Trump proposes returning to the gold standard.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I really don't care about Bush, Clinton or Obama. I care about my grandchildren and their future. So I DO give a crap, as you say.

IF a gold standard cuts the room down for abuse of the system and gold goes off personal ownership, I will lose no sleep over it.

I can invest, hoard or trade in a plethora of other commodities. I'm not allergic to any of them.

a reply to: anonentity


You left out ammo. It will be more valuable than gold.....

Well if they were to, the first thing that would have to happen, is that all gold, would have to be collected. That means, beyond very few personal items, the rest would have to be collected to build up the reserve. Gold mines in the USA would have to go under government control.

The downside, is that many parts of the budget, especially the big parts, like the military, would end up getting cut, along with more social net programs, such as social security.

The value of gold would simply go up to whatever it takes to back the money. So anyone smart enough to own bullion will be rich. I'll sell mine for a billion per ounce.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Emotional responses prove nothing, though. You asked about the debt. I pointed out that moving us back to the gold standard would do nothing about the debt situation since the people who create the budget will continue to create budgets that run deficits instead of surpluses.

And for the record, we also had a national debt when our country was under the gold standard. Here's a link showing the national debt at the end of every year from 1850-1899 (HERE). And here's one from 1900 to 1949 (HERE). So I don't see why you're linking debt to the gold standard, anyway.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Are you implying that you would be ok with the federal government confiscating gold from US citizens?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: nwtrucker

Emotional responses prove nothing, though. You asked about the debt. I pointed out that moving us back to the gold standard would do nothing about the debt situation since the people who create the budget will continue to create budgets that run deficits instead of surpluses.

And for the record, we also had a national debt when our country was under the gold standard. Here's a link showing the national debt at the end of every year from 1850-1899 (HERE). And here's one from 1900 to 1949 (HERE). So I don't see why you're linking debt to the gold standard, anyway.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Are you implying that you would be ok with the federal government confiscating gold from US citizens?

Guess you didn't read my post. Yep, I'm ok with it. No 'emotion' on it at all..

Sure there's always been debt. It's been just a bit easier of late, yes? Now you can print as much as you want, when you want. That wasn't always the case, was it.

Two excellent articles on Lybian gold and paper:

qz.com/1009354/united-nations-report-shows-lost-gaddafi-millions-may-be-hidden-all-over-africa/

qz.com...

Background:

panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de...

panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/articles/573aeac75632a39742ed39a0/

Then a few days ago... poof:

www.rt.com/news/420837-flozen-libyan-billions-missing/

www.rt.com...

"flozen"?

Did USA step in behind the scenes and "unflose" some accounts?

Related?

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
The value of gold would simply go up to whatever it takes to back the money. So anyone smart enough to own bullion will be rich. I'll sell mine for a billion per ounce.

actually...the gov can take it for free citing Nat Sec like in WW2

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TexasTruth
I don't know if a few of these people on this thread are really dumb or paid shills.
Gold standard is what made America what it is or was. Now, we print fake money backed by nothing and when the banks run low they just print more paper crap money. So, when a bank on the gold standard wanted to put out more loans than they could back with gold, they couldn't. They would have to wait and grow revenue or gold. But when it's backed by nothing, they loan freely and collect all the nations wealth through loan revenue. And then you have yourself a 1% untouchable class that we have today.
As a matter of fact we have bitcoin now which is a new way to rob even more. Bit mining is rediculous.

You understand nothing about economic history. When happened in the past is that banks would lend WELL past their gold reserves then when the economy started to contract, bank runs would happen of people trying to pull all the gold out of the bank and then the bank would go out of business.

You are correct, and that is considered criminal. A world without criminals and thieves would be great, but it happens. Enron and our craptastic federal reserve are a few in recent times not under the gold standard.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: nwtrucker

Emotional responses prove nothing, though. You asked about the debt. I pointed out that moving us back to the gold standard would do nothing about the debt situation since the people who create the budget will continue to create budgets that run deficits instead of surpluses.

And for the record, we also had a national debt when our country was under the gold standard. Here's a link showing the national debt at the end of every year from 1850-1899 (HERE). And here's one from 1900 to 1949 (HERE). So I don't see why you're linking debt to the gold standard, anyway.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Are you implying that you would be ok with the federal government confiscating gold from US citizens?

Guess you didn't read my post. Yep, I'm ok with it. No 'emotion' on it at all..

No emotion? I was referring to this part:

I care about my grandchildren and their future. So I DO give a crap, as you say.

