Gold Standard (Return) 'Is there Gold in Fort Knox' CBS

[Paul Or Nothing II]

this is one of very few places where our government should be in charge, but I guess

Actually, government has no business getting involved in money, a government controlled gold-standard has been tried & failed, & it fails because it is government controlled.

You don't need government being "in-charge" of money any more than you want them to in-charge of producing food or clothes or whatever.

All that is necessary is to remove legal tender laws & remove taxes imposed on gold, silver, etc. so that they can compete with dollars; this is exactly what Ron Paul tried to do with his "competing currencies" bills.

Going back to a government-controlled gold-standard would be a terrible thing for the gold-standard itself because as has happened before, governments will ruin it (governments ruin anything they put their hands on) & then they'll say "see, gold-standard doesn't work".

So anybody who believes in free markets should support a market-based gold-standard, not a government-controlled one.

If the Govt deems Gold is money again, then Gold is FIAT as well. 'let it be'

BTW we're probably going all digital by 2017, no Gold standard.

I agree, if govt declares gold to be legal tender then gold will be fiat but I don't see why "going digital" has anything to do with a gold-standard, irrespective of whether it's fiat or market-based, either way I don't think people are going to carry all their gold in their pockets or store them under their mattresses, most of it will be deposited in banks & used electronically anyway.

 

[osan]

Nonsense.

He's just telling you who signs his paychecks. That's all.

Then I suggest you get yourself a dictionary and look up "banker".

Then look up "debtor" and "liability".

We are not the bankers. Theye are the bankers. We are the asset pool whence the bankers draw their funds. We do so at the ends of barrels, ultimately speaking. That pretty well makes us slaves. Many consent, believing the rafts of bullshit such as "you didn't build that..." and all the other bullshit that underpins it. In any event we are made the debtors by the decrees of whim issued by the bankers or their in-pocket agents ("governments").

To equate the two roles is unsound. To take poetic license with the words in this way and in this context is unsound. In the affairs of men's freedoms, clarity, concision, completeness, and precision are paramount considerations and not fancy linguistic twists.

Taking poetic license with words is always something of risky business and there are those arenas of consideration where such antics ought to be fully restricted because it leads to the improper use of those words and, therefore, improper understanding. Worse yet, is when those words are imbued with very specific meanings as jargon, the average man remaining ignorant of such, as well as the means by which they are put to effective use. By this, of course, I refer to legal applications in courts of law, mainly.

Do as you please, of course, but I choose the more cautious path in such matters.

 

[acptulsa]

Then I suggest you get yourself a dictionary and look up "banker".

Then look up "debtor" and "liability".

We are not the bankers. Theye are the bankers. We are the asset pool whence the bankers draw their funds. We do so at the ends of barrels, ultimately speaking. That pretty well makes us slaves. Many consent, believing the rafts of bullshit such as "you didn't build that..." and all the other bullshit that underpins it. In any event we are made the debtors by the decrees of whim issued by the bankers or their in-pocket agents ("governments").

To equate the two roles is unsound. To take poetic license with the words in this way and in this context is unsound. In the affairs of men's freedoms, clarity, concision, completeness, and precision are paramount considerations and not fancy linguistic twists.

Taking poetic license with words is always something of risky business and there are those arenas of consideration where such antics ought to be fully restricted because it leads to the improper use of those words and, therefore, improper understanding. Worse yet, is when those words are imbued with very specific meanings as jargon, the average man remaining ignorant of such, as well as the means by which they are put to effective use. By this, of course, I refer to legal applications in courts of law, mainly.

Do as you please, of course, but I choose the more cautious path in such matters.

osan, what on earth does any of that have to do with who pays Z2.0 and TheCount to come here and harass us?

We is another interesting word. When TheCount says 'we', he could mean you, me and him, or he could mean him and Z2.0. What's more, he could honestly mean him and Z2.0 and dishonestly want you to think he means you, me and him.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Good point. But then... where's all the gold?

