patrick.net

I think this is mentioned in the article, but additional context. Gold and Silver have been the coin of trade since the dawn of time. They are according to our constitution the only legal money(specie). What we did in 1971, and more importantly 1935(abandoning Silver Standard), are unprecedented moves in the history of the world. Floating exchanges are unsustainable, and I believe quite soon will meet a catastrophic demise.

NuttBoxer says

Gold and Silver have been the coin of trade since the dawn of time

That's not really true.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/history-money.html

Cattle, cowrie shells, bronze, copper, leather, beads, and paper(started in 800AD in China) were used for long periods in history. Gold and silver are far from the only currency.

NuttBoxer says

and I believe quite soon will meet a catastrophic demise

Why so soon? We've been rolling along since 1935 with no silver standard. What is different now? Furthermore, what is fundamentally untenable about a money base that is not tied to the amount of a material that can be dug out of the ground?

If you want more people to read your story, you should fix the link.

NuttBoxer says

I understand most of the people here only know economics in the form of 4 walls,

some of the posters on here know a great deal more about economics than you. most, actually. NuttBoxer says

You have to have a long term perspective to understand the point of the article. T

All paper currencies will eventually collapse. But then again, in the long run, we are all dead. So, your point?
this article is from 1991. At that time, I was only a couple years into my career. I'm retiring in 8 months. If you are letting your investment/economic philosophy be influenced by points of view that have literally been wrong as long as an entire work life, you are a moron. in the 90's we had high inflation, which was the genesis for fear about currency collapse. Today, inflation is a non factor. IF inflation returns, which it almost certainly will, buying a home with a long term low interest rate will turn out to be brilliant. As one of the posters with actual knowledge of economics, i'd recommend you read how housing prices did during and after currency collapse in such places as Weimar republic, etc. you'll be in for a shock. You past on buying a sub rent price home in San Diego 3 years ago, which was moronic. It may go down as he worst financial decision of your lifetime, and yet persist in reading doom and gloom analysis in a vain attempt to rationalize what was an utterly terrible decision.
tatupu70 says

And you have to understand that not being right "yet" isn't being wrong.

Yes, it actually is. If you have to wait till after you die, for your investment ideas to come to fruition, it is kind of as wrong as you can be. 26 years is a long time to wait for this financial collapse. Long enough for anyone sane to do the opposite, make huge profits, and move on with their life.

blowmeironvagina says

Yes, it actually is.

(I was being sarcastic)

blowmeironvagina says

26 years is a long time to wait for this financial collapse. Long enough for anyone sane to do the opposite, make huge profits, and move on with their life.

In the meantime. The GDP continues to growth record levels year after year.
The stock market is at record highs.
Real Estate is around record levels in many cities.
Rents are at record levels.
I guarantee the next 10 years will be no different.

Nuttboxer, you are so bitter at being wrong and missing opportunities, that you pray every day for a sustained economic collapse. We had the worst economic crash since the great depression, and came out of it alive and kicking. The best you will get is recessions every few years.
I suggest you stop being a jerk, and buy an entry level home wherever you can. It's the best advise you will ever receive.

Anyone that paid anything close to listing price is not stupid,just merely foolish.
They probably had to finance so they could pay interest on top of overpaying.

tatupu70 says

Cattle, cowrie shells, bronze, copper, leather, beads, and paper(started in 800AD in China) were used for long periods in history. Gold and silver are far from the only currency.

Are you picking at the concept of gold and silver exclusivity over the bigger picture of paper has always been redeemable for something of real value?

Chinese paper was more of an official letter than a bank note, again was for the purpose asserting claim to something of real value, never for standing on it's own.

YesYNot says

If you want more people to read your story, you should fix the link.

Site was down yesterday(bad timing). It's working today.

blowmeironvagina says

All paper currencies will eventually collapse. But then again, in the long run, we are all dead. So, your point?

I have kids, maybe you don't that's why you only care about right now. Someday they will have kids. It's my responsibility as a parent to teach them better than leverage yourself out the wazoo, and pass the buck to those who come after you. Your view is self-centered, short sited, and egotistical to to the extreme.

