Peter Schiff Explains Quantitative Easing And Why You Are Screwed

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

I would say socialist anarchy is an oxymoron because of how they view property rights.

Anarcho-capitalism is the only type of anarchy that makes logical sense.

Under socialist anarchy, property is considered a shared resource owned by all, where under anarcho-capitalism, property is acquired through homesteading, first application of labor, or purchase from someone else.

Socialist anarchy necessarily requires a violent enforcement agency of collectivist property rights that resides above the individual, where anarcho-capitalism does not.

Since this makes no logical sense, I have to consider socialist anarchy an oxymoron. Socialist anarchy can work under a voluntary system within the confines of a commune, however the commune would have no right to exercise authority over property that it is not using for its own ends.

Should a commune attempt to seize property that it has not rightfully homesteaded, the individual property owners under attack would be justified in resisting that seizure attempt.

edit on 30-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Oh don't by any means think I support Social Anarchy, I don't. But Anarcho-Capitalism is also rather oxymoronic depending on how you define Capitalism and free market. Capitalism, as I see it, involves the state; free market does not. And I know you'll reply saying you define capitalism as something different, that capitalism and free market are essentially synonymous, and I'll just reply saying you're wrong so let's not go down this gray-tinted path.

Frankly I'm not even an anarchist although I lean heavily towards that side on the grand scale of things.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Capitalism, as I see it, involves the state;

That's because you see it wrong.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Considering how we live in capitalist country yet we don't have a free market, I beg to differ with your quaint little retort there.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Considering how we live in capitalist country yet we don't have a free market, I beg to differ with your quaint little retort there.

If you think we live in a capitalist country, I can see why you would think anarcho-capitalism makes no sense.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Hey mnemeth, what does this graph remind you of?

It reminds me of the limit as it reaches the infinity marker.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ce99e69b668.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by mnemeth1


So you are denying that in America, private enterprise is all over the place as WELL as public?

Do you see why I said this conversation is a gray-tinted one? It depends on how you define capitalism. And whether you agree with this next part is irrelevant, as it is a fact; there is heavy dispute academically speaking as to what capitalism is. Specifically, and here is the important part, whether capitalism includes ONLY private enterprise, or public AND private. Some argue capitalism can be blended as such, others do not.

This is why the whole question of "What do you define Capitalism as?" is important.

reply to post by SpectreDC


The USA does not have a free market.

I demand that you prove that we do.

I agree with Schiff that things are very bad, and going to get much worse.

Is a gold standard the answer? It probably is NOT, although we will likely have some form of it in the not too distant future, since TPTB must provide a "solution", to fix the problem they caused, and it has worked in the past.

For now, a crisis is unfolding, and precious metals are historically a good bet in times of uncertainty. I personally don't think people should wait for their governments to fix anything, we have to take some responsibility ourselves. One way to do it, is to be less dependent upon "their" system, and for the average person, that probably means getting some gold and/or silver. Sure, if you can buy a farm, manage to be "self-sufficient", that's great, but the average person is not going to be able to do this, and even if they could, there is probably not enough time. So, the best they can do is to try and have something other than paper money to fall back on. It has the potential to lose ALL it's "value", overnight.

Commodities can never go to zero value. Whether it's gold, silver, ammo, whatever, these can never lose all their value, because there is intrinsic worth, far beyond mere paper.

That being said, I should emphasize that I don't believe that a "gold standard" is a real "solution" for a nation, or the world, rather, it's shaping up to be a short-term crisis management tool for individuals who realize history is about to repeat in a bad way. While metals are traditionally considered "long term", and a hedge, there are times when the virtues of their "emergency" power come to the forefront. We are entering such a time, IMO.

One final thought, from Abe Lincoln. He said (prophetically?) that "the people will be furnished with a currency as safe as their government."

After 9/11, I guess we can't expect a "safe" currency anymore! Not until the rogues are brought to justice, and removed from power. SO, best get some gold or silver in the meantime. Seems like we've been warned.

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth


It's easy to say "gold is not the solution" - while making generalized statements that have no philosophical backing.

It's much harder to demonstrate why you are correct.


The gold standard is most certainly the solution. The market has chosen gold. The government has chosen debt. We use debt as money because bureaucrats love violent looting, the printing press, and endless government largess.

If government ceased using violence against its own citizens, we would all be on a 100% reserve gold standard right now.

Only through the use of violent action can the government prevent the people from using gold as a currency.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Ah, if things were that simple!

