Gold-backed money: good common sense, or the next trap by the Financial Elite?

[Tane Mahuta]

I believe that a nation's currency must be backed by something, whether it be gold or the resources of that nation.

But before that can happen, the money system must be changed,

- All cabal owned & controlled central banking systems to be removed. And that all sovereign nations
have the right to manage & print their own currency. Without external interference.

- All Nation States are to remain Sovereign...ie no globalization B/S. No globalization, no systemic
contagion.

- Repair the wounds(monetary) inflicted on the human race by these parasites(cabal). Make these
parasites held accountable.

- It shall be deemed illegal for the banks create money from nothing!

- It shall be deemed illegal for the banks to charge usary interest on monies borrowed!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/usury

- It shall be deemed illegal for the banks to charge compound interest. The only reason a bank to exist is to
serve the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest

- The fractional reserve system shall be deemed illegal. Thus preventing the banks from creating money from
nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking

(imho)

TM

[eileenrose]

I am going to propose something that won't make sense, to the mind anyway. And that is we look for simpler ways to explain money, gold and their use by the banking elite.
I feel if we are going to get this job done (changing the way money is used in America/else-where that uses our dollar......and maybe even about the Euro....though less so....).

Like, exactly who is still using derivatives? What government agencies is ignoring their usage? Is it the Federal Reserve? ....see I don't even understand the basics of monetary policy.

very convoluted screwed up...system?

....anyway...random thoughts

[risveglio]

Posted by Arrowwind (here)

Posted by Robert J. Niewiadomski (here)
How about backing money with time spent on producing various goods or service to others? Time credits... It is not a new idea....

Absolutely. the only thing really worth anyting is human work. It is a true resource with true value. The discrepicencies between high wages and low wages needs to be addressed. A tier system of worker payment that is equitable based on education, experience, ability and expected outcome. All 35 or 40 hour work weeks need to be sufficient in payment to support at least 2 people. Why two? So a parent can remain in the home and so that there is sufficient people to work culturally and socially in the community .. and so it should be for McDonald workers, etc. No 35 or 40 hour work week should be so valued that working only one month a year can purchase a mansion and 3 cars. This all sounds kind of socialist doesn't it? But look at what capitolism has done for us. Poverty abounds, welfare, food stamps, excessive wealth, banruptcy, foreclosure, a class system based on income.

Its all a belief system. Why not create a working belief system that is equitabel for all according to their movtivation and ability.

It's unfair to blame capitalism for these problems since we have not really had capitalism for at least 40 years, probably more. Under capitalism, most people could support a family of 4 with one member working. It was not until we created this socialistic-capitalism with a nice sprinkle of corporatism that we really started to see the problems we have today.

[risveglio]

Posted by the_vast_mystery (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)
As stated in the Bix Weir article, the gold supply is increasing at 2% which is about the same as the population rate so it is untrue to say it does not replenish. The durability of gold is why gold would be used, its pretty hard to destroy and unless someone has figured out alchemy, it can not be created.

Excuse me? But if it cannot be created then how can the gold supply increase? That kind of sounds contradictory...
If you mean to say it cannot be created outside of nature, then please can you provide me some more detailed information as to what specific natural process allows gold to replenish within the earth?

But furthermore, if the Earth can replenish Gold, why can't a lab? We couldn't make diamonds or pearls for a while, but eventually we got it down. This seems if anything more like a security through obscurity method. Wouldn't it be much more sane to design the money supply around things humans need and can naturally produce like food? That way instead of requiring any sort of central depositories with Fort Knox style security we design the money around the idea that everyone will, in a sense, grow their own?

That seems to be the more rational approach, because just like with computer security I can already hear folks thinking "Huh? You can't duplicate Gold?! We'll just see about that..."

You can't use the gold that is not above ground. The new gold comes out of the earth at about 2% so there is no contradiction. Once someone finds a way to duplicate gold, then there would be a problem but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Operator]

I predict that this discussion will go on and on ... forever.
As already stated gold will not do because it won't be sufficient to back the current amount of fictional funny money ...
(Besides I think the gold is fictional in the mean time too, it probably has left the planet).
So what else would have sufficient 'make believe' value etc ... nonsense.

This planet has (limited) resources and should be effectively shared to sustain life on this planet. Failing to understand this will
keep us in a cycle where one civilization after another wipes itself from the map. Over and over again until we get it.