Tell me, where the houses in Germany still standing after WWII? Hitler was a direct outcome of economic crisis in Germany. Now we have people going nuts for an insider like Trump. Not comparing the men, just the mentality of people who are desperate, and the foolish outcome it often leads them to. Forget about a war in the US, what will happen to cities in the kind of collapse this interview predicts? How valuable will your city house be when it's no longer surrounded by the resources as people abandon places with large populations, and not enough anything. You think truckers are still going to ship to you when the paper they're paid in isn't worth the gas for their truck? Do you plan to sell your stucco to run water from a dam or river hundreds of miles away?

Maybe you're not short sited, maybe you're just not smart enough to think this far ahead?

Strategist says

Nuttboxer, you are so bitter at being wrong and missing opportunities

Sounds like your fishing for a reason to ignore me. I love the decisions I've made, the freedom I enjoy, and assurance I have against systems I can't control. Maybe you wish you weren't stuck, and financially SOOL in the face of what's coming, so your best option is to find excuses to stuff your ears with.

NuttBoxer says

Are you picking at the concept of gold and silver exclusivity over the bigger picture of paper has always been redeemable for something of real value?

No--not at all. I'm showing you that it wasn't always redeemable for real value. Beads had very little utility. Even gold has dubious utility for the vast majority of the population--other than being shiny and pretty, what use does the average Joe get out of gold.

Why do you attribute "real value" to gold?

NuttBoxer says

Tell me, where the houses in Germany still standing after WWII? Hitler was a direct outcome of economic crisis in Germany. Now we have people going nuts for an insider like Trump. Not comparing the men, just the mentality of people who are desperate, and the foolish outcome it often leads them to. Forget about a war in the US, what will happen to cities in the kind of collapse this interview predicts? How valuable will your city house be when it's no longer surrounded by the resources as people abandon places with large populations, and not enough anything. You think truckers are still going to ship to you when the paper they're paid in isn't worth the gas for their truck? Do you plan to sell your stucco to run water from a dam or river hundreds of miles away?

Are you under the impression that collapses didn't happen under a gold standard? Depressions were much more prevalent and deeper under "sound" money than now.

NuttBoxer says

I have kids, maybe you don't that's why you only care about right now. Someday they will have kids. It's my responsibility as a parent to teach them better than leverage yourself out the wazoo, and pass the buck to those who come after you. Your view is self-centered, short sited, and egotistical to to the extreme.

By being a loser who has is forced to move, showing your kids that NOT living up to your legal agreements is good, and pay rents that keep increasing, instead of paying a mortgage that is by and large fixed, and, had you bought 3 years ago per YOUR THREAD on here, would be the same as rent then, let alone rent now?

I have paid off homes, what are you going to leave your kids again? please do tell!

NuttBoxer says

Maybe you're not short sited, maybe you're just not smart enough to think this far ahead?

says the loser who passed on at least $100K in appreciation, had he bought 3 years ago...

jazz music says

I did attend an advertised Orange County private auction in 2008 which was not worthwhile and a 2010 courthouse steps auction in Ventura and found it uninteresting and rigged for local insiders who must have made a prior deal with the bank.

I'm guessing that this is typical everywhere.

zzyzzx says

and a 2010 courthouse steps auction in Ventura and found it uninteresting and rigged for local insiders who must have made a prior deal with the bank.

utter bullshit. How the hell is an auction rigged? they call out the property, people bid until the final offer. I've been involved in the process several times.

you have to pay cash in 24 hours, at least here, and if you make a mistake and the house is a wreck, too bad so sad. So, it isn't for the faint of heart.

but to claim it is rigged is just moronic.

bgamall4 says

Everyone has a God given right to walk away from a toxic loan, and the Fed made those houses underwater by crushing the NGDP. So, people have the right to walk away if you understood a thimble full of economics.

nobody talking about loans, crazyone. the OP was refusing to move out of his rental after being given legal notice. Do I have the right to just stay in a hotel a few more days cause I don't feel like leaving?

bgamall4 says

blowmeironvagina says

showing your kids that NOT living up to your legal agreements is good

Everyone has a God given right to walk away from a toxic loan, and the Fed made those houses underwater by crushing the NGDP. So, people have the right to walk away if you understood a thimble full of economics.

