Should We Kill The Fed?

[Paulie]

It would at least be nice if a competing currency was allowed to exist and even prosper.

If it's backed by gold, then so be it. Liberty Dollar was, and look at what the government eventually decided to do about it in spite of their previous multiple statements about its legality, including statements from the US Treasury itself and also the Federal Reserve.

The government, and more specifically the elites who inhabit it and manipulate it, are scared of a competing currency, that much is obvious.

What are they so scared of if gold-backed currency would ultimately be a failure?

LOL, scared?

Why on earth do we need two currencies? Currency is simple a mechanism for facilitating exchange so we don't have to barter.

If you think the Euro would be a better store of value, then exchange and hold euros. If all you gold proponents out there think gold is such a better asset to hold than dollars, then buy gold! Put your money in gold. No one is stopping you from doing it.

But why do we need two currencies? And have everything price in two currencies and contracts and future obligations etc set in two separate currencies? For what purpose?

I don't know, why do we need more than one car company? More than one commercial bank? More than one department store chain? Why do we need more than one gasoline refiner? More than one oil company?

It's called BUSINESS. I should have the choice of what to use as my medium of exchange based on whatever is going to offer me the greatest purchasing power at that moment. How sad that you don't feel the same.

 

[Paulie]

Keep in mind, yearly gold discoveries raise the gold supply about 1-2% per year.

Milton Friedman suggested we keep money supply expansion at a steady 2% per year, and Friedman is widely recognized by many mainstream economists as being credible and his ideas are used in monetary and fiscal policy still to this day.

If gold supply can raise at the rate that a mainstream economist suggested we expand the money supply, what's so horrible about a gold standard?

 

[neurosport]

Keep in mind, yearly gold discoveries raise the gold supply about 1-2% per year.

Milton Friedman suggested we keep money supply expansion at a steady 2% per year, and Friedman is widely recognized by many mainstream economists as being credible and his ideas are used in monetary and fiscal policy still to this day.

If gold supply can raise at the rate that a mainstream economist suggested we expand the money supply, what's so horrible about a gold standard?

that's not a bad idea ! productivity grows at something like 2% per year. also the population grows. if population grows by 1% per year and productivity by 2% per year then to keep prices steady we would need to increase money supply by 3% per year.

only problem is it wouldn't work.

because when some COCKSUCKER wanted to run a little TRILLION DOLLAR WAR for his own entertainment he would declare it a matter of " national security " and that liberty is more important than avarice or whatever and basically just print the shit.

Joe Salerno says that in a major war ( not sure if he was talking about one of the world wars in particular or just any big war ) no nation has remained on a gold standard. there is simply not enough money to finance the war without PRINTING IT.

so it would work FOR A WHILE ...

 

[mash107]

During times of recession government must spend more to counter act the rising unemployment levels. Its that simple. Party ideology is utterly counter productive because circumstances that arise from economic conditions make for great times for opportunistic politics, but bad times for real economic change. Milton Friedman, who was a staunch advocate of capitalism and deregulation in private sectors of the economy, advocated "government spending is essential during depressions to slow the rising rate of unemployment". Consequentialy, arguing over rhetoric like "government is too large" or "socialism is on the way" means absolutely nothing. Politicians play these stupid political games in front of the camera yet saliently vote for policy that disregards their alleged economic ideology. Everyone talks about the deficit as if they know anything about it. Think of it this way, the federal deficit is an emergency credit card; when you lose your job and cant afford to pay for food or car payments you charge it. This is the role of the deficit and this is what is happening now because nearly 10% of Americans are now out of the job. If this continues to grow the argument wont be the size of government or the balance of the federal deficit, it will be origins of skyrocketing poverty as it was in the 1930's.

Yes, I agree governments must do something during recessions.