I think it can be demonstrated easily on a smaller scale ...
If you live in a small village and let's say everyone has 1000 dollars to spend then after a month you will have bought stuff and
earned money etc. In a fair system this would be equal for everyone so you will end up with 1000 dollar again.
If you do this in a sustainable way you will have 1000 dollar on average all the time ... so why do it in the first place ?

The money system will only make sense if you expect some people to be winners and others losers.

[the_vast_mystery]

Posted by risveglio (here)
You can't use the gold that is not above ground. The new gold comes out of the earth at about 2% so there is no contradiction. Once someone finds a way to duplicate gold, then there would be a problem but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Can you please explain how gold is replenished in the Earth? This is kind of important if you want to claim 2% perpetual yield is sustainable well into the future. P.S. Someone once said MD5 password hashing was uncrackable. You know what happened? Technology advanced, and it has been at quite the rate for a while now. Something tells me it might be a better idea to plan your currency around technology advancing rather than technology not advancing.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by risveglio (here)
I don't know anyone calling for a return to the gold standard...

How about Ron Paul? And most Libertarians? (no one is specifying pre or post-1933, just that they want money backed by gold.)

Posted by risveglio (here)
I think Bill Still has a lot of confusion when it comes to monetary policy but here is a pretty good response by Bix Weir that refutes most of Bill's arguments.

Hmmmmmm...
1 .) Bill did not say the cause of the depression was being or not being on a gold standard. He's refuting statements never made.
2 + 3) "the rich have very little gold" This is pure conjecture, and not a bet I'd make. Can he seriously believe that the richest people in the world do not have vast sums of gold? What does Bix think the rich have, rare baseball trading cards? Who owns the gold mines, the poor? So, if the rich and the poor don't have all the gold, where is it? The middle class?
4.) Bix says, "My current estimate is that the US secretly holds approximately 200,000 tons of above ground gold ready for distribution in coin form and much more than that in hidden gold mines within the United States. " Well, how can I argue with a person that says he knows a secret?
5.) He doesn't seem to understand the word "valueless." Bill is talking about intrinsic value, not buying power. Then, he flies off into the assertion that "...valueless money NEVER survives. It is always abandoned..." The word "always" doesn't fit history very well. Again, money without intrinsic value that still has buying power won't be "abandoned." A conquerer might make a currency without intrinsic value really "valueless" when they conquer - as was the case with Confederate money after the US Civil War. It wasn't abandoned, it was conquered.
6.) Um, the Roman Empire fell. That's not the same as failed currency.
7.) "It is the manipulation of the monetary flow by the banking power that causes the boom and bust depressions. A true Gold Standard should not be a leveraged system with fractional reserve banking." The first part of this is correct (but not explained that Bill has made the same point and underscores it.) Bill never said the second part, and it is written as if Bix is arguing against Bill on this point. No one but the bankers themselves (and their hypnotized minions) argue FOR fractional reserve lending. He finishes that point by making it seem that he is arguing with Bill over a government needing access to borrowing. Ha! He needs to actually read Bill's book!
8.) "...human beings ARE NOT CAPABLE of the kind of self control required to manage an un-backed monetary system." If we are takliking about the human beings now "in power" over our monetary system (that is, the Federal Reserve board), then I agree. If we are going far enough to even discuss a changed monetary system, then we are in the realm of BIG change, and a paradigm change in governance where ordinary people are (transparently) managing the overall money supply, then I say we are capable. The problems stem from secrecy and greed (most notably fractional reserve "debt" money creation by lending), not from the backing of the money.

Bix ends on a somewhat snarky note bragging that gold is the bet money. Again, revisit the Bunky Hunt silver market manipulation, and you'll see the great potential for a roller-coaster ride. As gold's prices have gone through the roof, those already holding gold feel it is "the best money" - how about those that don't have it... and the value of a box of cereal goes from $4 to $8 because gold is doing well, who are the winners and losers?

I do appreciate that Bix mentioned that "Gold is the BEST money because it has a defined scarcity...", and only someone who HAS gold can take that argument as positive.

[Dennis Leahy]

Allow me to incorporate this ("The Money Masters" monetary reform .vs. Ron Paul ), by reference.

It is a brief 'article', (really, just posing a question to Ron Paul), and the replies are intelligent (on both sides of the issue.)

Dennis
source: http://www.dailypaul.com/43042/the-m...rm-vs-ron-paul

[risveglio]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)
I don't know anyone calling for a return to the gold standard...

How about Ron Paul? And most Libertarians? (no one is specifying pre or post-1933, just that they want money backed by gold.)

Libertarians are calling for competing currencies and sound money. Not even Ron Paul is calling for the Gold standard and is often quoted as saying Breton Woods was doomed to fail.