Yeah right. Why did they take that loan in the first place? (They were greedy) If things work out as planned, you are a genius. If they don't, it's a toxic loan and you have a right to walk away from it.
As a taxpayer, I had to pick up the tab.

bgamall4 says

So, point is, Strategist, there was not full disclosure that the government and the private central bank had no plans to sustain the housing bubble. That is fraud in my book. The Zionist Fed will face the judgement at the end of time. It won't be pretty.

You want the Fed to disclose prices would collapse. LOL

Strategist says

blowmeironvagina says

showing your kids that NOT living up to your legal agreements is good

Everyone has a God given right to walk away from a toxic loan, and the Fed made those houses underwater by crushing the NGDP. So, people have the right to walk away if you understood a thimble full of economics.

Yeah right. Why did they take that loan in the first place? (They were greedy) If things work out as planned, you are a genius. If they don't, it's a toxic loan and you have a right to walk away from it.

As a taxpayer, I had to pick up the tab.

the OP was on a LEASE. he was refusing to leave after being given notice. I've already told you this once, and yet you keep talking about loans. You mentally ill idiot, he didn't have a loan. THAT is what I called not living up to your agreements. In addition to your mental illness, you seem to have reading problems.

blowmeironvagina says

As a taxpayer, I had to pick up the tab.

the OP was on a LEASE. he was refusing to leave after being given notice. I've already told you this once, and yet you keep talking about loans. You mentally ill idiot, he didn't have a loan. THAT is what I called not living up to your agreements. In addition to your mental illness, you seem to have reading problems.

Calm down blowme, I think you got the wrong man. I was merely responding to Gary's wild assertions.

bgamall4 says

Of course it does

Banks make their own decision about risk. Even if the Fed adopted Li's copula, banks were free to lend or not lend at their own discretion.

bgamall4 says

By the way, China rejected Basel 2 completely. Our politicians sold the middle class down the river by allowing Basel 2 and the Fed to misprice risk.

The Fed doesn't price risk on mortgages, banks/S&Ls do.

bgamall4 says

The Fed and Basel adopted Li's copula. Look it up.

So what? Banks don't ask the Fed if they can make a loan or not.

bgamall4 says

How do you think they were able to fund the loans? They were able to fund the loans through securitization. They could pawn the loans off to others. So, securitization worked so well because people wanted the AAA rated bonds that were the result of the securitization. Only they turned out to be bogus AAA. There weren't really AAA. Insurance companies and others would have never been able to buy them had they been rated correctly.

Of course, but all of this is possible without any Fed action on anybody's copula. Wall St., banks, and ratings companies all worked together.

tatupu70 says

Depressions were much more prevalent and deeper under "sound" money than now.

One example? Let me preface it by saying sound money requires zero leveraging. I.E. any paper currency must be 100% backed by specie.

bgamall4 says

No, without bogus AAA ratings, the securitization would not have happened.

I do not believe the S & P would have adopted the copula if the Fed (Basel 2) had not first approved it.

You seem to be implying that S&P actually believed their AAA ratings when they made them. If so, you're one of the few.

The ratings companies were in on the scam. They wanted the extra business and $$ and the only way to keep the gravy train running was to hand out AAA ratings.

indigenous says

They don't get started in the first place. The wars are instigated Wilson with the Lusitania, FDR with sanctions on Japan then with the Japanese ambassadors begging for peace being turned away by FDR, the atrocities with the US bombing Japan and ending with the totally unnecessary A bombs, Kennedy's murder of Diem followed by LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin, GWB and the weapons of mass destruction.

I always enjoy your distorted view of history. Other than Iraq none of these wars were instigated by the US. The US could have chosen not to participate, but the wars were already ongoing.

The Lusitania was sunk a year after WWI started and 2 years before the US entered the war. Hardly in instigation.

