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

[Dennis Leahy]

(Unless you work in the upper echelon of one of the major international banks), we can probably agree that "debt money" - money created from 'thin air', as debt - is very bad. We can probably also agree that we the people (of any country) don't want private central banks. However, there is confusion over whether money should be backed by gold (the "gold standard.")

Bill Still has explored the issue more than just about anyone, and in his movie (The Secret of Oz) and in his latest book (No More National Debt) he clearly states several HUGE reasons NOT to back money with gold:

1.) (From an Americentric viewpoint), the USA does not own enough gold to back the US dollar with gold. Period. End of story - what else needs to be said? Where in the hell would we get trillions of dollars worth of gold - without going further in debt!

2.) The stability of the value of a dollar (halting or keeping a tight reign on inflation/deflation) is almost entirely based on the quantity of money in the system. ("Print" more dollars, and automatically drop the value of the dollar.) If money is backed by gold, then another big factor can create inflationary and deflationary cycles: the rise and fall of the value of the backing commodity.

Gold is a commodity mostly owned and controlled by the filthy rich of planet Earth. The ultra-rich don't own a pile of derivatives or other worthless paper. They use the paper, temporarily, when it has value, to quickly purchase land, properties (commercial, residential, farms and farmland, etc.) and real goods. Gold is still considered as real goods, and they have plenty of it. In fact, they have most of it.

The richest of the rich can afford to lose trillions of dollars in financial gambits - as long as they win in the end. If you play chess, you understand that it can be a very powerful move to sacrifice your queen (the most powerful and versatile chess piece), as long as you win the match.

Consider the true story of the Hunt brothers, especially Bunky Hunt, and how they manipulated the price of silver. The ultra rich can manipulate the price/value of gold. In doing so, if a country's currency is tied to gold, the value of the currency fluctuates with the precious commodity (gold.) This is completely unacceptable - even insane - for the average citizen to support. Citizens must do everything in our power to get to a place where international bankers AND the Financial Elite that own massive amounts of precious metals cannot harm society by manipulating the value of our currency.

As Bill Still states, we will not be free from the manipulation of international bankers until we
1.) get rid of private central banking (in the US, end the Federal Reserve)
2.) have the nation issue its own currency (no allowing private bankers to issue our money)
3.) the nation should never borrow any money (no borrowing from international bankers, or involving foreign countries to buy or sell US debt)
4.) the money must not be backed by commodity, but rather by "faith and trust"

#4 sounds weird to us, because the current US government is not trustworthy (nor will it be after the next election, or the next.) So, yes, we do still require a paradigm shift in governance in addition to the paradigm shift in monetary policy (see The Reset Button: http://www.ResetButton2012.org)

One step further than Bill Still's proposals would be to completely outlaw private banks, and instead, all banks in the US would be State banks (see the Bank of North Dakota for a shining example.)

Here is a LiveLeaks article (What Alex Jones and Ron Paul don't want you to know (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=675_1330140140)) that tries to expose Alex Jones and Ron Paul as NWO shills, but I include the article because of the implications of the 1976 Lewis Lehrman book, Money and the Coming World Order: The Creation of International Monetary Order, and its insistence that this monetary order is to be gold-based.

In the 'alternative' community, we have Ben Fulford and lately "Drake" promoting gold-backed money. More "NWO shills", or just people who mistakenly think that part of monetary reform should be backing paper with metal?

The most sane approach I have seen (for the US) is the Monetary Reform Act (http://www.themoneymasters.com/monetary-reform-act/), but I would like to see one major provision changed: we do NOT need to "pay back" the debt "owed" to the Federal Reserve bankers. We do need to pay the part of the debt purchased by countries (primarily China), but it appears that at least 40% of the debt is "owed" to the same goddamned banks that deliberately caused all the hell. I would not give them a dime. If possible, I'd go after their assets, and use those to pay off China.

Going even one step further, I think we should declare war on the international bankers (or formally recognize that they declared war on us and join the battle.) I'd sieze every asset they have, land, businesses, gold, estates, rolls of toilet paper - all of it. They have given us hundreds of years of hell, and have stolen nearly everything on the planet. Time to get it back. (but I digress.)

I do think people are easily fooled by the ruse to take the flying leap to gold-backed currency. If it happens, the international bankers and world's wealthiest oligarchs will be smiling.

Dennis

[ceetee9]

Personally, I've never understood why people think that any monetary system backed by anything that can be easily manipulated, controlled and hoarded (not by the masses, but by the elite)--be it gold, silver, diamonds, or whatever--makes any sense. When the SHTF, see how much those kinds of things will be worth. Food, water, shelter, weapons, tools and knowledge on how to survive will be about all there will be of any real value and worth.

I agree Dennis that there needs to be a paradigm shift, but I believe we need something unlike anything we've ever seriously tried before. Something like a contributionist society that makes it all but impossible for anyone to manipulate, control or hoard resources or, at the very least, where it makes no sense to attempt to do so. Unfortunately, there are still far too many people on this planet who still believe they are entitled to more than others and/or believe they need to control others and they will attempt to use whatever sick, twisted and diluted reasoning they can muster to justify why. While the sheep just nod their heads in agreement in the hopes that they won't be the ones led to the slaughter.

[the_vast_mystery]

The Gold fever thing is because sadly, most human beings first response to a failed system (like our current fiat monetary system) is "Go back to doing what we did before!" without even looking at why the current problem is a problem. Gold is shiny jewelry metal and that we should put so much value in it (rather than food, something all humans NEED TO LIVE) is frankly offensive to me. What we need is a resource based economy where we put value first on the physical resources we need to sustain human life, such as arable land, water, food and such.

