TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Financail Times on Gold Standard

Financail Times on Gold Standard

Some of you are going to love this article.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c43927c-...144feabdc0.html

quote:

A few months ago, Terry Smith, head of Tullett Prebon, the interdealer broker, chaired a panel at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos which was asked to produce one concrete recommendation to fix the global financial crisis. The top pick? Not anything on toxic assets or fiscal spending. Instead, this gaggle of leading financiers called for a new reserve currency, akin to an old-style gold standard. Two-thirds of the world�s assets are denominated in a fiat currency issued by a country whose authorities are taking policy actions which seem inevitably to lead to its debasement,� explains Mr Smith, noting that �it seems . . . the Chinese have now concluded that this is not acceptable. ... Most notably, this hedge fund points out that since the world abandoned the gold standard on August 15, 1971 credit creation has spiralled completely out of control.

Just because there is a roaring debate over it doesn't mean that one side isn't incorrigibly wrong. See Creationism.

**looks at thread**

considers posting...
shakes head..

**walks away**

There's really no doubt that it's for the best.

yep..I'm bowing to the inevitable and now support the disgusting orgy of government deficit-spending. Sure, we could have a currency so strong that it insures cheap imports of goods, services and raw materials, thus keeping inflation low and delivering a higher standard of living for all citizens..but thats crazy talk.

Besides..the fiat party is much more fun..

$12.8 trillion and counting

WOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

quote:

Indeed, as the debate bubbles up, some financiers are now even emailing each other an extraordinary little essay that Alan Greenspan himself wrote in support of a gold standard back in the 1960s, called �Gold and Economic Freedom�*.

ironic isn't it


*cough ahem Alan Greenspan: Gold and Economic Freedom

The old gold standard was flawed but it's not the only game in town. If we began to take the matter seriously I'm sure some smart people out there could come up with a variety of solutions. We could back the dollar with a diverse basket of commodities traded on the world market (oil, metals, natural gas, lumber, food, etc).. If you back currency with anything that requires energy and real productive capacity to pull out of the earth, you naturally limit the amount that can be created out of thin air.. It doesn't even need to be a 100% backing..just a partial backing would help a great deal in stabilizing it's value and allowing people to plan effectively for the future..rather than making foolish investments and chasing returns in an effort to outpace inflation.

Or we could forget any tangible backing and tackle the problem of deficit spending directly with a balanced budget amendment..forcing government to live within it's means rather than running $1.7 trillion deficits as they are this year.. The CBO has projected another $9 trillion in federal debt over the next decade..which will knock us to $20-21 trillion (an optimistic figure that assumes every penny of the trillions lent out so far are paid back to the fed/treasury). Things are a mess and something needs to change.

Whatever it is..a partial gold standard, balanced budget amendment, or anything else that can restrain the $20,000,000,000,000.00 monster is good in my book.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Sure, we could have a currency so strong that it insures cheap imports of goods, services and raw materials

i love how you always look at things in such a one-sided manner, as if a really strong currency doesn't come with downsides specifically what a strong currency does to exports, what importing cheap products does to businesses in america etc.

also, will you be willing to pay $9000 an ounce for gold?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i love how you always look at things in such a one-sided manner, as if a really strong currency doesn't come with downsides specifically what a strong currency does to exports, what importing cheap products does to businesses in america etc. also, will you be willing to pay $9000 an ounce for gold?

Why don't we compromise pk and instead of a "really strong currency", settle for a "slightly less weak" currency? And gold at $9k? The question you need to ask is WHY could gold be trading at $9k? What does that reflect? Everything is relative I suppose..and no I wouldn't buy gold at that level. There would be no need because the dollars are already "good as gold" aren't they? I assume the article is factoring in a 100% gold standard when they come up with those numbers. My question is, what if we just did a partial backing? How about a 10% gold standard? I've never heard it discussed..but if we just backed 10% of the dollars in circulation, the dollar would be worth 1/900th oz of gold ($900/oz)...right where it is today. Interesting..

Gold at 9000 $/oz is only a ten fold increase. That would be lots of inflation but no where near unheard of.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell Gold at 9000 $/oz is only a ten fold increase. That would be lots of inflation but no where near unheard of.

This really wouldn't be inflation though. It would just reflect the inflation that has already happened.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Or we could forget any tangible backing and tackle the problem of deficit spending directly with a balanced budget amendment..forcing government to live within it's means rather than running $1.7 trillion deficits as they are this year.. The CBO has projected another $9 trillion in federal debt over the next decade..which will knock us to $20-21 trillion (an optimistic figure that assumes every penny of the trillions lent out so far are paid back to the fed/treasury). Things are a mess and something needs to change.

We could start by withdrawing military presence in a few dozen of the 130 or 140 countries we're currently stationed in. I imagine that might save a $100 here or $200 there.

quote:

Originally posted by D-res We could start by withdrawing military presence in a few dozen of the 130 or 140 countries we're currently stationed in. I imagine that might save a $100 here or $200 there.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN specifically what a strong currency does to exports, what importing cheap products does to businesses in america etc.

Point well taken, though perhaps in a more heavily service-based economy like the U.S. it's a bit less meaningful. Certainly every action and policy has it's intended and unintended consequences.