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

Posted by risveglio (here)
I think Bill Still has a lot of confusion when it comes to monetary policy but here is a pretty good response by Bix Weir that refutes most of Bill's arguments.

Hmmmmmm...
1 .) Bill did not say the cause of the depression was being or not being on a gold standard. He's refuting statements never made.
2 + 3) "the rich have very little gold" This is pure conjecture, and not a bet I'd make. Can he seriously believe that the richest people in the world do not have vast sums of gold? What does Bix think the rich have, rare baseball trading cards? Who owns the gold mines, the poor? So, if the rich and the poor don't have all the gold, where is it? The middle class?
4.) Bix says, "My current estimate is that the US secretly holds approximately 200,000 tons of above ground gold ready for distribution in coin form and much more than that in hidden gold mines within the United States. " Well, how can I argue with a person that says he knows a secret?
5.) He doesn't seem to understand the word "valueless." Bill is talking about intrinsic value, not buying power. Then, he flies off into the assertion that "...valueless money NEVER survives. It is always abandoned..." The word "always" doesn't fit history very well. Again, money without intrinsic value that still has buying power won't be "abandoned." A conquerer might make a currency without intrinsic value really "valueless" when they conquer - as was the case with Confederate money after the US Civil War. It wasn't abandoned, it was conquered.
6.) Um, the Roman Empire fell. That's not the same as failed currency.
7.) "It is the manipulation of the monetary flow by the banking power that causes the boom and bust depressions. A true Gold Standard should not be a leveraged system with fractional reserve banking." The first part of this is correct (but not explained that Bill has made the same point and underscores it.) Bill never said the second part, and it is written as if Bix is arguing against Bill on this point. No one but the bankers themselves (and their hypnotized minions) argue FOR fractional reserve lending. He finishes that point by making it seem that he is arguing with Bill over a government needing access to borrowing. Ha! He needs to actually read Bill's book!
8.) "...human beings ARE NOT CAPABLE of the kind of self control required to manage an un-backed monetary system." If we are takliking about the human beings now "in power" over our monetary system (that is, the Federal Reserve board), then I agree. If we are going far enough to even discuss a changed monetary system, then we are in the realm of BIG change, and a paradigm change in governance where ordinary people are (transparently) managing the overall money supply, then I say we are capable. The problems stem from secrecy and greed (most notably fractional reserve "debt" money creation by lending), not from the backing of the money.

Bix ends on a somewhat snarky note bragging that gold is the bet money. Again, revisit the Bunky Hunt silver market manipulation, and you'll see the great potential for a roller-coaster ride. As gold's prices have gone through the roof, those already holding gold feel it is "the best money" - how about those that don't have it... and the value of a box of cereal goes from $4 to $8 because gold is doing well, who are the winners and losers?

I do appreciate that Bix mentioned that "Gold is the BEST money because it has a defined scarcity...", and only someone who HAS gold can take that argument as positive.

1. Bill may have not said these things in the post you have here but he has said it in the videos that Hix is responding to on his site.

2+3, I think most of the gold is owned by governments but you would be surprised how much gold is owned by the middle class, especially over the last 10 years.

5. I think he does understand this far better than Bill Still. Debt free money that is un-backed is no better than non-debt free money that is un-backed.

6. Currency manipulation was a pretty big part of the fall of the Roman empire.

7. Again, this is rebuttal to what Bill said in the video.

8. Ordinary people become the elite as soon as they become "in power". We just saw it happen the past two years where the "tea party" elected a ton of congressman talking about the end of big government but most, not all, forgot about that once in office. Of course, in the case of the tea party, they forgot what they stood for too and most backed a big government lunatic.

Gold or something tangible is far better than some made up money created out of thin air. Give Bob Chapman a try, he makes a pretty good case for gold and I think Edward Griffin makes a pretty good case and I don't think Bill does him justice in his rebuttal. Unfortunately we need money unless we get this great paradigm shift. If we don't find a fair way to measure a persons labor, then eventually a minority of the population is going to end up doing a majority of the work. Its the reason why socialism can never work without oppression.

[risveglio]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
Allow me to incorporate this ("The Money Masters" monetary reform .vs. Ron Paul ), by reference.

It is a brief 'article', (really, just posing a question to Ron Paul), and the replies are intelligent (on both sides of the issue.)

