"Why Gold?" and other issues with fixed currency
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Weird, cause I got this thing called a credit card. It lets me get my money out of a bank whenever I need. And thanks to fractional reserve banking, they can do that. Take the Fed out, make gold needed to be in banks and these things vanish.
Tell me, why were we using gold for 100 years if there were such horrible things going on? Why the hell would the population not rise up if they couldn't use their currency?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Just cause you don't like it, think that going to something else is somehow magically going to fix everything and not leave a bunch of problems in doesn't mean you are right.
Agreed. But I'll back it because none of the arguments against me seem to add up. Just like what you think, you back yours up because you think the arguments against you seem to add up to you. I debate this, especially on my show, because I see an inherent problem, and I believe that we're hanging by a thread for this very reason. (Well, multiple reasons, all having to do with central banking and fiat currency.)
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Tell me, why were we using gold for 100 years if there were such horrible things going on? Why the hell would the population not rise up if they couldn't use their currency?
Because the only people with any REAL money did have the gold needed to back it up. And even then, it was still paper money. There were plenty of uprisings, by the way. Just because you couldn't do a Google search for "food riots" or "american industrial revolution riots" doesn't mean the searches find nothing. Lots of people rioted in Europe over food being more expensive than what they were paid. (French were big on this) You can back up money with anything, as long as people believe it is worth something, they will use it.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Because businesses always act that stupid. I don't know of one business that would ever do, or has ever done, such a moronic thing. This is just scare tactics.
Stupid? Under your proposed system that is the sensible way to act. If notes are backed by gold and issued by the bank, then the theft of the gold makes the notes worthless, unless of course you plan to try to redeem them with the robbers. Banks would have to take such extreme measures to protect their gold, otherwise they (and all their customers) could be completely wiped out with a single theft.
So if there's a theft NOW with the fiat money, this is ok? Meaning, the fact that banks are open all the time is ok for the fact that there is fiat money instead of hard money? We'd still get wiped out right now. I don't understand. If there's a run on a bank right now, they'd get completely wiped out that way as well.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
rags, I'm with you on the Constitution being outdated, but just correcting a few mistakes...
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It only stops the federal government from doing 8 things... (Article 9, limits on Congress)
Actually it has both an inclusion and exclusion list. It lists a few things the Federal Government is NOT allowed to do, but before that it lists exactly which powers the Federal Government DOES have (Regulate trade, create a military, etc), followed by something along the lines of "Anything that's needed to carry out these powers" and "Everything else is reserved to the states or the people" So basically, it can do anything it needs to carry out the listed powers, EXCEPT the things you listed. Agreed on the rest.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Bah, lost half my post to a bad cut and paste job. :( The list of things it needs to do is what it is doing. Though it seems a little liberal on some items.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Money is not some magic thing that invents value, it needs to be backed up.
Wow. What?! According to others, and myself, money has value that is given by the populous. It's a matter of perception. If money doesn't have that value, why do you use it? Why do you need it to be backed up? Nevermind the fact that no fiat currency is literally "backed" by it anyway right now, which is the very point of this thread. I suggest this quote be put in Ian's profile.
Christian Graus wrote:
I asked CSS, if people pay in gold, how you know the coin you're accepting is complete, he never answered
And this is a valid point. This is why there were moneychangers, from what I understand. They checked the weight of each piece of gold, per density and such.
Christian Graus wrote:
The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. Again.
Basically you just keep rattling off your one book. I suggest you expand your horizons. Ian and I at least do a good job of doing that.
Christian Graus wrote:
For one, because the people being exploited came from countries where they expected any protest to result in death.
lol I hear you, but I think that this is a stretch... like you said, "for one". I'll need more proof than that. Please continue.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
If money doesn't have that value, why do you use it? Why do you need it to be backed up?
When money was introduced, it was as a placeholder for something that had known value. That may be less the case today, as we're used to the idea. But that's historically why banks hold gold.
josda1000 wrote:
And this is a valid point. This is why there were moneychangers, from what I understand. They checked the weight of each piece of gold, per density and such.
Unless they are present for every transaction, they really are a form of inflation. I accept $10, take it to the money changer and he lets me know it's work $8.97.
josda1000 wrote:
Basically you just keep rattling off your one book. I suggest you expand your horizons. Ian and I at least do a good job of doing that.
