to have to debunk Nathan. I really like his writing on cities, his style is a lot of fun to read. But these economic matters are also important. And sadly, he is better known for his crank writing than his good writing."
http://walkingbostonian.blogspot.com...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2017 11:53:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2017 11:26:58 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/4/2017 10:36:14 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/4/2017 7:19:21 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/4/2017 5:50:19 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/4/2017 1:44:36 PM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/4/2017 12:05:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Great assets indeed. The problem is there is not enough liquidity to support the credit bubble that exists. When you consider the derivatives and swaps, which are contractual obligations that are not supported by enough hard assets, the wealth the US has will vanish overnight in an extreme crisis. The grand canyon and the like will not help in this type of situation, but it makes a good place to hide. The idea of increasing the dollar price of gold to support the current money supply is a step in the right direction back to sound money.

DC

Tell me, who are a few of the noteworthy economists who advocate the gold standard?
I'd like to see what they have to say.

Check out some books, podcasts, etc., on both James Rickards and Peter Schiff.

DC

I am familiar with both of those gold bugs.
Schiff has no economy degrees, Rickards does have a master's in international economy.
As far as I know, neither has the support of any of the top 20 living economists.
http://superscholar.org...

Huffington post lists 26 economists worth following on Twitter. No sign of Rickards or Schiff.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I found a list of 2400 leading economists who are authors.
https://ideas.repec.org...
Guess who is not on the list.

IOW, I do not consider them to be noteworthy economists.

But that is your problem, you are listening to "noteworthy" economists that keep getting it wrong... you and the government. And, based on their "expertise", they have created severe conditions and the diagnosis is bleak. Economists, many of them, cannot see the forest through the trees and really need to be looking at noteworthy outside perspectives that understand the severity of the situation far better, because they see it, and they understand financial markets far better than economists, and that is the part of "economics" I am talking about here. Sure, economists may understand the social impact better, but they are too short sighted with regards to financial markets.

DC

Well, when I said "Tell me, who are a few of the noteworthy economists who advocate the gold standard?", you should have replied (if you wanted to be honest), sorry, I can not do that.

Well maybe, but then you are operating on the presumption that economists know best when clearly the leading economists that set monetary/fiscal policy do not. If they did, we would have a sustainable system built on sound money.

I am hard pressed to find economists that support this. I read an article about how 40 of the leading economists do not support it, all 40, saying it would not improve nor create a sustainable growing economy, even though it did for years. It is actually taboo for economists to support moving back to a gold standard. Most leading economists do not support this only because of its unpopularity and so instead they debate it away as "old fashioned" (won't work for today) because they are pressured to come up with some more sophisticated solution, but they are unable to do so. Certainly the current economic system is unsustainable, you can see that right?

So how about you? Do you know any noteworthy economists that support the gold standard? And, since most do not, what is your suggestion, and your economists suggestion, back to sound money outside the gold standard that also staves off a pending liquidity crisis?

DC

It seems obvious to me that the wealth of a nation is not shiny rocks in a hole in the ground, even if they are smelter, made into bricks, and stacked.
Under such a system a nation with dirt roads, donkeys as the best transportation available, uneducated citizenry, truly "dirt poor", except for this deep hole, filled with shin rocks, could be the "wealthiest" nation on earth.
Further, the sum total of all wealth on the globe would be severely restricted, pegged to the amount of shiny rocks dug up.
A sad, sad picture.
ken1122
Posts: 1,737
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2017 12:10:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2017 7:32:22 PM, Bobjones555 wrote:
How about a Gold standard? As improbable as it sounds the current system is also completely unsustaible . Is a gold standard better? Follow up, should we be buying gold? If so, is it better to buy gold physically, or use vaulted gold like Goldmoney ?

I don't think a gold standard is practical because there is a limit on the amount of gold that exists and because the economy is in a constant state of growth, the inability to find more gold to coincide with the growth of the economy will prevent they economy from growing
dc0404
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2017 12:35:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2017 12:10:43 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 3/2/2017 7:32:22 PM, Bobjones555 wrote:
How about a Gold standard? As improbable as it sounds the current system is also completely unsustaible . Is a gold standard better? Follow up, should we be buying gold? If so, is it better to buy gold physically, or use vaulted gold like Goldmoney ?

