you need to look at the job less claims in this country to see we have poor and we have rich very little in between the sheer numbers in china are amazing they'll have more millionaire in number then we'll have people and we gave them free trade no rules no epa no laws or lawyers to deal with
1. Early Native Americans "sold" Manhattan Island to Europeans for some beads. They thought the beads had value.
2. If we're going to change, why gold? Why not Uranium? Or Americium? Why not pick something like Plutonium that only a few countries can have. Then we would automatically make ourselves wealthy.
Just have to disagree with Bill Jones' comments about Greenspan's masterful management of the printing presses and interest rate control over the past 5-7 years. He has basically worked himself into a corner where all of his controls are spent. The money supply has turned the "exponential corner" so to speak. Foreign dollars are bailing out of our currency and shifting to Euro's, gold, and other areas. There doesn't appear to be any Fed Ammo left to reverse this trend until the dollar is clearly spanked and our retirement 401K's are basically worth a tiny fraction of what they once were. Bush is doing his best to ignite the economy by going to war.
Let's look at the Chairman's record in 5 years down the road and see if we all have the same opinion.
Wayneme -- actually, the sources of wealth in a society are more fundamental than the ones you have listed:
(1) Political/social organization that promotes wealth creation ("social capital")
(2) Education ("intellectual capital")
(3) Natural resources
There are societies that are quite strong in one or two aspects, but overall have very weak economy because they lack the third. Russia, for example, is quite strong in (2), very strong in (3), but terribly lacking in (1). Iraq has access to immense wealth through oil, but is lacking (2), and severely lacking in (1).
When all three are weighed, it is not surprising that the US is the strongest economy in the world, and, with some vision and prudence, will remain so. We are extremely strong on (1), strong on (2) [although our immigration policy helps maintain our intellectual capital -- we should make sure we are doing enough to generate intellectual capital internally], and, though dependent on imported raw materials, we are still blessed with entensive and diverse resources, compared to our population of about 300 million.
I agree that disparity of wealth could become a cause of social unrest in the United States, and in general, there are some distressing signs that social capital (in essence, well deserved trust in others) is declining in the US. However, when I reflect on the three sources of wealth described above, and 300 + years of remarkable economic growth going back to colonial times, I am fundamentally optimistic that we will overcome any obstacles to long term prosperity. It is a big mistake to "short" the US.
Roadrunner -- I agree it is looking more and more like Greenspan loosened too much following the Asian crisis and leading up to the perceived year 2000 problem, fueling the asset bubble in the US. And, the dollar may get temporarily whacked with respect to the yen and Euro, but, ultimately, I just don't see a lot of reason to be pouring money into Japan and Europe. The desirability of these economies has got to limit the upside potential of the yen and the Euro. The place to invest will continue to be the US and some of the growing Asian economies, and this will further fuel the global deflationary trend. This in turn will whack gold. Ultimately (but not immediately), the Chinese will need to let their currency float. It is an amazing world situation, but definitely one that calls to mind Colin Powell's recent quote ("yes, I sleep like a baby --- I wake up every two hours screaming")
Foreign dollars are bailing out of our currency and shifting to Euro's, gold, and other areas.
Who cares? This is a temporary situation that runs in cycles like many other economic factors. If the value of the dollar falls it makes our exports cheaper, which helps to stimulate our economy. It does increase the cost of imports, but like everything else that is cyclical too.
So far the past few years they've printed money at an amazing rate in an attempt to keep our easy credit economy alive. They cannot keep doing it w/o severe consequences.
What's the main consequence of "turning on the printing presses" (actually buying government bonds to increase the money and decreasing the Fed's discount rate, which is actually more psychological that real.) and increasing the money supply? The short answer is inflation, and so far that's been very low even with the large increases in oil and energy prices. Over the past decade we have lowered the expectations for inflation, and that is more than half the battle in keeping it under control.
Bush is doing his best to ignite the economy by going to war.
No, Bush is pushing for tax cuts to ignite the economy just as John Kennedy did successfully in the early 1960s. If Bush could have his way there would be no war, but the president is convinced that there can be no lasting peace until Saddam Hussein is out of power.
