<< <i>Then apparently, I'm keeping up just fine with you. Who cares about the quantity of a post. I make MANY posts that are voluminous. It goes with the flow and it depends on what needs to be said or sometimes just a reflection of how much time I have available. And since I do not ever see you hanging out in the Sports Card Forum, I can only fathom that your insecurities led you to do some sort of research on my posting history, hence the WWE reference. Heck, the only thing I’ve said about the WWE was posting an article that I claimed was interesting, which I thought it was. All I can do is shake my head at someone who feels such desperate need to resort to researching posts because you feel you need some sort of background info. Completely amateurish to bring such a completely trivial matter into this.
You give yourself too much credit. Yesterday, I searched out something on the forum and it took me the card forum of all places. On the cover page your name appeared. The least I could do was see what you do over there. And frankly, it's not all that impressive. I've been to the card forum at least twice, to help get information on my friend's 1969 complete/brand new TOPPS Baseball set. He bought if for $44 in 1969 after his favorite Mets won the World Series. Go look it up. Yeah, I do things besides just "coins." You've taken trivial to new heights in this "POLL." Again, what led you to continue the gold bashing in this thread when I clearly stated it was POLL ONLY? You were searching out the fight. So it is you that is the spoiled brat here. All I can do is shake my head at someone who was so desperate to continue a fight at any expense. Very sad. FWIW my XO on my 2nd Sub gave me his entire collection of WWF mags back in 1987 as a "going away present." Yup, I watched those guys back in the 1980's. But, I wanted to see how you would stand up under the tactical pressure.
<< <i> You naively claim that:
"It is true that any gold standard (or fractional reserve gold standard) wouldn't work today because the very bankers placed there to regulate it, would cheat on it."
Yet that’s NO different than “cheating” on fiat currency. It ultimately ALL leads to the SAME PLACE. So your comment that a gold reserve could “theoretically” work is entirely superfluous. We KNOW that it, or anything, could “theoretically” work. The challenge is to make it functionally work. And by your own admission, you want to vehemently argue how and why all the while concluding that it would all be for naught. Does you head not hurt from all that spinning? >>
Exactly my point that it is NO different than cheating on fiat currency. Glad you finally got this after nearly 100 posts. It does lead to the SAME PLACE. No that we have that out of the way. Let the bankers take down the derivative's monster they have built. There's no safe monetary or financial system of any type as long as that beast lives. And it all leads to the SAME PLACE....financial system lock up. If they take that system back down then we can entertain a system that might work.....gold....fiat....plastic....commodity/currency basket....or otherwise.
That happens when you are blindly committed to anything. I don't put myself in that position. >>
You've been the very definition of being "blindly committed" to your position in this thread. Not a single fact or input can sway you. Over 70% of the POLL responders would disagree with your facts/opinions. It's possible you are right and they are wrong, though I wouldn't bet much money on it.
Attacking baseball now? So where did the Cardinals STMM fall down that he wouldn't qualify for your personal HOF? I studied baseball stats and history with a passion from age 10-14. I was in love with the sport. Can't say I remember more than 10% of what I knew back than but don't recall anything negative about Stan Musial. Don't bust my bubble and rag on Captain Kirk now either.
First off, I NEVER "search" out a fight. I make posts that I feel like making. It takes two to tango my friend....
Again Mr. Bentsen, what part of "this is a POLL only" thread did you not understand? I specifically said to leave the arguing and other crap on the previous thread. Sorry, but you were looking for a fight. Deny it all you want. It doesn't change this same FACT.
Concerning your final thoughts here, if it makes no difference, then you should have just agreed with my position that I took from the get go about the futile nature of a gold backed currency and state that it is unworkable. There is NOTHING I would disagree in your last paragraph. Which makes me wonder whose "searching" for a fight here. YOU'RE the one that made several posts to counter my position on that all the while stating that my position was correct. What is that about?
There's nothing to debate or respond to here. Heck, I'm still waiting for a cogent and well-thought out reply as to what YOU think will happen (and why, substantiated with some facts) to those countries carrying >50% of their forex reserves in gold....and what happens if it disappears overnight?
STMM couldn't play little league for me. As for facts, I know MANY of you think this is just my opinion, but with all the objectivity that I can muster, the following two statements ARE facts:
There you go again...........
Outlandish statements such as this only undermine everything you say, on ANY topic Clearly, HOF voters have disagreed with you. This goes right along with your "useless rock" theorem.
Elected on 93.2% of ballots in 1969. .333 lifetime average with 475 HR's. This guy averaged >100 RBI's lifetime. 3 MVP's and 4 MVP runner ups. You must have played in a very competitive little league. I guess you must hold it against him that he wasn't a Yankee playing in the AL? I loved the Mick too.....on the field though....not his off the field stuff.
Best part about this thread is that it will run clear through New Years Eve and day.
That is the beauty of an active forum. As the wives and girlfriends drink slightly chilled supermarket champagne while watching Anderson Cooper giggle his way to midnight, the forum faithful will be diligently pounding out cheeky responses on the gritty keypad.
<< <i>.............but with all the objectivity that I can muster, the following two statements ARE facts:
1) A gold backed currency is not workable and is effectively the same as fiat currency, even if we all agreed that gold actually should have a lot of value.
2) And I'm not sure I've mention this before, but gold is essentially a useless rock. >>
Sorry, few are buying this babble. You can view yourself as objective but it's not showing up that way. You need to muster up more. A workable gold standard existed for around 35 yrs from 1878-1913. FACT. Another workable gold standard under Bretton Woods (1944) was quite workable for nearly 30 years. FACT. To say a fractional gold standard couldn't work today is merely an opinion. It could work, if everyone wanted it to. The people wouldn't really see it because the major effects would be on the amount of gold in CB inventories, the price of gold, and the CB discount rates. $875 gold in 1980 didn't change the lives of the average person. That move in gold from $35 to $875 in <9 years didn't rock J6P's world.
Let’s be clear so that you and everyone here understands that paper currency (and backing it with gold or croutons, which is more useful) is NOT about political ideology, or an economics issue, or a philosophical difference, or some monetary conspiracy on the part of the Fed or the government. It is a SIMPLE middle school math problem. One that INHERENTLY and ABSOLUTELY prohibits the use of backing paper with gold. But just so you know that I’m not entirely inflexible in my thinking, it could work if we could actually mine from the Earth’s core in which case gold may be more plentiful than sand. A more feasible solution would be if we actually invented Star Trek “replicator” technology so that we can tell some computer to just manufacture gold for us at will. Then of course, gold would become essentially worthless under either scenario, and once again, INHERENTLY be unable to back “paper” currency.
I reserve the right to make corrections in spelling or syntax, or if I can express an idea better with fewer words. lol. Hey baseball, are you ever going to cite a reference or a fact - or are you going to continue with the derogatory name-calling and opinions only? Come on, give us at least one solid fact that supports your position about gold in your next tirade. Let's make this a challenge. Give us a historical fact, or SOMETHING! Data! Anything!
Your simple middle school math problem is mis-stated. You throw in a red herring to get the discussion going in a wrong direction and then insult your opponent as if it were proof of your point. Gold is a limited resource, so dispel any notion of using the gold contained in Earth's core as your "proof".
Gold can "back" the currency any way you want, but that's not even necessary. You always seem to throw out another red herring in making the assumption that the economy can't survive without inflation of the currency by the banking system. This is why you are full of it. You are wrong. You don't know what you're talking about, and your "logic" is rigid around misguided Keynesian ideas that have only got us into $18 trillion in unpayable debt.
I'm assuming that we've got ourselves a genuine NY banking troll here on the precious metals forum. I also loved the 1963 World Series when Koufax came into his own. My first baseball hero was Mickey Mantle, and I've been to his childhood home in Commerce, OK. Interesting stuff. Ya'll oughta go see it.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>.....First off, I can admit that I didn't "play by your rules". To be honest, I didn't even read them until just now. But I wasn't looking for a fight, I was just positing a point of view. This is the internet. This is what happens. "If it wasn't me, it have been someone else." >>
I think that the failure to read the opening post in a thread sums up things pretty well. We're talking about research, thinking, reading, attention to detail. And you're calling me out on editing errors out of my posts, most of them grammatical? So I suck at English....shoot me.
<< <i>Once again, if you lost every spec of gold on earth, mankind would move on just fine immediately afterward. There might be some slight disturbances here and there but absolutely no "shock" to society in any effective way. That is effective useless as useless can get. Gold's PRIMARY and INTENDED purpose (or "use") by those who mine it, buy it, own it is to let it sit there and do NOTHING. That is PREDOMINANTLY the INTENDED and ACCEPTED and DESIRED "use". And you really want to debate and take "polls" about such an obvious fact??? >>
This was your first post in this thread. I disagree strongly with the 2nd sentence .....and especially the 3rd sentence. And that last sentence wasn't asking for a fight/debate/hockey game?
As Jmski52 has eloquently stated, we're still looking for some facts to support the above opinions. I'd be happy to change my view of things if some facts were presented showing the errors of my way. Cohodk is one for doing this quite routinely. Hey, when he's right, he's right. I can admit being wrong, learn something, and move on.
<< <i>I reserve the right to make corrections in spelling or syntax, or if I can express an idea better with fewer words. lol. Hey baseball, are you ever going to cite a reference or a fact - or are you going to continue with the derogatory name-calling and opinions only? Come on, give us at least one solid fact that supports your position about gold in your next tirade. Let's make this a challenge. Give us a historical fact, or SOMETHING! Data! Anything! >>
Oh, you mean like ALL those facts and references that YOU cited? The FACTS are this:
1) Gold's intended use is to sit there. Am I wrong? Do I REALLY need to cite a reference for this. Where is YOUR gold? I provide more than facts. I provided first hand reference that we can ALL relate to.
2) As for gold backed currency, I've repeatedly stated the problem with it. THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. You need more facts that come from biased organizations to disprove something that MATH has unequivocally proved CAN'T WORK.
Quite frankly, you need to do some real soul searching on what real FACTS are. As if citing the blathering comments of this blog or that blog or that organization is "fact". >>
<< <i>Oh, you mean like ALL those facts and references that YOU cited? The FACTS are this:
1) Gold's intended use is to sit there. Am I wrong? Do I REALLY need to cite a reference for this. Where is YOUR gold? I provide more than facts. I provided first hand reference that we can ALL relate to.
2) As for gold backed currency, I've repeatedly stated the problem with it. THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. You need more facts that come from biased organizations to disprove something that MATH has unequivocally proved CAN'T WORK.
Quite frankly, you need to do some real soul searching on what real FACTS are. As if citing the blathering comments of this blog or that blog or that organization is "fact". >>
1. Yeah, I think you're wrong. Sitting there is not a "use" unless gold is performing a sit-in at a local college administration office. Yes, site a reference that gold's use is to physically "sit" there. That's what a door stop or rug does too. But those aren't their actual primary uses. At this point, your train has 3 of 4 wheels off the track. A derailment soon follows.