Speaking of the Fed... did Germany every get to audit its gold holdings in the NY Fed?

http://www.pfhub.com/german-reserve-horde-will-remain-in-u-s-after-positive-audit-884/

Last year, Germany blew up headlines when its central bank – the Bundesbank – announced that it was planning to repatriate its gold from the United States Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the Banque de France. The Bundesbank owns nearly $200 billion worth of gold, but only a third of it is stored in Frankfurt.
A German delegation was sent to New York to audit the nation’s gold holdings because one hadn’t been performed in a few decades. The group confirmed that everything was fine and that it would be easier to just simply store its gold reserves outside of the country for emergency swaps.

 

[acptulsa]

The group confirmed that everything was fine...

...and left, after which the Fed took down the signs that said 'Germany's Gold' and put back the signs that said, 'Treasury Gold'.

 

[Stratovarious]

Actually, government has no business getting involved in money, a government controlled gold-standard has been tried & failed, & it fails because it is government controlled.

You don't need government being "in-charge" of money any more than you want them to in-charge of producing food or clothes or whatever.

All that is necessary is to remove legal tender laws & remove taxes imposed on gold, silver, etc. so that they can compete with dollars; this is exactly what Ron Paul tried to do with his "competing currencies" bills.

Going back to a government-controlled gold-standard would be a terrible thing for the gold-standard itself because as has happened before, governments will ruin it (governments ruin anything they put their hands on) & then they'll say "see, gold-standard doesn't work".

So anybody who believes in free markets should support a market-based gold-standard, not a government-controlled one.



I agree, if govt declares gold to be legal tender then gold will be fiat but I don't see why "going digital" has anything to do with a gold-standard, irrespective of whether it's fiat or market-based, either way I don't think people are going to carry all their gold in their pockets or store them under their mattresses, most of it will be deposited in banks & used electronically anyway.

I don't know that it failed, in so much as the argument is equally valid; Richard Nixon got greedy and wanted to expand our world presence , probably can't control the world with real money....
Ergo...Milton Bradley !!!!! Yahoooooo!!!!! Let's get em boys......
, ,

 

[Stratovarious]

Going 'digital' just sounds bad to me, sure it's impossible to hack .....lollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollolo.....

, ,

 

[H. E. Panqui]

Paul or Nothing 11 dreams: "You don't need government being "in-charge" of money any more than you want them to in-charge of producing food or clothes or whatever."


(i'm a dreamer too!..unfortunately, i believe you'll find that the last 5000 years shows little evidence/few examples of people hip about 'the wheel, etc.' who were/are not under some governmental monetary order...and if you want to change things for the better a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that you educate yourself about the past and present...

...and holding views like 'we used to have a gold standard and we need to return to it' displays a terrible ignorance of the past...

...(take comfort, i used to be a republicrat monetary ignoramus too...and like all republicrats, i too, 'knew just enough to be dangerous'...

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I don't know that it failed, in so much as the argument is equally valid; Richard Nixon got greedy and wanted to expand our world presence , probably can't control the world with real money....
Ergo...Milton Bradley !!!!! Yahoooooo!!!!! Let's get em boys......
, ,

The government-controlled gold-standard failed because government would set an exchange-rate between gold & dollars, & as government needed more money, they printed more dollars than they'd gold, which meant that they were not in a position to redeem all the dollars in gold, which is why Nixon had to abolish it. While Nixon certainly should take part of the blame (he could have just devalued the dollar & kept the gold-standard if he wished) but printing of dollars probably had been going on for years before Nixon took office.

Again, the point being that the government shouldn't be in-charge of money; just as markets can manage so many other things, it can also manage money on its own. Under a market-based gold-standard, the term dollar (or even pound, euro, etc) would be obsolete & prices would be denominated in grams/ounces of gold so there's no need for a government to "set" gold's price against some arbitrary concept like the dollar.

i believe you'll find that the last 5000 years shows little evidence/few examples of people hip about 'the wheel, etc.' who were/are not under some governmental monetary order...