Government does its job best when it provides a legal and economic system to support the economy and then gets out of the way to let American ingenuity create the wealth.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I was just searching through some old threads before posting a new one...and as I was reading this thread, it became apparent that RR's comments prove he is a sage, at least IMHO. I have quoted his three posts to this thread here for educational purposes...
POST #1
Looks like a great time to take the contrarian view with everyone so far opposed. I think the potential to go back on a gold standard is very real. If we continue to have major currency issues with our dollar price falling and forcing other nations to bail out of our dollars then we just may have to slow down the printing press and back our dollar with something tangible again. We have been off the full gold standard for many many decades. But in the 60's and 70's we backed a fraction of our currency with gold. Now we back 0%.
When we left the gold cover in 1974 we were backing something like 5% of our currency with gold bullion reserves. We still maintain something on the order of 1-5% of gold reserves compared to our currency. By maintaining some sort of control on the FED printing presses confidence overseas would improve in our dollar. While this may not be a big issue today.....let's see what happens in a few years from now if our dollar gets battered by other currencies. A return to a 3-6% gold cover on our currency would allow some much needed stability on our currency and give investors more faith in carrying US dollars. Since coming off it in 1974 we have experienced many new problems that did not exist before this. Going back on a gold cover might just improve things. Printing more money to pay off our debts with more devalued paper is not the answer to our current problems. Greenspan and Co. know this but until Congress figures it out nothing will change.
roadrunner
POST #2
Putting gold back into circulation or allowing us to redeem our notes for Gold will not happen. But to link the FEDs ability to print money willy nilly with say a 3-5% gold cover would require them to aquire gold on the market prior to printing that money. This is not a system where gold backs the currency or redeems, only one that puts constraints on the FEDs unlimited resources to print money and ultimately devalue everything we own. So far the past few years they've printed money at an amazing rate in an attempt to keep our easy credit economy alive. They cannot keep doing it w/o severe consequences. When everyone agrees it cannot happen, that opens the door to the opposite view.
roadrunner
POST #3
<< <i>Just have to disagree with Bill Jones' comments about Greenspan's masterful management of the printing presses and interest rate control over the past 5-7 years. He has basically worked himself into a corner where all of his controls are spent. The money supply has turned the "exponential corner" so to speak. Foreign dollars are bailing out of our currency and shifting to Euro's, gold, and other areas. There doesn't appear to be any Fed Ammo left to reverse this trend until the dollar is clearly spanked and our retirement 401K's are basically worth a tiny fraction of what they once were. Bush is doing his best to ignite the economy by going to war.
Let's look at the Chairman's record in 5 years down the road and see if we all have the same opinion.
<< <i>fiat funny money is all we have today. a piece of paper with numbers on it, backed by the word of the goverment. with the cost of everything today, and what it is costing the us taxpayers to be the worlds peace keepers, they keep printing paper, paper, and more paper, it cant go on for ever.........something has to give sooner or later, even greenspan has said the united states should once again go back on the gold standard.............would we be better off back on the gold standard, or just keep printing it up and lets all live the high life............your thoughts >>
Yes as soon as there's a return to the Constitution, a fairly intelligent electorate, un-corrupted elections.
Alan Greenspan as done a masterful job of managing our monetary policy. He may be getting into dangerous political territory when he starts talking about the Cost of Living aspects of Social Security and our fiscal policy. Implying that the cost of living increases for Social Security need to be reduced is like hugging (not just touching) the third rail of politics.
Well, Bill - when you get ready to retire, I hope that your dollar-denominated assets haven't completely evaporated, due to Greenspan's and Bernake's "management" of monetary policy.
Why talk about reducing social security benefits when you can just under-report inflation in order to keep benefit claims low, while pumping out gazzilions of dollars and bailing out bankers who are now able to create their own vaporware money, which in turn will cause Uncle Sam to declare them "too big to fail" and other bankers who can't even manage a mortgage business and thereby qualify for more free trillions of dollars (which of course, is taken from your tax payments, in addition to the creation of even more inflation.)