2. Your math doesn't work. And not surprisingly when 0% = 5%. You can research "gold cover clause" or "gold certificate ratio" and deduce that the math can work....if you're willing to look, which apparently you aren't. To save us all some time show me how 171,000 tonnes of gold can't work. Show us how Bretton Woods didn't work from 1944-1971 in an industrial society. The CB's seem content with just 32,000 tonnes making it "work" for them. Show me the math. $6.5 TRILL in above-ground gold can go a long ways. How do only $1.3 TRILL in circulating FRN's support a money system 10X larger and an economy worth $17 TRILL? But yet, $6.5 TRILL in gold acting "just like fiat" can't work? That's my math....now show me yours.
I'm going to guess it took you a good while to think up those three words. >>
At least he didn't say "man the ircony." How long did it take you to find that in the Websters? The "edit" button is your friend.
The irony of all this is that you wouldn't be right now defending a series of indefensible statements if you knew what the definition of a POLL was. I'm still shaking my head that you think BILLIONs of people have never seen gold at any time in their entire lives. This is the kind of stuff that has been presented by you as FACTs. I make an argument (with numbers) to show how absurd that statement is, and you move on to the next incredulous utterance. When you finally put a number down, it happens to be in the context of 0% = 3% = 5%. You see the problem? If getting out of ever having to take responsibility for what you say is "winning" then I'll admit....your winning. Great job.
Those proposing a gold cover clause have used the 3-5% numbers as being adequate. I don't see anything wrong those numbers. You want to key stroke $3 TRILL in M0 base currency reserves into existence since October 2008, that's fine. Just man up the 5% in gold to go with it ($150 BILL or 4,000 tonnes of gold). M0.....5%.....$150 BILL in gold. The simplest math I can use to make the point. Would that $3 TRILL in M0 be as easy to create if you knew you had to pick up $150 BILL in gold reserves to go with it? Good question. Sure the gold is widespread unless you buy those 4,000 tonnes from other central banks holding up to 32,000 tonnes. Even so, you could go out into the market and try to buy it from the >100,000 tonnes the little people own. An offer to buy at $1500/oz tomorrow would surely result in picking up hundreds of tonnes in just days. Every gold bug that has been buried since April 2013 would be happy to get back out. Or, you could alter your FED currency/gold discount rates accordingly to flow those 4,000 tonnes from other CB's. That's what used to happen under old gold standards. The gold was supposed to flow into or out of one's inventory based on rate changes (it didn't always happen though). No one said it was going to be easy. But it's doable.
We currently have no controls on the fiat currency/debt system. Maybe if there were some controls in the first place we would not have been able to increase M0 from $850 BILL to nearly $4 TRILL in only a few years. What has that increase done for us other than to "back the banks bets" on financial markets so they can't lose...and taxpayers pay? If 5% is too onerous, then make it 2.5%. It's still a control. It will still hurt. 2.5% is not 0%. If it were just fiat there's never any pain or thought to printing more. A balanced budget works for corporations but not for a fiat currency based govt? I don't understand. 2.5% is "only" 2000 tonnes of gold needed....about 70% of annual world production. Considering this M0 change took 5-6 years, that 2,000 tonnes could be spread out to 400 tonnes per year, exactly what the ECB was selling at its annual auctions not that long ago. The US probably experienced it's strongest growth of the industrial revolution during the heavy immigration period of 1878-1913...while under a real gold standard. How ironic. Coincidence that people and wealth have followed the gold? Where is the CB gold tending to flow to right now? Note: past performance of gold flows isn't any guarantee of future flows....the rules can always be changed.
Don't underestimate the so-called "trivial" or "nitpicks." Some of those things have cost empires their #1 ranking. Attention to details has made a lot of people rich. It's often the lack of detailing that often sinks corporations, nations, and people. A lack of attention to details in major league sports is a sure ticket to the basement. "Trivia" is typically factual. I can see why that would bother you.
What your proposing is certainly doable as a setup mechanism. And it could last for decades and even a couple of centuries with very good luck. But once again, the math catches up to a point where there isn't enough gold to back the money in circulation. None of this includes the fact that it creates a disturbance when a large holder of debt wants a full gold redemption. It's not so easy to deal with the logistics of actually maintaining that reserve today and going forward. Especially with so much debt in foreign hands. And what about all of the other countries? Those that don't have a similar backing, will flood U.S. currency requiring all the more of a substantial reserve. At the end of the day, it leads to the same place where INEVITABLY, even if you start at 2.5%, you can't maintain that level 50 years or 100 years from now and the whole thing blows up. That's a fact. Not my opinion. We can debate just how long that time is, but it's not factually debatable that it ends at some point. That's even before assuming any sort of shenanigans that central banks can and inevitably will employ to circumnavigate the notion of a "reserve".
I gold cover clause doesn't allow a debtor to tap your gold. The gold inventory gets increased in proportion to your currency/sovereign debt. If you want to lend out your gold that's fine. But that would have to be met with a reduction in total currency/debt. The only large disturbance to the system occurs when you want to add $1 TRILL in M0 currency essentially overnight. That was done in late 2008. Now you need to go out and find a pile of gold overnight too. No one said the logistics would be easy. Things that matter never are. Fiat money is easy, we can all agree to that. We keep on passing along all these little potential disturbances waiting for the big one that will lock up or tank the system. It's gonna happen. It's inevitable unless changes are made. Once the currency/digi-money is out there, it doesn't matter where it flows to. You've already backed it with 3-5% of gold reserves. If too much flows back to the US, then buy some of that back with gold reserves (Degaulle made us do that in the 1960's and early 1970's). We've never had a viable and working gold standard blow up on its own. It blew up when the bankers agreed to go off it (ie wars and other crisis). The 1878-1913 gold standard worked. It worked well. Bankers hated it. JPMorgan hated it. So the financial crisis of 1907 was created as leverage to get a Federal Reserve system in place and get back off gold. It was rather easy too as WW1 effectively shelved the gold standard to print money to fund the war. And what came back after was a shell of the old standard.
Certainly the US is holding the bulk of the cards with the world's reserve currency. Why change that? It's just as much a fact that our fiat system as it is currently headed will not last 50 more years. I doubt it will last another 20 years without a major overhaul. Our trading partners and the emerging nations aren't going to put up with another 50 years of it. China has been furiously accumulating gold since 2006 to get enough gold reserves to try and challenge the US down the road. Some would consider that dumb as gold is only a useless rock. Just coincidence that the world's strongest and largest economies tend to have the most gold (Canada being a very notable exception...though being a favored ally of the US and living next door is like having the football team captain acting as your bouncer).
This IS a debate on the fate of nations and their relationship with or without gold....otherwise why even discuss it? It doesn't mean we have to come up with the solution today, or even be right. You've trivialized gold to those nations that currently employ gold to their advantage. They might have a thing to say about that. It's not trivial to them even if it is to you. If it's so that trivial, I'll give you my PO Box address and you can ship me all the bullionesque gold you currently own. I promise to send it back to you after it has completed its role of "just sitting there" for me.
Oh, you mean like ALL those facts and references that YOU cited? The FACTS are this:
1) Gold's intended use is to sit there. Am I wrong? Do I REALLY need to cite a reference for this. Where is YOUR gold? I provide more than facts. I provided first hand reference that we can ALL relate to.
Your opinion on gold's intended use is not a fact. It's an opinion. My opinion is that it's a store of value and a hedge against depreciating paper money. The facts are that gold has never lost all of it's value and paper money has always lost its value. Those are the facts.
2) As for gold backed currency, I've repeatedly stated the problem with it. THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. You need more facts that come from biased organizations to disprove something that MATH has unequivocally proved CAN'T WORK.
Your opinion is that the math doesn't work. My opinion is that the math you cite doesn't matter. Gold will retain it's value regardless of how it compares to a paper currency. The fact is that the relative valuation of gold vs. paper currency is never static. The fact is that the math doesn't need to "work" in order for gold to maintain it's function as a store of value. If you think otherwise, give me your research that backs up your opinion.
The fact is that a gold backed currency is only one option, and that it can work as well as any other currency scheme. There's no particular math that makes a gold backed currency "work" and there's no particular math that makes a gold backed currency fail. This is just one of your red herrings. There's no proof of any requirement for a specific gold backing ratio that will make gold backing "work" or fail. If you have some facts, let's have them.
Quite frankly, you need to do some real soul searching on what real FACTS are. As if citing the blathering comments of this blog or that blog or that organization is "fact".
Excuse me, but you don't even cite any sources at all. Are you going to quote Bernanke now? or Yellen? or Timmy Geithner, the tax cheat? or Greenspan? If so, do it.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
All it takes is one single piece of obsolete currency that sells for one cent or more to prove that statement false. Be really careful with "always," as such statements are "never" universally true
All it takes is one single piece of obsolete currency that sells for one cent or more to prove that statement false. Be really careful with "always," as such statements are "never" universally true >>
This "fiat paper currency crap" seems to have held its value. And the bloomin' country doesnt even exist anymore. Sheesh!!
If it were my job to pay attention to the details of backing currency with gold, you'd be quite lucky to have me as a member of that contingent who would have all that crap so well organized that I might be able to sell myself on the notion of its viability.
I'll take that as a compliment. While it's not mine or Jmski52's (or others) job to attend to the details of backing a currency, we've spent thousands of hours of research over the past 8-12 years to try and figure these things out. And you get to review those thoughts and findings at no charge other than your time. Yes, we are all quite lucky to have the research of dozens of people here putting their best stuff out there for others to dig into, for better or for worse. Rather than spend all this time promoting the notion of a "useless rock" why not dig into Dr. Fekete, Steve Saville, Bob Hoye, Howard Katz, Sol Polha, Mike Shedlock, Brian Bloom and others that seemed to have come to a reasonable conclusion as to where gold fiat money fit into the scheme of things.
For your reading pleasure here is an article by Steve Saville that addresses many of the common myths you and others have assigned to gold and fiat currencies. He's much smarter than me and I've been reading him for the past 11 years. You could do a lot worse than reading a sampling of his thoughts over the years. If you find something in there that is contrary to what I've said, I'll use his thoughts as the truth. The guy isn't a gold bug either.
All it takes is one single piece of obsolete currency that sells for one cent or more to prove that statement false. Be really careful with "always," as such statements are "never" universally true >>
This and what Cohodk linked is certainly picking out the "trivia" if I ever saw it. It's like shooting red herring in a barrel. Yes, we all could have stockpiled worthless Continental Currency notes in the 1770's to 1790's followed by worthless Confederate currency right after the Civil War. While that might have worked in creating some isolated pocket of wealth for your great-great-great-great grand kids, I'm puzzled as to how it maintained your own personal wealth from that former era? You'd have been labeled a fool for as long as you lived. I'll live with the fact that >99% of world currency that was ever in existence prior to 1900 is essentially worthless today (ie nearly all of it no longer exists because the smart people of yester-year threw it out or papered their walls with it). The fact that some of it remaining today has value is only due to the fact that 99% of it was destroyed along the way. It's still too early to discuss the end of the 20th century currencies but their time is coming. The US dollar has lost 95% of it's purchasing power since 1913. >99% of the notes in existence back then are probably destroyed. The <1% of the notes remaining give some value to them if they aren't in mangled condition. I'm into 99% truths when it comes to currencies....not the 1% of untruths.