I don't think a gold standard is practical because there is a limit on the amount of gold that exists and because the economy is in a constant state of growth, the inability to find more gold to coincide with the growth of the economy will prevent they economy from growing

But it is really not impractical, just unpopular. In very simplistic terms, you decide what money supply you want parity with (M0, M1) at some appropriate ratio, like previously. Then you reset the dollar price of gold appropriately to support the money supply. It would produce sustainable growth and perhaps there could be a "basket of metals" such that we are not limited only to gold. Within reason, the parity or ratio could change to account for greater than normal growth as well. It worked for decades to produce the richest country in the world. Again, it is just not popular, but it is sound money which I think is more important. Without the gold standard, we have produced massive debt bubbles over the years with more to come as a result of all the easy money people have access to.

DC
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2017 12:48:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2017 12:35:50 AM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/5/2017 12:10:43 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 3/2/2017 7:32:22 PM, Bobjones555 wrote:
How about a Gold standard? As improbable as it sounds the current system is also completely unsustaible . Is a gold standard better? Follow up, should we be buying gold? If so, is it better to buy gold physically, or use vaulted gold like Goldmoney ?

I don't think a gold standard is practical because there is a limit on the amount of gold that exists and because the economy is in a constant state of growth, the inability to find more gold to coincide with the growth of the economy will prevent they economy from growing

But it is really not impractical, just unpopular. In very simplistic terms, you decide what money supply you want parity with (M0, M1) at some appropriate ratio, like previously. Then you reset the dollar price of gold appropriately to support the money supply. It would produce sustainable growth and perhaps there could be a "basket of metals" such that we are not limited only to gold. Within reason, the parity or ratio could change to account for greater than normal growth as well. It worked for decades to produce the richest country in the world. Again, it is just not popular, but it is sound money which I think is more important. Without the gold standard, we have produced massive debt bubbles over the years with more to come as a result of all the easy money people have access to.

DC

The opposite of "gold standard" (in some form), is fiat.
I do not see that fiat was the cause of any debt bubbles.
You can argue that management of fiat was the cause, but blaming fiat is blaming the tool, not the craftsman.
dc0404
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2017 2:07:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2017 12:48:55 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/5/2017 12:35:50 AM, dc0404 wrote:
At 3/5/2017 12:10:43 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 3/2/2017 7:32:22 PM, Bobjones555 wrote:
How about a Gold standard? As improbable as it sounds the current system is also completely unsustaible . Is a gold standard better? Follow up, should we be buying gold? If so, is it better to buy gold physically, or use vaulted gold like Goldmoney ?

I don't think a gold standard is practical because there is a limit on the amount of gold that exists and because the economy is in a constant state of growth, the inability to find more gold to coincide with the growth of the economy will prevent they economy from growing

But it is really not impractical, just unpopular. In very simplistic terms, you decide what money supply you want parity with (M0, M1) at some appropriate ratio, like previously. Then you reset the dollar price of gold appropriately to support the money supply. It would produce sustainable growth and perhaps there could be a "basket of metals" such that we are not limited only to gold. Within reason, the parity or ratio could change to account for greater than normal growth as well. It worked for decades to produce the richest country in the world. Again, it is just not popular, but it is sound money which I think is more important. Without the gold standard, we have produced massive debt bubbles over the years with more to come as a result of all the easy money people have access to.

DC

The opposite of "gold standard" (in some form), is fiat.
I do not see that fiat was the cause of any debt bubbles.
You can argue that management of fiat was the cause, but blaming fiat is blaming the tool, not the craftsman.

I agree with that, it was not the fiat system in and of itself, yet part of the management of fiat currency includes removing us from the gold standard. I am not blaming fiat so much as I am blaming those in charge. I have a vague understanding of why Nixon did remove us from the gold standard, and I don't believe the reasons were entirely "what's best for our future or country"... if you know what I mean. But, I believe it was more politically or personally motivated.

DC
Chang29
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2017 9:28:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The USA should not go back to the gold standard.

All countries should separate currency and state, thus creating competing decentralized currencies and money.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
John_C_1812
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2017 4:07:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Should we go back to a gold standard on the scales of a search for an impartial justice?

A coincidence to the appeal of the gold standard when compared with exposure to plagiarizing. Plagiarizing is what takes place on an intellectual property only, a property such as currency that is holding an intellectual value that is documented as a receipt, these things can be plagiarized publicly which is evidence to a reluctance to serve justice through impartiality, when credit is intentional left without cite. The Irony when literal here is creation of something described as blind. Gold on the other hand is not an intellectual property making it impossible to polarize by the same process for profit, but also cannot be impartial or self-regulating, gold's value is manipulated by a different process then plagiarizing.
dc0404
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2017 4:18:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2017 9:28:26 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The USA should not go back to the gold standard.

All countries should separate currency and state, thus creating competing decentralized currencies and money.

This sounds like a proposal worth exploring. The centralization of the power associated with currency and money manipulation is certainly a major part of the issue.

DC

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.