Masterful? It depends on which side of the fence you happen to reside.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Alan Greenspan as done a masterful job of managing our monetary policy. He may be getting into dangerous political territory when he starts talking about the Cost of Living aspects of Social Security and our fiscal policy. Implying that the cost of living increases for Social Security need to be reduced is like hugging (not just touching) the third rail of politics.
Well, Bill - when you get ready to retire, I hope that your dollar-denominated assets haven't completely evaporated, due to Greenspan's and Bernake's "management" of monetary policy.
Why talk about reducing social security benefits when you can just under-report inflation in order to keep benefit claims low, while pumping out gazzilions of dollars and bailing out bankers who are now able to create their own vaporware money, which in turn will cause Uncle Sam to declare them "too big to fail" and other bankers who can't even manage a mortgage business and thereby qualify for more free trillions of dollars (which of course, is taken from your tax payments, in addition to the creation of even more inflation.)
Masterful? It depends on which side of the fence you happen to reside. >>
"Well knock me down and steal muh teeth!"
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
even greenspan has said the united states should once again go back on the gold standard
I believe he made that statement back in the '60s. If he really believed it later, he would have pushed for it during his 20 years as Fed Chairman, and I don't recall him beating the drum for it then.
Nope. Not enough gold to back US paper. Gold's intrinsic value is not what it once was. However, that we should collateralize our money supply is an idea that merits discussion. Money is supposed to operate as a proxy in bartering between trades of real goods and services. Fiat money can do that too but should, in the end, represent real value. The danger lies in the fact that runaway fiat abuse always ends in disaster and devaluation of the currency. (Didn't read the thread yet, so no doubt this duplicates other responses.)
It will not happen. A gold standard is too restrictive, as others have said (not enough physical supply for a world economy, not enough growth in the gold supply for a growing population and growing world economies, etc.)
In a sense, the free floating currency system is a decent check and balance system. As US debt and overspending has grown, our dollar has weakened. If we straighten out, it will go back up.
The key advantage the US has is that we pay our debts with our own currency. If we inflate our currency, we pay with cheaper dollars our old debt. This massive advantage for the US is what will probably change in some form over the years. How it will change is the real question...
No, but it would provide more stable prices over the long term to have a portion of our currency backed by gold, silver, and platinum.
The US went from a small developing country in 1800 to the world's largest economy in 1900 on the gold and silver standard, and the inflation rate was close to zero during this period. Real capital growth that was not eaten away by inflation, until the FED was created.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
A gold standard is too restrictive, as others have said (not enough physical supply for a world economy, not enough growth in the gold supply for a growing population and growing world economies, etc.)
There is no reason that an expanding money supply is essential to growing economies. If gold has an intrinsic value and a slowly increasing supply, the result is stability and rising gold prices as the economy continues to expand.
The advantage in using a non-inflatable monetary medium is in forcing governments to clean up their acts, by eliminating the constant shell game of governmental funding.
If government can't simply create money to buy votes, then they would actually have to present the issues (to the people) and make the hard decisions instead of papering them over.
If there was a known amount of gold in the Treasury, then there would have to be accountability from the vault, all the way down the line. Novel idea, huh?
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Comments
the sheer numbers in china are amazing
they'll have more millionaire in number then we'll have people
and we gave them free trade no rules no epa no laws or lawyers to deal with
2. If we're going to change, why gold? Why not Uranium? Or Americium? Why not pick something like Plutonium that only a few countries can have. Then we would automatically make ourselves wealthy.
1 power generation
2 manufacturing
3 mineral
every thing else is service related
Maybe you forgot LAND.
Bush is doing his best to ignite the economy by going to war.
Let's look at the Chairman's record in 5 years down the road and see if we all have the same opinion.
roadrunner
(1) Political/social organization that promotes wealth creation ("social capital")
(2) Education ("intellectual capital")
(3) Natural resources
There are societies that are quite strong in one or two aspects, but overall have very weak economy because they lack the third. Russia, for example, is quite strong in (2), very strong in (3), but terribly lacking in (1). Iraq has access to immense wealth through oil, but is lacking (2), and severely lacking in (1).