Dennis
source: http://www.dailypaul.com/43042/the-m...rm-vs-ron-paul

There are more than enough responses in the comments section of this post. I am not sure why you would post this other than to show that this is a argument that most can not agree on. I have seen money masters and from what I remember they are calling for a fiat currency too, which I think is a problem. I agree with some of the comments in the thread. Repeal the legal tender laws and prosecute fractional reserve banking as a fraud. Gold may not be the best solution but it should be something tangible. If I get paid 5 units for digging a hole and refilling it in 2015, then those 5 units should be worth 5 units in 2030.

Here is another rebuttal to Bill Still.
http://www.freedomforceinternational...tion=meetstill

[Nerge]

This is kind of like debating which variant of an already broken system should be put in place to replace it, or in other words, which slightly less broken (but still broken) system we should try next.

As is often said - in one form or another - you can't fix something with the methods and systems that built or caused the issue in the first place and expect a radically different (and better) outcome.

What causes many problems with society is the fact that there's a scarcity based form of exchange at all, and, the fact that people often have to work much of their lives and each day often doing jobs they'd rather not do, simply to survive and 'get by'. It's very much all fear based and 'me, me, me; screw others I need to get to the top/survive' - and we wonder why we have so many problems.

Much of this ties in with free energy technology and automation; automate all the tedious and dull jobs and allow people to perform roles because they love doing them, not for money but for personal growth, to help others or for the joy of it. It's amazing what people would do when well provided for (as a base right for all) and not operating out of fear, lack, or greed (as the causes are eliminated).

As long as you have a scarcity based system (paper, gold or otherwise) you'll probably always have crime and poverty as a result, with people acting in fear due to worrying about having enough to support themselves and their families. Stop and think just how many issues in society fundementally root back to those fears. We need to move away from all that and ensure everyone is provided for as a bare minimum; shelter, food, water etc.
This is possible, if the will (and technology) is there. The trouble is the transition and changing society's opinion on what is possible, as many can't even begin to imagine that such a system could exist, let alone work. When many are stuck upto their neck struggling to survive in the current shambles of a system, it's not really a great surprise is it? But I suspect those really pulling the strings know this all too well - people stuck in that position often aren't going to have the time, will or imagination to believe in something better and create it.

I've talked about this sort of thing before elsewhere and many people, who for example, have a decent home, job and stable family life say they're pretty happy and satisfied with how things are - I'm sure they truly believe that too.
However, I suspect this is because they and many of us in general:

1) Don't know any better
2) It's all we've ever known
3) We can't begin to imagine anything radically different

Imagine if a society from space suddenly popped up in our solar system (regardless of what you currently believe exists out there) and had a totally moneyless society where all are cared for and people do what they love. Do you think people would then look at what we have now and still be satisfied with that? Heck no, they'd be all over that like a rash wanting a piece of that action; ignorance is often bliss until your eyes are opened to what's truly possible or has been hidden from you.

Anyway, I've branched well off the original topic of this thread here but it's all related; some people may call me a dreamer, but I sure hope I'm not the only one.

[Taurean]

The most valuable thing that you Have is your Integrity.

The most valuable thing that you can Give is your Time.

[Mulder]

We clearly need some money as "barter" would soon break down - e.g. how many apples shall I give you for your oranges? Gold has worked as money throughout history e.g. in Roman times an oz of Gold can buy a nice suit, like it can now. Inflation is created largely by printing fiat money (e.g. QE1, QE2, QE3....) so gold as money will halt inflation as it can't be made out of nothing. The elite will not be able to manipulate gold/silver if the rules changes e.g. more silver is sold on an average day than exists in the world - so changing the rules will largely halt manipulation.

[sdv]

- It shall be deemed illegal for the banks create money from nothing!

- It shall be deemed illegal for the banks to charge usary interest on monies borrowed!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/usury

- It shall be deemed illegal for the banks to charge compound interest. The only reason a bank to exist is to
serve the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest

- The fractional reserve system shall be deemed illegal. Thus preventing the banks from creating money from
nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking

.
Banks feed off us to create wealth for the few.

Isn't gold simply a commodity that was once deemed to be very valuable (it is a very useful metal). Have we not evolved beyond that? Humans are social beings so should we not all contribute our time, labour, talents, and so on for the greater good? Using gold as the currency of exchange just seems unfair as some countries have gold deposits and some don't. (Nerge says it so much better than I do!)

[sdv]

If we don't find a fair way to measure a persons labor, then eventually a minority of the population is going to end up doing a majority of the work. Its the reason why socialism can never work without oppression.