<< <i> There was a time that I cared to spend reading A LOT about gold and it's history and role in the economy. It's admittedly been some time but quite candidly, I see no use for it. While I like the stuff, I don't see it anywhere remotely a realistic possibility that it will back currency anytime soon, if ever. As for promoting the notion of a "useless rock", I'm just telling it like it is. You started the thread. As for thoughts and findings, neither of you have stated anything to refute is usefulness other than speak to its value, which is universally well known. And you yourself admitted that gold couldn't back currency and if it could, it would still be the same fiat system with a different mask. At least your open minded in your thinking. >>
I've you've ever read on this topic (it's not clear to me you ever have), then it seems you've read the wrong people or forget most everything about it. Again, you toss out the red herring about a gold type currency coming back when this entire thread is strictly about the current utility or lack of it in today's world. You continue to lose sight of this. Gold it out there in use today to the tune of 171,000 tonnes. Gold doesn't have to formally back govt fiat/legal tender currencies while the people accept gold. I knew you wouldn't read the Saville article as it would clearly show where your opinions are wrong. Saville cleanly states that the people will decide what money eventually is despite govt's cramming something else down their throats. It always works out that way. So far those "peeps" own over 100,000 tonnes of gold worth in the vicinity of $3.8 TRILL....or roughly equivalent to all the world's circulating notes combined. The people have spoken as to what they think money is. It doesn't matter what your or I think.
Question: If you've read something on this topic please list those authors and their basic tenets that most impressed you. Certainly if you've read ALOT.....the core principles and authors involved don't fade away.
As far as me starting this thread, that's completely wrong. Details and grammar do matter. I started this POLL....it was never meant to be a discussion thread as this topic was beat to death last week and back in August. I can't help it if people can't read....or refuse to read. For those that do like to read, check out that Saville article and see if he says anything that just doesn't make any sense. The guy has clearly spent a lot of time thinking through the idea of monetary systems. Nothing Baseball has stated is supported by Saville. I'll go with the smart guy.......rather than a round piece of cow hide with stitching on it. The fact that Baseball won't read a simple 10 min article....but will have spent hours retyping the same old stuff over and over in this thread....without a single NUMERICAL statistic or reference included (other than 0% = 5%).........speaks volumes. QED.
<< <i> There was a time that I cared to spend reading A LOT about gold and it's history and role in the economy. It's admittedly been some time but quite candidly, I see no use for it. While I like the stuff, I don't see it anywhere remotely a realistic possibility that it will back currency anytime soon, if ever. As for promoting the notion of a "useless rock", I'm just telling it like it is. You started the thread. As for thoughts and findings, neither of you have stated anything to refute is usefulness other than speak to its value, which is universally well known. And you yourself admitted that gold couldn't back currency and if it could, it would still be the same fiat system with a different mask. At least your open minded in your thinking. >>
I've you've ever read, then it seems you've read the wrong people or forget most everything. Again, you toss out the red herring about a gold type currency coming back when this entire thread is strictly about the current utility or lack of it in today's world. You continue to lose sight of this fact. Gold it out there in use today to the tune of 171,000 tonnes. Gold doesn't have to formally back govt fiat/legal tender currencies when the people accept gold. I knew you wouldn't read the Saville article as it would clearly show where your opinions are wrong. Saville cleanly states that the people will decide what money eventually is despite govt's cramming something else down their throats. It always works out that way. So far those "peeps" own over 100,000 tonnes of gold worth in the vicinity of $3.8 TRILL....or roughly equivalent to all the world's circulating notes combined. The people have spoken as to what they think money is. It doesn't matter what baseball of roadrunner thinks.
As far as me starting this thread, that's completely wrong. Details and grammar do matter. I started this POLL....it was never meant to be a threat. I can't help it if people can't read....or refuse to read. For those that do like to read, check out that Saville article and see if he says anything that just doesn't make any sense. The guy has clearly spent a lot of time thinking through the idea of monetary systems. Nothing Baseball has stated is supported by Saville. I'll go with the smart guy.......rather than a round piece of cow hide with stitching on it. The fact that Baseball won't read a simple 10 min article....but will have spent hours retyping the same old stuff over and over....without a single NUMERICAL statistic or reference (other than 0% = 5%).........speaks volumes. QED. >>
You mean "forget most everything" YOU deem to be accurate. You continue to lose sight of the fact that the bulk of the gold out there is sitting around doing nothing. And the only correct thing in your biased diatribe is "when the people accept gold". Yes, we all understand it is holy stuff and that we need to prey at the alter to it. Who cares what Saville writes. Should I cite Krugman's thoughts. After all, he is much more known. Or how about Warren Buffet who is WIDELY respected and very even keeled but refers to gold as "barbaric". You can pin your thoughts on what others tell you to think or think for yourself. I choose the latter. You're right in that it doesn't matter what we think. People will do what they will do. But they are doing it a lot less, in percentage terms than they have historically.
And enough with playing the victim about how I violated your “poll”. EVERYTHING in this thread is YOUR responsibility on some level. YOU started this thread. YOU have argued along every bit of the way including inciting and reigniting various arguments. Picking on the most asinine and juvenile points in an effort just to say something and keep the argument alive. YOU are MORE responsible for everything here than anyone else. Make no mistake about that. >>
Buffett well respected? Ha! Do you mean one of the guys who has the ear of the president and makes hand over fist in wealth thanks to getting his way by having the ear of the president to shift things in his favor? Buffett and his pals running the system have to try and convince everyone gold is barbaric or their rigged system doesn't run so smoothly.
Sure, cite Krugman and Warren Buffet. If Krugman has stated gold is a useless rock at least it's a data point. So what part of Krugman's theory do you most agree with? Give us the details. And as far as Buffet goes, that's about the worst reference ANYONE debating the "gold is useless" side could ever quote. You really just didn't say this did you? That's the same guy who stock piled "worthless" silver (just like the Hunt Brothers) to the tune of 130 MILL oz of silver from 1996-2006. And he was taken out of his position by hook or crook before he would have made a small fortune on it. Talk about hypocrisy! His story of digging gold out of the ground only to rebury is shredded to pieces by being one of the world's biggest silver bugs of all time. With a $1 BILL stake in silver this guy was a literal precious metals king and guru. The govt and SEC scoured the Hunts for doing the same thing to silver in the 1970's....yet Buffet is lionized? Give me a break. Yeah, the miners dug up silver out of the ground just so Warren could dig another hole in the ground in order to vault his silver. He then hired a guy to guard that hole in the ground. What a joke. Buffet is widely respected? With stuff like that? He's a hypocrite of the highest order.
On one hand WB called otc derivatives WMD's back in 2003. Then leading into and following the financial crisis of 2008 it turns out he's buying them and now has no problems with them....yeah, well except they caused the crash of 2008. You can't make this stuff up. And he's your hero? I go by his actions....not what's he's said on the front page of the NY Times. You need to expand your sources. Saville would be a good one to choose....though you might find him and Krugman at odds most of the way. Quit reading Buffet and Krugman....no wonder your mind is full of weird stuff with red herrings coming out of your ears. Read Greenspan while you're at it. He went from gold bug, to fiat bug and now back to gold bug. At least he knows how to support the party line when he's on the payroll. The fact that he has gone back to his 1966 views is important. Let's see, believe Krugman or Greenspan. Hmmm, tough choice. Who has the most or least to gain? I should spend some time in the near future reading Krugman...we can discuss some common core principles. I read that guy a bit in my earlier years but just couldn't find a lot of his stuff believable. After all, he is bought and paid for by the main establishment that is distinctly anti-gold. I prefer to read guys like I listed earlier than will at least consider both sides before debating. Krugman doesn't seem to come off as considering any view except the one he is paid to promote. But, I'll admit I haven't read him as extensively as Saville, Hoye, and others. Is this the best you got, Buffet and Krugman? Can't deny that both of them are wealthy. I would be very surprised if Buffet isn't stacking personal gold behind the scenes. Even Greenspan was doing that while he was FED Chairman.
The fact that you have Saville "preying on the gold alter" is a clear sign you've never read him....but are more than capable of commenting on him. I find it hard to believe that you've read ALOT on this topic in the past. What doesn't support that is that you've been on this forum for 13 years. The gold and economic threads part 1 and 2 were the place to discuss these topics from 2004-2011. Not once did you show up. Why is that? Nothing to say even though you've read ALOT on the topic. You have plenty to say this past week though....all of it the same though. Those 2 threads have over 12,000 posts in them. I guess you're just one of the most "well read" and "most inconsequential poster" on the subject for those 10 years. Talk about a negative divergence in TA terms. You have participated in the part 3 thread from 2012-2014 though I won't waste my time to find out to what extent and what particular views you supported. It's clear that you weren't probably posting for those 10 years gold was rising. Why wouldn't a "well read" guy jump into the fray...even if just once. From 2004-2009 that was the only thread in the Coin/Open Forum where gold and economic issues were discussed. Wasn't that period interesting enough for you to comment on....just once? Seems very odd to me. And you know me, I like details and trivia, facts with numbers too. But a math background will do that to you.
There can be no mistake you really don't know what or who you've been talking about. There's nothing you've added that suggests you've read ALOT on this topic. How about ALITTLE? One thing is for sure, that Baseball sure can type fast. I don't know if he has a voice recorder but his speed is impressive. Kudo's for sticking to typing class in 9th grade.
<< <i> Buffett well respected? Ha! Do you mean one of the guys who has the ear of the president and makes hand over fist in wealth thanks to getting his way by having the ear of the president to shift things in his favor? Buffett and his pals running the system have to try and convince everyone gold is barbaric or their rigged system doesn't run so smoothly. >>
Yeah...I'm sure he's disappointed that you are such a fierce critic. Like the man would care two cents about what you thought. >>
Willful ignorance doesn't mean it's any less true, baseball.
Did you receive any bailouts? I didn't. I doubt you did either. How about your good old buddy, Warren? Sure, he's just that nice old man that tells us gold is a barbaric relic so we must believe what he tells us. It's not like he benefits from pushing such an ideology. Or does he?
Why is it again why central banks around the world hold tones of gold? Gonna give it out to new depositors rather then toasters?
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
what Cohodk linked is certainly picking out the "trivia"
When we participate in a forum that DEMANDS specifics and speaks with a tone of certainty, be prepared for specifics to be illustrated to refute the absolutes and certainties.
Baseball, you certainly have glib down to a science.
Mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
baseball if you were head of a central bank of any developed country would you have any gold as part of your holdings? Yes or no.
Mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Even though gold lost 0.8 percent in 2014, it still performed better than all major world currencies except for the U.S. dollar. Holders of gold outside the US are glad they hold "useless" gold. For those that think gold has done bad, the fact that all other currencies (except for the dollar) have done worse is reason why the dollar "appears" to be so strong and that gold appears weak. Dollar index strength (weakness of other currencies) are what make gold "weak" to US holders. History shows that will change with the flip of the financial crisis switch.
<< <i>what Cohodk linked is certainly picking out the "trivia"
When we participate in a forum that DEMANDS specifics and speaks with a tone of certainty, be prepared for specifics to be illustrated to refute the absolutes and certainties. >>
EXACTLY. Which is why it is "irconic" that your example only served to highlight the absence of any specific facts from Baseball's arguments which are generally presented to us as "certainty" and complete truth. As far as all paper sovereign currencies becoming worthless in conducting their required daily duties as "money," 77% of them are already gone. The other 23% are in use today. As far as stating certainties, isn't stating that the Nasdaq "will not reach 5000 until after 2015" one such example?
