Gold Over $800 Per Ounce

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Is the Euro pegged to gold? If not - why not? Seems to me that, from all the ballyhooing over the demise of the dollar on this thread, the Euro should be pegged to something other than the dollar.

Or is it the fact that the dollar the baseline currency and is not pegged to gold that is causing all the gnashing of teeth?

Why does a currency need to be backed by a natural resource? Seems to me that makes a pie with finite pieces.

Economics is just a guessing game anyhow. [/quote]

Gold forces governments to restrain their spending, which of course they don’t want to do. Its a good thing.

I wouldn’t mind if government could keep stimulating the economy forever. Trouble is that they are apending someone else’s money, whether taxed or printed up yesterday. The dollars they printed have the same value as dollars that you and I worked for. They did nothing to earn their dollars but get to spend them just like we do. The value of their fresh dollars is provided by us, by those who worked and earned money. It is stolen wealth.

But money is very noble. It doesn’t like being counterfeited and cheapened. It gets revenge by trapping the counterfeiter in a downward spiral of MORE inflation, more debt, more pain. Its just like a drug, eventually killing the addict unless the addict returns to sanity.

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.html

Currency is just the medium to facilitate bartering. It allows for a common way to exchange goods and services. It doesn’t really matter wether its gold, paper, or salt. It really just comes down to faith that the consumers will collectively agree as to the value of all items available in the market.

In this country we have tried both the gold standard, the bimetal standard (gold and silver), and reserve banking. In my opinion reserve banking has the best mechanism to reacting to market changes, by restircting or adding to the availablity of money. This is not only done by raising or lowering interest rates but also by changing the fractional reserve requirements the banks must have to loan money.

The best thing the federal reserve bank can do is to ensure enough money is avaialable to spur economic growth without causing inflation, or even worse, defaltion. Unfortunately the fed somteimes overreacts or underreacts.

Desite some short term dips, the ability of this country to create wealth will keep the dollar the basis currency for a long time

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:

A fiat currency is at least a prerequisite for a welfare state or wars.

Both kinds of socialist endeavours can only be financed via debt and inflation.

Oh please. War has been around as long as man has.[/quote]

But not total warfare that mobilizes a countries whole industry.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Is the Euro pegged to gold? If not - why not? Seems to me that, from all the ballyhooing over the demise of the dollar on this thread, the Euro should be pegged to something other than the dollar.
[/quote]

The Euro is not pegged to gold but our structures make it very hard for one government to inflate its way out of its misery.

A 2% inflation is still theft.

Why? I profit from it. No gnashing of teeth here.

That is exactly the point. You cannot multiply it as you please.
Hence a rock hard currency. The natural order of things would be a slight constant deflation each. The pie would still grow and the dollar would slowly and steadily increase in value.

Like Zap you are confusing the pie with the fork that is used to divide it, which is a horrible analogy btw.

[quote]
Economics is just a guessing game anyhow. [/quote]

Not all of it.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.html[/quote]

At least two points on there are BS or intentionally misleading.

Just one:

Yes, a gold standard makes it harder for the FED to “react”. However, we do not want it to “react” most of the time.

We do not feel that central planning is a good idea when it comes to steel, rubber or corn, we also do not feel that a central planer can beat the market when it comes to the supply of money.

We call this a “free market system” as opposed to a “planned economy” aka "socialism.

What the hell, another one:

Inflation via gold mining.

So inflation is bad huh?

Anyway, the Fed managed to double the money supply in less than 30 years. I do not know how long you had to dig to achieve that, but it would be associated with risk and hard work and lots of time, whereas the FED just puts a few zeros more in a mainframe.

I.e when inflation is you worry, your better of with a commodity mony.

But, since inflation seems to be that much of a danger, make it competing commodity moneys.

Silver, Platin, who cares.

[quote]orion wrote:
That is exactly the point. You cannot multiply it as you please.
Hence a rock hard currency. The natural order of things would be a slight constant deflation each. The pie would still grow and the dollar would slowly and steadily increase in value.

Like Zap you are confusing the pie with the fork that is used to divide it, which is a horrible analogy btw.
[/quote]

The pie should be the value derived from the exchange of goods and services.

What does gold - or any natural resource - have to do with that, unless you are specifically trading for said resource?