First, I should say that I actually buy and sell precious metals every day. I think they are important for my clients, I'm not a hypocrite, I do believe metals are where people need to be looking right now, things are rather crazy these days.

But that being said, I'm not going to put on blinders about gold, like many seem to do.

Here's the thing to think about when it comes to gold: "Who" exactly has it all? Seriously, think about it. Almost all the significant gold in the world, is held by CENTRAL BANKS!

If they had not caused the problem to begin with, perhaps we could just overlook the whole matter. But it's central banking, fractional, fictional, completely non-friggin' Federal, etc., these are the guys that brought us to where we are. And THEY apparently, control the world's gold! Are you "with" them?

Interesting. Of course, they've already done this before. The people are supposed to see-saw, back and forth, between utopian fiat schemes, and "conservative" options, such as "hard money". Hegel anyone?

Beware, to say the least.

The intermediate "answer", provided by our masters will be some form of partially backed currency. The fact is, it's already here, in a way, SDR's, which are in part backed by gold. The IMF is there for a reason, and some of that reason is to perhaps one day usher in a "true" world currency, after the US dollar's planned collapse. Or look at the Swiss franc, at virtual parity with the US dollar now, for those who are into that.

I personally don't believe there are any "easy" answers. Much of the whole issue turns on an alien concept today, that of "integrity". There isn't much these days!

Was there more of that in the past? Yes, apparently, if we look to the colonial days of the USA. When Ben Franklin was in England, and was asked about the prosperity of the colonies, their having neither poverty, unemployment, nor excessive taxation (as compared to the mother country), his answer was most bothersome. He said that the prosperity was due to COLONIAL SCRIP. Not to get into the whole history, but he stated the facts, that it was an "honest, interest-free currency", backed ONLY by the INTEGRITY and productiveness of the Colonies. Franklin, a figure with huge stature, was not ignored. Shortly after his statement, the London Times came out with a number of articles to counter Franklin's "frankness" shall we say. The articles made the case that if the "free money" the colonies were using did not stop, they would become enormously wealthy, and one day inherit the earth!

Saying all this, I am by no means an advocate of the unbridled fiat system, controlled by bankster elite. No, that is bad news. But, if we listen to their siren song, after the misery they have caused, it is only going to end up one day back to an even more powerful world-wide fiat system, that will be billed as "crash-proof" or some such thing, but it will come about because of a failure of a "gold standard", as in the past.

We have to stop playing their game, and while we're at it, stop imagining things are so simple. In a way, they ARE "simple", but this doesn't have to do with THEIR gold. It does in fact have to do with INTEGRITY.

I can't adequately express to anyone my absolute rage as I toil in a system, where I am honest, where I act in good faith, where I work hard to bring the best to my clients, and yet, I am completely surrounded by scoundrels! From the elite banksters, to THIER government, over-regulating, smothering, etc., to the legion of lazy misfits, and fraudsters spawned by such a corrupt system, to "entitled" consumers, who now lie, cheat and steal with frigging PRIDE! Sickening. And when Schiff says he's going overseas, who's listening? I may be joining him, because the USSA is not just anti-business, it's anti-INTEGRITY and honesty.

OK, enough of that! No, I don't want to discourage anyone from getting precious metals, on the contrary, but at the same time, let's not be silly, and forget who owns it all. Perhaps next time I'll get into silver, as opposed to gold, but for now, I just want to say, you gold standard folks are being played. Our masters will laugh in the end.

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth


See, I pay attention to what the traders, like you, say.

I was lucky, I was listening back in the 05 & 06 era. Got into it and out of stocks.

Anyway, using historical prices, some are saying to just reach them, gold would be able to go to approximately $3700/oz.

That was a few months ago. Of course a few months make a difference. Now, the latest rumor is the holding of gold by the central banks. They have not attempted to devalue it for awhile now. Are they attempting to get people to purchase and drive up prices of the gold or attempting to devalue the dollar?

I am beginning to get a headache trying to see within all their moves.

reply to post by JR MacBeth


It is quite simple to institute a gold standard.

All one needs to do is eliminate legal tender laws and abolish taxes on precious metals.

That's basically it.

The market will create its own gold backed currencies to compete against the dollar - and when that happens, it's game over for the dollar.

The government does not need to create or do anything.

Central banks don't own that gold, the public owns that gold. And if central banks were to be done away with, the gold would revert back to congressional control. As for the "reason" why the IMF exists, it exists to loot the god damn planet. It is run by a bunch of unelected tyrannical socio-paths who are effectively laying claim to the worlds property by fiat decree.