I took 2 years of economics at college with the intent of continuing it as a minor for all 4 years. But, the material didn't didn't feel right to me. The fractional reserve multiplier didn't make any "mathematical" sense to me. Wasn't that just printing money for free? Indeed it was. So why couldn't I do that with my finances? Couldn't I give the college $1.15 for my Economics 101 text book rather than the actual cost of $11.50? You know, the multiplier working in my favor creating "wealth." But like the good soldier I was, I trudged on....and paid full price for my text books. In sophomore year economics the material (and the professor) were full of so many holes and inconsistencies that I stopped going to class 6-8 weeks before the end of the semester....showing up sweating bullets for the final exam where I might have already failed the course for missing classes. It was the only time I had ever done that in any class before or since. I still got a B+ in that course studying on my own but it dashed my belief in Economics as "science." And no, the Austrian theory on economic systems wasn't part of my Samuelson lesson plan. The last professor couldn't teach his class without leaving a trail of holes in most everything stated. It was quite frustrating. Math and mainstream US Economic theory have often not mixed well for me.
To answer MJ's question as why CB's have 32,000 tonnes of vaulted gold, here's what Economist Paul Samuelson had to say on that subject in 1973 following the end of gold convertability.... note that "useless"or "rock" do not show up here:
<< <i> Even though the world will not revert to the automatic gold standard, it is a fact that official gold does exist and is still an important part of official international reserves. Hence the new IMF reforms are able, as we shall see, to build around gold and supplement it by new reserve assets. Gradually, gold is to lose its traditional importance. >>
. Samuelson uses the word "important" to describe gold. His italics on "build around" and "supplement." It doesn't appear that his forecast of gold losing its traditional importance is any different today than it was in 1973. To me, Samuelson's statement rings just as true today. Central Banks have similar total gold reserves as they did in 1973....the US is identical. Gold's price is multiples high today than since 1973. Now either that has occurred because it of its economic uses (of which is has effectively none per baseball) or it's because of it's monetary influences (which don't exist per baseball). Pick your poison. One major difference in these 40 yrs is that the people of the world own twice as much gold as they did in 1973....while the world's population is up 1.87X. A much truer relationship than the growth of paper money systems and total debt since 1973 (US debt has increased 37X). I do find it interesting that Samuelson also states that Nixon closed the gold window because US debt was rising so quickly. Given that fact, why not as much concern as to the 37X since? Samuelson was wrong on the consequences of "benign neglect" concerning the US dollar vs. rapidly growing US debt. He thought that we couldn't keep on fooling all the people all the time. Well, for 40 years since then, we have. Foreign nations send us goods and we send then fiat currency in exchange.
All it takes is one single piece of obsolete currency that sells for one cent or more to prove that statement false. Be really careful with "always," as such statements are "never" universally true
This "fiat paper currency crap" seems to have held its value. And the bloomin' country doesnt even exist anymore. Sheesh!!
You guys have really taken me to task! Okay then. Let's go ahead and split some hairs.
My statement was:
"The facts are that gold has never lost all of it's value and paper money has always lost its value. Those are the facts."
The points you guys make are that 1) paper money can be obsolete with a value of $0.01 and not have lost its value, or that 2) paper money can become defunct, become a collectible of sorts, and that it technically has not lost its value.
In both cases, the paper money in question has lost its value. In the first case, it's lost almost all of its value except for $0.01, which in accounting terms would be referred to as "immaterial". In the second case, in becoming defunct, the paper money is no longer paper money, and has become a collectible. It may have acquired value since becoming a collectible, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it lost its value in the process of becoming defunct.
Therefore, I stand by my assertion that "gold has never lost all of it's value and paper money has always lost its value."
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>jmski52, I genuinely agree with your interpretation. But by that same philosophy, gold is useless because of the "immaterial" amount of it that actually has been used. >>
The fact that it is not consumed speaks volumes for it's usefulness and value as real money. Do not confuse "used" with consumed. It has been used over and over since it was pulled from the ground.
<< <i>Even though gold lost 0.8 percent in 2014, it still performed better than all major world currencies except for the U.S. dollar. Holders of gold outside the US are glad they hold "useless" gold. For those that think gold has done bad, the fact that all other currencies (except for the dollar) have done worse is reason why the dollar "appears" to be so strong and that gold appears weak. Dollar index strength (weakness of other currencies) are what make gold "weak" to US holders. History shows that will change with the flip of the financial crisis switch.
>>
This may be the most useless chart I have ever seen. If something is valued against another, and that other is up, the latter must be down. Im sure the Japanese are glad they held "useless" paper stocks also.
This forum is based in the US and its contributors are largely US citizens. It matters not id a Russian is happy he held gold, but rather we are happy we hold gold. And if we are, then .
<< <i>Even though gold lost 0.8 percent in 2014, it still performed better than all major world currencies except for the U.S. dollar. Holders of gold outside the US are glad they hold "useless" gold. For those that think gold has done bad, the fact that all other currencies (except for the dollar) have done worse is reason why the dollar "appears" to be so strong and that gold appears weak. Dollar index strength (weakness of other currencies) are what make gold "weak" to US holders. History shows that will change with the flip of the financial crisis switch. >>
DB, the master of illusion, lol, they didn't need gold, they could have simply bought the dollar... Therein lies some wisdom...
<< <i>Even though gold lost 0.8 percent in 2014, it still performed better than all major world currencies except for the U.S. dollar. Holders of gold outside the US are glad they hold "useless" gold. For those that think gold has done bad, the fact that all other currencies (except for the dollar) have done worse is reason why the dollar "appears" to be so strong and that gold appears weak. Dollar index strength (weakness of other currencies) are what make gold "weak" to US holders. History shows that will change with the flip of the financial crisis switch. >>
DB, the master of illusion, lol, they didn't need gold, they could have simply bought the dollar... Therein lies some wisdom...
<< <i>jmski52, I genuinely agree with your interpretation. But by that same philosophy, gold is useless because of the "immaterial" amount of it that actually has been used. >>
The fact that it is not consumed speaks volumes for it's usefulness and value as real money. Do not confuse "used" with consumed. It has been used over and over since it was pulled from the ground. >>
Once again, I don't dispute its usability in the context that it has value. No more than baseball cards are "useful" in that context, even if central banks don't want to stack it. But gold has not functionally been used as a medium of exchange in a long time. >>
Lol, it gets more hilarious, ... When central banks sell gold, what do they get?, is it a medium of exchange of wealth between central banks or other entities?...stupid is as stupid does... Lol...
<< <i>Once again, I don't dispute its usability in the context that it has value. No more than baseball cards are "useful" in that context, even if central banks don't want to stack it. But gold has not functionally been used as a medium of exchange in a long time. >>
Gold is being accepted as payment for oil.
<< <i>This may be the most useless chart I have ever seen. If something is valued against another, and that other is up, the latter must be down. Im sure the Japanese are glad they held "useless" paper stocks also. This forum is based in the US and its contributors are largely US citizens. It matters not id a Russian is happy he held gold, but rather we are happy we hold gold. And if we are, then . >>
Value of the chart is that it shows the value of gold when compared to all but one major fiat currency. 2008 showed us the remaining currency is not immune.
But next time it will be different.
<< <i>DB, the master of illusion, lol, they didn't need gold, they could have simply bought the dollar... Therein lies some wisdom... >>
They most likely don't think short term like some here. Unlike all known paper money, gold has never failed as money. This is why central banks hedge their holdings of all those fiat currencies - no matter what happens tomorrow their gold will not become worthless.
baseball, I'm glad that I've been able to impart a new word in your arsenal of words, but immaterial when used in the context of a financial statement doesn't have anything to do with gold in the contexts of value or usability.
What's material in the context of a financial statement is that when gold is included as a financial asset, it is far from being an immaterial entry. The mixing up of these two contexts doesn't add any weight to anything that you've said.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
similar meanings, except that in financial statements it specifically refers to the fact that the impact of the entry doesn't affect the financial standing of the company.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
As for facts related to gold backing, I'm not even sure why I should have to put forth "facts" when we are in agreement, by YOUR own admission, that it is an unworkable solution. However, let's discuss "facts". America has about $350 billion of gold give or take. China alone has $1.2 trillion of U.S. debt. How long would it take for them to monetize that debt and make their claim that would more that bankrupt the entire U.S. gold reserve? That's a more real and immediate problem. And assuming that there is a constantly predictable low rate of 5% ($65 billion in backing which seems laughable), the math would still eventually catch up albeit much further down the line. Heck, your buddy Buffet could conspire with his buddy Gates and the two alone could theoretically monetize his personal wealth and wipe out a 5% reserve.
If China decided to monetize their US debt and make a claim against the Treasury's gold, that wouldn't bankrupt anything but it would accentuate the status of the gold as a monetary asset. It doesn't need accentuating, but that's the effect that would take place. The real effect would more likely be to send gold higher on world markets in recognition of the usefulness of gold as a monetary reserve component. Buffet and Gates are already plenty adept at buying senators to monetize their wealth, no need to do more than that.
What isn't complicated is that a gold back currency is doomed to fail one way or another, it's merely a question of when. Common sense, math, forecasting of the geopolitical environment, etc. will all tell you that. What else isn't complicated is that gold is a useless rock. That much is clear. That people want to ascribe a value for it (one that we have NO idea what it should be) is the only thing that makes it relevant.
A gold backed currency would be subject to the same weaknesses of any other currency being managed or manipulated by human beings. We agree on that. That's not the argument. That's not the debate.
The crux of this whole debate - is that "Keynesian" economists think that gold isn't real money and they think that economies need inflation in order to expand. My opinion is that the reason they think this - is because they benefit directly from an income stream tied to the creation of new money. That's like holding the bag next to the guy with the gun during a bank robbery and saying "I'm innocent". That's why I believe that the Keynesian argument for a managed 2% inflation rate is totally specious and self-serving.
My opinion - there's no reason that gold can't be used as money. One of the bogus arguments against this is that there isn't enough of it. All it really means is that it would be a bit harder to acquire. The real objection is that recognition of gold as money would remove the ability of the banking system to pad their own pockets with newly-created bonuses. That's the biggest objection to using gold as money, and it always will be.
My opinion - recognition of gold as actual money would remove the ability of politicians to finance wars without taking a hard stand for tax increases to fund the wars. Any war would require a declaration of war and any war would be more likely to be declared with the intent to win it, otherwise it would be seen as too costly and there would be no monetary support to proceed.
My opinion - using gold as money would promote accountability because it can't be poofed into existence for convenience when there's no other way of getting funds. Bad behavior, both public and private would begin to have consequences, unlike today. I don't see that as a bad thing.
Using gold as money isn't a question of any reserve ratio. There's no need for a reserve ratio. Using gold as money isn't a question of math. The mathematical value of gold self-adjusts. The math "not working out" is just a red herring excuse that's intended to fog the issue.
If I were China, I would take a hard look at why I had a $trillion in US debt uselessly sitting there and I'd probably keep using my trade advantages to accumulate all sorts of assets, not just gold. Let's talk about something that is "USELESS". The most useless thing in the world is owning a $trillion in US debt, because you already know that the US will be creating more of it - much, much more of it.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
In much the same way that other materials/chemicals have uses (to make trains, airplanes, surgical devices, medicine), gold has its uses. Gold is not useless in the same way that wood is not useless or beef is not useless. (I know you can't eat wood.)