Japan was at war for 5 years when fdr put sanctions on japan, they were in china and indochina(vietnam) already and were about to attack the dutch east indies. The begging for peace is pure bullshit. Japan insisted they be given control of all of southeast asia and continue to conquer china.

The war in vietnam was ongoing since 1946. Killing diem changed nothing other than maybe the timing. Ho Chi Min was already committed to coming in with NVA regular army by 1963 well before the coup. Kennedy didn't murder diem, the vietnamese army did. Kennedy supported the coup but believed diem would be sent into exile. Here are the details, not that you are going to read any of it or actually learn some history. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/

bob2356 says

The US could have chosen not to participate

Which was my point, the US MO is to instigate actions that provoke US involvement. E.G FDR knew the attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent and did nothing in order to gain support for going into the war, before Pearl Harbor 88% of the US citizens were against going into the war. BTW Churchill bombed Germany 1st and kept it out of the papers, when Germany retaliated it was reported as unprovoked.

bob2356 says

Killing diem changed nothing other than maybe the timing.

Not what I read. Are you going to defend LBJ's bullshit as well?

> then with the Japanese ambassadors begging for peace being turned away by FDR,

The Japanese sent their second negotiator to the US in mid-November, about when the Japanese First Air Fleet began staging to Hokkaido in preparation for their late November sortie to Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese did not want "peace" in 1941 -- after all, Kurusu had been sent to DC by the new Prime Minister, Army General Tojo -- they wanted to continue their war in China, forcing CKS's surrender and the total subjugation of China as a client state in the Japanese New Economic Order, their East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.

With Hitler's tanks having overrun all of Europe and looking to be in Red Square before winter, French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies were glittering prizes free for the taking -- but for the American interference in Japan's affairs here.

Funny thing with all the printing the Bank of Japan has been doing, I just noticed the yen has strengthened 10%:

Kurdoda's going to need a bigger printing press.

Print!Print!Print! paper fiat currency.
The new global paradigm.

Exerps from a podcast about the book, "The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam"

So we get through the '50s, and by the end of the '50s, Vietnam has been so
miraculously recovered under Ngo Dinh Diem, along with a lot of American aid and
help, which was very good. And they actually were building schools, roads, everything,
even rudimentary healthcare in the rural districts, to the point where the communist
leadership in the North had a meeting in '59 and said, if it goes on like this, the whole
thing is going to collapse. We'll have no chance of winning back South Vietnam.
Incidentally, there had been in the Geneva Accords, the part that were signed with
the French in post-Dien Bien Phu in 1955, that by 1956 the country, which had
basically been artificially dissected as North and South Vietnam, would have elections.