Everyone wants the dollar tied to a precious metal, but I don’t see any other country lining up to do it with their currency.

Just smells funny to me.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.html

[/quote]

John Kenneth Galbraith speaks!!!

Hmmm…so you’d prefer to trust politicians to act responsibly, to control spending, to not inflate at will, instead of having the market (gold) determine our future? Good luck with that. Based upon their record since abandoning the gold standard in 1971 (Nixon, of course), you’re going to need that luck.

Despite all the fine words, there is simply no denying that fiat money is theft. Freshly printed money obtains it’s value from the victims belief that their paper money is a store of value.

Zap, let me ask you a question: why does the dealer go last in a Blackjack game? Answer: so the player can bust first. That’s the dealer’s advantage. Now, why do governments print paper money? So they can spend it FIRST, while it still is valued by the market place at the OLD value. That’s their advantage.

No society can last for long based upon theft. This is why governments throughout history weaken and fall (provided they are not conquered from without). No society can be immoral for very long. It may take several hundred years but immorality destroys nations. If the patient was very healthy to begin with, it takes a long time. Our time is approaching.

[quote]Razorslim wrote:
Currency is just the medium to facilitate bartering. It allows for a common way to exchange goods and services. It doesn’t really matter wether its gold, paper, or salt. It really just comes down to faith that the consumers will collectively agree as to the value of all items available in the market.

In this country we have tried both the gold standard, the bimetal standard (gold and silver), and reserve banking. In my opinion reserve banking has the best mechanism to reacting to market changes, by restircting or adding to the availablity of money. This is not only done by raising or lowering interest rates but also by changing the fractional reserve requirements the banks must have to loan money.

The best thing the federal reserve bank can do is to ensure enough money is avaialable to spur economic growth without causing inflation, or even worse, defaltion. Unfortunately the fed somteimes overreacts or underreacts.

Desite some short term dips, the ability of this country to create wealth will keep the dollar the basis currency for a long time[/quote]

Besides fiat money being theft, it also allows the financing of wars without the consent of the electorate. The Federal Reserve can be used to create all money necessary to pay Halliburton, for ex. Since this causes inflation, and most people do not understand economics, they scream at the checkout clerk at the grocery store instead of lynching their Congressman.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Besides fiat money being theft, it also allows the financing of wars without the consent of the electorate. The Federal Reserve can be used to create all money necessary to pay Halliburton, for ex. Since this causes inflation, and most people do not understand economics, they scream at the checkout clerk at the grocery store instead of lynching their Congressman.
[/quote]

Investor fat-cats don’t like the idea of a gold standard because it forces prices down when there is healthy competition. Consumers should love that but unfortunately there is too much propaganda from 100 years ago that ripped the gold standard apart.

When the price of gold goes up consumer goods get cheaper…add back into the fact that inflation no longer exists and people will actually feel like they are more prosperous.

One good explanation I read in a Reason blog: In 1920 a Pepsi cost $.05; today it costs about a $1.00. If instead one decided to forgo that Pepsi in 1920 and put that nickel in the bank why should they not be able to purchase that same Pepsi 80 years from now for the same price? You actually get punished for saving. Your nickel might appreciate to $.50 in a savings account but at the end of the transaction you lose $.50 for holding off.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

One good explanation I read in a Reason blog: In 1920 a Pepsi cost $.05; today it costs about a $1.00. If instead one decided to forgo that Pepsi in 1920 and put that nickel in the bank why should they not be able to purchase that same Pepsi 80 years from now for the same price? You actually get punished for saving. Your nickel might appreciate to $.50 in a savings account but at the end of the transaction you lose $.50 for holding off.[/quote]

This is a great question I have been thinking about. Money is basically goods and labor. These items are subject to degradation over time. Call it entropy or whatever.

If I build something and don’t maintain it for 87 years it will not be in very good shape. Why would you expect money to be different? Money, which represents items that decay must be subject to decay as well!

If our government could inflate at will and have rigid price controls, the game could go on a VERY long time. I suspect that that will be the outcome of all this. No inflation, spending at will, and everything regulated an controlled — socialism.