They must spend less, and become less burdensome on the economy, so that more jobs can be made. The more they spend and give to their powerful connected buddies, the more jobs get destroyed. Period. Bush spent ourselves to the brink of bankruptcy, and Obama, in all his stupidity, is pushing us over. You'd be a complete partisan hack if you think that it's ok for Obama to spend us into oblivion when we've plainly seen the effects of Bush spending us poor. Just as a person doesn't max out his credit card when he becomes unemployed, one doesn't surely shouldn't advocate that policy for our nation. The reason the 1930s were so bad was precisely because Hoover and FDR tried to spend us out of the recession, and created a depression. Hoover's predecessor, William Harding, was so appalled at the interventionist policies that would surely create a depression, went on to say, "The excess stimulation from that source is to be reckoned a cause of trouble rather than a source of cure."

It is stimulus that turns recessions into depressions. We have to pay the price for the war in Iraq, federal health care, and the lack of a fiscal responsible government with unemployment. Maybe we'll learn our lesson and ask government to spend less... but it seems a Soviet style bankruptcy is inevitable.

 

[mash107]

Keep in mind, yearly gold discoveries raise the gold supply about 1-2% per year.

Milton Friedman suggested we keep money supply expansion at a steady 2% per year, and Friedman is widely recognized by many mainstream economists as being credible and his ideas are used in monetary and fiscal policy still to this day.

If gold supply can raise at the rate that a mainstream economist suggested we expand the money supply, what's so horrible about a gold standard?

that's not a bad idea ! productivity grows at something like 2% per year. also the population grows. if population grows by 1% per year and productivity by 2% per year then to keep prices steady we would need to increase money supply by 3% per year.

only problem is it wouldn't work.

because when some COCKSUCKER wanted to run a little TRILLION DOLLAR WAR for his own entertainment he would declare it a matter of " national security " and that liberty is more important than avarice or whatever and basically just print the shit.

Joe Salerno says that in a major war ( not sure if he was talking about one of the world wars in particular or just any big war ) no nation has remained on a gold standard. there is simply not enough money to finance the war without PRINTING IT.

so it would work FOR A WHILE ...

Then why not remove anyone's ability to run a trillion dollar war with a gold standard? They'd have to learn to crap gold if they wanted to go to war. Better yet, remove money creation completely out of the hands of government so no one can decide that they want to make people poorer at a whim. But taking the power away for banks to rely on the purse of government is too much power for our powerful to concede, so a free market solution doesn't seem likely.

 

[editec]

Keep in mind, yearly gold discoveries raise the gold supply about 1-2% per year.

Milton Friedman suggested we keep money supply expansion at a steady 2% per year, and Friedman is widely recognized by many mainstream economists as being credible and his ideas are used in monetary and fiscal policy still to this day.

If gold supply can raise at the rate that a mainstream economist suggested we expand the money supply, what's so horrible about a gold standard?

If we could locate and procure gold to back our currency at the same rate that our economy is growing?

Abolutely nothing is wrong with it. NOT so long as the GOVERNMENT already owns enough gold to back up EXISTING money, at least.

I'll bet the above coming from me surprises some of you, eh?

Of course, nobody (I think) knows how much gold the USA really has, do they?

Here's what I can find

Current holdings are around 147.3 million ounces (4,570 t) in around 368,000 standard 400 troy ounce (12.4 kg or 27.4 lb avoirdupois) gold bars. At April 2008 rates of $913 an ounce it is worth roughly $134 billion.

source

If that's the case?

Then America would need one hell of a lot of gold to back up the existing dollars either in existence or implied as existing on all accounting ledgers in the world.

I don't actually KNOW how many American dollars exist as paper or implied as accounting entries, but I know god damned well it a lot more than:

$134 billion​

So if the USA specie is going to be backed by gold, then the USA needs to get its hands on TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of gold. (probably hundred of trillions!)​

And THAT is why so many gold bugs (people who own trade and hoarde gold) WANT us to go onto the gold standard, folks.​

Because in order for the USA to go onto the gold standard, an ounce of gold would have to be worth lord only KNOWS who much more than its costs now.​

And while we're on the subject of the gold standard....how would the gold standard really prevent the government from borrowing money it didn't have?​

I don't think the gold standard would change a god damned thing, except to completely bankrupt the nation the DAY the law was passed.​

Oh, and incidently? it would bankrupt every national government on earth that same day, I suspect.​

I put the gold standard idea in the same category of unworkable insanity as I put my own 100% inheritence idea.​

Niether plan is workable, advisable or doable.​

It sounds neat as hell, like most simply solutions for very complex problems often do, but it's an idea that won't work.​

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As addressed earlier in the thread, the amount of money in circulation does not need to be increased because the value of the money in circulation would increase. Of course, as Paulie has pointed out the amount of money in circulation would increase as the supply of gold increased.