[risveglio]

I don't know anyone calling for a return to the gold standard, at least not the one we had prior to 1933. 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.

http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/650.cfm

[Robert J. Niewiadomski]

How about backing money with time spent on producing various goods or service to others? Time credits... It is not a new idea....

[the_vast_mystery]

How about backing money with time spent on producing various goods or service to others? Time credits... It is not a new idea....
How do you determine whose time is worth what value? In an hour a master carpenter can produce far more than an apprentice for instance.

[realitycorrodes]

I am not an expert. But unless "the Powers that be" can create gold out of thin air, I feel personally using gold as an exchange for goods seems to be alot better than using "valuless paper" created as "money out of thin air/countefeiting". Even if the powers that be own all the gold, with time, when they need to exchange their gold for resources, food, land etc. the gold will eventually become owned by the people who create the resources. Those who create nothing (bankers) will eventually have nothing. When that happens, the powers that be can only do one thing to stay in power, and that is steal back the gold with physical force. I would guess it would be up to the people who create the resources to study up on mind control, hypnosis, etc to protect themselves from "being divided and conquered" in the form of starting bull**** wars with each other for "banker created 'mind controlled illusionary reasons'".

[Robert J. Niewiadomski]

That is an element of competitiveness. It is an analogue of cost. If someone needs less time to produce a carrot, you would prefer to exchange your accumulated time credits for that "cheaper" carrot. You would not also like to produce too many items in advance. The weak point of this idea is the honesty of all the participants and the method to keep records of credits accumulation and exchange... This system can also be easily corrupted...

[the_vast_mystery]

I am not an expert. But unless "the Powers that be" can create gold out of thin air, I feel personally using gold as an exchange for goods seems to be alot better than using "valuless paper" created as "money out of thin air/countefeiting". Even if the powers that be own all the gold, with time, when they need to exchange their gold for resources, food, land etc. the gold will eventually become owned by the people who create the resources. Those who create nothing (bankers) will eventually have nothing. When that happens, the powers that be can only do one thing to stay in power, and that is steal back the gold with physical force. I would guess it would be up to the people who create the resources to study up on mind control, hypnosis, etc to protect themselves from "being divided and conquered" in the form of starting bull**** wars with each other for "banker created 'mind controlled illusionary reasons'".

Gold may be better than fiat money, but whose to say that there is not something far better than gold? Why must it be gold? Just because it's what we did before? Wouldn't something new that was actually created to address the problems we faced with both gold AND fiat currencies be a much better improvement? If we started on Barter, went to gold, then to paper, if we want to go back to gold it'll just go back to paper again eventually given enough time because nobody has ever addressed real reasons why we stopped using gold in the first place. (Even if you accept conspiracies, there ARE valid reasons to not use gold-backed money at a fixed rate of exchange) Namely that it's a scarce resource that does not replenish and therefore fixes the total amount of money that may be created.

Now, this would be fine if the population was static, but it's not. More people inevitably means more money is necessary. But if you attach its purchasing power to a fixed rate of exchange for a finite material then you are stuck in a deflationary spiral as your population goes up. This isn't to say there aren't problems with fiat money either but why, oh why must our first choice be to return to shiny jewelry metals?

[risveglio]

I am not an expert. But unless "the Powers that be" can create gold out of thin air, I feel personally using gold as an exchange for goods seems to be alot better than using "valuless paper" created as "money out of thin air/countefeiting". Even if the powers that be own all the gold, with time, when they need to exchange their gold for resources, food, land etc. the gold will eventually become owned by the people who create the resources. Those who create nothing (bankers) will eventually have nothing. When that happens, the powers that be can only do one thing to stay in power, and that is steal back the gold with physical force. I would guess it would be up to the people who create the resources to study up on mind control, hypnosis, etc to protect themselves from "being divided and conquered" in the form of starting bull**** wars with each other for "banker created 'mind controlled illusionary reasons'".

Gold may be better than fiat money, but whose to say that there is not something far better than gold? Why must it be gold? Just because it's what we did before? Wouldn't something new that was actually created to address the problems we faced with both gold AND fiat currencies be a much better improvement? If we started on Barter, went to gold, then to paper, if we want to go back to gold it'll just go back to paper again eventually given enough time because nobody has ever addressed real reasons why we stopped using gold in the first place. (Even if you accept conspiracies, there ARE valid reasons to not use gold-backed money at a fixed rate of exchange) Namely that it's a scarce resource that does not replenish and therefore fixes the total amount of money that may be created.

Now, this would be fine if the population was static, but it's not. More people inevitably means more money is necessary. But if you attach its purchasing power to a fixed rate of exchange for a finite material then you are stuck in a deflationary spiral as your population goes up. This isn't to say there aren't problems with fiat money either but why, oh why must our first choice be to return to shiny jewelry metals?

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.

[Arrowwind]

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.

[christian]

It's a good question. To avoid being trapped currency-wise, I see two main points.


don't trade with people who act with no good ethical conduct -- let them eat their FIAT-money/gold/what-have-you
free-market money (http://www.fff.org/freedom/0290b.asp) -- being flexible and pragmatic and first of all free when choosing a means of exchange


Holding the architects of the current system accountable for their crimes against humanity is still not off the table. Once this is done, they cannot use their capital when they are not allowed to freely roam and ravage on this beautiful planet anymore.

At the end of the day the framework/system is "only" the playing field. What happens on it, is eventually up to the players. I don't wanna be a duck blaming the water for the fact that I don't swim properly.

[ceetee9]

How about backing money with time spent on producing various goods or service to others? Time credits... It is not a new idea....Because time credits can be even more easily manipulated and corrupted than fiat money or gold. The good-ole-boy network will ensure that they have plenty of credits while those they dislike or who are on the low end of the totem poll will be sure to be screwed out of what they earned. As long as there's a system that lends itself to the haves and have nots, there will be plenty of greed, manipulation and control to corrupt the system, IMO.