I keep making the one point, and I am on the other side of the world from my library, so I'm not in a place to be looking stuff up. It's the only book I remember the title and author of, and will continue to be the proof that your percieved workers paradise before the gold standard was dropped, is an illusion.
josda1000 wrote:
lol I hear you, but I think that this is a stretch... like you said, "for one". I'll need more proof than that. Please continue.
I am referring to the content of The Jungle. At least read the wikipedia entry on the book.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Gold prices are skyrocketing, electronics are not. Industry has little impact on the price of gold.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
That's because currently, most electronics use very small amounts of it... First useful link I came across: One challenge with the use of gold in very small quantities in very small devices is loss of the metal from society. Nearly one billion cell phones are produced each year and most of them contain about fifty cents worth of gold. Their average lifetime is under two years and very few are currently recycled. Although the amount of gold is small in each device, their enormous numbers translate into a lot of unrecycled gold. http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml[^] (Emphasis mine)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Gonzoox wrote:
And that value will based on what? how are you going to measure how much gold is worth if gold is your way to measure the values of things? the only way I see it is based on your production of goods, isn't that the same as what we have right now?
That, and the quantity of the currency in circulation. The point of gold and silver is stability, it cannot be created like fiat currencies, it has to be mined, and that is reasonably difficult which keeps inflation in check. As the economy grows however, the medals increase in value, making difficult mining operations profitable where they were previously unprofitable. This makes gold and silver very stable.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
I understand the point of the stability of gold and silver, but based on your answer, if I print out more currency then the gold will be worth what? more or less? isn't that a way to let the governments speculate?. isn't the currency supposed to be supported by how much gold you have? so how are we going to measure the value of gold? I came up with something else, I was talking about production of goods, but how about doing it the old way, I car will be worth, lets say 2 pounds of gold and 7 pounds of silver, if you don't have a way to measure the value of gold, because your currency is based on how much gold you have, you have to do it the old ways, 1 pound of corn was worth 2 ounces of silver for example, that way you will have a way to assign any value to gold, because you will start using a conversion system, 66.5 ounces of silver = 1 ounce of gold (at least these days that's how much silver is worth compared to gold) I don't see why we need to go back 500 years, while we have an economy that works, but needs to get regulated to avoid some of the things that happened. And still, what will happen to all the goods that require gold and silver to be produced?? how are we going to replace those?
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
See, this is one of the failings of a metal-backed system... The creation of money itself becomes an industry. This is an industry that really doesn't need to exist. The world currently has a certain amount of demand for metals like gold and silver, and the current amount of mining reflects that demand. If those metals are suddenly considered currency (Whether it's gold and silver like before, or something new), then mining of that metal increases dramatically, which: 1) Causes more damage to the environment 2) Diverts a non-trivial amount of our industrial capacity away from things that would normally be more useful. (By free market logic, we should already be mining at about the needed rate). 3) Redistributes global finance based on mining capability (And gold deposits) instead of more useful indicators like industrial production, economic growth, technological advancement, etc. This is why though I see the merits of a fixed-rate currency (I don't favor it, but I'm not completely against the idea), I don't think metal-backed currency is at all feasible.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Causes more damage to the environment
This is a straw man argument. Moving earth is not going to destroy the earth. Neither is carbon dioxide. The real environmental problems are genetically modified crops, chemicals, and biological threats.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Diverts a non-trivial amount of our industrial capacity away from things that would normally be more useful. (By free market logic, we should already be mining at about the needed rate).
Free market logic dictates that we need a sound currency, and fiat is not sound by any measure. It must be physically difficult to manipulate the money supply.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Redistributes global finance based on mining capability (And gold deposits) instead of more useful indicators like industrial production, economic growth, technological advancement, etc.
Not really. All a country needs is to produce something people will buy, or compete in the labor market.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't think metal-backed currency is at all feasible.