 

[Paulie]

As addressed earlier in the thread, the amount of money in circulation does not need to be increased because the value of the money in circulation would increase. Of course, as Paulie has pointed out the amount of money in circulation would increase as the supply of gold increased.

Yeah, and that wouldn't be a bad thing. If gold supplies increase, then money supply increases. The value of the note wouldn't decrease, however, which is what is most important.

And Editec also raises a great question...just how much gold DOES the US still own?? You'll be hard pressed to find a real answer to that from ANYONE.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As addressed earlier in the thread, the amount of money in circulation does not need to be increased because the value of the money in circulation would increase. Of course, as Paulie has pointed out the amount of money in circulation would increase as the supply of gold increased.

Yeah, and that wouldn't be a bad thing. If gold supplies increase, then money supply increases. The value of the note wouldn't decrease, however, which is what is most important.

And Editec also raises a great question...just how much gold DOES the US still own?? You'll be hard pressed to find a real answer to that from ANYONE.

Absolutely correct, so long as the increase in the money supply is still backed by gold then there's no problem.

 

[ItsFairmont]

According to some conspiracy theorists, Fort Knox is empty.


You CAN be on the gold standard individually. Just put all your money into gold, keep it locked up good and safe, and then take out one coin when it's time to buy supplies, cash it in for dollars at a coin shop, and then spend the dollars on the supplies you need.

The only hyperinflation that I know of in which prices changed throughout the day was in Zimbabwe.


Seriously, if you have, say, a thousand gold coins in your home, each weighing an ounce, then you have roughly 800k to 1 million dollars. You take a coin out once per month, maybe two coins, and pay your mortgage, buy groceries, gas up the car (and a reserve tank of gas), etc.

Seriously, that would be the personal gold standard, and it would work (as long as all the neighbors are in the dark about your secret gold stash. That could be a tricky issue).


Dollars are worthless in themselves. They can't be eaten (well, I guess they could), cannot warm your home, clothe you, etc. You trade them for real wealth: tools, soap, cigarettes, food, supplies, gas, etc.).



Finally, I think that during the Great Depression the government actually confiscated gold from Americans. Can anyone back me up on this?

I know what I'd say: "Gold? I don't have any."

Of course, you wouldn't be able to trade it if the government tried to take it away, but I'd just save it anyway.


More importantly, gold is worthless as well. You can make products out of it (like those really cool and sophisticated gold teeth the hoodlums have), but it's just a chunk of metal out of the ground.


Real wealth is in assets that others might want, like tools, soap, cigarettes, etc. (the things I mentioned before).


Bottom line, however: Just like 500 years ago, the sign of wealth was land and gold.

Still is. Those two investments are the safest in the world.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

According to some conspiracy theorists, Fort Knox is empty.


You CAN be on the gold standard individually. Just put all your money into gold, keep it locked up good and safe, and then take out one coin when it's time to buy supplies, cash it in for dollars at a coin shop, and then spend the dollars on the supplies you need.

The only hyperinflation that I know of in which prices changed throughout the day was in Zimbabwe.


Seriously, if you have, say, a thousand gold coins in your home, each weighing an ounce, then you have roughly 800k to 1 million dollars. You take a coin out once per month, maybe two coins, and pay your mortgage, buy groceries, gas up the car (and a reserve tank of gas), etc.

Seriously, that would be the personal gold standard, and it would work (as long as all the neighbors are in the dark about your secret gold stash. That could be a tricky issue).


Dollars are worthless in themselves. They can't be eaten (well, I guess they could), cannot warm your home, clothe you, etc. You trade them for real wealth: tools, soap, cigarettes, food, supplies, gas, etc.).