[the_vast_mystery]

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..."

[ThePythonicCow]

The problem with a gold backed world reserve currency is that it is a world reserve currency.

If the global monetary system is controlled by a few uber-powerful families behind closed doors, it matters not what they claim it is backed by. Well, almost matters not. Saying it is gold backed will enable them to purchase (or confiscate) the remaining gold held in private hands for pieces of paper that they control. But that's a minor detail in the long run.

Gold backed currencies worked better when sovereign states and nations independently held and exchanged gold in accordance with generally agreed rules. The power centralisation stopped with those sovereign states and nations.

Clearly, barring a miracle (aka divine or alien intervention), we seem headed to greater centralisation of power on this planet. For this to work best, they would like to get gold out of the hands of us useless eaters, both individuals and any states that thought they could independently operate using gold backed currencies (remember Iran and Libya.)

I anticipate at some point, barring said miracle, I will be faced with the choice of surrendering my gold investments in order to continue to eat.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Excuse me? But if it cannot be created then how can the gold supply increase? That kind of sounds contradictory...
Perhaps he meant that the supply of above ground, mined and available for exchange, gold increases each year, as more is mined than is lost.

[the_vast_mystery]

That wouldn't change there being a fixed amount of non-replenishable gold in the earth and that therefore we cannot expect to keep mining more forever. I dunno I just keep thinking the problem was when we started wanting our currency to be based around the idea of scarcity rather than abundance. Maybe the problem is that we can't stop counterfeiting or currency hacks, so instead why not design a currency around the idea that everyone should try to make their own? Such as making it tied to the exchange of grain or fruits and vegetables?

[Hervé]

The problem with anything-backed currency is that it's mostly based on some rarefied resource not everyone can get their hands on...

If we ever had a sand-grains backed currency... beaches, deserts and fertile lands would start disappearing and it would be forbiden to rock crush mountains and any kind of rock outcrops. :)

[ThePythonicCow]

The elites idea of gold backed currency reminds me of Edward Djerejian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Djerejian)'s famous phrase "One man, one vote, one time."

Democracy in its various forms works when the ordinary citizen gets to repeatedly vote the bastards out of office. Voting a tyrant into office, when he can cancel future elections, is little more than being "allowed" to sign one's own death warrant ... the death of one's political freedom.

A gold backed (or a banana backed, doesn't matter) world currency (whether the reserve currency, or the common currency of use), where the elite hold all the gold (or bananas) marks the death of economic freedom for individuals and even for states and nations.

[gripreaper]

Any currency system of exchange based on scarcity cannot and will not succeed. At it's basic unit, exchange is vested in the energy of humans and the abundance of energy in the universe. The elite know this, as they don't care about money. The elite extract the most amount of energy out of the most humans, in every conceivable way, and money is just one of them.

To go to an interest free exchange which is not held by a private cartel, would be a step in the right direction, although ultimately, free energy, the replacement of the oil and electric monopolies will set the stage for a new energy paradigm where the context of scarcity no longer exists.

This opens the door for a system which we most likely can't see from here, but it will certainly put the current currency paradigm based on scarcity on it's heels.

[eileenrose]

I have a different issue with currency. I am not educated on telling which monetary system works best. But obviously, our system of fiat money is being used to enslave us.

For instance, I had the feeling the other day for the real reason behind the 600 or so trillion in derivatives.....it is meant to be there to be used to take down banks/empires that don't go along with the Illuminati plans (or they want something from you).

If you are a country/bank and you get out of line, and you arn't educated about derivatives (or don't care), you are easy pickings for these vultures. And they don't want your money, they want your resources. So first they get you to get into derivatives (again,...I know next to zero how derivatives actually work).....

It is such a huge debt...what if they use it like an ax....wielding it around.....sending it to countries (in the forms that they do) and voila....they have you. Because it isn't real....but your assets that you are using to back your purchases of said derivatives (or whatever form they engulf you in) is.

Good way to control countries. Doubt that will willingly give this up (illuminati). And doubt they will ever give up Fiat money that allows them to have derivatives. It is a long rabbit hole.

...just a few thoughts....hard to find the words (didn't like economics in college....)

So you can see why they got rid of gold (if you had gold....and had a standard....no such thing as these derative/huge piles of debt that arn't real).

From wikipedia:


A derivative instrument is a contract between two parties that specifies conditions (especially the dates, resulting values of the underlying variables, and notional amounts) under which payments are to be made between the parties.[1][2]

For further clarification and examples of derivatives, see "Demystifying Financial Derivatives": | url = http://www.cob.ohio-state.edu/fin/faculty/stulz/publishedpapers/milkeninstitute_pubpaper.pdf

Under US law and the laws of most other developed countries, derivatives have special legal exemptions that make them a particularly attractive legal form through which to extend credit.[3] However, the strong creditor protections afforded to derivatives counterparties, in combination with their complexity and lack of transparency, can cause capital markets to underprice credit risk. This can contribute to credit booms, and increase systemic risks.[3] Indeed, the use of derivatives to mask credit risk from third parties while protecting derivative counterparties contributed to the financial crisis of 2008 in the United States.[3][4]

[Tane Mahuta]

16786

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)


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 (http://www.dailypaul.com/43042/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-money-masters-monetary-reform-vs-ron-paul

[risveglio]

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.




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]

Allow me to incorporate this ("The Money Masters" monetary reform .vs. Ron Paul (http://www.dailypaul.com/43042/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-money-masters-monetary-reform-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.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=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. :confused:

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.:rolleyes:

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

:clap2:
.
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. :wave:

[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.

[risveglio]

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.

