Should the US return to the Gold Standard?

[Dapper]

You do realise that taking only the dollar into account is missing the point, right? Because, well, the idea is that the dollar is being backed by gold which, and I'll mark the important point, has a global value and isn't devalued by the inflation of the dollar itself. In your example, the change in price can very well be attributed to the dollar, not just to the gold. You, again, fail to understand the difference between buying gold and being guaranteed to be bale to receive XXX gramms of gold for your 10 dollar bill, no matter what the economic situation looks like.

And so goes no growth. But getting back your gold gives you clout in the minute computer part and jewelry industries.

Also, you keep on ramblong on about Watson. Do you fail to realize that both the good and the bad go into the value of the dollar?

When man invented fire, he burnt down his neighboring village. The negative aspects of fire do not mitigate the positives. Growth and innovation are inevitable, they're part of evolution. Going off the gold standard is no different in my view.

So, alongside Watson, you have, say, Lehman Brothers. Yeah, wouldn't you want to invest into that? Worked briliiantly in the past, I hear.

Like I already said, that debacle is a direct result of laissez faire approach to banking, not much to do with gold.

I do. So I'll take it from you if you're willing to give it.

Like what? And I am not in the minute computer part of jewelry business, so I don't have any on hand.

 

[Luminis]

Maybe some graphics might help.

First, Euro vs. Dollar.

As we can see here, the dollar has been losing value compared to the Euro. In 2002, you only had to pay 0.90$ to buy one Euro. Today, you'd have to pay 1,33$ to buy one Euro.

Second, gold vs. Euro.

As we can see, the gold price has been constantly increasing.

So, if you had a gold standard would receive the same ounce of gold for 100$ now that you would've received in 2002, you wouldn't have lost any value. Without it, though, you just lost a lot. Because the people that "invented Watson" don't seem to be enough to back that currency up.

Now, gold obviously has value. And it's increasing. As opposed to the doller. Fact.

And so goes no growth.

No growth? What are you talking about?

When man invented fire, he burnt down his neighboring village. The negative aspects of fire do not mitigate the positives. Growth and innovation are inevitable, they're part of evolution. Going off the gold standard is no different in my view.

Then your view is flawed. Quite severly. No wonder, though, as you depicted that you don't understand the gold standard, at all.

Like I already said, that debacle is a direct result of laissez faire approach to banking, nothing to do with the

Which, too, would be half the truth, at the very best.

 

[Omnis]

Gold isn't increasing, "dollers is decreesin".

 

[arora]

At first I thought this was brought up because of Ron Paul's stance on the fed reserve or something, but elimating the fed would cripple crooked bankers and croonie capitalists, so I thought some more........

By placing all curency value theorically in 'the people' it starts making sense, in a socialist mindset no one man is allowed to accumulate wealth, and god forbid if that wealth involves property(gold in this case).

 

[Luminis]

Well, I've been taking the Euro for comparison, buut it would depend on the point of view, I guess

The important thing is the relative value, anyways.

 

[Liquid]

By placing all curency value theorically in 'the people' it starts making sense, in a socialist mindset no one man is allowed to accumulate wealth, and god forbid if that wealth involves property(gold in this case).

That sounds like red talk to me. We don't like your sorts round dese parts.

 

[arora]

Mazda meet Dapper

 

[Dapper]

Then your view is flawed. Quite severly. No wonder, though, as you depicted that you don't understand the gold standard, at all.

If gold never changes price, then our economy is subject to the whims of the mining industry. That's opposed to having our economy based on things that actually get stuff done. The more that gets done, the more wealth is created.

On the gold standard, if no new gold were mined the economy could not grow.

Which, too, would be half the truth, at the very best.

Let's hear it then, what is the whole truth? (the truth is in one detail)

 

[Keef]

Gold isn't increasing, "dollers is decreesin".

This is correct.

Dapper linked a graph showing the price of gold fluctuating all over the place. The price, not necessarily the value. The graph shows the amount of dollars it takes to buy a fixed amount of gold, an ounce.

The amount of gold in the graph never changes. The only thing that changes is the number of dollars required to buy that amount. The graph is showing the fluctuating purchasing power of our fiat dollar over time, not the real value of gold.

The reason the price of gold has gone up so drastically lately is not because the real value of gold has changed, but because the dollar's real value has dropped because of inflation. Gold is a scarce resource only accessible in limited quantities, whereas the number of zeros plugged into banks' computer databases by the Federal Reserve is just as piss-worthless as a digital bootleg, while the paper notes are useful for kindling and nothing more (Weimar Germans burned their Marks by the wheelbarrow to heat their homes).