I for one would like to see prudent savers be beneficiaries of their fiscal pragmatism and not reward profligate, reckless spendthrifts. The current path seems to have the opposite end as a more likely result though.

quote:

Originally posted by D-res We could start by withdrawing military presence in a few dozen of the 130 or 140 countries we're currently stationed in. I imagine that might save a $100 here or $200 there.

but any of the money "saved" would just be wasted on other bullshit. why budget and eliminate waste when you can just raise taxes and create a society devoid of anything but serving the interests of the government.

quote:

Originally posted by sean5 but any of the money "saved" would just be wasted on other bullshit. why budget and eliminate waste when you can just raise taxes and create a society devoid of anything but serving the interests of the government.

lol yeah what the fuck was I thinking.

Realistically this practice has gone on forever. We have a society with a constitutional standards in place to protect our rights and liberties but as soon as people started putting full faith in their elected leadership and forgot that our Govt works for us we started to allow it more power. Now we're a police state piss frightened of big brothers potential and when shit goes unhinged we turn to the same beast to fix the problem that allowed or cause it to happen in the first place.

We really need to go back to the constitution. Anyone that argues that it's out of date or not applicable anymore doesn't realize the ramifications of such a statement. That document, if followed properly, can keep a number of the problems we face today from arising.

The founding fathers realized the dangers of a central bank and appropriated the power to make money to congress, but president Wilson, before coming to his senses and realizing what he'd done, handed that power over to the fed. Now we're inflating up to our ears and every state and organization is asking for a chunk of the stimulus money for literally any reason. Our moneys been devalued 97% since its issuance and we're facing hyperinflation and a complete collapse of our currency.

In addition such travesties as the notoriously inefficient War On Drugs, which has proven over and over again to be a failure would not be an issue had the constitution been followed, which appropriates the power to the state and community. We'd save money, lives and millions of prison beds from nonviolent offenders. However with a fear-mongering corporate media, a dumbed-down populace and the supposed "threat" of global terrorism, the constitution has all but been subverted. Its not so hard to keep a bill from being passed, but once passed its extremely difficult to repeal it.

We are fucked.

RON PAUL 2008

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Why don't we compromise pk and instead of a "really strong currency", settle for a "slightly less weak" currency? And gold at $9k? The question you need to ask is WHY could gold be trading at $9k? What does that reflect? Everything is relative I suppose..and no I wouldn't buy gold at that level. There would be no need because the dollars are already "good as gold" aren't they? I assume the article is factoring in a 100% gold standard when they come up with those numbers. My question is, what if we just did a partial backing? How about a 10% gold standard? I've never heard it discussed..but if we just backed 10% of the dollars in circulation, the dollar would be worth 1/900th oz of gold ($900/oz)...right where it is today. Interesting..

You do realize that any backing of the currency in gold requires the government fix the exchange rate between gold and currency. Aren't you against fixing prices?

quote:

Originally posted by D-res The founding fathers realized the dangers of a central bank and appropriated the power to make money to congress, but president Wilson, before coming to his senses and realizing what he'd done, handed that power over to the fed. Now we're inflating up to our ears and every state and organization is asking for a chunk of the stimulus money for literally any reason. Our moneys been devalued 97% since its issuance and we're facing hyperinflation and a complete collapse of our currency.

what a load of nonsense. you--------------------------------reality. get a grip ffs.

Fact: 85% of people that cite "The Founding Fathers" in a political argument don't know what the hell they're talking about.

The Constitution didn't include a central bank for one reason - the individual states were far too powerful under the Articles of Confederation and surely weren't willing to abrogate that power to an as-yet non-existent central interstate banking system - the "Founding Fathers" were savvy enough to realize they couldn't shove it down their throats - they had a difficult enough time getting the Constitution ratified as was.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Fact: 85% of people that cite "The Founding Fathers" in a political argument don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Fact: D-Res doesn't understand what the fed does or how it works either.

They inflate money. Awww, NO SHIT! I thought they just sat there wacking off.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You do realize that any backing of the currency in gold requires the government fix the exchange rate between gold and currency. Aren't you against fixing prices?

I'm still not sure about the whole notion.

What I'm pretty convinced of is that currency is in need of some serrious study that isn't being swayed by self interest or ideology.

The Germans have been pretty consistent in thier opposition to the UK / US fix for the problems. This moring the Financial Times put a front page side bar blurb about the German's repeated waring about inflation. Not really surprising because the Germans are about the only western country around that remembers what happens when inflation really lets go.

quote:

Originally posted by D-res We could start by withdrawing military presence in a few dozen of the 130 or 140 countries we're currently stationed in. I imagine that might save a $100 here or $200 there.

I caught mention of something similar on BBC news world about a week ago. It was back when the new military budget was announced. The specific thing that caught my attention was that there was mention of dismanteling one (or more?) of the carrier groups that the US has on active duty. I find this extra striking because China is looking to build a carrier and happens to have the funds to pretty much buy a US carrier group if they wanted.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find another source for the 'fact' that the US is considering disbanding a carrier group so I'll let it slide by as a posibility but not as something that has actually happened.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.