Gold Over $800 Per Ounce

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I am done. No one has addressed my argument in the least.

You go ahead and think money and gold are some magical concept that violates all laws of nature. You obviously refuse to even give thought to it. You are merely regurgitating talking points.

Have fun in your fantasy land.

I prefer the real world and it seems like every other nation that uses fiat money agrees with me.

I have.

Several times.

You just choose to ignore it.

It is just that where I bring arguments and historic examples you can easily research for yourself ,you think drawing assumptions out of your ass will do the trick.

That would work in a lot of areas, but not in this one.

I have asked several times why no country pegs to gold. You have yet to answer that question - “it makes governments rich” crap not withstanding.

I am as anti-big gov’t as the next guy, but you of the Major Burns crowd make little sense when you are talking to anyone but yourselves.

HH has contradicted himself at least once without so much as a cursory, “oops” from him.

You have your nose so far up the US economy’s ass that you can’t even offer a decent reason as to why, if the gold standard is so wonderful, the Euro is still pegged to the dollar.

Wanna know the quick, easy reason why you guys are even posting? Because the dollar is weaker than it’s been in almost 30 years. Most of you were not a twinkle in your daddy’s eye yet. Every time the dollar slides and gold makes a move - the gold standard whiners show up. The disappear as soon as the dollar starts coming back.

It is cyclical. It will come back around. It always has. It always will.

Kids these days.

[/quote]

First, the Euro is obviously not pegged to the Dollar, compared to what would the Dollar sink like a stone if it was?

Second, it does not make governments rich.

It makes them slightly less poor, i.e. less in debt each year.

You let your biggest debtor print your money .

Congratulations.

The Denarius went the way of the Dodo.

It never came back.

Related story:

The word “Dollar” comes from “Thaler” like in “Joachimsthaler”.
While all the other gold coins were clipped and shaved the coins printed in the valley of Joachim kept their value.

That is why today so many currencies are named after them.

122

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I am done. No one has addressed my argument in the least.

You go ahead and think money and gold are some magical concept that violates all laws of nature. You obviously refuse to even give thought to it. You are merely regurgitating talking points.

Have fun in your fantasy land.

I prefer the real world and it seems like every other nation that uses fiat money agrees with me.

I have.

Several times.

You just choose to ignore it.

It is just that where I bring arguments and historic examples you can easily research for yourself ,you think drawing assumptions out of your ass will do the trick.

That would work in a lot of areas, but not in this one.

I have asked several times why no country pegs to gold. You have yet to answer that question - “it makes governments rich” crap not withstanding.

I am as anti-big gov’t as the next guy, but you of the Major Burns crowd make little sense when you are talking to anyone but yourselves.

HH has contradicted himself at least once without so much as a cursory, “oops” from him.

You have your nose so far up the US economy’s ass that you can’t even offer a decent reason as to why, if the gold standard is so wonderful, the Euro is still pegged to the dollar.

Wanna know the quick, easy reason why you guys are even posting? Because the dollar is weaker than it’s been in almost 30 years. Most of you were not a twinkle in your daddy’s eye yet. Every time the dollar slides and gold makes a move - the gold standard whiners show up. The disappear as soon as the dollar starts coming back.

It is cyclical. It will come back around. It always has. It always will.

Kids these days.

First, the Euro is obviously not pegged to the Dollar, compared to what would the Dollar sink like a stone if it was?

Second, it does not make governments rich.

It makes them slightly less poor, i.e. less in debt each year.

You let your biggest debtor print your money .

Congratulations.

The Denarius went the way of the Dodo.

It never came back.

Related story:

The word “Dollar” comes from “Thaler” like in “Joachimsthaler”.
While all the other gold coins were clipped and shaved the coins printed in the valley of Joachim kept their value.

That is why today so many currencies are named after them.

[/quote]

Nice story. How about an answer?

123

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I am done. No one has addressed my argument in the least.

You go ahead and think money and gold are some magical concept that violates all laws of nature. You obviously refuse to even give thought to it. You are merely regurgitating talking points.

Have fun in your fantasy land.

I prefer the real world and it seems like every other nation that uses fiat money agrees with me.

I have.

Several times.

You just choose to ignore it.

It is just that where I bring arguments and historic examples you can easily research for yourself ,you think drawing assumptions out of your ass will do the trick.

That would work in a lot of areas, but not in this one.

I have asked several times why no country pegs to gold. You have yet to answer that question - “it makes governments rich” crap not withstanding.

I am as anti-big gov’t as the next guy, but you of the Major Burns crowd make little sense when you are talking to anyone but yourselves.

HH has contradicted himself at least once without so much as a cursory, “oops” from him.