You're basically saying that we should let government control money just because that's been more or less the norm over the last few thousand years; I don't agree, that's like saying that just because tyranny has more or less been the norm, we should just accept tyranny. Good luck with that!

...and holding views like 'we used to have a gold standard and we need to return to it' displays a terrible ignorance of the past...

I think I've been clear in my earlier post that I don't wish to "return" to the gold-standard that existed since it was government-controlled & thereby a defective one, susceptible to failure; my view is that IF we ever get to a point where gold-standard becomes a realistic option then we should insist on a market-based gold-standard, not a government-controlled one. This does NOT mean that I think it will be an easy task, it won't be.

 

[Stratovarious]

The government-controlled gold-standard failed because government would set an exchange-rate between gold & dollars, & as government needed more money, they printed more dollars than they'd gold, which meant that they were not in a position to redeem all the dollars in gold, which is why Nixon had to abolish it. While Nixon certainly should take part of the blame (he could have just devalued the dollar & kept the gold-standard if he wished) but printing of dollars probably had been going on for years before Nixon took office.

Again, the point being that the government shouldn't be in-charge of money; just as markets can manage so many other things, it can also manage money on its own. Under a market-based gold-standard, the term dollar (or even pound, euro, etc) would be obsolete & prices would be denominated in grams/ounces of gold so there's no need for a government to "set" gold's price against some arbitrary concept like the dollar.



You're basically saying that we should let government control money just because that's been more or less the norm over the last few thousand years; I don't agree, that's like saying that just because tyranny has more or less been the norm, we should just accept tyranny. Good luck with that!



I think I've been clear in my earlier post that I don't wish to "return" to the gold-standard that existed since it was government-controlled & thereby a defective one, susceptible to failure; my view is that IF we ever get to a point where gold-standard becomes a realistic option then we should insist on a market-based gold-standard, not a government-controlled one. This does NOT mean that I think it will be an easy task, it won't be.

" The government-controlled gold-standard failed because government would set an exchange-rate between gold & dollars, & as government needed more money, they printed more dollars than they'd gold..."

The Gold Standard did not fail , gov wanted to grow so it killed it, like a petulant child that wants more.
The 2nd quickest way to end a marriage is to want more, get more by borrowing money above and beyond
your net worth and ability to pay down the debt, fight over which activities and items need to be cut from the budget.
Eventually it becomes obvious to the wife , the real problem is us.....lol voila divorce.

If we continue to live beyond out means , China and the rest of the World will start calling in the debt , our government
is selling us out to the highest bidder.
At what point does our government allow the Chinese, Japanese, Brazil to start aquiring large chunks of our Country to pay off debt?

The seriousness of this vulnerablility to allowing OUR government* to sell us out is completely ignored in national politics, the
threat is present.


*Note; I don't declare vulnerability to foreigners, rather the sellout by our gov (by design, to; SECRET FED RESERVE/SECRET CRIMINAL GLOBAL BANKING CARTEL).



, ,

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

The Gold Standard did not fail , gov wanted to grow so it killed it,

It's ok if that's how you want to put it, that's fine by me but my point has been that that's why government shouldn't be in-charge of it if we ever get to the point where gold-standard becomes a realistic option.

 

[acptulsa]

The government-controlled gold-standard failed...

Is there such a thing as a non-governmental gold 'standard'?

The pro trolls are talking about how a gold standard is "fiat" because government approves of it, even though gold has value whether the government declares it to have value or not. And here you are calling a free market, where gold has value, as some kind of mythical non-governmental gold 'standard'.

If you were to stop talking about a free market for money--a thing where people use whatever means of exchange suits them, and therefore set their own standards--as some kind of "gold-standard" it might clear up some confusion. After all, there's no guarantee that a free market for means of exchange would take any special interest in gold at all. Silver is far more likely to gain ascendancy for everyday transactions, as middle aged people don't need magnifying glasses to see the proper amount of it to buy, say, a coffee pot with.

 

[Stratovarious]

It's ok if that's how you want to put it, that's fine by me but my point has been that that's why government shouldn't be in-charge of it if we ever get to the point where gold-standard becomes a realistic option.