It has to do with a failure in American
diplomacy, and where this starts is with Averell Harriman, a very powerful, very
influential New Dealer. I mean, he was well recognized as a man with enormous
influence in and around D.C. In fact, he had even helped JFK in his election campaign,
and therefore, even though he was becoming quite the elder statesman, they felt they
had to pay him off with something after the election, and of course they gave him his
own title of Roving Ambassador, and then eventually whatever title he wanted in the
State Department, and he had several.
But what happened was that during the Second World War, he had been FDR's righthand
man with the Soviets, procuring agreements for how things would go during the
war, which he was reasonably good at, and how Europe would look after the war,
which he was abysmally bad at, even though they all hailed him as the great
negotiator, because as we know, all the agreements for Eastern Europe, Stalin threw
into the garbage bin.
So Harriman, here was his chance to go and really leave the whole diplomatic field
with a big win. And how he saw it, looking at Southeast Asia along with JFK, who was
scared stiff of what he saw there, especially with the fact that they knew Laos was
being used by the communists, was, let's declare Laos neutral and get the Soviets —
and Averell said, I can get the Soviets to make their clients, the North Vietnamese
comply. And in a famous conversation, or infamous conversation, he had with
Ambassador Frederick Nolting, who was JFK's ambassador to Vietnam, he said, I have a
fingertip's feeling that I can get the Soviets to make the Vietnamese communists
comply with keeping Laos and in June they'll stay out of there.
And Ambassador Nolting said to him, well, I don't have your experience with the
Soviets, but my fingertips are telling me the exact opposite, and of course his
fingertips were the correct ones. The Soviets were only too happy to be given this
position of enormous prestige in the negotiations of Southeast Asia, so they said, yes,
of course, we can get them to comply. Well, there was no compliance from the North,
but Averell — and so really, the Pathet Lao, who were an NVA or North Vietnamese
construction, you know, they were a communist force in Laos, just expanded, and so
did the trail system and supply system to the South.
So what happened then was of course the Vietnamese, and even people from Thailand,
everybody in the region was squawking, you cannot make Laos neutral. Harriman had
to go out, he went out in 1961 with the new ambassador, Frederick Nolting out there,
and he started to — he had a meeting with Ngo Dinh Diem about Laotian neutrality,
because Ngo Dinh Nhu had been adamant that you couldn't have Laos neutral. That
would be surrendering South Vietnam to constant attack on its flank. He would be
constantly on the strategic defensive, and it couldn't bode well for the future.
Harriman clashed with Diem immediately. Apparently from eyewitnesses, and Nolting
was one of them, there was sort of a visceral dislike that was taken, one for the other
before they even began talking. There just was a clash of a very worldly man, Averell
Harriman, with a very unworldly man, Ngo Dinh Diem. That meeting didn't go well, at
the end with Harriman basically outright threatening Diem that if he didn't comply the
U.S. would pull away all support, and of course that would be the economic collapse
of South Vietnam — not the military collapse, but certainly the economic, which would
lead to the military collapse.
So Diem was silent on this, and basically Ambassador Nolting after that point had to
try and get South Vietnamese compliance, even though he agreed with the South
Vietnamese. And a quick note here: Nolting had been sent out by Kennedy to assure
the South Vietnamese government of their absolute support by the U.S. government
and that they would not interfere in South Vietnamese governmental practices and
that they respected their autonomy as a national government. And Nolting was
extremely good at that, even though when he had first gone out, he had been
skeptical too. He had heard these words about the background, about this prickly
Vietnamese leader who seemed a bit otherworldly and could be difficult to get along
with. But all that fell away after he met Diem, and they got along very well indeed.
And one of the pillories that you often come across on the Left is that Nolting was not
very bright, which is an absolute, outright falsehood. The man had won scholarships to
Harvard. His professor there had been none other than — oh, the famous British
mathematician and atheist, what was his name? Lord — oh, I'm sorry, I forget it now.
But anyways, he had done very well at Harvard and had done very well in philosophy
and up at the PhD level. So anyways, he was no dim ball, contrary to leftist
accusations.
So the minute that Harriman gets back to D.C., to Washington, he starts plotting
against Diem, and we have the files on that. We've got the documents. And from that
point on, he started pitching the idea of having a coup and looking for another leader,
and around him he'd built this cadre of likeminded liberal thinkers, such as John
Kenneth Galbraith — then to become ambassador of India, a bit of a star in the JFK
crowd — and Mike Forrestall and Roger Hilsman, National Security Advisor. So he'd
built a very powerful team around him.
But in effect, he didn't even need that, because his own prestige was so substantial
that, from eyewitness accounts, when they'd have White House meetings with
Kennedy, it was more like Harriman telling Kennedy what was going to happen than
Kennedy giving Harriman the instructions. In fact, Kennedy tended to bow out of the
way when Harriman came online — although he wasn't happy entirely with what he
heard from Kennedy, and as we get towards the end of Diem's government in '63, he
had Ambassador Nolting back in Washington giving him advice to the contrary.
But it was from that point forward, really, to cut to the chase for your listeners, that
the planning was underway to get rid of Diem. So it was all according to his objections
to what was going to go on in Laos. And the agreements were signed in '62 over strong
objections from the Vietnamese and from Thailand and from others in the region. And
of course the communists never honored it. In fact, they turned the Ho Chi Minh trail
into a freeway system, just about, coming down through Laos, and the supplies and
men picked up even forward, which, of course, threw South Vietnam onto this
strategic defensive. It was so much the case that men like Bill Colby and people within
the State Department who were not of the mind of Averell Harriman had a name for
the Ho Chi Minh trail, and they called it the Averell Harriman Memorial Highway.