If gold is the currency and you work a job, you would be paid in gold. So how would there be anyone without access to gold? This point doesn't make any sense. Also, if you had all the gold and you wanted say food, you would have to give up some of your gold if it was the currency. Are we just looking to make gold a strawman?

[ThePythonicCow]

... 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

I'd support gold backed money if the gold is held by individuals and truly sovereign nations.

I'd oppose gold backed money if the gold is held by a few uber-powerful elite, for such is not really gold backing, but rather removal of gold from the hands of others, to reduce the threat to what is really a money backed by the power of a few elite.

[the_vast_mystery]

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.

The problem is, who decides what is need and what is greed? Is there really any way to draw a line?

We can all point to obvious cases but there are many not quite so obvious cases. Is two apples instead of one greed? How much food does a person REALLY need in their belly? How about water to drink? We humans have quite the capacity to stretch our resources, does that mean civilization should put everyone through boot camp first to ensure they eat as little and drink as little as possible? Utopian free exchange would be great if it weren't for the human factor. We just have too many cases where even barring the fact there is lying/deception, people may just have very different ideas about how much of something they need then someone else.

Having a means of exchange where people are able to work to fill what they feel are their needs is kind of important in that case as it gives someone the option of not going hungry if they happen to be a little more voracious than everyone else because of their biology. By telling someone like that they don't "need" their food you are only going to make them resentful. So there has to be options since we can't clearly tell what we need in every given scenario (so expecting people to reasonably judge that outside of certain obvious situations is silly). Gold however is still just shiny jewelry metal and I shake my head each time people continuously insist our only option is to go back to gold. Why can't we be more creative here? Are we only ever allowed to do what we've done before?

P.S.: Risveglio, I'm still waiting on your answers to my post, kind of important if you want to say Gold is a good idea. ;)

[risveglio]

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. ;)

I think I answered this already. I am not saying gold is replenished in the earth. It is just if the gold is underground, it is not being used. The amount of usable gold, gold coming out of the earth is increasing at 2%. I don't know any other way to answer this. Like Paul said in the post above, I think Gold is a better answer than any form of fiat money. Especially fiat created by some government entity. If we are going to have a form of money to replace barter, the only other real option, then to me gold is a far better option because the value of gold does not really change. Like it was mentioned in this thread, a one oz gold piece buys pretty much the same now that it bought 2000 years ago. Stable money is the key, giving someone the ability to work when they can so they can later live off there labor in retirement without relying on the young of the nation or the government. Once you rely on someone else for your survival, you are no longer free and they are the ones making the rules.

[the_vast_mystery]

I think I answered this already. I am not saying gold is replenished in the earth. It is just if the gold is underground, it is not being used. The amount of usable gold, gold coming out of the earth is increasing at 2%. I don't know any other way to answer this.

So we don't have an infinite nor functionally infinite source of gold? Gotcha! That maybe means we should consider that the deflation problem will happen eventually and account for that ahead of time? It doesn't exactly speak for your case when you're saying "Yeah it doesn't replenish, but we still are able to mine more, we'll never need to worry about running out! Trust me!" It sounds a lot like the attitudes of some former explorers who regularly hunted species to extinction thinking that they'd never be able to "Kill them all."

When we can consider these problems will occur, it's irresponsible not to address them ahead of time.


Like Paul said in the post above, I think Gold is a better answer than any form of fiat money. Especially fiat created by some government entity. If we are going to have a form of money to replace barter, the only other real option, then to me gold is a far better option because the value of gold does not really change.

I never said gold wasn't better than fiat money. But I said there seems to be much better alternatives than gold. Your response so far has been an indirect version of:

You: We should go back to the Gold standard?
Me: What about Resource based economies?
You: Shut up! There is only Gold!
me: but what about food?
you: Shut up! There is only Gold!

You do this by ignoring everything I've said and acting as if it never happened. Even if my posts weren't all directed at you they are still here to be read so treating them as if they don't exist and then continuing on about the virtues of gold is basically telling the other person to shut up and that their arguments do not deserve to be acknowledged. Thank you for responding this time, I think we can get things going on a better track now. :)


Like it was mentioned in this thread, a one oz gold piece buys pretty much the same now that it bought 2000 years ago. Stable money is the key, giving someone the ability to work when they can so they can later live off there labor in retirement without relying on the young of the nation or the government. Once you rely on someone else for your survival, you are no longer free and they are the ones making the rules.

Money based on valuation of a finite commodity can never be stable unless we forcibly stabilize the population. Even if we haven't mined all gold yet, we eventually will and at that point the money supply remains fixed. Alternatively we could invent Gold Replicators and suddenly the value of gold becomes useless as its supply jumps so high that no one values it anymore.

This is why I keep saying "Gold is shiny jewelry metal." It does have some electronics uses but by and far the reason it fetches such a high price is because people see it as a symbol of class/affluence/etc. It's entirely valued based on a subjective but shared perception among the population that it is worth something. In short, gold is valuable only because humans imagine it to be.

To base your entire rate of exchange around an object whose primary value is collapsible is just silly. Eventually people may stop valuing gold, hell it could happen tomorrow. All that has to change is people's attitudes towards gold. People aren't always logical, reasonable or rational, it just sometimes happens. So if we could lose the entire value source behind our money supply because enough people wake up one day and decide "You know what? Screw gold! I hate it!" then that seems like a problem waiting to blow up in our faces.

Food on the other hand? Well, yes people have tastes but a hungry person will eat anything that they can find. You won't have people wake up one day and decide to give up food entirely because that would mean that essentially the population has decided on collective suicide. (Which means we probably have bigger issues going on than with our money! ;p)

As well, If you want a stable currency we need currency tied to a commodity whose production can and should be dynamically scaled along with the population. Tying it to commodities like grain or fruits/veggies would naturally do this if practiced right and while there would still be minor fluctuations to account for yearly production the value would remain steady even in a growing society or a shrinking one without huge inflation or deflationary spirals that tying it to a finite commodity would.