Positive BST transactions with Timbuk3, coindeuce, charlottedude.
Fascinating discussion of semantics of the English language, particularly arcane definitions some people use of simple words like "useless" and "always" some folks use to make contorted arguments.
My same questions, say we accept even these extreme positions and someone "wins" the argument and someone else agrees that, yes, technically, they can be deemed "right"..
... so? So therefore... what? Is there a point to debating the meanings of words like "useless" and "always"? I guess I know the answer, fun banter, but still..
<< <i>You guys are really good at visceral bashing of paper money without EVER putting forth an alternative method on a viable medium of exchange. >>
Seems that we had circulation gold and silver coinage for over 160 years before Johnson's Medicare/Caid destroyed the federal budget. >>
A number of governmental decisions have put state and federal budgets under considerable strain. It is purely political to attribute this to one (or two very similar) programs.
Positive BST transactions with Timbuk3, coindeuce, charlottedude.
China could try and claim the $300 BILL in US gold but there's no requirement (or reason) for the US to give any of it up as long as they maintain the required 3-5% cover ratio on whatever currency/debt standard is currently in place. As long as the US pays China the required interest on its USTreasury Bonds/Notes there's no claim on anyone's gold. The US is currently displaying about a 2% gold cover clause based on M2 (and 7.5% based on M0 reserves). Neither Buffet or Gates would have any claim on that gold regardless of how many FRN's or TBills they might own. During the gold convertability window of 1944-1971 only sovereign nations had a claim on US gold reserves....not private citizens. Jmski52 has clearly made the point that immoral people in charge of any standard will not work. Monetary standards have failed left and right over the past several thousand years. And the reason was never the standard itself, but people diluting and altering the standard to fit their own selfish desires. War has been a pretty consistent reason for abandoning the gold standard over the past 200+ years. Some Fekete articles in the post below on how various gold standards work or don't work. He does recommend a convertability window where the cover clause will take care of itself.
China reached $3.99 TRILL in foreign reserves in June 2014. They have lot more to play with than just the $1.3 BILL in official US sovereign debt. $65 BILL in gold is not laughable by those central banks that have that amount or less (China, Russia, Switzerland, Japan, India, ECB, UK, Spain, etc.). China cannot compete with the US dollar with only 1,050 tonnes in official gold reserves. When they get to 5,000+ they will be more a reserve currency competitor/alternative. The next time they update their holdings I suspect it will be in the 3,500-5,000 tonnes range placing them #2 on the world list.
A nice summary of how a technical gold standard did work up until 1914. Pages 3-7 describe real bills and gold bills, something lacking from Baseball's arguments against a gold standard. The vast majority of short term transactions (<91 days) are done with gold/real bills that function as gold money but without the pain of constantly moving it around. Whatever system the people are willing to support will work. A new accountable monetary standard has to start with the people willing to give up many of the freebies currently coming from govt. That's not likely to happen. We are hooked on "free" money.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
This is what schooling a minor leaguer looks like.
All I can think is NO ONE would know better than YOU! >>
HOFer Stan the Man a minor leaguer?
You might want to give the Bentsen "thing" a rest before you hurt yourself.
<< <i>I make MANY posts that are voluminous. >>
....and many more that are vomitous.
<< <i>Then apparently, I'm keeping up just fine with you. Who cares about the quantity of a post. I make MANY posts that are voluminous. It goes with the flow and it depends on what needs to be said or sometimes just a reflection of how much time I have available. And since I do not ever see you hanging out in the Sports Card Forum, I can only fathom that your insecurities led you to do some sort of research on my posting history, hence the WWE reference. Heck, the only thing I’ve said about the WWE was posting an article that I claimed was interesting, which I thought it was. All I can do is shake my head at someone who feels such desperate need to resort to researching posts because you feel you need some sort of background info. Completely amateurish to bring such a completely trivial matter into this.
You give yourself too much credit. Yesterday, I searched out something on the forum and it took me the card forum of all places. On the cover page your name appeared. The least I could do was see what you do over there. And frankly, it's not all that impressive. I've been to the card forum at least twice, to help get information on my friend's 1969 complete/brand new TOPPS Baseball set. He bought if for $44 in 1969 after his favorite Mets won the World Series. Go look it up. Yeah, I do things besides just "coins." You've taken trivial to new heights in this "POLL." Again, what led you to continue the gold bashing in this thread when I clearly stated it was POLL ONLY? You were searching out the fight. So it is you that is the spoiled brat here. All I can do is shake my head at someone who was so desperate to continue a fight at any expense. Very sad. FWIW my XO on my 2nd Sub gave me his entire collection of WWF mags back in 1987 as a "going away present." Yup, I watched those guys back in the 1980's. But, I wanted to see how you would stand up under the tactical pressure.
<< <i> You naively claim that:
"It is true that any gold standard (or fractional reserve gold standard) wouldn't work today because the very bankers placed there to regulate it, would cheat on it."
Yet that’s NO different than “cheating” on fiat currency. It ultimately ALL leads to the SAME PLACE. So your comment that a gold reserve could “theoretically” work is entirely superfluous. We KNOW that it, or anything, could “theoretically” work. The challenge is to make it functionally work. And by your own admission, you want to vehemently argue how and why all the while concluding that it would all be for naught. Does you head not hurt from all that spinning? >>
Exactly my point that it is NO different than cheating on fiat currency. Glad you finally got this after nearly 100 posts. It does lead to the SAME PLACE. No that we have that out of the way. Let the bankers take down the derivative's monster they have built. There's no safe monetary or financial system of any type as long as that beast lives. And it all leads to the SAME PLACE....financial system lock up. If they take that system back down then we can entertain a system that might work.....gold....fiat....plastic....commodity/currency basket....or otherwise.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I make MANY posts that are voluminous. >>
....and many more that are vomitous. >>
That happens when you are blindly committed to anything. I don't put myself in that position. >>
You've been the very definition of being "blindly committed" to your position in this thread. Not a single fact or input can sway you. Over 70% of the POLL responders would disagree with your facts/opinions. It's possible you are right and they are wrong, though I wouldn't bet much money on it.
Attacking baseball now? So where did the Cardinals STMM fall down that he wouldn't qualify for your personal HOF? I studied baseball stats and history with a passion from age 10-14. I was in love with the sport. Can't say I remember more than 10% of what I knew back than but don't recall anything negative about Stan Musial. Don't bust my bubble and rag on Captain Kirk now either.
Again Mr. Bentsen, what part of "this is a POLL only" thread did you not understand? I specifically said to leave the arguing and other crap on the previous thread. Sorry, but you were looking for a fight. Deny it all you want. It doesn't change this same FACT.
Concerning your final thoughts here, if it makes no difference, then you should have just agreed with my position that I took from the get go about the futile nature of a gold backed currency and state that it is unworkable. There is NOTHING I would disagree in your last paragraph. Which makes me wonder whose "searching" for a fight here. YOU'RE the one that made several posts to counter my position on that all the while stating that my position was correct. What is that about?
There's nothing to debate or respond to here. Heck, I'm still waiting for a cogent and well-thought out reply as to what YOU think will happen (and why, substantiated with some facts) to those countries carrying >50% of their forex reserves in gold....and what happens if it disappears overnight?
There you go again...........
Outlandish statements such as this only undermine everything you say, on ANY topic Clearly, HOF voters have disagreed with you. This goes right along with your "useless rock" theorem.
Elected on 93.2% of ballots in 1969. .333 lifetime average with 475 HR's. This guy averaged >100 RBI's lifetime. 3 MVP's and 4 MVP runner ups. You must have played in a very competitive little league.
I guess you must hold it against him that he wasn't a Yankee playing in the AL? I loved the Mick too.....on the field though....not his off the field stuff.
STMM stats
That is the beauty of an active forum. As the wives and girlfriends drink slightly chilled supermarket champagne while watching Anderson Cooper giggle his way to midnight, the forum faithful will be diligently pounding out cheeky responses on the gritty keypad.
<< <i>.............but with all the objectivity that I can muster, the following two statements ARE facts:
1) A gold backed currency is not workable and is effectively the same as fiat currency, even if we all agreed that gold actually should have a lot of value.
2) And I'm not sure I've mention this before, but gold is essentially a useless rock. >>
Sorry, few are buying this babble. You can view yourself as objective but it's not showing up that way. You need to muster up more. A workable gold standard existed for around 35 yrs from 1878-1913. FACT.
Another workable gold standard under Bretton Woods (1944) was quite workable for nearly 30 years. FACT. To say a fractional gold standard couldn't work today is merely an opinion. It could work, if everyone
wanted it to. The people wouldn't really see it because the major effects would be on the amount of gold in CB inventories, the price of gold, and the CB discount rates. $875 gold in 1980 didn't change the lives of
the average person. That move in gold from $35 to $875 in <9 years didn't rock J6P's world.
I reserve the right to make corrections in spelling or syntax, or if I can express an idea better with fewer words. lol. Hey baseball, are you ever going to cite a reference or a fact - or are you going to continue with the derogatory name-calling and opinions only? Come on, give us at least one solid fact that supports your position about gold in your next tirade. Let's make this a challenge. Give us a historical fact, or SOMETHING! Data! Anything!
Your simple middle school math problem is mis-stated. You throw in a red herring to get the discussion going in a wrong direction and then insult your opponent as if it were proof of your point. Gold is a limited resource, so dispel any notion of using the gold contained in Earth's core as your "proof".
Gold can "back" the currency any way you want, but that's not even necessary. You always seem to throw out another red herring in making the assumption that the economy can't survive without inflation of the currency by the banking system. This is why you are full of it. You are wrong. You don't know what you're talking about, and your "logic" is rigid around misguided Keynesian ideas that have only got us into $18 trillion in unpayable debt.
I'm assuming that we've got ourselves a genuine NY banking troll here on the precious metals forum. I also loved the 1963 World Series when Koufax came into his own. My first baseball hero was Mickey Mantle, and I've been to his childhood home in Commerce, OK. Interesting stuff. Ya'll oughta go see it.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>.....First off, I can admit that I didn't "play by your rules". To be honest, I didn't even read them until just now. But I wasn't looking for a fight, I was just positing a point of view. This is the internet. This is what happens. "If it wasn't me, it have been someone else." >>
I think that the failure to read the opening post in a thread sums up things pretty well. We're talking about research, thinking, reading, attention to detail. And you're calling me out on editing errors out of my posts, most of them grammatical? So I suck at English....shoot me.
<< <i>Once again, if you lost every spec of gold on earth, mankind would move on just fine immediately afterward. There might be some slight disturbances here and there but absolutely no "shock" to society in any effective way. That is effective useless as useless can get. Gold's PRIMARY and INTENDED purpose (or "use") by those who mine it, buy it, own it is to let it sit there and do NOTHING. That is PREDOMINANTLY the INTENDED and ACCEPTED and DESIRED "use". And you really want to debate and take "polls" about such an obvious fact??? >>
This was your first post in this thread. I disagree strongly with the 2nd sentence .....and especially the 3rd sentence. And that last sentence wasn't asking for a fight/debate/hockey game?
As Jmski52 has eloquently stated, we're still looking for some facts to support the above opinions. I'd be happy to change my view of things if some facts were presented showing the errors of my way. Cohodk is one for doing this quite routinely. Hey, when he's right, he's right. I can admit being wrong, learn something, and move on.