Finally, I think that during the Great Depression the government actually confiscated gold from Americans. Can anyone back me up on this?

I know what I'd say: "Gold? I don't have any."

Of course, you wouldn't be able to trade it if the government tried to take it away, but I'd just save it anyway.


More importantly, gold is worthless as well. You can make products out of it (like those really cool and sophisticated gold teeth the hoodlums have), but it's just a chunk of metal out of the ground.


Real wealth is in assets that others might want, like tools, soap, cigarettes, etc. (the things I mentioned before).


Bottom line, however: Just like 500 years ago, the sign of wealth was land and gold.

Still is. Those two investments are the safest in the world.

Yes, FDR confiscated the gold of American citizens.

 

[neurosport]

Then why not remove anyone's ability to run a trillion dollar war with a gold standard?

a nation on the gold standard simply abandons it as soon as it goes into war.

if people knew that the purpose of wars is for banks and military industrial complex to profit the shit would stop.

but people only "know" what the lap dog mass media tells them.

people are both too intellectually lazy and too caught up in a nuclear arms race with their neighbor to have the biggest flat screen TV to notice something as pesky as reality.

 

[neurosport]

Yes, FDR confiscated the gold of American citizens.

government produced history textbooks force fed to our children seem to assign greatness to presidents in reverse order

FDR and Lincoln were some of the worst presidents easily on par with Hitler

of course if Hitler won you can be sure today in German government produced history textbooks he would be the greater than Jesus ...

people are so unbelievably stupid !

only the most completely brain dead person ( or somebody who hates his children ) can allow his kids to attend public school.

 

[mash107]

Then why not remove anyone's ability to run a trillion dollar war with a gold standard?

a nation on the gold standard simply abandons it as soon as it goes into war.

if people knew that the purpose of wars is for banks and military industrial complex to profit the shit would stop.

but people only "know" what the lap dog mass media tells them.

people are both too intellectually lazy and too caught up in a nuclear arms race with their neighbor to have the biggest flat screen TV to notice something as pesky as reality.

Then why not try the free market approach where government doesn't have the authority to pillage us to go to war, expand welfare or do anything else that makes us poorer at a whim? Banks would lose the power of using the taxpayers to finance their risky, leveraged loans, and the smart of the banks would avoid them, yielding more stability. Banks shouldn't be given any more power than any other service, yet through the Federal Reserve, they are. If you oppose the consolidation of power, there's nothing more awesome than the power of money creation, and that needs to be kept out of the hands of our rulers.

 

[Iriemon]

Keep in mind, yearly gold discoveries raise the gold supply about 1-2% per year.

Milton Friedman suggested we keep money supply expansion at a steady 2% per year, and Friedman is widely recognized by many mainstream economists as being credible and his ideas are used in monetary and fiscal policy still to this day.

If gold supply can raise at the rate that a mainstream economist suggested we expand the money supply, what's so horrible about a gold standard?

that's not a bad idea ! productivity grows at something like 2% per year. also the population grows. if population grows by 1% per year and productivity by 2% per year then to keep prices steady we would need to increase money supply by 3% per year.

only problem is it wouldn't work.

because when some COCKSUCKER wanted to run a little TRILLION DOLLAR WAR for his own entertainment he would declare it a matter of " national security " and that liberty is more important than avarice or whatever and basically just print the shit.

Joe Salerno says that in a major war ( not sure if he was talking about one of the world wars in particular or just any big war ) no nation has remained on a gold standard. there is simply not enough money to finance the war without PRINTING IT.

so it would work FOR A WHILE ...

Then why not remove anyone's ability to run a trillion dollar war with a gold standard? They'd have to learn to crap gold if they wanted to go to war. Better yet, remove money creation completely out of the hands of government so no one can decide that they want to make people poorer at a whim. But taking the power away for banks to rely on the purse of government is too much power for our powerful to concede, so a free market solution doesn't seem likely.

The Govt couldn't borrow money when the currency was on the Gold standard? That's news to me. I'm pretty sure if we check the records we'll find it borrowed plenty.