I mean, maybe I'm nuts here. But unless you can show me the problems in a food based system that makes gold out to be superior (or alternatively explain why the problems I've posed above can easily be solved) then I have to wonder why there's such a Gung-Ho attitude to go back to gold.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Why should any precious metal be used as the standard? How would that change anything? And what happens when a group unearths some giant deposit of gold? Will S Africa become the richest nation on earth - followed by Canada? The USA reserves have been pilfered so where does that leave them, a third world nation? Then there is the rumours of massive stockpiles of gold hidden under the ocean or whatever, so then the owners of those secret reserves become our new rulers?
Yes, a currency backed by gold erradicates the fiat money system and the creation of money out of thin air. It does not in any way change the problems we face by the avarice of a select few at the top of the pyramid of power.
So, since the choice as presented by op is gold or no gold, which to me is no solution at all, and no choice at all, I vote for no gold standard. At least we know our enemies in this system. If we changed to the gold standard we'd face a new monster we do not now know or understand.
Finally, why are we thinking that it is the west that has the final say? We caused the problem in the first place. We are already financially and morally bankrupt. The rest of the world would not trust any system we try and implement - and with good reason.
Let China and S Korea have a go at it, they at least show some fiscal responsibility - and ingenuity. We have lost this war of finance - let's just face that first.
So unless my vote has been lost in this post - I vote no gold standard.

[Mulder]

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.

This seems a little simplisitc as there's other groups, e.g illegal immigrants who just want money or Criminals who want to hurt others. However, I like the idea of the Knaves & moralists stopping their contribution. Getting back to gold money - inflation should be stopped so savings won't be wiped out & more people will work!

[risveglio]

I may be guilty of not reading your posts, which I don't think I am but it seems you are guilty of not understanding mine. My first post in this thread was that I do not know of anyone that wants to return to a gold standard.

As for a food based economy, I don't see how that would work. So someone with a lot of land would become the rulers since he could grow his/her own food? What happens to the poor guy that was born in a city and only can steal enough food to buy one pot of soil, does he just have to starve? I guess the fact that gold does not corrode and at this time there seems to be a decent amount left in the ground and as of now we don't know how to replicate it is why it appears to be a better option than fiat. As for your food based system, you would have to explain how that would work for me.

All I feel is that if we are going to have money, it needs to be backed by something so that it can not be manipulated. Maybe my mind is too small to understand the alternative, especially food based. Money really should just be a way make barter easier. For example, the indigenous Mayans in Mexico spend months hand crafting these Hammocks which are amazing. They usually sell for about $100US for a Hammock made for two. These people do not care about money that much. They usually use there money to buy supplies for there farms or animals but if they waited for someone who wanted a hammock that could maybe sell them a shovel, they may have to wait years. That is all money should be, that is all it really is. With a benevolent government, anything could be sound money. Just in my current mindset, benevolent government sounds like an oxymoron. Ideally we get away from this by releasing free energy but I still think we may need a way to exchange.

[the_vast_mystery]

Why are precious metals precious? They don't sustain our bodies, nor our minds, in fact some are quite toxic to the brain, they don't sustain our spirits. They just give us something shiny and rare to feel all royal about owning. They are pure status symbol, but worse than a Ferrari, which is still a car, and a McMansion, which is still a home, precious metals cease to be precious the moment we stop caring. A Ferrari does not stop being a car, nor does a McMansion stop being a home. It just seems we have it all backwards in this society. :-/

[Arrowwind]

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.

I fail to see how socialist-capitalism created the problems that we have.. It has been the banks, deregulation, devaluation of the dollar, corrupt politicians, competition from foreign currency and on and on and on.

I dont think we can return to where we once were. Its a different world now and the forces from other nations have incredible impact on trade.

The labor of every human being should we worth a living wage. It well never be so until we decide to make it so. Most people who get paid millions, I would say all people who get paid millions are not worth millions. They create nothing but thin air and a dream that has no legs on the backs of others. When a nation creates things that are not tangible they will be subject to the whims of world notions. ... the fate of a service based economy



¤=[Post Update]=¤


Why are precious metals precious? They don't sustain our bodies, nor our minds, in fact some are quite toxic to the brain, they don't sustain our spirits. They just give us something shiny and rare to feel all royal about owning. They are pure status symbol, but worse than a Ferrari, which is still a car, and a McMansion, which is still a home, precious metals cease to be precious the moment we stop caring. A Ferrari does not stop being a car, nor does a McMansion stop being a home. It just seems we have it all backwards in this society. :-/

My understanding is that gold value, its orgin of value is all tied up with aliens, the Annunaki. Our genetic/racial/humaoid memory refuses to let go.

[risveglio]

Well if you read articles from the people that were speaking out against most of the social programs we have put in place since the mid-30s you will see countless cases of warnings that exactly what is happening will happen. For me it was part of the big game, starting off in the late 1800s and really being put in full gear with our progressive presidents, Roosevelt, Wilson and Roosevelt. Three of the top ten worse presidents we have had in my opinion, of course we are taught they were great leaders. :yuck:

The devaluation of the dollar, again really brought on by another awful President Nixon was a direct response because we no longer had the money to pay for our awful social programs. Nixon also started out modern day health care system which really started to screw things up. Corrupt politicians is a big problem but it is just the reality of government. Our founders told us politicians are bound to be corrupt which is why they warned us to keep the government small and gave us a Republic. As for regulations, I don't think the problem was too little regulation but too much. Our regulations are designed to help the big companies, the big banks and to stifle any competition. Through the power of our government, big companies squash the little guy and make it impossible for him to compete. And what were the regulators doing during the crisis. If I remember right, the SEC was busy watching porn instead of doing their job. More regulators might have been good for the porn advertisers but I don't think it would have done **** to stop the crisis which the government had a great hand in.