Hey, if it gives everyone a job, decent housing, health care, and a happy life, it wouldn’t muddle me any. I’m just concerned that totalitarianism never works out this way/

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

One good explanation I read in a Reason blog: In 1920 a Pepsi cost $.05; today it costs about a $1.00. If instead one decided to forgo that Pepsi in 1920 and put that nickel in the bank why should they not be able to purchase that same Pepsi 80 years from now for the same price? You actually get punished for saving. Your nickel might appreciate to $.50 in a savings account but at the end of the transaction you lose $.50 for holding off.

This is a great question I have been thinking about. Money is basically goods and labor. These items are subject to degradation over time. Call it entropy or whatever.

If I build something and don’t maintain it for 87 years it will not be in very good shape. Why would you expect money to be different? Money, which represents items that decay must be subject to decay as well! [/quote]

“Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must give value for value.”
— Ayn Rand

Money is not given value by theft or by looting. Money is made possible only by men who produce. Men produce only on the supposition that they can trade their product fairly and honestly. If the means of trade are degraded by counterfeiting and the use of fiat money, then trade is NOT being done fairly and honestly. We then have a society that becomes less fair and less honest. Hello to our modern world…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

“Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must give value for value.”
— Ayn Rand

Money is not given value by theft or by looting. Money is made possible only by men who produce. Men produce only on the supposition that they can trade their product fairly and honestly. If the means of trade are degraded by counterfeiting and the use of fiat money, then trade is NOT being done fairly and honestly. We then have a society that becomes less fair and less honest. Hello to our modern world…

[/quote]

The Rand quote is nothing but an attempt to redefine money from what it is to what she wishes it to be.

Money is not permanent. It is subject to entropy and decay like the rest of the universe.

Can someone show me otherwise?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is a great question I have been thinking about. Money is basically goods and labor. These items are subject to degradation over time. Call it entropy or whatever.

If I build something and don’t maintain it for 87 years it will not be in very good shape. Why would you expect money to be different? Money, which represents items that decay must be subject to decay as well! [/quote]

If instead of exchanging currency you exchanged the equivalent weight of gold would you expect 80 years from now to have to exchange 20 times the amount of gold for the same good? Let’s say a Pepsi was exchanged at 1/400 oz gold 80 years ago would you expect to have to exchange 1/20 oz gold now?

Money is nothing more than an exchange mechanism. It only holds value because people expect that they will be able to exchange it for goods and services. How does gold degrade with age? A nugget dug out of the ground today will have virtually no wear 200 years from now. People may expect more or less of it depending on their value scale and other various production factors but I cannot understand why it would cost 20x as much if the production of gold were to get cheaper (more efficient) in the long run.

The raise in gold prices today is due to the demand created by people trying to hedge against the dollar. Notice that gold only went up in value when we went off the gold standard.

Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553&hl=en

In 1900, a $20 gold piece probably got you a nice new suit and dinner in a nice restaurant. I suspect that at $840 today, you could get a decent suit and a dinner in a nice restaurant. The $20 piece would actually sell for more, due to numismatic reasons. But the idea is the same.

Zap, you are used to money losing value because fiat money almost always does. That’s why it was created, to fleece you of your production, in exchange for pieces of paper.

We’re either going to return to capitalism and a gold standard, or totalitaianism and fiat money. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” We’re either free, or not. Gold or fiat.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
In 1900, a $20 gold piece probably got you a nice new suit and dinner in a nice restaurant. I suspect that at $840 today, you could get a decent suit and a dinner in a nice restaurant. The $20 piece would actually sell for more, due to numismatic reasons. But the idea is the same.
[/quote]

No it won’t. A $20 gold piece is only worth 20 bucks. You would have to cash in the gold piece for it’s current cash value to get the suit and dinner.

People make the assumption that no inflation is good, or that it has only happened since we left the gold standard.

Inflation is not a bad thing.

You guys still have not answered my question. The reason is because there is no answer.

Money, like everything else must decay. There is no free lunch. You cannot stockpile money and expect it to have the same value in 50 years.

If you artificially link money with a fixed commodity like gold you will artificially stifle natural inflation (money decay or entropy) and you will end up paying a horrendous price due to the scarcity of money. See the Great Depression.

Fiat money works. A gold standard cannot in a large economy. That is the reason no one uses a gold standard!

From today’s WSJ:

[i]Adam Smith Growls
November 9, 2007; Page A18

“The U.S. dollar is the linchpin of not only the American economy but also the world monetary system.” Those words were the lead of an editorial in this newspaper on August 21, 1978, amid the inflation of the 1970s and the world’s last great dollar crisis. Are we watching another such period today? It’s not inevitable, but this week we all got a reminder of what such a thing looks like, and it isn’t pretty.