Tom Woods comments on American monetary history, which shows you what a catastrophe anything other than the gold standard was.



Walter Block demonstrates why the only non fraudulent money is gold.

reply to post by SpectreDC


Pretty simple definition of capitalism that may or may not need clarifacation by some of the more knowledgeable posters currently owning this thread - Capitalism = free and voluntary exchange of private property between two or more willing partners.

Anarcho-Capitalism being the philisophical outgrowth of the universal ethic that is the Non Aggression Principal. Ie hitting and stealing is bad.

When the world is analyzed for what it is, and all predjucies are left behind, we can see that every action falls into two basic catagoies - voluntary or involuntary. Forced or willing. Violent or cooperative. Involuntary aggression must be a zero sum gain as it forcibly takes from one party to benefit the other. Voluntary being mutually benefitial because otherwise one party would not voluntarily accept the exchange. Thus voluntary-ism is a net gain for all, while coersion is a net loss and should be defined as parasitical. Therefor government, being the ultimate tool of coersion and violence, must also be regarded by all moral people as a parasite and the ultimate source of evil.

Think about how many involuntary arrangements you are forced to on a daily basis, and then consider what might happen if you refused to consent to your unsigned social contracst. Also ponder what might happen if you yourself attempted to enforce involuntary contracts on your neighbors. Then you must ask yourself why ethical rules, which must be applied to all men if we are to call them rules, are turned upside down when one tiny group who claim to be our leaders declare one rulebook for us and another for them. Then observe the disasterous effects of the belief that violence can solve problems, as is demonstrated throughout history with a deathtoll in the hundreds of millions.

Anarchism is simply the knowledge that agression in all its forms is wrong, with that knowledge being applied to everyone equally.

So radical, i know!~

Back to more JPZ ownage.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

using historical prices, some are saying to just reach them, gold would be able to go to approximately $3700/oz.

That was a few months ago. Of course a few months make a difference. Now, the latest rumor is the holding of gold by the central banks. They have not attempted to devalue it for awhile now. Are they attempting to get people to purchase and drive up prices of the gold or attempting to devalue the dollar?

Good to hear you had good advice when it really counted. But even though things were better pre-2006, today, things are so bad that the person who doesn't have precious metals, is downright foolish. Because the alternatives aren't so great, including the US Dollar.

"True" inflation adjusted gold would be closer to $9,000/oz., based on the money supply. Of course, those old "M" figures aren't released anymore, but even when they were, they were fudged to the moon.

Central banks do hold most of the world's gold. It's a "good" thing, and a bad one too. First, anything in "their" control bears watching, and since gold has been used to manipulate the value" of the dollar (not so much the other way around), today what we really face is a hugely over-valued dollar. It's so ridiculous that it must devalue, even if nothing else was done. But, it's value was propped up over the decades for "good" reason. The PTB needed an accepted world reserve currency that WASN'T gold, and they even boldly hoped that gold might be "forgotten" by future generations. Some might say it almost worked.

As with any two alternatives, the relative value of one, can seemingly "increase", with a corresponding decrease in the alternative. This was the "genius" behind Bretton Woods, where an ounce of the Relic was pegged at $35 USD per ounce, and as long as everyone played, the gold price could artificially remain there.

But it couldn't, not only because some didn't want to play anymore, but because all contrived commodity prices are still naturally vulnerable to market forces. Even when one side of the game controls most of the chips at the table.

Once Nixon stopped gold redemption, the game had to shift. If the market was to play it's part, then it had to be manipulated. Central banks were in the perfect spot. By continually selling, especially at crucial intervals, they could keep a lid on gold. The problem was that it couldn't go on forever, because they would eventually run low on ammo. In the late 90's, they did run out, with British arch-criminal Gordon Brown being called in to do a final fleece-job on the unsuspecting British subjects.

Since then, the IMF has played a bigger role, with official "announcements" threatening coming gold sales doing much of the job, but then, mostly empty threats can only go on so long too. All the while, the gold price has gone up, which makes sense, since there is little to stop it now.

Then, in the past few years, the spectacle of global hyperinflation. It's the perfect recipe to push gold into it's new (yet old) status as a global currency (again). It's all happened before, and while the discipline a commodity places on the monetary authorities may be much better than today's total insanity, it's not without it's shortcomings.