As for the gold thing, I don't think there is this super love for gold. Gold comes up as a good way to back a currency because as far as most of us know, it can't be created out of thin air. The idea is to take the ability to destroy the savings of population away from the government or the banks or the cabal or whoever you want to blame. Most are not even calling for a gold standard but instead some basket of commodities backing the reserve currency. We are already seeing this happen with the Chinese and the Russians and reports are that Qaddafi was going to move to a gold dinar. Hmm, could that explain Libya.

Look at the numbers, even with our ridiculously bloated military budget, it does not compare in percentages on what has happened to our entilements and the baby boomers have just started to retire. It can't be fixed over night but we certainly would be better off starting to rollback the mass amounts of government programs that are designed to rob Peter to pay Paul with the corrupt government making sure they charge the maximum price before giving Paul the cash.

I am open to any sound money but make sure it is sound. It should not punish the savers or the man that wants to start a business since it is the employer that hires the employee. Our monetary policy is what has created our consumption addiction because our money is the hot potato. You need to spend it before it loses its value. The gold bug that realizes this is not the bad guy, he just saw the game a long time ago, knows the market is rigged and is just trying to find a way to protect himself and his family. I kind of envy the gold bug and wish I was smart enough to see the game a long time ago like the people that bought gold under $500 and silver under $5. Even with all the bank manipulation, they are the only ones that really protected themselves.

[Rocky_Shorz]

I say we back money with people, give the rich a reason to care about keeping as many of us alive as possible... ;)

[T Smith]

The biggest flaw with Still's argument (also known as the greenback solution) is the fact that the issuance of debt-free currency nonetheless requires a central authority to issue the currency, establish fiat, and determine the money supply. Yes, this is vastly superior to the central banking model controlled by self-serving plutocrats, and for a time it may work so long as the central authority is all knowing, altruistic, and represents the people and not a more concentrated agenda. However, these qualities are simply not sustainable in any centralized authority. No matter how many checks and balances we collectively build into this type of system, concentrated interests invariably seize control of the central authority at the expense of the masses. This is simply a law of the human nature of social organization.

I find it very difficult to reconcile this problem with any solution that requires a central authority; that is, centralized control by a few is inevitably corruptible, cannot remain a benevolent body representative of the people, and ultimately produces oppressive social structures that divide peoples into castes organized by a very few haves and many have nots. This is precisely the system we have now, albeit our system is run by a cabal of bankers instead of a cabal of would-be bureaucrats.

The idea of commodity-backed money of intrinsic value to all human peoples and cultures is to decentralize the money supply by keeping it in the pockets of the people at all times, and not in the coffers of the central bankers or the central government. This is often misunderstood. We have been so conditioned by our current fractional reserve system of fiat currency, it is often hard to grasp that a system based on sound money would decentralize real wealth and empower the people, and not a central authority, be it a government or a cabal of elite bankers. In short, sound money is not conducive to hoarding or manipulation, despite what we intuitively understand based on our real-life experiences with fractional-reserve fiat currency. In a monetary system based on sound money, one must exchange real wealth (that increases in value in direct proportion to any attempt at manipulation) with one's slaves for their goods and services. Under this arrangement, the slaves in society are not indentured for long.

One might argue that an uber elite could corner gold, or whatever commodity backed the money supply, thus creating artificial scarcity and driving up the price as did the Hunt brothers in the 80s. However, manipulation of silver, or gold, as the Hunt's demonstrated, is only possible within a system based on fractional-reserve fiat currency. People were not using silver in the 80s, per se, as a unit of exchange for goods and services. They were using a decree of value from their banker overlords, aka "fiat", which is what the Hunt brothers manipulated. They didn't manipulate the value of silver, they manipulated the decree of value, as issued by our banker overlords, which is an economic unit known only to a fiat monetary system.

We are so engrained with the mystic power of decree that we often lose sight of the fact that decree of fiat simply does not exist in a monetary system based on sound money. Value is based on the intrinsic value of the commodity. If the "decreed" value fluctuates due to commodity manipulation, it is short lived due to the laws of supply and demand. Value is ultimately based by the intrinsic value of the commodity.

As one other point, any commentator who argues "there is not enough gold" to back the dollar does not fully grasp the economic dynamics undergirding sound vs. fiat monetary systems. In the past four years the money supply has doubled. Does not mean, if the money supply was backed by gold, that we would now require twice as much gold? Of course not. It simply means real wealth (not dollars) is being concentrated in the hands of those who control the money supply at the expense of the many. Both the quantity and value of dollars have nothing to do with the undergirding economic activity of a free society, but are very much tied to the undergirding economic activity of a society controlled by fiat.

This is an outstanding debate to have, however, in fairness to the so-called "gold standard", we need to fully exit our paradigm of fiat to understand exactly what the gold standard is.

[Taurean]

Am I right in thinking that Fiat Currency is actually backed by the Tax Payer ?

[apokalypse]

whole system backed by Corps/private company?

[T Smith]

Am I right in thinking that Fiat Currency is actually backed by the Tax Payer ?

Sure ... but this is just another way of saying fiat currency is actually backed by a society of slaves.

[T Smith]

Why should any precious metal be used as the standard?

It doesn't have to be a precious metal at all. The money supply could backed by seashells, or by cocoa pebbles for that matter. Precious metals are the most effective backing, however, because they maintain intrinsic value to all human cultures, are relatively scarce, portable, and malleable. These are the qualities that render precious metals a suitable unit of exchange.