Well look at our current system. It is collapsing.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
So if there's a theft NOW with the fiat money, this is ok? Meaning, the fact that banks are open all the time is ok for the fact that there is fiat money instead of hard money? We'd still get wiped out right now. I don't understand. If there's a run on a bank right now, they'd get completely wiped out that way as well.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.The FDIC insures our money. They use fractional banking to do it. The belief is that if one bank folds, it is bad, so if the bank is about to fail, people won't yank their money out, causing it to do so for sure. In the case of a robbery, the people are chased down, but the bank is safe in the meantime. Make everything gold, and you lose the fractional accounting or you make gold so valuable that smart people own island paridises overnight. Having gold in a bank to cover the problem requires expensive security. If someone gets the gold, the bank is done. Or do you think fractional banking is okay?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
The FDIC insures our money. They use fractional banking to do it. The belief is that if one bank folds, it is bad, so if the bank is about to fail, people won't yank their money out, causing it to do so for sure. In the case of a robbery, the people are chased down, but the bank is safe in the meantime. Make everything gold, and you lose the fractional accounting or you make gold so valuable that smart people own island paridises overnight. Having gold in a bank to cover the problem requires expensive security. If someone gets the gold, the bank is done. Or do you think fractional banking is okay?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
That's because currently, most electronics use very small amounts of it... First useful link I came across: One challenge with the use of gold in very small quantities in very small devices is loss of the metal from society. Nearly one billion cell phones are produced each year and most of them contain about fifty cents worth of gold. Their average lifetime is under two years and very few are currently recycled. Although the amount of gold is small in each device, their enormous numbers translate into a lot of unrecycled gold. http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml[^] (Emphasis mine)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)SHHHHHHHHHH You have any idea how much the gold I was going to "mine" with just cell phones is worth if they made gold expensive enough per ounce to cover our tens of trillions of dollar economy is?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
So if there's a theft NOW with the fiat money, this is ok? Meaning, the fact that banks are open all the time is ok for the fact that there is fiat money instead of hard money? We'd still get wiped out right now. I don't understand. If there's a run on a bank right now, they'd get completely wiped out that way as well.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
So if there's a theft NOW with the fiat money, this is ok? Meaning, the fact that banks are open all the time is ok for the fact that there is fiat money instead of hard money? We'd still get wiped out right now. I don't understand. If there's a run on a bank right now, they'd get completely wiped out that way as well.
Well, if the bank is robbed today it doesn't make the money in your pocket worthless, nor does it make the money in your account go away due to the banks practice of partial reserve banking and, if necessary, the FDIC. Under your system of full reserve banking, that money that was stolen was YOURS, not the banks, there is no replacement currency.
-
I understand the point of the stability of gold and silver, but based on your answer, if I print out more currency then the gold will be worth what? more or less? isn't that a way to let the governments speculate?. isn't the currency supposed to be supported by how much gold you have? so how are we going to measure the value of gold? I came up with something else, I was talking about production of goods, but how about doing it the old way, I car will be worth, lets say 2 pounds of gold and 7 pounds of silver, if you don't have a way to measure the value of gold, because your currency is based on how much gold you have, you have to do it the old ways, 1 pound of corn was worth 2 ounces of silver for example, that way you will have a way to assign any value to gold, because you will start using a conversion system, 66.5 ounces of silver = 1 ounce of gold (at least these days that's how much silver is worth compared to gold) I don't see why we need to go back 500 years, while we have an economy that works, but needs to get regulated to avoid some of the things that happened. And still, what will happen to all the goods that require gold and silver to be produced?? how are we going to replace those?
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
Gonzoox wrote:
if I print out more currency then the gold will be worth what? more or less
It would decouple the medals from the paper and cause instabilities.
Gonzoox wrote:
that way you will have a way to assign any value to gold
You cannot assign a value to gold or silver, their value is set naturally by supply and demand.
Gonzoox wrote:
I don't see why we need to go back 500 years
It aint about going back in history, its about using what works the best.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
SHHHHHHHHHH You have any idea how much the gold I was going to "mine" with just cell phones is worth if they made gold expensive enough per ounce to cover our tens of trillions of dollar economy is?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
A trillion dollars aint what it used to be.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Look. It's nonsense. Gold is just a medium of exchange, just like paper is right now. No, it's not. It's a real physical resource, and there's all sorts of negative flow on effects to what you propose.
I just completely disagree.
Christian Graus wrote:
Minimum wages make perfect sense to people who live in the real world.
And I don't? None of the financial conservatives make sense, even though they probably make up half of the population? I'd say you're not living in the real world, buddy.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm yet to hear any sensible argument against them, or see a real response from you to the points I've raised on the topic.
All of the points I've raised are normal debates... it's even on WIKIPEDIA! Again, with the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage[^] Again, with the quote. "If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. ... The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. Others, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force." How about another good quote?! "According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers.[13]" You sure that you're living in the real world still?
Christian Graus wrote:
No. CSS has said in the past that the answer to the fact that the gold supply cannot cover the money in the world today, we just make gold worth a whole lot more. Which is what makes the rich a lot richer, overnight.