In his book War & Peace & War Peter Turchin refers to 'the public goods game'. The hypothesis from this experiment is that in American society, one-quarter of people are what are called 'knaves' - they will never contribute anything to the common good and will free ride, unless fines are imposed on them for not contributing. About a quarter of people are what are labelled 'saints' - they will continue to contribute to the common good, even if they become poorer by doing so. The rest are called 'moralists'. They will contribute to the common good so that everyone is better off, but will become angry with the 'knaves' and thus withold contribution as a form of punishment.

Then there is the 'ultimate game', which is played between two people. (In a society with a strong norm of fairness, the split will be 50:50.) The differences across countries and cultures is interesting. American and Slovenian students usually offered half the pot. In Israel and Japan the offer was usually 40%, and there were a number of low offers from Israel (10 to 30%), which was very rare in the other countries. When the game was played in non-industrial communities across the world, the results depended on how much co-operation was needed in that society.

Getting back to the knaves, saints and moralists, Turchin concludes that saints are ineffectual in preventing co-operation from unravelling as they will keep on giving even when their contribution is not benefitting the community; knaves will take for themselves and contribute nothing to the community; moralists get immense satisfaction from punishing knaves (brain activity was actually measured) but by doing so they prevent knaves from running away with it all. Not a pretty picture!

My take on this is that knaves will take it all if there aren't penalties enforcing them to contribute to the common good (take away regulation of banks and look what happened); moralists will ensure the co-operation of knaves, but will happily (get a lot of satisfaction from) punishing those who do not contribute, even those who cannot; saints are ineffectual without the moralists, but are necessary to take care of those that cannot contribute and need to be helped rather than punished.

[apokalypse]

i come to conclusion Best Currency is Love and Society backed by Love...that's is only way and if any money related then throw it in the bin. with Common Sense-Responsibility and love then we don't need any money system at all...that's what we should be focus on not some bloody system based on Gold.

Money System=TPTB System

[Ernie Nemeth]

I believe we are arguing using the old paradigm as the basis of our arguments. Namely, but not limited to, greed, scarcity and a sense of mistrust. These are not good fundamentals for any "new" system.

Hard to put into words but what we need to understand is that we value things that have no value and thus undervalue those things of lasting value. Manpower is abundant, for example, and so it is undervalued. Cell phones, computers, cars, electronic goods, and the like are purposely kept in short supply and so becomes over-valued. They are not needed to survive - or even to prosper - and therefore have no lasting value.

Our children are also under-valued and so they are exploited and manipulated, even though they are our most precious resource. When our governments apply for loans from the SEC they bring the birth certificates of all their newsest births with which to secure those loans - they do not bring lists of their natural resources. So the SEC knows what has value...and so do our governments.

The only thing holding us back is energy. That is the most valuable comodity in the world. Without it we cannot advance. I believe Wade Frasier is correct in this assumption. Our highest priority is to develop new and cheap and safe sources of energy. Nothing else will work.

Money is the only thing in all the world that we truly do not need. But while greed and scarcity are our driving forces, we are at its mercy. Energy-backed currency is what we have today and it is all that can lead the way forward. Develop cheap energy and we can have abundance - without it we are doomed.

[Dennis Leahy]

I think this discussion could spur (or has splintered into) several other discussions.

This particular thread is simply about whether currency should be backed by gold or not. (Which option is better for the average person, rather than the Cabal.) If you don't believe in any money, or any currency, that is a different thread. I have a longer post brewing, but wanted to try to steer this back to whether or not the average citizen (and it might depend on where you are a citizen) is wise to support either
a.) money backed by gold
or
b.) money not backed by gold

and assume that (for this thread) those are the only choices. To include other choices (like "love" or "labor hours") for currency, or to explain a non-monetary system that you think could actually work for an entire nation (that probably wants to trade with other nations), then please start a thread on that. (I'd probably participate in that thread too.)

Dennis

[ceetee9]

Anyway, I've branched well off the original topic of this thread here but it's all related; some people may call me a dreamer, but I sure hope I'm not the only one.

You're not.

[sdv]

This particular thread is simply about whether currency should be backed by gold or not.

Gold-backed currency is simply another version of what we have already.
Any form currency will reproduce what we have now, with some supporting and seeking to control what they think will enrich themselves (and no they do not care about anyone else except self).

It is not the currency that is the problem - it is the lack of understanding that as long as people are free to take more than they need (unbridled capitalism), they will, and as long as people are free to take whatever they need without contributing (unbridled socialism), they will.

If currency as a means of exchange is only valid if it is backed by gold, then everyone without gold becomes penniless and powerless, and those who do have gold have access to more and more power.