Even JMK, the champion of fractional reserve banking, et. al., spoke about how the Europeans created disastrous inflation by printing money carelessly: "The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent Governments, unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance."

Iono, perhaps they should have stopped spending so much money and they wouldn't have need to print it and ruin their currencies and incite revolutions in the process.

 

[Luminis]

If gold never changes price, then our economy is subject to the whims of the mining industry. That's opposed to having our economy based on things that actually get stuff done.

On the gold standard, if we found no new gold we could not grow.

That would be the case if inflation was necessary to provide ecnonomic growth. Which, I'm sure you will realise, isn't the case.

Gold would just become more valuable im comparison to the amount of goods produced by a given country.

Let's hear it then. The truth is in one detail.

How about people being dumb enough to take out loans that they could never pay back? I know that it's the new cool thing to excuse each and every dumb action people make, but still.

 

[Liquid]

(Weimar Germans burned their Marks by the wheelbarrow to heat their homes).

Related pictures I took at a museum a few weeks ago:

20,000,000M was the highest denomination I saw, but I was told they printed higher.

This is how bad it can become.

 

[Dapper]

That would be the case if inflation was necessary to provide ecnonomic growth. Which, I'm sure you will realise, isn't the case.

Gold would just become more valuable im comparison to the amount of goods produced by a given country.

How would a country get the resources to innovate or grow if no new gold were mined?

How about people being dumb enough to take out loans that they could never pay back? I know that it's the new cool thing to excuse each and every dumb action people make, but still.

Why didn't that happen in the rest of US history?

This is how bad it can become.

If nothing is innovated, created, invented... Basically if nothing but printing goes on.

 

[arora]

OMG

On the gold standard, if we found no new gold we could not grow.

As soon as I said I've never agreed with you

But we have not mined every last ounce and probably never will, if we did, we could slowly decrease the percent of backing. Lets not forget silver either...

 

[Keef]

20,000,000M was the highest denomination I saw, but I was told they printed higher.

Supposedly the highest was a 100,000,000,000,000 (trillion) Mark. Nice pictures by the way. It's great to see that they've saved those lessons from history.

 

[Liquid]

Supposedly the highest was a 100,000,000,000,000 (trillion) Mark.

Germany uses short scale numbers and milliard Mark notes were definitely printed. Or a billion marks to you and me.

 

[Luminis]

How would a country get the resources to innovate or grow if no new gold were mined?

Because you buy stuff, then sell other stuff to buy new stuff again. Is it that hard? That's the very basis of commerce.

Why didn't that happen in the rest of US history?

Oh, you mean no dumb action ever negatively influenced the US? Are you trolling me or just seriously ignorant?

 

[Dapper]

OMG


As soon as I said I've never agreed with you

But we have not mined every last ounce and probably never will, if we did, we could slowly decrease the percent of backing. Lets not forget silver either...

Since gold is atomically heavy compared to most elements, most of the gold on Earth is probably close to the core.

But I contend the human spirit and ability, specially America's! , is far more valuable than anything material.

Because you buy stuff, then sell other stuff to buy new stuff again. Is it that hard? That's the very basis of commerce.

On the gold standard, growth only comes from new gold.

XGold is worth x... x buys y... y buys XGold... XGold is still worth x. I see no growth.

Oh, you mean no dumb action ever negatively influenced the US? Are you trolling me or just seriously ignorant?

You just don't know what you are talking about. Why didn't people buy houses they couldn't afford pre-mid 1990's?

edit- Looking at this graph, what caused the enormous spike?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RT_tUbUA3...A/s1600/Inflation-Adjusted+Housing+Prices.jpg

 

[Luminis]

On the gold standard, growth only comes from new gold.

XGold is worth x... x buys y... y buys XGold... XGold buys x. I see no growth.

It never occured to you that Y isn't a fixed value?

You just don't know what you are talking about. Why didn't people buy houses they couldn't afford pre-mid 1990's?

Who says they didn't? And who said that that was the only factor?

edit- Looking at this graph, what caused the enormous spike?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RT_tUbUA3...A/s1600/Inflation-Adjusted+Housing+Prices.jpg

It's called a bubble, caused mainly by investors. Now, as I said, people making dumb decisions wasn't the only factor (I said your point was half the truth, remember?) and I doubt you are willing to claim that the housing bubble could've happened if people would've straigh up refused to take out loans that couldn't be paid back.

