patrick.net

yawn dot com

Ah 321gold.com. I see, you are just a GOLDBUG NUTTER, thanks for making it plain.

Vicente, what do you mean goldbug nutter, please define, ty.

elliemae = boring, miserable & lonely.com

I specifically mean the people who think if we went back to Gold Standard, everything would be right as rain. I'm sorry you are not going to stuff the genie back in that bottle with our current masters. The Federal Reserve will have NONE of that happening because how can Goldman Sachs game it? Try an alternate universe, in this one goldbugs have ZERO probability of success.

Indeed, Congress has a list of benefits after they leave office that you and I do not. However I notice that our friend Abe only list post-GD1.0 "liberal" measures, and none of the other high-profile failures. I sense some sort of agenda......

I'm a novice at studying the economy but I don't understand how the gold standard would work in our current economy. So if we have a certain amount of gold tied to a certain amount of dollars the price of the dollar is fixed to gold. The way I understand this is gold is very hard to mine, it's scarce, doesn't corode, and has a lot of industrial use.

This prevents governments from creating money out of "thin air". My question is this. What if nations simply focus on more gold mining and flood the world with gold (causing gold to depreciate)? If gasoline sky rockets and it costs you more to mine for gold the price of gold woudl shoot up. It seems the gold standard would be volatile. I'm sure this requires tons of anayltical research but I don't understand how this solves currency volatility.

Vicente says

However I notice that our friend Abe only list post-GD1.0 “liberal” measures, and none of the other high-profile failures. I sense some sort of agenda……

Odd, I would never characterize that entire list as "liberal" measures... Since you do, I sense some sort of agenda...

Honest Abe says

elliemae = boring, miserable & lonely.com

really? personal attacs are the best you could do? Okay - here's my answer: I looked on that link and found your photo.

NewHB7- The idea behind a gold standard is that the country would have to hold enough gold to equal the amount of money in circulation. That would impose fiscal and monetary discipline upon our politicians...which they don't want. They want to spend like drunken sailors. They wouldn't be able to build bridges to nowhere, build airports without passengers and wage war in multiple countries if they were fiscally responsible.

Gold has a 3,000 year history as money. It is a world-wide medium of exchange. Paper dollars on the other hand are not money. Paper dollars are promissory notes whose "value" depends on the fiscal and monetrary discipline of our government (hahahahaha). Even a 6th grader knows putting ink on paper doesn't create "value".

Some ill-informed, so called "knowledgable" people, laugh at gold and call people who understand its value "gold-nutters". But for the record, India recently bought 200 metric tons of gold. Russia bought 120 tons. China now holds 1,054 tons of gold. The worlds central banks know that gold is primarily a monetary asset, not a commodity. Thats why a growing number of them are quietly diversifying out of the U.S. dollar and have added 29,000 tons to their gold reserves.

Major institutional investors like John Paulsonm recently took a multi-million dollar position in gold as a hedge against inflation. Northwestern Mutual Life purchased $400 million in gold - the first time in its 152 year history. And a survey of US hedgefund managers, by London-based Moonraker Fund Management found that 90% of those surveyed admitted they had bought physical gold for their own personal investment. bmgbullion.com

But no, none of those countries, central banks or wealthy people have any financial sense...they're just a bunch of stupid "gold-nutters".

Honest Abe says

But no, none of those countries, central banks or wealthy people have any financial sense…they’re just a bunch of stupid “gold-nutters”.

There's a big difference between buying gold as an inflation hedge and advocating going back to a gold standard. I'm guessing that if you asked those same hedgefund managers if they would like to go back to a gold standard, it would be a unanimous no.

If we were on a gold standard no one would have to buy gold as an inflation hedge. And you do know why America is off the gold standard, don't you?

Becuase it doesn't work? France was engaging in arbitrage and eating our lunch....

Oh come on...why are we off the gold standard? Out with it.

Honest Abe says

Oh come on…why are we off the gold standard? Out with it.

'twas the republicans:

"Cancellation of the gold standard
In the early 1970s, inflation caused by rising prices for imported commodities, especially oil, and spending on the Vietnam War, which was not counteracted by cuts in other government expenditures, combined with a trade deficit to create a situation in which the dollar was worth less than the gold used to back it.
In 1971, President Richard Nixon unilaterally ordered the cancellation of the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold. This act was known as the Nixon Shock.
In 1972, the United States reset the value to 38 dollars per troy ounce (122.17 ¢/g) of gold. Because other currencies were valued in terms of the U.S. dollar, this failed to resolve the disequilibrium between the U.S. dollar and other currencies. In 1975 the United States began to float the dollar with respect to both gold and other currencies. With this the United States was, for the first time, on a fully fiat currency."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_dollar#Cancellation_of_the_gold_standard

bwa hahahahaha!

elliemae, I never thought I'd say "thank you" to you - but there you have it. And yes, it was a dumb a$$ Republican who did that to all of us.

My point was, however, that the government (both parties) do not want to be held accountable with a gold backed currency. Running the printing presses and inflating the money supply gives the crooks of both parties the slush fund's they want to (1) buy votes (2) build bridges to no where (3) wage war on multiple fronts (4) spend lasvishly on pork projects (5) construct airports without passengers (6) keep the dependent class from getting agitated and much, much more.

This has caused our economy to become like a high powered sports car, running at full speed on a dark, narrow, twisty road, in search of a tree.

That was my point Abe. We were on a gold standard, and politicians spent too much anyway. So, why do you think it would work this time?

Politicians always spend too much, but its far easier to obtain the funds when they can simply be printed out of thin air.

Government was reckless while on the gold standard but our fiscal suicide began with the elimination of the gold standard.

Going from fiscal suicide back to reckless would be a big improvement. IMHO.

Honest Abe says

Going from fiscal suicide back to reckless would be a big improvement. IMHO

Until another country started taking all of our gold again.. Like France did. I'd prefer not to give away our wealth.