You have your nose so far up the US economy’s ass that you can’t even offer a decent reason as to why, if the gold standard is so wonderful, the Euro is still pegged to the dollar.

Wanna know the quick, easy reason why you guys are even posting? Because the dollar is weaker than it’s been in almost 30 years. Most of you were not a twinkle in your daddy’s eye yet. Every time the dollar slides and gold makes a move - the gold standard whiners show up. The disappear as soon as the dollar starts coming back.

It is cyclical. It will come back around. It always has. It always will.

Kids these days.

First, the Euro is obviously not pegged to the Dollar, compared to what would the Dollar sink like a stone if it was?

Second, it does not make governments rich.

It makes them slightly less poor, i.e. less in debt each year.

You let your biggest debtor print your money .

Congratulations.

The Denarius went the way of the Dodo.

It never came back.

Related story:

The word “Dollar” comes from “Thaler” like in “Joachimsthaler”.
While all the other gold coins were clipped and shaved the coins printed in the valley of Joachim kept their value.

That is why today so many currencies are named after them.

Nice story. How about an answer?

[/quote]

To why so many people think fiat money is great?

Because that idea was born when people thought that there are only two ways into the future.

Fascism or Socialism.

The economy was a subject to science that could and should be conquered and commanded by science like Natures forces had been in the previous century.

A lot of economic theories of that time have been debunked and yet we still cling to central planning in monetary matters even though it is established that it is inferior to the mechanisms of a free market.

It is an historic one way street, but unfortunately the powers that be profit from it.

In the end it is nothing but a bad, hard to shake, habit.

The monkey on our collectives back.

124

[quote]orion wrote:
To why so many people think fiat money is great?

Because that idea was born when people thought that there are only two ways into the future.

Fascism or Socialism.

The economy was a subject to science that could and should be conquered and commanded by science like Natures forces had been in the previous century.

A lot of economic theories of that time have been debunked and yet we still cling to central planning in monetary matters even though it is established that it is inferior to the mechanisms of a free market.

It is an historic one way street, but unfortunately the powers that be profit from it.

In the end it is nothing but a bad, hard to shake, habit.

The monkey on our collectives back.

[/quote]

First a story, then a sermon.

And still no answer as to why the Euro is not on the gold standard.

If it is not the controller of the currency (gov’t) that profits, who is it? You have already said that gov’t don’t profit from it.

How many sides do the pro-gold standard people have to their mouths?

125

Interesting discussion.

My first question to the gold advocates is about a point previously made but inadequately addressed for me to have any clarity on it.

What happens when gold, a finite material is hoarded? Wouldn’t this allow the hoarders to increase its value by limiting its supply thus allowing them to become wealthier in goods and services without effort?

Another question I have is what about population growth. It seems a sensible assumption that population and total wealth of goods and services would outstrip gold production forcing it to be distributed more broadly and thus forcing it to deflate. What are the pros and cons of such a deflation?

Money is very clearly aligned with the natural concept of energy as an ability to do work. Our ability to make use of our energy source, the sun, and its energy products both renewable and fossil are ever increasing. Doesn’t this make a money system capable of keeping pace more reasonable?

126

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Interesting discussion.

My first question to the gold advocates is about a point previously made but inadequately addressed for me to have any clarity on it.

What happens when gold, a finite material is hoarded? Wouldn’t this allow the hoarders to increase its value by limiting its supply thus allowing them to become wealthier in goods and services without effort?

Another question I have is what about population growth. It seems a sensible assumption that population and total wealth of goods and services would outstrip gold production forcing it to be distributed more broadly and thus forcing it to deflate. What are the pros and cons of such a deflation?

Money is very clearly aligned with the natural concept of energy as an ability to do work. Our ability to make use of our energy source, the sun, and its energy products both renewable and fossil are ever increasing. Doesn’t this make a money system capable of keeping pace more reasonable?

[/quote]

That is really the heart of the matter.

Would a slight deflation be “bad” and if so, in what way?

I think that everyone that wants to “fix” the price of money artificially should have a damn good reason why and not the other way around.

127

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
To why so many people think fiat money is great?

Because that idea was born when people thought that there are only two ways into the future.

Fascism or Socialism.

The economy was a subject to science that could and should be conquered and commanded by science like Natures forces had been in the previous century.

A lot of economic theories of that time have been debunked and yet we still cling to central planning in monetary matters even though it is established that it is inferior to the mechanisms of a free market.

It is an historic one way street, but unfortunately the powers that be profit from it.

In the end it is nothing but a bad, hard to shake, habit.

The monkey on our collectives back.

First a story, then a sermon.

And still no answer as to why the Euro is not on the gold standard.

If it is not the controller of the currency (gov’t) that profits, who is it? You have already said that gov’t don’t profit from it.