The dollar is “losing its status as the world currency,” declared Xu Jian, a middling official at China’s central bank, on Wednesday. “We will favor stronger currencies over weaker ones, and will readjust accordingly.” That was perceived as a threat by China’s central bank to diversify its foreign exchange reserves out of dollars and into other currencies, especially euros. While China later qualified those remarks, the dollar nonetheless fell again around the globe, stocks plunged, and gold and other traditional inflation hedges rose to fresh heights.


Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy visited Washington and brought a dollar warning of his own. “The dollar cannot remain someone else’s problem,” he told Congress. “If we are not careful, monetary disarray could morph into economic war. We would all be its victims.” The Frenchman was referring to the damage that the dollar’s record lows against the euro are doing to Europe’s exports, and the potential for a return to so-called “competitive devaluation,” or what used to be called “beggar-thy-neighbor” currency policies.


Coming from opposite sides of the world, these are warnings worth heeding. For as our editorial explained 30 years ago, the dollar is far more than a medium of American exchange. It is a reserve currency, held by central banks the world over, and the core of the monetary system that underpins what has been a remarkable period of global economic growth. By toying recklessly with dollar devaluation, our policy makers are also toying with a far larger economic crisis than the current credit problems.

Yet the striking and dangerous fact is that the conventional wisdom in U.S. financial circles has been that the dollar’s fall is in fact beneficial. Wall Street wants easier money to rescue the banks caught in the subprime crisis, never mind the risks of future inflation and how damaging that can be to stocks. Manufacturers favor a lower dollar to boost their own exports, never mind how exchange-rate volatility makes a hash of business planning.

Worst of all are the economists, who should know better but have convinced themselves that the dollar must fall so that the “trade deficit” can adjust. Some want to give a short-term boost to exports, which they hope will keep the economy out of recession while housing dips. Others have been preaching trade-deficit doom for so long that they view a dollar rout as a kind of policy wish fulfillment.

What all of this ignores is why the dollar should fall so precipitously now. The trade deficit is, by accounting definition, merely the reverse of a capital surplus. To buy something abroad you must get foreign currency. So the national accounts will show some offsetting transaction, whether borrowing or the sale of assets or goods. The trade balance isn’t a moral verdict on the strength of an economy, but is merely one snapshot in a constant series of global transactions.

The U.S. has run trade deficits for years and decades when the dollar was strong, most recently in the late 1990s – a period of legendary prosperity. As long as foreigners want to invest in the U.S., a strong economy and a trade deficit can co-exist for long periods. It’s preposterous to think that millions of foreigners awoke in the last week and suddenly discovered that the U.S. trade deficit they’d tolerated for years is a crisis.

To understand the dollar’s current woes, you have to look elsewhere – to monetary policy and economic management. The supply of dollars in the world is ultimately controlled by a single source, the Federal Reserve. With its aggressive easing in September, and again in late October, the Fed has signaled to the world that it cares more about creating dollars in the hope of limiting U.S. credit problems than it does about the dollar’s value. Investors can see this, and so they are dumping dollars and looking for other assets to hold. This includes commodities such as gold, which is now at $835 an ounce. The nearby chart from economist Michael Darda gives a sense of how far the dollar has fallen this year.

The world can also hear the silence from U.S. economic officials, whom they have come to believe are content with the dollar’s decline. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson mouths the ritual lines about a strong dollar, even as he keeps pressuring China to revalue the yuan. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke yesterday told Congress that inflation remains a risk, which shows that he at least has noted this week’s dollar rout. But his previous actions have left him and the Fed with a growing credibility problem that is perilous for any central banker.


Our current financial woes are in large part the result of previous monetary excess, which fueled a debt and asset boom that has become a banking bust. The way to emerge from the mess is to slowly but honestly work off the bad debt and write down the losses. The one sure way to make things worse is with more monetary excess. That could trigger a run on the dollar and the necessity for far higher interest rates to stem it.

But don’t take our word for it. Listen to Adam Smith, who this week has been growling in the distance, ready to enforce his own very rough form of market discipline if the Fed doesn’t listen.[/i]