When all three are weighed, it is not surprising that the US is the strongest economy in the world, and, with some vision and prudence, will remain so. We are extremely strong on (1), strong on (2) [although our immigration policy helps maintain our intellectual capital -- we should make sure we are doing enough to generate intellectual capital internally], and, though dependent on imported raw materials, we are still blessed with entensive and diverse resources, compared to our population of about 300 million.
I agree that disparity of wealth could become a cause of social unrest in the United States, and in general, there are some distressing signs that social capital (in essence, well deserved trust in others) is declining in the US. However, when I reflect on the three sources of wealth described above, and 300 + years of remarkable economic growth going back to colonial times, I am fundamentally optimistic that we will overcome any obstacles to long term prosperity. It is a big mistake to "short" the US.
In response to your comments:
Foreign dollars are bailing out of our currency and shifting to Euro's, gold, and other areas.
Who cares? This is a temporary situation that runs in cycles like many other economic factors. If the value of the dollar falls it makes our exports cheaper, which helps to stimulate our economy. It does increase the cost of imports, but like everything else that is cyclical too.
So far the past few years they've printed money at an amazing rate in an attempt to keep our easy credit economy alive. They cannot keep doing it w/o severe consequences.
What's the main consequence of "turning on the printing presses" (actually buying government bonds to increase the money and decreasing the Fed's discount rate, which is actually more psychological that real.) and increasing the money supply? The short answer is inflation, and so far that's been very low even with the large increases in oil and energy prices. Over the past decade we have lowered the expectations for inflation, and that is more than half the battle in keeping it under control.
Bush is doing his best to ignite the economy by going to war.
No, Bush is pushing for tax cuts to ignite the economy just as John Kennedy did successfully in the early 1960s. If Bush could have his way there would be no war, but the president is convinced that there can be no lasting peace until Saddam Hussein is out of power.
Government does its job best when it provides a legal and economic system to support the economy and then gets out of the way to let American ingenuity create the wealth.
POST #1
Looks like a great time to take the contrarian view with everyone so far opposed. I think the potential to go back on a gold standard is very real. If we continue to have major currency issues with our dollar price falling and forcing other nations to bail out of our dollars then we just may have to slow down the printing press and back our dollar with something tangible again. We have been off the full gold standard for many many decades. But in the 60's and 70's we backed a fraction of our currency with gold. Now we back 0%.
When we left the gold cover in 1974 we were backing something like 5% of our currency with gold bullion reserves. We still maintain something on the order of 1-5% of gold reserves compared to our currency. By maintaining some sort of control on the FED printing presses confidence overseas would improve in our dollar. While this may not be a big issue today.....let's see what happens in a few years from now if our dollar gets battered by other currencies. A return to a 3-6% gold cover on our currency would allow some much needed stability on our currency and give investors more faith in carrying US dollars. Since coming off it in 1974 we have experienced many new problems that did not exist before this. Going back on a gold cover might just improve things. Printing more money to pay off our debts with more devalued paper is not the answer to our current problems. Greenspan and Co. know this but until Congress figures it out nothing will change.
roadrunner
POST #2
Putting gold back into circulation or allowing us to redeem our notes for Gold will not happen. But to link the FEDs ability to print money willy nilly with say a 3-5% gold cover would require them to aquire gold on the market prior to printing that money. This is not a system where gold backs the currency or redeems, only one that puts constraints on the FEDs unlimited resources to print money and ultimately devalue everything we own. So far the past few years they've printed money at an amazing rate in an attempt to keep our easy credit economy alive. They cannot keep doing it w/o severe consequences. When everyone agrees it cannot happen, that opens the door to the opposite view.
roadrunner
POST #3
<< <i>Just have to disagree with Bill Jones' comments about Greenspan's masterful management of the printing presses and interest rate control over the past 5-7 years. He has basically worked himself into a corner where all of his controls are spent. The money supply has turned the "exponential corner" so to speak. Foreign dollars are bailing out of our currency and shifting to Euro's, gold, and other areas. There doesn't appear to be any Fed Ammo left to reverse this trend until the dollar is clearly spanked and our retirement 401K's are basically worth a tiny fraction of what they once were.