I could see that. But I think the effects would be offset within a couple of months. But that's speculation.
josda1000 wrote:
Christian Graus wrote: No. CSS has said in the past that the answer to the fact that the gold supply cannot cover the money in the world today, we just make gold worth a whole lot more. Which is what makes the rich a lot richer, overnight. I could see that. But I think the effects would be offset within a couple of months. But that's speculation.
CG thinks a central authority will dictate the price of gold. Notice his wording.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Causes more damage to the environment
This is a straw man argument. Moving earth is not going to destroy the earth. Neither is carbon dioxide. The real environmental problems are genetically modified crops, chemicals, and biological threats.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Diverts a non-trivial amount of our industrial capacity away from things that would normally be more useful. (By free market logic, we should already be mining at about the needed rate).
Free market logic dictates that we need a sound currency, and fiat is not sound by any measure. It must be physically difficult to manipulate the money supply.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Redistributes global finance based on mining capability (And gold deposits) instead of more useful indicators like industrial production, economic growth, technological advancement, etc.
Not really. All a country needs is to produce something people will buy, or compete in the labor market.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't think metal-backed currency is at all feasible.
Well look at our current system. It is collapsing.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
This is a straw man argument. Moving earth is not going to destroy the earth. Neither is carbon dioxide. The real environmental problems are genetically modified crops, chemicals, and biological threats.
Except it's not just moving earth. The most commonly-used process for gold extraction is called Cyanidation[^]... As in Cyanide. Yes, poison. It's banned in a few US states and in several countries, but it's still the #1 method.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Free market logic dictates that we need a sound currency, and fiat is not sound by any measure. It must be physically difficult to manipulate the money supply.
This is a false dichotomy. You're saying that our only two choices are "fiat" or "gold", when there are other options. As I've said in several other parts of this thread, it would be entirely possible to just lock our money supply in place by removing the government's ability to add and remove currency. Whether that's feasible is of course debatable, but there aren't just two options.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Not really. All a country needs is to produce something people will buy, or compete in the labor market.
But see, a country could get insanely wealthy basing its entire economy on nothing but gold mining. For example, the largest gold deposit in the world is in Papua[^], in Indonesia. It's making about 58 million grams of gold (Grams, not ounces) per year, and this is a country with a population of about 2 million people.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Well look at our current system. It is collapsing.
Again, false dichotomy. You can use that argument to advocate fixed currency, but fixed-rate does not necessitate metal-backed.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
josda1000 wrote:
Christian Graus wrote: No. CSS has said in the past that the answer to the fact that the gold supply cannot cover the money in the world today, we just make gold worth a whole lot more. Which is what makes the rich a lot richer, overnight. I could see that. But I think the effects would be offset within a couple of months. But that's speculation.
CG thinks a central authority will dictate the price of gold. Notice his wording.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
CG thinks a central authority will dictate the price of gold. Notice his wording.
You're a retard. As previously noted. We means this is what society would set out to do.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Prove it. Why has it only been amended a few times in two hundred years, if it's got "major failings"? This is such a big thing to say when you don't back it up.
27 amendments is > a few. 10 were done right away, 2 more were seen as major issues. 4 amendments are still pending and 2 expired because Congress refuses to move. Now let's look at this. That original document you believe does not have major failings didn't allow women to vote, and Blacks counted as 60% human. If you lived in Washington DC you didn't count for electing a president and didn't explain what would happen in an emergency where the President and Vice President were lost. And good luck knowing if you were old enough to vote. It's got failings, Josh. Major ones. The things above are just amendments AFTER the first 10...
josda1000 wrote:
No, it was supposed to hinder the government from growing.
It only stops the federal government from doing 8 things... (Article 9, limits on Congress) 1: It won't stop slaves from being imported for 20 years. (now defunct) 2: No suspending Habeus Corpus. (Ie "you need warrents!") 3: No convicting without a trial or trying people for doing something before it was against the law. 4+5: Taxes apportioned by state populations, no taxing goods of states. 6: No choosing one state over another for trade, taxes, port use. 7: Reciepts for all spending and publish those numbers, no keeping things secret. 8: No nobility. Congress can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't step outside this. I see 4 being stepped on a little and 7. But none of these stop much.
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, you can amend the Constitution, and that's what makes it a "living document". But I don't see anyone doing that.
Were you alive in 1992? That's the last time they did it. We're about due for a few more fixes.
josda1000 wrote:
That's rich.