I mean, you even put "do" in all caps for extra emphasis.

Either way, at least you're being honest about being ok w/the govt seizing private property from American citizens if it's deemed to be "for the greater good". Now, I wonder where else we could use that logic...

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

??? The debt is still there. The amount owed is still there. The value of each has been changed. Nothing else...except perhaps the possibility of hyper-inflation.

The only thing that changes is the ability to manipulate, print or otherwise mess with it. At the least, it minimizes it.

You should do the math. It really kills your theory.

They've estimated that we've only mined about 187,200 tonnes of the stuff at about $40.2 million per tonne. So 187,200 * $40.2 million = $7.5 trillion. A number that you'll notice doesn't even cover half the current American debt. If we switched to the gold standard, you can bet that quite a few people would lose quite a bit of their wealth and have a high chance of going bankrupt. I imagine it would also crash our economy worse than even the 1930's as the country's monetary supply would shrink DRASTICALLY.

These, "switch to the gold standard" arguments never analyze the nuance of such a thing. Hell, just do some math and you'll see why this idea is impractical. If we want to improve our monetary supply, we should work on NEW monetary systems, not revert to proven failed systems.

OK. I've stepped into a quagmire here. Now I'm totally, utterly confused. I'm missing some basic in all this and I need help from anyone that can explain it on a '101 level'.

Since when is the gold standard a 'failed system'?? How? Why?

How did Iceland cancel all the citizens' debt to banks and that nation is still functioning?

HELP!!

Gold standard has consistently failed whenever economies get into serious difficulties.

Icekland did not cancel all its citizens debt. Its a complete urban myth.

Ok. So we're not on a gold standard now and this system is near failure, as well. I don't see the distinction.

Iceland? Ok. Let that one go.

The 2008 crash was a bigger financial shock than the start of the Great Depression.

The ability of governments to increase the monetary base and offer unrestricted guarantees prevented it becoming anything like as bad (although governments should have done more and differently but that's a different argument).

Ok. I ask couldn't that have been done or something similar on a short term, emergency basis even on a gold Standard?

Even if it couldn't, and that's beyond my knowledge one way or the other, that one time justifies the current system whereby the U.S. gov't just issues more and more and increase the paper debt unceasingly to keep those markets and the economy, overall, afloat?

At least a bigger crash then would have balanced out sooner or later with the correction instead of passing the buck, so to speak, to the future where when it finally does crash there is no recovery?

In order to do something similar either they gave to temporary leave the standard or revalue the currency. Both of which defeat the purpose of having a standard on the first place and can potentially create further economic uncertainty.

Evidence from the gold standard era shows that markets don't self correct back after a major economic shock. Instead there are prolonged periods of unemployment and underproduction. That have real consequences for both individuals and society.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just another thought. Per your numbers the total value of the current gold is about 7.5 Trillion with a national debt of 20 Trillion, so the numbers don't add up.

OK. So having 7.5 trillion backing your 20 trillion debt isn't better than having nothing backing that 20 trillion debt?

Only a small fraction of that is owned by the US government. In order to get enough to even partially back the dollar the government would have to go on a mass purchasing program (which by itself would keep pushing people the price it had to pay).

Trying to obtain sufficient gold reserves would cause hyperinflation on the US. The very thing fans of a gold standard claim to be trying to prevent.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: manuelram16
Don't think it has to do anything with physical gold, but to take the USD currency control from the "Deep State" Federal reserve bank.

The central bankers controlled the money supply during the gold standard, too. In fact, other governments sent their gold to the central bankers' vaults in London in order to obtain British pounds & they sent it to US central banks' vaults in order to obtain US Dollars.

I am being slightly over pedantic here but technically central banks control the monetary base and influence the monetary supply (under pure fiat and gold standard).

Only reason I mention it is that many people arguing in favour of a gold standard conflate fractional reserve banking and fiat money.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Fair enough. Though I think my point still stands in relation to what I was responding to (which was refuting the idea that going back to a gold standard would "take the USD currency control from the 'Deep State' Federal reserve bank").

a reply to: nwtrucker


If we go back to the gold standard, criminal financers will no longer be able to manipulate currency,or, at the very least it becomes more difficult, the whole debt slavery system comes crashing down. We would have to reset our whole financial system and suddenly the people who are pulling the strings are no longer pulling them. Good, let it happen. It needs to, the Ponzi scheme that is our economy is going to crash regardless of whether or not we do this, they have so convoluted it they cant even manipulate it enough to control it forever. We should just nationalize the banking system and go to a gold standard immediately. Russia and China are rapidly backing their currency with gold because they know the crash is coming, we can do the same or become an imploded failed state. IMHO its what is causing all the world turmoil. Those running things know its going to crash and they are terrified and desparate, hence we are seeing what we see going on, because they would rather see a world in chaos or in flames than one that is able to muster justice against them when their house of cards comes crashing down.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Well if they were to, the first thing that would have to happen, is that all gold, would have to be collected. That means, beyond very few personal items, the rest would have to be collected to build up the reserve. Gold mines in the USA would have to go under government control.