Secret Global Banks should not have anything to do with managing our money.
Foreign BANSTERS should not be secretly managing, manipulation, printing and giving away our money.


I don't feel that addressing the Government control is relevant at this point, I'm not accussing you at all ,
but it is strange to me that you seem to want this conversation to focus away from the ;

CRIMINAL FEDERAL RESERVE FOREIGN BANKSTERS, do I have this all wrong ?
, ,

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Secret Global Banks should not have anything to do with managing our money.
Foreign BANSTERS should not be secretly managing, manipulation, printing and giving away our money.


I don't feel that addressing the Government control is relevant at this point, I'm not accussing you at all ,
but it is strange to me that you seem to want this conversation to focus away from the ;

CRIMINAL FEDERAL RESERVE FOREIGN BANKSTERS, do I have this all wrong ?
, ,

I'm not big on conspiracy-theories so I see Fed as just another arm of the government, so I don't think Fed should control money but neither should Congress. As I've said several times, I believe in market-based money, it could be market-based gold-standard, silver-standard, bitcoins or whatever; everybody should be free to choose what they want to use, & the markets will generally gravitate towards the best alternative (although, all things being equal, I'd probably prefer a market-based gold-standard due to historical precedence).

 

[H. E. Panqui]

Paul or Nothing: I'm not big on conspiracy-theories so I see Fed as just another arm of the government, so I don't think Fed should control money but neither should Congress.



(i believe you'll find congress is authorized by the constitution to 'control money'..reality...i believe if you 'metalists' think about it, you'll come to the conclusion that the same secret-squirrel criminals who now control us through their control over frn'$ will control us similarly through their control over your favorite metal..(btw, i bet i've stacked more metal than any of you here!)

...won't it be great ripping apart and poisoning mother earth so we can 'expand the money supply'...

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

(i believe you'll find congress is authorized by the constitution to 'control money'

I'm not a "Constitutionalist". Although I think a Constitutional Minarchy would be a massive improvement over the present situation, I don't think that could be the end-goal for those seeking true freedom & equality.
Besides, even Ron Paul, who himself supports a free market in money, had said that just because the Constitution has vested Congress with a particular power doesn't mean that it must use it, Congress can choose not to exercise certain powers if people believe it shouldn't.

i believe if you 'metalists' think about it,

And what are you supposed to be? A paper-ist?

you'll come to the conclusion that the same secret-squirrel criminals who now control us through their control over frn'$ will control us similarly through their control over your favorite metal..

Same could be said about anything, even the "solution" proposed by the socialist monetarist Zarlenga, whom you seem to hold in high esteem.

(btw, i bet i've stacked more metal than any of you here!)

...won't it be great ripping apart and poisoning mother earth so we can 'expand the money supply'...

If you think it's such a bad thing then you shouldn't have stocked up on it.....

 

[acptulsa]

If you think it's such a bad thing then you shouldn't have stocked up on it.....

He doesn't think it's a bad thing. He just wants all of it. Which is hard to arrange if they keep digging more up.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

He doesn't think it's a bad thing. He just wants all of it. Which is hard to arrange if they keep digging more up.

Considering the way he words himself, yeah, he could have easily meant that to be honest

 

[fj45lvr]

the last "gold standard" was still fraud because fractional reserves were allowed via paper notes/accounting, no??? crooks cannot stand limiting their means to defraud the marks!!!

in that sense physical=money ....paper/electronic etc. (pyramid scheme waiting for the shoe to drop)

 

[H. E. Panqui]

actuptulsa licks wound$ and quibbles: He doesn't think it's a bad thing. He just wants all of it. Which is hard to arrange if they keep digging more up.



(i also possess a rare, and absolutely fantastic!, tortoise-shell guitar pick...and sorry, but, i don't want 'them' making more 'new ones'...(fashioning new picks from old pick-guards, jewelry, etc...is ok...i guess..as long as i get a fair $hot at them...