<< <i>
<< <i>I reserve the right to make corrections in spelling or syntax, or if I can express an idea better with fewer words. lol. Hey baseball, are you ever going to cite a reference or a fact - or are you going to continue with the derogatory name-calling and opinions only? Come on, give us at least one solid fact that supports your position about gold in your next tirade. Let's make this a challenge. Give us a historical fact, or SOMETHING! Data! Anything!
>>
Oh, you mean like ALL those facts and references that YOU cited? The FACTS are this:
1) Gold's intended use is to sit there. Am I wrong? Do I REALLY need to cite a reference for this. Where is YOUR gold? I provide more than facts. I provided first hand reference that we can ALL relate to.
2) As for gold backed currency, I've repeatedly stated the problem with it. THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. You need more facts that come from biased organizations to disprove something that MATH has unequivocally proved CAN'T WORK.
Quite frankly, you need to do some real soul searching on what real FACTS are. As if citing the blathering comments of this blog or that blog or that organization is "fact". >>
Man, the irony..
<< <i>Oh, you mean like ALL those facts and references that YOU cited? The FACTS are this:
1) Gold's intended use is to sit there. Am I wrong? Do I REALLY need to cite a reference for this. Where is YOUR gold? I provide more than facts. I provided first hand reference that we can ALL relate to.
2) As for gold backed currency, I've repeatedly stated the problem with it. THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. You need more facts that come from biased organizations to disprove something that MATH has unequivocally proved CAN'T WORK.
Quite frankly, you need to do some real soul searching on what real FACTS are. As if citing the blathering comments of this blog or that blog or that organization is "fact". >>
1. Yeah, I think you're wrong. Sitting there is not a "use" unless gold is performing a sit-in at a local college administration office. Yes, site a reference that gold's use is to physically "sit" there. That's what a door stop or rug does too. But those aren't their actual primary uses. At this point, your train has 3 of 4 wheels off the track. A derailment soon follows.
2. Your math doesn't work. And not surprisingly when 0% = 5%. You can research "gold cover clause" or "gold certificate ratio" and deduce that the math can work....if you're willing to look, which apparently you aren't. To save us all some time show me how 171,000 tonnes of gold can't work. Show us how Bretton Woods didn't work from 1944-1971 in an industrial society. The CB's seem content with just 32,000 tonnes making it "work" for them. Show me the math. $6.5 TRILL in above-ground gold can go a long ways. How do only $1.3 TRILL in circulating FRN's support a money system 10X larger and an economy worth $17 TRILL? But yet, $6.5 TRILL in gold acting "just like fiat" can't work? That's my math....now show me yours.
<< <i>Man, the irony.. >>
I'm going to guess it took you a good while to think up those three words. >>
At least he didn't say "man the ircony." How long did it take you to find that in the Websters? The "edit" button is your friend.
The irony of all this is that you wouldn't be right now defending a series of indefensible statements if you knew what the definition of a POLL was. I'm still shaking my head that you think BILLIONs of people have never seen gold at any time in their entire lives. This is the kind of stuff that has been presented by you as FACTs. I make an argument (with numbers) to show how absurd that statement is, and you move on to the next incredulous utterance. When you finally put a number down, it happens to be in the context of 0% = 3% = 5%. You see the problem? If getting out of ever having to take responsibility for what you say is "winning" then I'll admit....your winning. Great job.
We currently have no controls on the fiat currency/debt system. Maybe if there were some controls in the first place we would not have been able to increase M0 from $850 BILL to nearly $4 TRILL in only a few years. What has that increase done for us other than to "back the banks bets" on financial markets so they can't lose...and taxpayers pay? If 5% is too onerous, then make it 2.5%. It's still a control. It will still hurt. 2.5% is not 0%. If it were just fiat there's never any pain or thought to printing more. A balanced budget works for corporations but not for a fiat currency based govt? I don't understand. 2.5% is "only" 2000 tonnes of gold needed....about 70% of annual world production. Considering this M0 change took 5-6 years, that 2,000 tonnes could be spread out to 400 tonnes per year, exactly what the ECB was selling at its annual auctions not that long ago. The US probably experienced it's strongest growth of the industrial revolution during the heavy immigration period of 1878-1913...while under a real gold standard. How ironic. Coincidence that people and wealth have followed the gold? Where is the CB gold tending to flow to right now? Note: past performance of gold flows isn't any guarantee of future flows....the rules can always be changed.
Don't underestimate the so-called "trivial" or "nitpicks." Some of those things have cost empires their #1 ranking. Attention to details has made a lot of people rich. It's often the lack of detailing that often sinks corporations, nations, and people. A lack of attention to details in major league sports is a sure ticket to the basement. "Trivia" is typically factual. I can see why that would bother you.
I gold cover clause doesn't allow a debtor to tap your gold. The gold inventory gets increased in proportion to your currency/sovereign debt. If you want to lend out your gold that's fine. But that would have to be met with a reduction in total currency/debt. The only large disturbance to the system occurs when you want to add $1 TRILL in M0 currency essentially overnight. That was done in late 2008. Now you need to go out and find a pile of gold overnight too. No one said the logistics would be easy. Things that matter never are. Fiat money is easy, we can all agree to that. We keep on passing along all these little potential disturbances waiting for the big one that will lock up or tank the system. It's gonna happen. It's inevitable unless changes are made. Once the currency/digi-money is out there, it doesn't matter where it flows to. You've already backed it with 3-5% of gold reserves. If too much flows back to the US, then buy some of that back with gold reserves (Degaulle made us do that in the 1960's and early 1970's). We've never had a viable and working gold standard blow up on its own. It blew up when the bankers agreed to go off it (ie wars and other crisis). The 1878-1913 gold standard worked. It worked well. Bankers hated it. JPMorgan hated it. So the financial crisis of 1907 was created as leverage to get a Federal Reserve system in place and get back off gold. It was rather easy too as WW1 effectively shelved the gold standard to print money to fund the war. And what came back after was a shell of the old standard.
Certainly the US is holding the bulk of the cards with the world's reserve currency. Why change that? It's just as much a fact that our fiat system as it is currently headed will not last 50 more years. I doubt it will last another 20 years without a major overhaul. Our trading partners and the emerging nations aren't going to put up with another 50 years of it. China has been furiously accumulating gold since 2006 to get enough gold reserves to try and challenge the US down the road. Some would consider that dumb as gold is only a useless rock. Just coincidence that the world's strongest and largest economies tend to have the most gold (Canada being a very notable exception...though being a favored ally of the US and living next door is like having the football team captain acting as your bouncer).
This IS a debate on the fate of nations and their relationship with or without gold....otherwise why even discuss it? It doesn't mean we have to come up with the solution today, or even be right. You've trivialized gold to those nations that currently employ gold to their advantage. They might have a thing to say about that. It's not trivial to them even if it is to you. If it's so that trivial, I'll give you my PO Box address and you can ship me all the bullionesque gold you currently own. I promise to send it back to you after it has completed its role of "just sitting there" for me.
1) Gold's intended use is to sit there. Am I wrong? Do I REALLY need to cite a reference for this. Where is YOUR gold? I provide more than facts. I provided first hand reference that we can ALL relate to.
Your opinion on gold's intended use is not a fact. It's an opinion. My opinion is that it's a store of value and a hedge against depreciating paper money. The facts are that gold has never lost all of it's value and paper money has always lost its value. Those are the facts.
2) As for gold backed currency, I've repeatedly stated the problem with it. THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. You need more facts that come from biased organizations to disprove something that MATH has unequivocally proved CAN'T WORK.
Your opinion is that the math doesn't work. My opinion is that the math you cite doesn't matter. Gold will retain it's value regardless of how it compares to a paper currency. The fact is that the relative valuation of gold vs. paper currency is never static. The fact is that the math doesn't need to "work" in order for gold to maintain it's function as a store of value. If you think otherwise, give me your research that backs up your opinion.
The fact is that a gold backed currency is only one option, and that it can work as well as any other currency scheme. There's no particular math that makes a gold backed currency "work" and there's no particular math that makes a gold backed currency fail. This is just one of your red herrings. There's no proof of any requirement for a specific gold backing ratio that will make gold backing "work" or fail. If you have some facts, let's have them.
Quite frankly, you need to do some real soul searching on what real FACTS are. As if citing the blathering comments of this blog or that blog or that organization is "fact".
Excuse me, but you don't even cite any sources at all. Are you going to quote Bernanke now? or Yellen? or Timmy Geithner, the tax cheat? or Greenspan? If so, do it.
I knew it would happen.
All it takes is one single piece of obsolete currency that sells for one cent or more to prove that statement false. Be really careful with "always," as such statements are "never" universally true
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>paper money has always lost its value
All it takes is one single piece of obsolete currency that sells for one cent or more to prove that statement false. Be really careful with "always," as such statements are "never" universally true
This "fiat paper currency crap" seems to have held its value. And the bloomin' country doesnt even exist anymore. Sheesh!!
http://currency.ha.com/itm/world-currency/rhodesia-and-nyasaland-bank-of-rhodesia-and-nyasaland-10-371959-pick-23a/a/3530-26655.s
At least this country still exists even if its "currency" has been "debased"
This worn piece of paper has gone up an average of 6.75% per year----just about the same as the inflation rate for the past 124 years. Imagine that.
http://currency.ha.com/itm/treasury-notes/fr-379b-1000-1890-treasury-note-pcgs-extremely-fine-40/a/3526-17127.s
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I'll take that as a compliment. While it's not mine or Jmski52's (or others) job to attend to the details of backing a currency, we've spent thousands of hours of research over the past 8-12 years to try and figure these things out. And you get to review those thoughts and findings at no charge other than your time. Yes, we are all quite lucky to have the research of dozens of people here putting their best stuff out there for others to dig into, for better or for worse. Rather than spend all this time promoting the notion of a "useless rock" why not dig into Dr. Fekete, Steve Saville, Bob Hoye, Howard Katz, Sol Polha, Mike Shedlock, Brian Bloom and others that seemed to have come to a reasonable conclusion as to where gold fiat money fit into the scheme of things.
For your reading pleasure here is an article by Steve Saville that addresses many of the common myths you and others have assigned to gold and fiat currencies. He's much smarter than me and I've been reading him for the past 11 years. You could do a lot worse than reading a sampling of his thoughts over the years. If you find something in there that is contrary to what I've said, I'll use his thoughts as the truth. The guy isn't a gold bug either.
Saville money article
Saville's public body of work
<< <i>paper money has always lost its value
All it takes is one single piece of obsolete currency that sells for one cent or more to prove that statement false. Be really careful with "always," as such statements are "never" universally true
This and what Cohodk linked is certainly picking out the "trivia" if I ever saw it. It's like shooting red herring in a barrel. Yes, we all could have stockpiled worthless Continental Currency notes in the 1770's to 1790's followed by worthless Confederate currency right after the Civil War. While that might have worked in creating some isolated pocket of wealth for your great-great-great-great grand kids, I'm puzzled as to how it maintained your own personal wealth from that former era? You'd have been labeled a fool for as long as you lived. I'll live with the fact that >99% of world currency that was ever in existence prior to 1900 is essentially worthless today (ie nearly all of it no longer exists because the smart people of yester-year threw it out or papered their walls with it). The fact that some of it remaining today has value is only due to the fact that 99% of it was destroyed along the way. It's still too early to discuss the end of the 20th century currencies but their time is coming. The US dollar has lost 95% of it's purchasing power since 1913. >99% of the notes in existence back then are probably destroyed. The <1% of the notes remaining give some value to them if they aren't in mangled condition. I'm into 99% truths when it comes to currencies....not the 1% of untruths.