Yes, a currency backed by gold erradicates the fiat money system and the creation of money out of thin air. It does not in any way change the problems we face by the avarice of a select few at the top of the pyramid of power.

Not exactly. The difference is, those select few at the top of the pyramid of power control the entire pyramid in a system of fiat. This is what gives them their power. In a system backed by gold, they may have more gold than the average person, but they can only leverage their power to the degree of their own wealth (which limits the scope of the damage they can inflict on society) but they only control their own coffers, not the coffers of the entire pyramid. Gold-backed money serves to decentralizes power.

[Taurean]

Simple Funding backed by Savings ???


Peer-to-peer lending via the internet hits £250m

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18370777

[T Smith]

... 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

I'd support gold backed money if the gold is held by individuals and truly sovereign nations.

I'd oppose gold backed money if the gold is held by a few uber-powerful elite, for such is not really gold backing, but rather removal of gold from the hands of others, to reduce the threat to what is really a money backed by the power of a few elite.

This is exactly correct. But if gold is held by a few uber-powerful elite, what would the plebs use for money? Whatever they use for exchange, in that case, would not be a true gold-backed money exchange.

[ThePythonicCow]

This is exactly correct. But if gold is held by a few uber-powerful elite, what would the plebs use for money? Whatever they use for exchange, in that case, would not be a true gold-backed money exchange.

If the common currency was uniformly exchangeable with that gold, at a price set by a fair and open market, in perpetuity, sure.

That condition would never be satisfied ... not a chance.

[Chester]

(Unless you work in the upper echelon of one of the major international banks), we can probably agree that "debt money" - money created from 'thin air', as debt - is very bad. We can probably also agree that we the people (of any country) don't want private central banks. However, there is confusion over whether money should be backed by gold (the "gold standard.")

Bill Still has explored the issue more than just about anyone, and in his movie (The Secret of Oz) and in his latest book (No More National Debt) he clearly states several HUGE reasons NOT to back money with gold:

1.) (From an Americentric viewpoint), the USA does not own enough gold to back the US dollar with gold. Period. End of story - what else needs to be said? Where in the hell would we get trillions of dollars worth of gold - without going further in debt!

2.) The stability of the value of a dollar (halting or keeping a tight reign on inflation/deflation) is almost entirely based on the quantity of money in the system. ("Print" more dollars, and automatically drop the value of the dollar.) If money is backed by gold, then another big factor can create inflationary and deflationary cycles: the rise and fall of the value of the backing commodity.

Gold is a commodity mostly owned and controlled by the filthy rich of planet Earth. The ultra-rich don't own a pile of derivatives or other worthless paper. They use the paper, temporarily, when it has value, to quickly purchase land, properties (commercial, residential, farms and farmland, etc.) and real goods. Gold is still considered as real goods, and they have plenty of it. In fact, they have most of it.

The richest of the rich can afford to lose trillions of dollars in financial gambits - as long as they win in the end. If you play chess, you understand that it can be a very powerful move to sacrifice your queen (the most powerful and versatile chess piece), as long as you win the match.

Consider the true story of the Hunt brothers, especially Bunky Hunt, and how they manipulated the price of silver. The ultra rich can manipulate the price/value of gold. In doing so, if a country's currency is tied to gold, the value of the currency fluctuates with the precious commodity (gold.) This is completely unacceptable - even insane - for the average citizen to support. Citizens must do everything in our power to get to a place where international bankers AND the Financial Elite that own massive amounts of precious metals cannot harm society by manipulating the value of our currency.

As Bill Still states, we will not be free from the manipulation of international bankers until we
1.) get rid of private central banking (in the US, end the Federal Reserve)
2.) have the nation issue its own currency (no allowing private bankers to issue our money)
3.) the nation should never borrow any money (no borrowing from international bankers, or involving foreign countries to buy or sell US debt)
4.) the money must not be backed by commodity, but rather by "faith and trust"

#4 sounds weird to us, because the current US government is not trustworthy (nor will it be after the next election, or the next.) So, yes, we do still require a paradigm shift in governance in addition to the paradigm shift in monetary policy (see The Reset Button: http://www.ResetButton2012.org)

One step further than Bill Still's proposals would be to completely outlaw private banks, and instead, all banks in the US would be State banks (see the Bank of North Dakota for a shining example.)

Here is a LiveLeaks article (What Alex Jones and Ron Paul don't want you to know (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=675_1330140140)) that tries to expose Alex Jones and Ron Paul as NWO shills, but I include the article because of the implications of the 1976 Lewis Lehrman book, Money and the Coming World Order: The Creation of International Monetary Order, and its insistence that this monetary order is to be gold-based.

In the 'alternative' community, we have Ben Fulford and lately "Drake" promoting gold-backed money. More "NWO shills", or just people who mistakenly think that part of monetary reform should be backing paper with metal?

The most sane approach I have seen (for the US) is the Monetary Reform Act (http://www.themoneymasters.com/monetary-reform-act/), but I would like to see one major provision changed: we do NOT need to "pay back" the debt "owed" to the Federal Reserve bankers. We do need to pay the part of the debt purchased by countries (primarily China), but it appears that at least 40% of the debt is "owed" to the same goddamned banks that deliberately caused all the hell. I would not give them a dime. If possible, I'd go after their assets, and use those to pay off China.

Going even one step further, I think we should declare war on the international bankers (or formally recognize that they declared war on us and join the battle.) I'd sieze every asset they have, land, businesses, gold, estates, rolls of toilet paper - all of it. They have given us hundreds of years of hell, and have stolen nearly everything on the planet. Time to get it back. (but I digress.)

I do think people are easily fooled by the ruse to take the flying leap to gold-backed currency. If it happens, the international bankers and world's wealthiest oligarchs will be smiling.