Anyways, it's 2AM here, I'll go have a nap. You guys have fun.

 

[Dapper]

It never occured to you that Y isn't a fixed value?

With no new output, it wouldn't change. Supply/demand...

Who says they didn't? And who said that that was the only factor?

It's called a bubble, caused mainly by investors. Now, as I said, people making dumb decisions wasn't the only factor (I said your point was half the truth, remember?) and I doubt you are willing to claim that the housing bubble could've happened if people would've straigh up refused to take out loans that couldn't be paid back.

Ugh... what caused the bubble?! Investors how?
Ask nicely and I'll link you to objective answers.

 

[Azuremen]

Ugh... what caused the bubble?! Investors how?
Ask nicely and I'll link you to objective answers.

Did you ever hear of the dot com bubble? The result of investors...

Also, what goes on inside that head of yours that actually makes you think you have information we can't find? Assuming we care about it...

 

[arora]

We've already been over the housing thing, at length. Can't recal which thread though, the U.S. one maybe, but it's a tired horse you want to keep whipping?

 

[Dapper]

The thing about the housing bubble is it a good example of the government doing the wrong thing, and not doing enough... Albeit I stick with the 'not doing enough' side of things usually.

 

[FoolKiller]

If I keep repeating something it must be true.

If I keep repeating something it must be true.

If I keep repeating something it must be true.

If I keep repeating something it must be true.

If I keep repeating something it must be true.

If I keep repeating something it must be true.

If I keep repeating something it must be true.

FACT!

 

[Omnis]

Ca-ching!

 

[arora]

The thing about the housing bubble is it a good example of the government doing the wrong thing, and not doing enough... Albeit I stick with the 'not doing enough' side of things usually.

Freddy and Fanny didn't do enough? lol........... Oh you mean the unregulated trading of derivitives, didn't they trade off junk mortgages F n F insisted on giving?

Do you ever stop and think the fed gov creates problems faster then they can 'solve' them? Reminds of infomercials....''darnit you woke up and your feet were to cold to walk on a cold floor to the restroom? No worries, adult diapers to the rescue, order now and we'll throw in these cool bedroom slippers''.

 

[Dapper]

Despite your wishes, I don't think I've ever spoke favorably of the decisions the US government has made recently. That doesn't mean the government is not capable of using it's enumerated powers in a very successful way... It worked almost flawlessly for most of the 19th century. Regression is not the answer. That is what Ron Paul supporters advocate in my opinion, and that is more dangerous than religion.

I never commented on Fran or Fred. But making a lot people suddenly able to buy houses with no monetary growth or having sustained growth, and having no real growth in the number of houses is the governments fault, and is the cause of the bubble. We can discuss the specifics, in another thread if needed, but the fact is the government has the power to make what happen not happen.

And there was no Dot com bubble. That is just a manifestation of exponential technology growth; It was perfectly presictable and expected. The fed is based on linear growth, as well as the pov's on this forum.

A novel idea: Dr. Ron Paul is on the biggest media stage in the world, and it'd be nice if he spoke out using his authoritarian, expert status in obstetricians to make people aware of the epidemic of c-sections, pitocin induced births, epidurals, ultrasounds and the subsequent unknown long term effects of ALL those things being given to a generation of what is now experiment babies. And Autism is now becoming as prevalent as red hair with no known cause. I am sure JC would be happier with his public service advocating woman and children's health over archaic monetary systems.

 

[arora]

I don't wish for anyone to advocate a currupt system, that would be silly. I think you missed my point but whatever, big gov is not the answer, to many croonies, personal responsability is a start, add some morality and compassion, you might get somewhere.

Since this is da prez thread after all, lets look at your only viable candidate(yes I know he is not your man, blah blah) chances are you will vote for him anyway, you can surely follow the money and see who's back pocket he resides. so.... A bigger more powerful him is going to benifit who exactly?

 

[F1 fan]

Considering the US is the most innovative, valuable country on Earth, everything you say has no basis.

Did you really just say that? What ignorance.

Why didn't that happen in the rest of US history?

Ahh. This explains it. Another person ignorant to the rest of the world.

 

[arora]

Who is JC?

EDIT oops I see now, a dig at the catholics and the healthcare/birth control issue?

 

[Dapper]

Sorry for the long edit.

I had noted Paul says all his political actions (i guess that extends to his personal life too) are derived from the Jesus or something like that. Nothing about Catholics or birth control.

@ F1fan, The US has almost 1/4 of the world GDP and is exponentially growing as I noted.
GDP real growth Unless gold mining mirrors this growth...