 

[Iriemon]

Yes, FDR confiscated the gold of American citizens.

government produced history textbooks force fed to our children seem to assign greatness to presidents in reverse order

FDR and Lincoln were some of the worst presidents easily on par with Hitler

of course if Hitler won you can be sure today in German government produced history textbooks he would be the greater than Jesus ...

people are so unbelievably stupid !

Thanks for demonstrating that to us.

 

[mash107]

Yes, FDR confiscated the gold of American citizens.

government produced history textbooks force fed to our children seem to assign greatness to presidents in reverse order

FDR and Lincoln were some of the worst presidents easily on par with Hitler

of course if Hitler won you can be sure today in German government produced history textbooks he would be the greater than Jesus ...

people are so unbelievably stupid !

Thanks for demonstrating that to us.

Well, FDR and Lincoln were the most authoritarian Presidents in the U.S. up to their time.

Lincoln had 620,000 Americans killed so that he could ensure that the Federal government had authority over State government (which is against what the Constitution said). FDR starved millions with his New Deal policies, as well.

So one could say that they were our worst Presidents ever (I'd throw Woodrow Wilson in that mix for WWI, income tax and Federal Reserve), but that's not quite equivalent to the deliberate murder of people ala Hitler.

I like Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson for their opposition to the national banks the most.

 

[Iriemon]

government produced history textbooks force fed to our children seem to assign greatness to presidents in reverse order

FDR and Lincoln were some of the worst presidents easily on par with Hitler

of course if Hitler won you can be sure today in German government produced history textbooks he would be the greater than Jesus ...

people are so unbelievably stupid !

Thanks for demonstrating that to us.

Well, FDR and Lincoln were the most authoritarian Presidents in the U.S. up to their time.

Lincoln had 620,000 Americans killed so that he could ensure that the Federal government had authority over State government (which is against what the Constitution said). FDR starved millions with his New Deal policies, as well.

So one could say that they were our worst Presidents ever (I'd throw Woodrow Wilson in that mix for WWI, income tax and Federal Reserve), but that's not quite equivalent to the deliberate murder of people ala Hitler.

Well jeez, thanks for acknowledging that. I don't recall either one disbanding the congress and making himself furher for life either.

To even make a comparison of any US president to Hitler is assisine in the extreme.

 

[mash107]

Thanks for demonstrating that to us.

Well, FDR and Lincoln were the most authoritarian Presidents in the U.S. up to their time.

Lincoln had 620,000 Americans killed so that he could ensure that the Federal government had authority over State government (which is against what the Constitution said). FDR starved millions with his New Deal policies, as well.

So one could say that they were our worst Presidents ever (I'd throw Woodrow Wilson in that mix for WWI, income tax and Federal Reserve), but that's not quite equivalent to the deliberate murder of people ala Hitler.

Well jeez, thanks for acknowledging that. I don't recall either one disbanding the congress and making himself furher for life either.

To even make a comparison of any US president to Hitler is assisine in the extreme.

I agree with that. The outcomes may have been the same loss of life and liberty, but one is deliberate and the other is not.

 

[Iriemon]

Well, FDR and Lincoln were the most authoritarian Presidents in the U.S. up to their time.

Lincoln had 620,000 Americans killed so that he could ensure that the Federal government had authority over State government (which is against what the Constitution said). FDR starved millions with his New Deal policies, as well.

So one could say that they were our worst Presidents ever (I'd throw Woodrow Wilson in that mix for WWI, income tax and Federal Reserve), but that's not quite equivalent to the deliberate murder of people ala Hitler.

Well jeez, thanks for acknowledging that. I don't recall either one disbanding the congress and making himself furher for life either.

To even make a comparison of any US president to Hitler is assisine in the extreme.

I agree with that. The outcomes may have been the same loss of life and liberty, but one is deliberate and the other is not.

I could not disagree more with your assertion that "The outcomes may have been the same loss of life and liberty" between FDR or Lincoln or any other president compared to Hitler. IMO that is a ridiculous thing even to suggest.