The downside, is that many parts of the budget, especially the big parts, like the military, would end up getting cut, along with more social net programs, such as social security.

Social security is not an entitlement program, its funded by US. Its our money. I think we should cut congress and the senate's pay and benefits first. And stop all foreign aid.

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: nwtrucker


If we go back to the gold standard, criminal financers will no longer be able to manipulate currency,or, at the very least it becomes more difficult, the whole debt slavery system comes crashing down. (..)

No, debts will still be a thing. How would that you lend money for a price be changed by changing the backing of the money itself?
Dream on. Debts will not be deleted. Drop the credit cards, they are the trap.

originally posted by: openminded2011

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Well if they were to, the first thing that would have to happen, is that all gold, would have to be collected. That means, beyond very few personal items, the rest would have to be collected to build up the reserve. Gold mines in the USA would have to go under government control.

The downside, is that many parts of the budget, especially the big parts, like the military, would end up getting cut, along with more social net programs, such as social security.

Social security is not an entitlement program, its funded by US. Its our money. I think we should cut congress and the senate's pay and benefits first. And stop all foreign aid.

There's a huge downside to cutting foreign aid though. A lot of it is used to make sure we have stable foreign markets for our exports, which is a nice way to say that they allow our companies to do business in their territory in exchange for foreign aid. Foreign aid also helps in the opposite way, with us giving aid to a country in exchange for us receiving goods/services from them at discounted prices. One of the policies that I'm referring to is a WTO program literally called "Aid for Trade" that targets developing countries lol.

And without foreign aid, why would we expect foreign countries with gold mines to allow our newly nationalized mining companies to mine their gold when they could easily make those deals with other countries that were still giving them aid? Sometimes you have to pay to play. And the second the world realized we were planning to switch over to a gold standard, the demand for gold would skyrocket, as would its price and the rights to gold deposits.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: nwtrucker


If we go back to the gold standard, criminal financers will no longer be able to manipulate currency,or, at the very least it becomes more difficult, the whole debt slavery system comes crashing down. (..)

No, debts will still be a thing. How would that you lend money for a price be changed by changing the backing of the money itself?
Dream on. Debts will not be deleted. Drop the credit cards, they are the trap.

Disagree. The dollar has devalued 90 percent since the Fed was instituted. Wages have stagnated because for one reason, in order to keep share prices elevated, pay has been kept just at or below cost of living since the 1970s at least. At the same time credit cards were put out on the market to entice people to use them to elevate their standard of living without the buying power that adjusted wages would have created. It is a trap in that respect, but credit cards largely flourish because of low/stagnant wages. If our currency was backed by a gold standard and hense had more value= more buying power= less borrowing and less debt in the long run. The whole borrowing system depends on people having less money than they need, and a devaluation of currency guarantees that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Gold prices are set worldwide

No they're not


www.investopedia.com...

The price of gold is fixed using a century-old ritual that dates back to 1919. As of 2014, there were five banks involved in the gold fix - Barclays, Deutsche Bank AG, Bank of Nova Scotia, HSBC Holdings and Societe Generale. The gold price is fixed twice a day at 10:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. London time.

The fixing is done through teleconference between the five banks, with the current chairman (chairmanship rotates annually) announcing an opening price to the other four members, who then convey this price to their customers. Based on customer orders and their own trades, the banks then declare how many gold bars they want to buy or sell at the current price.

The gold price is then adjusted upward or downward until demand and supply are approximately matched, i.e. the imbalance is 50 bars or less, at which point the gold price is declared fixed. The archaic practices used to set these benchmarks were significant contributors to recently-unearthed rate-fixing abuse.

These benchmarks are used to value trillions of dollars in contracts and trades, and collusion among a few players to set them at artificial levels distorts market efficiency, destroys investors’ confidence in fair markets, and enriches a handful at the expense of millions