I hear a lot of people wondering if today's "big" gold price is the result of manipulation, the usual culprits just grooming their marks, everyone jumping in, and then they lower the boom on us all. The fact is, gold has behaved exactly as expected over these past manipulative decades, and it's current price really suggests we haven't seen anything yet. This crisis is far from over, and during this roller-coaster ride, it would be terrible if all we had was USD to fall back on. THAT would truly be a disaster! So no, I think the evidence shows we are nearing the END of effective manipulation.

Now for the bad news. Since there really never was a free lunch, a mega-huge bill is coming due. Since it can't be paid, for all practical purposes, there will be default. This is also completely to be expected, so the dollar crash should be seen as inevitable, with only the timing elements left to some final end-game manipulation. And these could still linger for a while of course. This is usually when someone mentions "confiscation". I personally don't worry about that, because almost NO ONE (regular people) owns any gold, other than their wedding bands! This is one of those times when being in the tiny minority will serve us well. Rest assured, we're in "good" company, since all the uber-wealthy have gold too.

Here's what I consider a "bottom-line" when it comes to precious metals today. Forget about holding gold for the "long-term". There is essentially no such thing in the real world. The "now" dictates all. But until we are convinced that the world has turned the corner, gold will only go up, and up. NOT the time to sell! Hold it, not "forever", but could be YEARS as this crisis unfolds, and morphs into violence of an apocalyptic nature.

Finally, I personally DO believe in holding some "forever". Sounds silly to some, because it seems to exclude ever taking your gains, but it's not all about "me". If we could ask the Rothschilds of yesteryear, what they had done, what would they say? They understood, better than most, that one of the best things about gold is that it holds it's value, over very long periods of time. Generations. It is still a good way to transmit wealth, I might even suggest in a "private" manner (think Switzerland if necessary), to future generations. Let's just make sure to do as they do, and get the "physical". Otherwise, you still only have paper.

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth


Yeah, my physical is gone. Used it to weather the last few years.
As for the inevitable, I do not understand how they can fleece so many eyes.
I always knew the majority of the people walked around in a haze, I just did not realize how many.
Now though, I think most of the people know there is a problem and they are just afraid to let themselves know the facts.

Thanks for the breakdown. I know of the manipulation you are talking about the last time they ran up the prices and then swiftly caused the collapse. I think this time though, they have cornered the market on the precious metals. As for the ability of us to dig out of the debt, that will be impossible IMO also. It cannot be done. By using the hyperinflation component, I believe it will be the largest transfer of wealth imaginable. As for the paper holdings of precious metals, hehehe, oh the humor in that.

Later.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


In a round about way ...Yes ....it is true

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by spoonbender

 

Does that prove that turning lead into gold is possible?

In a round about way Yes ....it does

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

It is quite simple to institute a gold standard.

All one needs to do is eliminate legal tender laws and abolish taxes on precious metals.

That's basically it.

The market will create its own gold backed currencies to compete against the dollar - and when that happens, it's game over for the dollar.

The government does not need to create or do anything.

Central banks don't own that gold, the public owns that gold. And if central banks were to be done away with, the gold would revert back to congressional control. As for the "reason" why the IMF exists, it exists to loot the god damn planet. It is run by a bunch of unelected tyrannical socio-paths who are effectively laying claim to the worlds property by fiat decree.

Tom Woods comments on American monetary history, which shows you what a catastrophe anything other than the gold standard was.

I probably agree with you more than I disagree.

Not to pick, but if you use the term "institute", it seems to imply an authority, but you say the government does not need to do anything.

Usually, when people speak of a "gold standard", they do in fact mean something officially adopted by their governments.

If in this case, you are only referring to normal market forces that would default to a volitional gold standard, then this isn't anything new, this will happen "naturally" given enough of a crisis. As in Weimar Germany. Yes, they had Marks galore, but when the proverbial wheel-barrow full wasn't buying bread anymore, the old gold coins came out, and commerce continued, in spite of the traumatic disruption. Thank goodness gold was still a recent memory at the time, or they really would have been screwed.

Like us today. Almost no one owns any gold! In the event there is a severe crisis, things will revert to barter perhaps, but those who were wise and put aside some gold, will probably pull through OK. Such has it been, and probably ever will be (unless our masters have their way).

Regarding the people being the true owners of the gold controlled by the central banks, well, I'm sure we might want to ask some of the Brits here what they thought of "their" gold being sold for almost nothing by the arch-criminal Gordon Brown. Not to get into it, but true "control" is, and always has been, the real issues. Ask the guy with the gun, he'll agree.