Says the guy who argued that the Coast Guard shouldn't exist. They at least are part of the Navy in some sense. There is no constitutional precedent for building an Air Force to "defend our skies from foreign or domestic aggression." So it is okay to ignore one part but not another?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and
ragnaroknrol wrote:
27 amendments is > a few.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html[^] Those are the proposals made in just the past few Congress sessions. 27 is negligible compared to the number actually proposed every year.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Now let's look at this. That original document you believe does not have major failings didn't allow women to vote, and Blacks counted as 60% human. If you lived in Washington DC you didn't count for electing a president and didn't explain what would happen in an emergency where the President and Vice President were lost. And good luck knowing if you were old enough to vote.
If only 27 amendments have been passed with so many proposals failing, I'd say the populous doesn't agree with your statement. I do agree with the fact that blacks counting as 60% human was terrible. I do agree that women should have been voting. But that is the natural progression of society... people change. I do still think that DC shouldn't technically be voting, because they aren't states, and really DC doesn't make up part of the Union, when talking in federal terms.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It's got failings, Josh. Major ones. The things above are just amendments AFTER the first 10...
Yeah. I know, that's why it's been amended. But the overall picture of the Constitution is actually really smart and well intended. "Just because it was well intended doesn't make it right." I know. So amend it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
It only stops the federal government from doing 8 things... (Article 9, limits on Congress) 1: It won't stop slaves from being imported for 20 years. (now defunct) 2: No suspending Habeus Corpus. (Ie "you need warrents!") 3: No convicting without a trial or trying people for doing something before it was against the law. 4+5: Taxes apportioned by state populations, no taxing goods of states. 6: No choosing one state over another for trade, taxes, port use. 7: Reciepts for all spending and publish those numbers, no keeping things secret. 8: No nobility. Congress can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't step outside this.
WRONG. Article 1 Section
-
I understand the point of the stability of gold and silver, but based on your answer, if I print out more currency then the gold will be worth what? more or less? isn't that a way to let the governments speculate?. isn't the currency supposed to be supported by how much gold you have? so how are we going to measure the value of gold? I came up with something else, I was talking about production of goods, but how about doing it the old way, I car will be worth, lets say 2 pounds of gold and 7 pounds of silver, if you don't have a way to measure the value of gold, because your currency is based on how much gold you have, you have to do it the old ways, 1 pound of corn was worth 2 ounces of silver for example, that way you will have a way to assign any value to gold, because you will start using a conversion system, 66.5 ounces of silver = 1 ounce of gold (at least these days that's how much silver is worth compared to gold) I don't see why we need to go back 500 years, while we have an economy that works, but needs to get regulated to avoid some of the things that happened. And still, what will happen to all the goods that require gold and silver to be produced?? how are we going to replace those?
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
Not supporting the idea of gold-backed currency, but to explain their viewpoint: The amount of currency that represents one ounce of gold would be fixed. The government would not be permitted to print more currency unless it obtains more gold to back it. The "value" would basically be like the consumer price index... As in, how much it costs to buy a loaf of bread. Hence, in your example, if the car was worth 2 pounds of gold, that would translate to a fixed dollar amount. If the amount of gold/currency in circulation was reduced (Trade deficit, hoarding, etc), our currency would become more valuable in that the car would now only cost 1.9 pounds of gold. Again, I'm not supporting the idea of gold-backed currency (I disagree with it). Just explaining how it would theoretically work.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
CG thinks a central authority will dictate the price of gold. Notice his wording.
You're a retard. As previously noted. We means this is what society would set out to do.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
The value of gold cannot be dictated or set by anyone, moron. The value is set by supply and demand. It is a natural process. You have been influenced by way too much communist propaganda.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
The value of gold cannot be dictated or set by anyone, moron. The value is set by supply and demand. It is a natural process. You have been influenced by way too much communist propaganda.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The value of gold cannot be dictated or set by anyone, moron
Making gold in to money, and saying that all the gold in the world is, between it, worth all the money in the world today, is most certainly setting it's value. I'm just repeating what you told me was part of your master plan. The question of how you get everyone to pass in their cash and be given back gold is something else you've never explained.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The value is set by supply and demand. It is a natural process.
You're the one who wants to greatly inflate demand overnight, which will, obviously, increase the value.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You have been influenced by way too much communist propaganda.
And you're living in an ignorant fantasy world.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.