<< <i> There was a time that I cared to spend reading A LOT about gold and it's history and role in the economy. It's admittedly been some time but quite candidly, I see no use for it. While I like the stuff, I don't see it anywhere remotely a realistic possibility that it will back currency anytime soon, if ever. As for promoting the notion of a "useless rock", I'm just telling it like it is. You started the thread. As for thoughts and findings, neither of you have stated anything to refute is usefulness other than speak to its value, which is universally well known. And you yourself admitted that gold couldn't back currency and if it could, it would still be the same fiat system with a different mask. At least your open minded in your thinking. >>
I've you've ever read on this topic (it's not clear to me you ever have), then it seems you've read the wrong people or forget most everything about it. Again, you toss out the red herring about a gold type currency coming back when this entire thread is strictly about the current utility or lack of it in today's world. You continue to lose sight of this. Gold it out there in use today to the tune of 171,000 tonnes. Gold doesn't have to formally back govt fiat/legal tender currencies while the people accept gold. I knew you wouldn't read the Saville article as it would clearly show where your opinions are wrong. Saville cleanly states that the people will decide what money eventually is despite govt's cramming something else down their throats. It always works out that way. So far those "peeps" own over 100,000 tonnes of gold worth in the vicinity of $3.8 TRILL....or roughly equivalent to all the world's circulating notes combined. The people have spoken as to what they think money is. It doesn't matter what your or I think.
Question: If you've read something on this topic please list those authors and their basic tenets that most impressed you. Certainly if you've read ALOT.....the core principles and authors involved don't fade away.
As far as me starting this thread, that's completely wrong. Details and grammar do matter. I started this POLL....it was never meant to be a discussion thread as this topic was beat to death last week and back in August. I can't help it if people can't read....or refuse to read. For those that do like to read, check out that Saville article and see if he says anything that just doesn't make any sense. The guy has clearly spent a lot of time thinking through the idea of monetary systems. Nothing Baseball has stated is supported by Saville. I'll go with the smart guy.......rather than a round piece of cow hide with stitching on it. The fact that Baseball won't read a simple 10 min article....but will have spent hours retyping the same old stuff over and over in this thread....without a single NUMERICAL statistic or reference included (other than 0% = 5%).........speaks volumes. QED.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> There was a time that I cared to spend reading A LOT about gold and it's history and role in the economy. It's admittedly been some time but quite candidly, I see no use for it. While I like the stuff, I don't see it anywhere remotely a realistic possibility that it will back currency anytime soon, if ever. As for promoting the notion of a "useless rock", I'm just telling it like it is. You started the thread. As for thoughts and findings, neither of you have stated anything to refute is usefulness other than speak to its value, which is universally well known. And you yourself admitted that gold couldn't back currency and if it could, it would still be the same fiat system with a different mask. At least your open minded in your thinking. >>
I've you've ever read, then it seems you've read the wrong people or forget most everything. Again, you toss out the red herring about a gold type currency coming back when this entire thread is strictly about the current utility or lack of it in today's world. You continue to lose sight of this fact. Gold it out there in use today to the tune of 171,000 tonnes. Gold doesn't have to formally back govt fiat/legal tender currencies when the people accept gold. I knew you wouldn't read the Saville article as it would clearly show where your opinions are wrong. Saville cleanly states that the people will decide what money eventually is despite govt's cramming something else down their throats. It always works out that way. So far those "peeps" own over 100,000 tonnes of gold worth in the vicinity of $3.8 TRILL....or roughly equivalent to all the world's circulating notes combined. The people have spoken as to what they think money is. It doesn't matter what baseball of roadrunner thinks.
As far as me starting this thread, that's completely wrong. Details and grammar do matter. I started this POLL....it was never meant to be a threat. I can't help it if people can't read....or refuse to read. For those that do like to read, check out that Saville article and see if he says anything that just doesn't make any sense. The guy has clearly spent a lot of time thinking through the idea of monetary systems. Nothing Baseball has stated is supported by Saville. I'll go with the smart guy.......rather than a round piece of cow hide with stitching on it. The fact that Baseball won't read a simple 10 min article....but will have spent hours retyping the same old stuff over and over....without a single NUMERICAL statistic or reference (other than 0% = 5%).........speaks volumes. QED. >>
You mean "forget most everything" YOU deem to be accurate. You continue to lose sight of the fact that the bulk of the gold out there is sitting around doing nothing. And the only correct thing in your biased diatribe is "when the people accept gold". Yes, we all understand it is holy stuff and that we need to prey at the alter to it. Who cares what Saville writes. Should I cite Krugman's thoughts. After all, he is much more known. Or how about Warren Buffet who is WIDELY respected and very even keeled but refers to gold as "barbaric". You can pin your thoughts on what others tell you to think or think for yourself. I choose the latter. You're right in that it doesn't matter what we think. People will do what they will do. But they are doing it a lot less, in percentage terms than they have historically.
And enough with playing the victim about how I violated your “poll”. EVERYTHING in this thread is YOUR responsibility on some level. YOU started this thread. YOU have argued along every bit of the way including inciting and reigniting various arguments. Picking on the most asinine and juvenile points in an effort just to say something and keep the argument alive. YOU are MORE responsible for everything here than anyone else. Make no mistake about that. >>
Buffett well respected? Ha! Do you mean one of the guys who has the ear of the president and makes hand over fist in wealth thanks to getting his way by having the ear of the president to shift things in his favor? Buffett and his pals running the system have to try and convince everyone gold is barbaric or their rigged system doesn't run so smoothly.
On one hand WB called otc derivatives WMD's back in 2003. Then leading into and following the financial crisis of 2008 it turns out he's buying them and now has no problems with them....yeah, well except they caused the crash of 2008. You can't make this stuff up. And he's your hero? I go by his actions....not what's he's said on the front page of the NY Times. You need to expand your sources. Saville would be a good one to choose....though you might find him and Krugman at odds most of the way. Quit reading Buffet and Krugman....no wonder your mind is full of weird stuff with red herrings coming out of your ears. Read Greenspan while you're at it. He went from gold bug, to fiat bug and now back to gold bug. At least he knows how to support the party line when he's on the payroll. The fact that he has gone back to his 1966 views is important. Let's see, believe Krugman or Greenspan. Hmmm, tough choice. Who has the most or least to gain? I should spend some time in the near future reading Krugman...we can discuss some common core principles. I read that guy a bit in my earlier years but just couldn't find a lot of his stuff believable. After all, he is bought and paid for by the main establishment that is distinctly anti-gold. I prefer to read guys like I listed earlier than will at least consider both sides before debating. Krugman doesn't seem to come off as considering any view except the one he is paid to promote. But, I'll admit I haven't read him as extensively as Saville, Hoye, and others. Is this the best you got, Buffet and Krugman? Can't deny that both of them are wealthy. I would be very surprised if Buffet isn't stacking personal gold behind the scenes. Even Greenspan was doing that while he was FED Chairman.
The fact that you have Saville "preying on the gold alter" is a clear sign you've never read him....but are more than capable of commenting on him. I find it hard to believe that you've read ALOT on this topic in the past. What doesn't support that is that you've been on this forum for 13 years. The gold and economic threads part 1 and 2 were the place to discuss these topics from 2004-2011. Not once did you show up. Why is that? Nothing to say even though you've read ALOT on the topic. You have plenty to say this past week though....all of it the same though. Those 2 threads have over 12,000 posts in them. I guess you're just one of the most "well read" and "most inconsequential poster" on the subject for those 10 years. Talk about a negative divergence in TA terms. You have participated in the part 3 thread from 2012-2014 though I won't waste my time to find out to what extent and what particular views you supported. It's clear that you weren't probably posting for those 10 years gold was rising. Why wouldn't a "well read" guy jump into the fray...even if just once. From 2004-2009 that was the only thread in the Coin/Open Forum where gold and economic issues were discussed. Wasn't that period interesting enough for you to comment on....just once? Seems very odd to me. And you know me, I like details and trivia, facts with numbers too. But a math background will do that to you.
There can be no mistake you really don't know what or who you've been talking about. There's nothing you've added that suggests you've read ALOT on this topic. How about ALITTLE? One thing is for sure, that Baseball sure can type fast. I don't know if he has a voice recorder but his speed is impressive. Kudo's for sticking to typing class in 9th grade.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Buffett well respected? Ha! Do you mean one of the guys who has the ear of the president and makes hand over fist in wealth thanks to getting his way by having the ear of the president to shift things in his favor? Buffett and his pals running the system have to try and convince everyone gold is barbaric or their rigged system doesn't run so smoothly. >>
Yeah...I'm sure he's disappointed that you are such a fierce critic. Like the man would care two cents about what you thought. >>
Willful ignorance doesn't mean it's any less true, baseball.
Did you receive any bailouts? I didn't. I doubt you did either. How about your good old buddy, Warren? Sure, he's just that nice old man that tells us gold is a barbaric relic so we must believe what he tells us. It's not like he benefits from pushing such an ideology. Or does he?
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
When we participate in a forum that DEMANDS specifics and speaks with a tone of certainty, be prepared for specifics to be illustrated to refute the absolutes and certainties.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
<< <i>what Cohodk linked is certainly picking out the "trivia"
When we participate in a forum that DEMANDS specifics and speaks with a tone of certainty, be prepared for specifics to be illustrated to refute the absolutes and certainties. >>
EXACTLY. Which is why it is "irconic" that your example only served to highlight the absence of any specific facts from Baseball's arguments which are generally presented to us as "certainty" and complete truth. As far as all paper sovereign currencies becoming worthless in conducting their required daily duties as "money," 77% of them are already gone. The other 23% are in use today. As far as stating certainties, isn't stating that the Nasdaq "will not reach 5000 until after 2015" one such example?
43 years of fiat money and counting
Stupid is as Krugman does
I took 2 years of economics at college with the intent of continuing it as a minor for all 4 years. But, the material didn't didn't feel right to me. The fractional reserve multiplier didn't make any "mathematical" sense to me. Wasn't that just printing money for free? Indeed it was. So why couldn't I do that with my finances? Couldn't I give the college $1.15 for my Economics 101 text book rather than the actual cost of $11.50? You know, the multiplier working in my favor creating "wealth." But like the good soldier I was, I trudged on....and paid full price for my text books. In sophomore year economics the material (and the professor) were full of so many holes and inconsistencies that I stopped going to class 6-8 weeks before the end of the semester....showing up sweating bullets for the final exam where I might have already failed the course for missing classes. It was the only time I had ever done that in any class before or since. I still got a B+ in that course studying on my own but it dashed my belief in Economics as "science." And no, the Austrian theory on economic systems wasn't part of my Samuelson lesson plan. The last professor couldn't teach his class without leaving a trail of holes in most everything stated. It was quite frustrating. Math and mainstream US Economic theory have often not mixed well for me.