.
BTW I don't think that Ngo Dinh Diem being assassinated within weeks of Kennedy being assassinated are coincidence. IOW the same people are likely responsible.

Major differences between the rhetoric of your article v mine. Yours reads like a propaganda piece full of generalities and cites opinion and consensus rather than facts.

I see Tatupu has failed to list a single incident to back up his claim of constant depressions under sound financial currency, which BTW, is the whole point of the article I posted. So to circle back around, mathematics, logic, history, experience all point to a resounding crash coming unlike the world has ever seen. At least since the invention of debt economics, and all the misery it has brought with it.

If we think about it logically, fiat currency debt systems are mostly closely tied to two human traits, arrogance, and greed. And I've never seen either produce anything positive...

NuttBoxer says

I see Tatupu has failed to list a single incident to back up his claim of constant depressions under sound financial currency, which BTW, is the whole point of the article I posted

Sorry--I forgot. Before I waste my time--what do you consider a period of sound financial currency? Let's not play No True Scotsman here.

indigenous says

Exerps from a podcast about the book, "The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam"

The first problem is you are listening to a podcast about a book. Maybe try reading the book. I haven't, but might. Diem wasn't building roads, schools, and healthcare. Diem and his cronies were taking american aid to build and stealing it. What he was doing was pursuing his disastrous resettlement policy. Sorry but the corruption under Diem has been documented time and time again. I can come up with at least a dozen books documenting this just off my bookshelves. If shaw writes otherwise then his book is very revisionist history. Geoffry Shaw isn't exactly a neutral observer. Go read his Alexandrian Defense Chronicles stuff. Talk about neocon wet dream.

Try reading Darpa the Pentagons Brain by Anne Jacobson. It has several chapters about this period. I loaned my copy to a friend so I don't have it in my hand, but in summary darpa was contracted to do a major study of the situation vietnam in 1961 or so that lasted for months. The team consisted of people who were very knowledgeable about se asia and most spoke fluent vietnamese. They found diem was totally corrupt, lacked any support among the population, that his policies were deeply unpopular and creating a much larger opposition all the time. Especially the resettlement policy. Kennedy and the CIA hated to hear this, shelved the report and sent out another team the next year. That team had little experience in se asia and didn't speak the language, forcing them to use interpreters, but came back the the report results kennedy and the CIA liked. Every bit of this is documented, dates, places, people, papers, meeting notes, everything.

You might also try watching, since you seem to prefer watching to actually reading, the fog of war. Especially the part where mcnamara met with ho chi min and asked if there was anything that would have stopped him. Ho chi min said no we would have fought to the last man.

So I stand by my statement. Diem being killed by the coup plotters, not the killed by the CIA bullshit you keep repeating to try to make it true, made no difference in the outcome at all. The NVA was coming in no matter what, the south vietnamese government was totally incompetent and corrupt with no hope of stopping them, the people had no support for the government or the us troops. Having a catholic government in a 95% buddist country didn't help at all. Especially when Diem government brought back the landlords the viet minh had driven off years before and forced the peasants to give up the land and pay years of back rent. Which was collected by the south vietnamese army. Marylin Young in "The Vietnam Wars 1945-1990" documents that during the diem regime there was "75 percent support for the NLF, 20 percent trying to remain neutral and 5 percent firmly pro-government,". NLF is another word for vietcong. South Vietnam was going to fall no matter what, the US involvement only changed the timing by a few years.

tatupu70 says

Sorry--I forgot. Before I waste my time--what do you consider a period of sound financial currency? Let's not play No True Scotsman here.

The truest, as I already mentioned, would be when paper was targeted to be 100% backed by specie. But I'd also accept any time under the gold and/or silver standard if the first is too difficult for you. If you use the latter, please clearly demonstrate how the bust was not tied into bank speculation. For example, the bust after the Spanish American War was due to leveraging by local banks, and later the central bank, and only corrected once all speculation ceased.