Bush is doing his best to ignite the economy by going to war.
Let's look at the Chairman's record in 5 years down the road and see if we all have the same opinion.
roadrunner >>
commoncents123, JrGMan2004, Coll3ctor (2), Dabigkahuna, BAJJERFAN, Boom, GRANDAM, newsman, cohodk, kklambo, seateddime, ajia, mirabela, Weather11am, keepdachange, gsa1fan, cone10
-------------------------
I am afraid we will need a collapse of the paper in circulation.
However that said, the gold standard with out silver is suicide for the common man.
I say simply have the US Treasury issue green backs and call in all of the Notes from the Fed.
Screw the FED!
<< <i>fiat funny money is all we have today. a piece of paper with numbers on it, backed by the word of the goverment. with the cost of everything today, and what it is costing the us taxpayers to be the worlds peace keepers, they keep printing paper, paper, and more paper, it cant go on for ever.........something has to give sooner or later, even greenspan has said the united states should once again go back on the gold standard.............would we be better off back on the gold standard, or just keep printing it up and lets all live the high life............your thoughts >>
Yes as soon as there's a return to the Constitution, a fairly intelligent electorate, un-corrupted elections.
In other words, will never happen.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Well, Bill - when you get ready to retire, I hope that your dollar-denominated assets haven't completely evaporated, due to Greenspan's and Bernake's "management" of monetary policy.
Why talk about reducing social security benefits when you can just under-report inflation in order to keep benefit claims low, while pumping out gazzilions of dollars and bailing out bankers who are now able to create their own vaporware money, which in turn will cause Uncle Sam to declare them "too big to fail" and other bankers who can't even manage a mortgage business and thereby qualify for more free trillions of dollars (which of course, is taken from your tax payments, in addition to the creation of even more inflation.)
Masterful? It depends on which side of the fence you happen to reside.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Alan Greenspan as done a masterful job of managing our monetary policy. He may be getting into dangerous political territory when he starts talking about the Cost of Living aspects of Social Security and our fiscal policy. Implying that the cost of living increases for Social Security need to be reduced is like hugging (not just touching) the third rail of politics.
Well, Bill - when you get ready to retire, I hope that your dollar-denominated assets haven't completely evaporated, due to Greenspan's and Bernake's "management" of monetary policy.
Why talk about reducing social security benefits when you can just under-report inflation in order to keep benefit claims low, while pumping out gazzilions of dollars and bailing out bankers who are now able to create their own vaporware money, which in turn will cause Uncle Sam to declare them "too big to fail" and other bankers who can't even manage a mortgage business and thereby qualify for more free trillions of dollars (which of course, is taken from your tax payments, in addition to the creation of even more inflation.)
Masterful? It depends on which side of the fence you happen to reside. >>
"Well knock me down and steal muh teeth!"
I believe he made that statement back in the '60s. If he really believed it later, he would have pushed for it during his 20 years as Fed Chairman, and I don't recall him beating the drum for it then.
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
In a sense, the free floating currency system is a decent check and balance system. As US debt and overspending has grown, our dollar has weakened. If we straighten out, it will go back up.
The key advantage the US has is that we pay our debts with our own currency. If we inflate our currency, we pay with cheaper dollars our old debt. This massive advantage for the US is what will probably change in some form over the years. How it will change is the real question...
The US went from a small developing country in 1800 to the world's largest economy in 1900 on the gold and silver standard, and the inflation rate was close to zero during this period. Real capital growth that was not eaten away by inflation, until the FED was created.
There is no reason that an expanding money supply is essential to growing economies. If gold has an intrinsic value and a slowly increasing supply, the result is stability and rising gold prices as the economy continues to expand.
The advantage in using a non-inflatable monetary medium is in forcing governments to clean up their acts, by eliminating the constant shell game of governmental funding.
If government can't simply create money to buy votes, then they would actually have to present the issues (to the people) and make the hard decisions instead of papering them over.
If there was a known amount of gold in the Treasury, then there would have to be accountability from the vault, all the way down the line. Novel idea, huh?
I knew it would happen.