Dennis

Yo - did Fulford change his position? I had heard him several times suggest a basket of commodities be the backing for a new financial system. His reason not to base it on gold was because gold could be easily stolen. How did I miss his change of heart? Bummer if true, Ben, dude, what happened to you?

[the_vast_mystery]

Why should any precious metal be used as the standard?

It doesn't have to be a precious metal at all. The money supply could backed by seashells, or by cocoa pebbles for that matter. Precious metals are the most effective backing, however, because they maintain intrinsic value to all human cultures, are relatively scarce, portable, and malleable. These are the qualities that render precious metals a suitable unit of exchange.


Yes, a currency backed by gold erradicates the fiat money system and the creation of money out of thin air. It does not in any way change the problems we face by the avarice of a select few at the top of the pyramid of power.

Not exactly. The difference is, those select few at the top of the pyramid of power control the entire pyramid in a system of fiat. This is what gives them their power. In a system backed by gold, they may have more gold than the average person, but they can only leverage their power to the degree of their own wealth (which limits the scope of the damage they can inflict on society) but they only control their own coffers, not the coffers of the entire pyramid. Gold-backed money serves to decentralizes power.

Precious Metals however are backed by a falsely assumed intrinsic value though. They are not necessary in any way to sustain human life, merely human vanity. As such the value of Gold, Silver or any other precious metal carries with it the precipitous risk it could at any moment immediately plummet to zero in a time of crisis. If you can't eat it, drink it, wear it, shoot it, find shelter in it, treat pain/disease with it, keep warm/cold with it, or use it to find any of the items that do then it's intrinsic value is zero. It holds no utility in the upkeep of human life and as such it has no actual intrinsic value.

This is why I keep pushing for the commodities backed by money to be backed with something closer to food. It needs to be things that we can guarantee has actual utility as close to 100% of the time for most of the world's population. Just because enough people were tricked into getting googly-eyed over something shiny does not make it intrinsically valuable any more than top 40 radio station pop music, also slavishly adored by a majority of the world's population. ;p

[T Smith]

[QUOTE=T Smith;503600][QUOTE=Ernie Nemeth;503251]Why should any precious metal be used as the standard?

It doesn't have to be a precious metal at all. The money supply could backed by seashells, or by cocoa pebbles for that matter. Precious metals are the most effective backing, however, because they maintain intrinsic value to all human cultures, are relatively scarce, portable, and malleable. These are the qualities that render precious metals a suitable unit of exchange.




Precious Metals however are backed by a falsely assumed intrinsic value though. They are not necessary in any way to sustain human life, merely human vanity. As such the value of Gold, Silver or any other precious metal carries with it the precipitous risk it could at any moment immediately plummet to zero in a time of crisis. If you can't eat it, drink it, wear it, shoot it, find shelter in it, treat pain/disease with it, keep warm/cold with it, or use it to find any of the items that do then it's intrinsic value is zero. It holds no utility in the upkeep of human life and as such it has no actual intrinsic value.

This is why I keep pushing for the commodities backed by money to be backed with something closer to food. It needs to be things that we can guarantee has actual utility as close to 100% of the time for most of the world's population. Just because enough people were tricked into getting googly-eyed over something shiny does not make it intrinsically valuable any more than top 40 radio station pop music, also slavishly adored by a majority of the world's population. ;p

Yes, the intrinsic value of gold is almost entirely subjective and dependent on human vanity. There are some industrial applications for gold, and even more for silver, which adds to the intrinsic value of gold and silver in industrial societies, but for the most part the intrinsic value of gold is almost entirely subject to human desire. I agree with you. But that's exactly why it's a perfect medium of exchange, at least at this stage of our collective development. Desire for gold is universal and has been since recorded history among all human cultures. Its value is actually quantitative in this regard. That said, it's tempting to have disdain for this aspect of the human condition, but our fascination and desire for a useless yellow rock--and more generally the human proclivity to manifest desires superfluous of our instincts for survival are deeply engrained in the human constitution and a driving force of our species. It is what it is. I see no point having contempt for gold, as a medium of exchange, simply because our collective vanity might be distasteful to our spiritual sensibilities.

If society ever devolved to the point where food and shelter and the mere survival of the species were the primary objectives of existence, the intrinsic value of gold would likely plummet to zero, as you noted, but such a society would have little or no need for any kind of money in the first place, save for rudimentary barter. Money is a manifestation of culture organized around activity more complex than mere physical survival.

Finally, food or shelter or some backing directly linked to the survival of the species may be a more stable a backing than gold for obvious reasons, but there are other very practicable reasons why gold has emerged as the ubiquitous medium of exchange over more "valuable" commodities, such as grain or water, for millennia. First, any medium of exchange must be scarce. Food is scarce enough, but arguably not scarce enough. If the commodity was ever-abundant, it could not serve as money. More importantly, for the medium to work, economically, it must be easily portable and malleable and non-perishable. If you can think of a commodity that meets all this criteria, and which is directly linked to the survival of the species, by all means this would be the best backing of the money supply. That said, we humans have been at this game for a long time now. There is reason why gold has emerged as the best medium of exchange across time and almost all human cultures.

[Anchor]

OP is a good argument. So a gold backed currency requires that the gold is confiscated from those who have taken it fraudulently first then once that is done, find some way of having real money.

I see the future of currency simply being an efficient exchange system that allows bartering to be a bit easier.

Then again, in the future I see ahead of me, having too much money will be like today's analog of being over-weight - you'd just give some away.

So if you did luck out on natural variances of commodities, then you'd simply donate to others because you love them more than the cash, and if you were out of pocket then people with more would give you money - and they would do it because they love you more than the money.

Service To Others does that - harmony.

Sweet.