To answer MJ's question as why CB's have 32,000 tonnes of vaulted gold, here's what Economist Paul Samuelson had to say on that subject in 1973 following the end of gold convertability.... note that "useless"or "rock" do not show up here:
<< <i> Even though the world will not revert to the automatic gold standard, it is a fact that official gold does exist and is still an important part of official international reserves. Hence the new IMF reforms are able, as we shall see, to build around gold and supplement it by new reserve assets. Gradually, gold is to lose its traditional importance. >>
.
Samuelson uses the word "important" to describe gold. His italics on "build around" and "supplement." It doesn't appear that his forecast of gold losing its traditional importance is any different today than it was in 1973. To me, Samuelson's statement rings just as true today. Central Banks have similar total gold reserves as they did in 1973....the US is identical. Gold's price is multiples high today than since 1973. Now either that has occurred because it of its economic uses (of which is has effectively none per baseball) or it's because of it's monetary influences (which don't exist per baseball). Pick your poison. One major difference in these 40 yrs is that the people of the world own twice as much gold as they did in 1973....while the world's population is up 1.87X. A much truer relationship than the growth of paper money systems and total debt since 1973 (US debt has increased 37X). I do find it interesting that Samuelson also states that Nixon closed the gold window because US debt was rising so quickly. Given that fact, why not as much concern as to the 37X since? Samuelson was wrong on the consequences of "benign neglect" concerning the US dollar vs. rapidly growing US debt. He thought that we couldn't keep on fooling all the people all the time. Well, for 40 years since then, we have. Foreign nations send us goods and we send then fiat currency in exchange.
I'd rather "edit" than be "irconic."
4 votes now for utterly "useless." (<5%).
<< <i>I STILL don't get this fascination you people have with a rock, that does nothing and provides nothing. >>
Tough to fill the vaults with incandescent light bulbs.
All it takes is one single piece of obsolete currency that sells for one cent or more to prove that statement false. Be really careful with "always," as such statements are "never" universally true
This "fiat paper currency crap" seems to have held its value. And the bloomin' country doesnt even exist anymore. Sheesh!!
http://currency.ha.com/itm/world-currency/rhodesia-and-nyasaland-bank-of-rhodesia-and-nyasaland-10-371959-pick-23a/a/3530-26655.s
At least this country still exists even if its "currency" has been "debased"
This worn piece of paper has gone up an average of 6.75% per year----just about the same as the inflation rate for the past 124 years. Imagine that.
http://currency.ha.com/itm/treasury-notes/fr-379b-1000-1890-treasury-note-pcgs-extremely-fine-40/a/3526-17127.s
You guys have really taken me to task! Okay then. Let's go ahead and split some hairs.
My statement was:
"The facts are that gold has never lost all of it's value and paper money has always lost its value. Those are the facts."
The points you guys make are that 1) paper money can be obsolete with a value of $0.01 and not have lost its value, or that 2) paper money can become defunct, become a collectible of sorts, and that it technically has not lost its value.
In both cases, the paper money in question has lost its value. In the first case, it's lost almost all of its value except for $0.01, which in accounting terms would be referred to as "immaterial". In the second case, in becoming defunct, the paper money is no longer paper money, and has become a collectible. It may have acquired value since becoming a collectible, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it lost its value in the process of becoming defunct.
Therefore, I stand by my assertion that "gold has never lost all of it's value and paper money has always lost its value."
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>jmski52, I genuinely agree with your interpretation. But by that same philosophy, gold is useless because of the "immaterial" amount of it that actually has been used. >>
The fact that it is not consumed speaks volumes for it's usefulness and value as real money. Do not confuse "used" with consumed. It has been used over and over since it was pulled from the ground.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
<< <i>Even though gold lost 0.8 percent in 2014, it still performed better than all major world currencies except for the U.S. dollar. Holders of gold outside the US are glad they hold "useless" gold. For those that think gold has done bad, the fact that all other currencies (except for the dollar) have done worse is reason why the dollar "appears" to be so strong and that gold appears weak. Dollar index strength (weakness of other currencies) are what make gold "weak" to US holders. History shows that will change with the flip of the financial crisis switch.
This may be the most useless chart I have ever seen. If something is valued against another, and that other is up, the latter must be down. Im sure the Japanese are glad they held "useless" paper stocks also.
This forum is based in the US and its contributors are largely US citizens. It matters not id a Russian is happy he held gold, but rather we are happy we hold gold. And if we are, then
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Even though gold lost 0.8 percent in 2014, it still performed better than all major world currencies except for the U.S. dollar. Holders of gold outside the US are glad they hold "useless" gold. For those that think gold has done bad, the fact that all other currencies (except for the dollar) have done worse is reason why the dollar "appears" to be so strong and that gold appears weak. Dollar index strength (weakness of other currencies) are what make gold "weak" to US holders. History shows that will change with the flip of the financial crisis switch. >>
DB, the master of illusion, lol, they didn't need gold, they could have simply bought the dollar...
Therein lies some wisdom...
<< <i>Even though gold lost 0.8 percent in 2014, it still performed better than all major world currencies except for the U.S. dollar. Holders of gold outside the US are glad they hold "useless" gold. For those that think gold has done bad, the fact that all other currencies (except for the dollar) have done worse is reason why the dollar "appears" to be so strong and that gold appears weak. Dollar index strength (weakness of other currencies) are what make gold "weak" to US holders. History shows that will change with the flip of the financial crisis switch. >>
DB, the master of illusion, lol, they didn't need gold, they could have simply bought the dollar...
Therein lies some wisdom...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>jmski52, I genuinely agree with your interpretation. But by that same philosophy, gold is useless because of the "immaterial" amount of it that actually has been used. >>
The fact that it is not consumed speaks volumes for it's usefulness and value as real money. Do not confuse "used" with consumed. It has been used over and over since it was pulled from the ground. >>
Once again, I don't dispute its usability in the context that it has value. No more than baseball cards are "useful" in that context, even if central banks don't want to stack it. But gold has not functionally been used as a medium of exchange in a long time. >>
Lol, it gets more hilarious, ... When central banks sell gold, what do they get?, is it a medium of exchange of wealth between central banks or other entities?...stupid is as stupid does... Lol...
<< <i>Once again, I don't dispute its usability in the context that it has value. No more than baseball cards are "useful" in that context, even if central banks don't want to stack it. But gold has not functionally been used as a medium of exchange in a long time. >>
Gold is being accepted as payment for oil.
<< <i>This may be the most useless chart I have ever seen. If something is valued against another, and that other is up, the latter must be down. Im sure the Japanese are glad they held "useless" paper stocks also. This forum is based in the US and its contributors are largely US citizens. It matters not id a Russian is happy he held gold, but rather we are happy we hold gold. And if we are, then . >>
Value of the chart is that it shows the value of gold when compared to all but one major fiat currency. 2008 showed us the remaining currency is not immune.
But next time it will be different.
<< <i>DB, the master of illusion, lol, they didn't need gold, they could have simply bought the dollar...
Therein lies some wisdom... >>
They most likely don't think short term like some here. Unlike all known paper money, gold has never failed as money. This is why central banks hedge their holdings of all those fiat currencies - no matter what happens tomorrow their gold will not become worthless.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
What's material in the context of a financial statement is that when gold is included as a financial asset, it is far from being an immaterial entry. The mixing up of these two contexts doesn't add any weight to anything that you've said.
I knew it would happen.
I knew it would happen.
If China decided to monetize their US debt and make a claim against the Treasury's gold, that wouldn't bankrupt anything but it would accentuate the status of the gold as a monetary asset. It doesn't need accentuating, but that's the effect that would take place. The real effect would more likely be to send gold higher on world markets in recognition of the usefulness of gold as a monetary reserve component. Buffet and Gates are already plenty adept at buying senators to monetize their wealth, no need to do more than that.
What isn't complicated is that a gold back currency is doomed to fail one way or another, it's merely a question of when. Common sense, math, forecasting of the geopolitical environment, etc. will all tell you that. What else isn't complicated is that gold is a useless rock. That much is clear. That people want to ascribe a value for it (one that we have NO idea what it should be) is the only thing that makes it relevant.
A gold backed currency would be subject to the same weaknesses of any other currency being managed or manipulated by human beings. We agree on that. That's not the argument. That's not the debate.
The crux of this whole debate - is that "Keynesian" economists think that gold isn't real money and they think that economies need inflation in order to expand. My opinion is that the reason they think this - is because they benefit directly from an income stream tied to the creation of new money. That's like holding the bag next to the guy with the gun during a bank robbery and saying "I'm innocent". That's why I believe that the Keynesian argument for a managed 2% inflation rate is totally specious and self-serving.
My opinion - there's no reason that gold can't be used as money. One of the bogus arguments against this is that there isn't enough of it. All it really means is that it would be a bit harder to acquire. The real objection is that recognition of gold as money would remove the ability of the banking system to pad their own pockets with newly-created bonuses. That's the biggest objection to using gold as money, and it always will be.
My opinion - recognition of gold as actual money would remove the ability of politicians to finance wars without taking a hard stand for tax increases to fund the wars. Any war would require a declaration of war and any war would be more likely to be declared with the intent to win it, otherwise it would be seen as too costly and there would be no monetary support to proceed.
My opinion - using gold as money would promote accountability because it can't be poofed into existence for convenience when there's no other way of getting funds. Bad behavior, both public and private would begin to have consequences, unlike today. I don't see that as a bad thing.
Using gold as money isn't a question of any reserve ratio. There's no need for a reserve ratio. Using gold as money isn't a question of math. The mathematical value of gold self-adjusts. The math "not working out" is just a red herring excuse that's intended to fog the issue.
If I were China, I would take a hard look at why I had a $trillion in US debt uselessly sitting there and I'd probably keep using my trade advantages to accumulate all sorts of assets, not just gold. Let's talk about something that is "USELESS". The most useless thing in the world is owning a $trillion in US debt, because you already know that the US will be creating more of it - much, much more of it.
I knew it would happen.
My same questions, say we accept even these extreme positions and someone "wins" the argument and someone else agrees that, yes, technically, they can be deemed "right"..
... so? So therefore... what? Is there a point to debating the meanings of words like "useless" and "always"? I guess I know the answer, fun banter, but still..
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>
<< <i>You guys are really good at visceral bashing of paper money without EVER putting forth an alternative method on a viable medium of exchange. >>
Seems that we had circulation gold and silver coinage for over 160 years before Johnson's Medicare/Caid destroyed the federal budget. >>
A number of governmental decisions have put state and federal budgets under considerable strain. It is purely political to attribute this to one (or two very similar) programs.
China reached $3.99 TRILL in foreign reserves in June 2014. They have lot more to play with than just the $1.3 BILL in official US sovereign debt. $65 BILL in gold is not laughable by those central banks that have that amount or less (China, Russia, Switzerland, Japan, India, ECB, UK, Spain, etc.). China cannot compete with the US dollar with only 1,050 tonnes in official gold reserves. When they get to 5,000+ they will be more a reserve currency competitor/alternative. The next time they update their holdings I suspect it will be in the 3,500-5,000 tonnes range placing them #2 on the world list.
Fekete on "why a gold standard" (see March 1, 2014)
Fekete vs. Krug
Fekete - inconvenient truths about gold and some opinions.....Fekete suggests that generally a 1.33% cover rate would succeed....or approx one business day in a normal 91 day seasonal cycle.