You are no doubt aware that many are beginning to think that Fort Knox doesn't have the gold it once held. It hasn't been audited since the 1950's for crying out loud. Do we own that gold? What gold!!??

Regarding Tom Woods, nothing wrong with a bit of that. It's true that fiat schemes are mostly historical failures, and today, this is important news. People should at least know what they're dealing with, they should know that the "money" in their bank account can evaporate over night. That's important to know.

But just as I tend to reject blanket gold standardism (which is a PTB trick many are falling for), I also can see a small glimmer here and there when looking at early "bills of credit", a close cousin of full-blown fiat, today supported by legal tender laws.

In the American colonial era, we have some bad experiences, surely, but also some very positive ones as well. As for the worst, let us not forget that agressive British counterfeiting played a huge part in the demise of the Continental. Yes, it was a failure, but war was involved, the birth of a nation, and perhaps things could have been different, who knows.

But putting that aside, what of the success of the colonial issues, starting with Connecticut in 1709? Not to get into a bunch of history, but some even might assert that "paper money" was an essential ingredient in the colonial success story that led to the Revolution. There were big differences of course between these old bills of credit, and our paper today. They were used primarily to pay public debt, they were not legal tender. They emerged in a time when gold and silver were hard to come by in the colonies (thanks mostly to unwise policies set in the mother country, which was already under the Rothschild boot).

I bring these examples up because I think they're too often dismissed, and yet might hold some promise, if we could take the good, and leave the bad. Earlier I mentioned Ben Franklin's judgment on the matter, he being a bit closer to that time, and it seems like there is something to learn here.

One thing's for sure, if we cling to our own dogma, that this is bad, and that is good, then we are sure to remain vulnerable to the same forces that have us repeating all the worst chapters in history. We are being herded from one pole, to the other. All the while, no one wants to raise their heads above the fray, and we just go on, business as usual.

Again, perhaps in light of the serious possibility that there is little gold in Fort Knox (and other places too), I want to ask the important question: Who has (controls) most of the world's gold? The answer should make us question the reasons why we are on the track we're on. Is it by design? Are we being duped?

I'll say one last thing about the gold standard. Alan Greenspan, the man who presided over the criminal expansion of credit that brought us to the present global crisis, knew all about the gold standard. He wrote about it in the 1960's. He ADVOCATED it. Here was true central banker material. Understand the game. Play the game, to the max. When it's time, turn it around, and shear the other half of your sheep!

JR

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


You say your physical is gone? Not to worry! There is still time, even though it is short. But, you mentioned that you needed it to get through the times, I'm sure you are not alone. The tough times come to separate the small amount of "wealth" the little guys dare to hold. It always ends up in the strongest hands.

But your comment reminded me of something I wanted to say. In fact, if I wasn't so ridiculously busy, I might even launch a thread!

What I think is often overlooked is SILVER. Yes, we talk a lot about gold, but the "ugly sister" as silver is often called, should have us taking a second look. Come to think of it, she may be ugly, but she sort of has a nice bod'...

Silver, in my opinion, is the number one thing to invest in, after one has taken care of the other essentials in life, such as a safe place to live, etc. Silver is still practically free. I know, that's a strong statement, but the more one looks into it, the more one sees the opportunity. I would say more, but I don't want to get off topic too much, and some may imagine it's veering somewhat. I just wanted to give you, and others some "hope". If you have gone through your gold, I would say that you might do just as well getting silver now. It's upside may well be off the charts, but hardly anyone knows this (yet).

Well, best of luck to you, and all who are riding through this storm.

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth


Yeah, I think the virtues of colonial scrip are over-stated by some critics of the gold standard.

I know the movie "The Money Masters" promotes this kind of a currency system, but there is a reason for that. The guy who made the Money Masters was, and is still, an advocate of social welfare. He knows that it is nearly impossible for government to engage in redistributive schemes under a gold standard, which is why he so strongly advocates for a colonial scrip type system.

Of course, a colonial scrip type system is a thousand times superior to our current fraud, but it is still evil. It is still forced upon the public at gun point. It still gives government the power to inflate and redistribute to their cronies.

This is WHY the market must be given control of the money supply. If government has control over the money supply, corporations will be enticed to seize government for their own ends.

The only way to disincentivize corporations from seizing government is to take the ability to redistribute away from government. Only when the corporations realize that they can not gain by getting control of government will they stop trying to take control of government.

Government can not be trusted with the currency.