How many sides do the pro-gold standard people have to their mouths?

[/quote]

I told you why it isn´t .

Because we went down the wrong path and now the powers that be stay in power because things are as they are.

It is not any more complicated like that.

Install the Spanish Inquisitions and you won´t run out of witches.

Install a prohibition agency and the war on drugs lasts forever.

Install a Fed and the excuses for paper money never end.

128

The reason no currency is pegged to gold is that governments wish to have ready access to the wealth of its citizens. If they had to ASK for your money using taxation (for which you can vote), they would have to exercise restraint. They wouldn’t be able to fund studies of the life expectancy of goldfish or build bridges to no where. They wouldn’t be able to start wars at the drop of a hat and fund the wars by floating massive loans (which central banks then monetize).

Gold is your protection. When a currency is on a gold standard, your wealth cannot be fleeced away from you by the secret tax called inflation. If they try it, people begin demanding gold from the Treasury.

I would rather trust gold than a politician’s promises.

129

And you accuse anti-gold people of wearing tin-foil hats.

I think this is the very definition of a no-win debate.

130

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I am done. No one has addressed my argument in the least.

You go ahead and think money and gold are some magical concept that violates all laws of nature. You obviously refuse to even give thought to it. You are merely regurgitating talking points.

Have fun in your fantasy land.

I prefer the real world and it seems like every other nation that uses fiat money agrees with me.

I have.

Several times.

You just choose to ignore it.

[/quote]

No you have not. You have tried to redefine money into a magical thing that violates the laws of nature.

131

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
What happens when gold, a finite material is hoarded? Wouldn’t this allow the hoarders to increase its value by limiting its supply thus allowing them to become wealthier in goods and services without effort?
[/quote]
No. I don’t think so. Hording gold serves no purpose as its only purpose is to exchange goods – not only that, but people would still not necessarily carry around gold. People who “hold” gold would ultimately become banks. I think the worst thing that could happen is if one government were able to hoard gold. Gold should be privately held and currency should be allowed to compete.

Ultimately competing banks would print the equivalent number of paper certificates to represent the held weight which would guarantee that the gold would be kept – 100% Reserve Banking. Paper money would only be a receipt for gold kept in the vaults. This would allow for true monetary competition. The digital age will be the best insurance against bank runs and provide efficiency of delivery.

132

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Money is very clearly aligned with the natural concept of energy as an ability to do work. Our ability to make use of our energy source, the sun, and its energy products both renewable and fossil are ever increasing. Doesn’t this make a money system capable of keeping pace more reasonable?
[/quote]
Actually, as analogies go this is accurate, except that one notion is physical and one is abstract. A concept is not subject to the laws of physics. What you are referring to is the employment of means of technology to economize resources (time, energy, money). We recognized early on that saving was beneficial because we understood scarcity. Technology has allowed us to become more productive with less resources; this is why goods can ultimately become less expensive so long as there is no dilution of the money supply.

133

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
What happens when gold, a finite material is hoarded? Wouldn’t this allow the hoarders to increase its value by limiting its supply thus allowing them to become wealthier in goods and services without effort?

No. I don’t think so. Hording gold serves no purpose as its only purpose is to exchange goods – not only that, but people would still not necessarily carry around gold. People who “hold” gold would ultimately become banks. I think the worst thing that could happen is if one government were able to hoard gold. Gold should be privately held and currency should be allowed to compete.

Ultimately competing banks would print the equivalent number of paper certificates to represent the held weight which would guarantee that the gold would be kept – 100% Reserve Banking. Paper money would only be a receipt for gold kept in the vaults. This would allow for true monetary competition. The digital age will be the best insurance against bank runs and provide efficiency of delivery. [/quote]

You never googled the Hunt Brothers, did you?

134

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You never googled the Hunt Brothers, did you?
[/quote]
Yes. I did. The reason why they started hording silver was because they were motivated by government intervention. The government provided the opportunity for them to make money; just like the black market and the war on drugs. You prove my point about intervention and unintended consequences.

First they create an incentive by outlawing the private ownership of gold so people go to the next best thing – silver. Then, once people try to compete the Fed fixes the price.

But really, I don’t hear much complaining from too many people about the “Great Silver Scare of '79.”

I still don’t see how this is an argument against gold as money. A paper receipt (dollar) would be pegged against a fixed weight of gold. It doesn’t matter who holds the gold it’s still retained by definition of the monetary unit. If a bank writes more receipts for gold than is held in its vault then it goes bankrupt if people make a run. This will incentivize banks to make prudent decisions – efficient banks will be able to meet customer demand and will prosper.

135

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
What happens when gold, a finite material is hoarded? Wouldn’t this allow the hoarders to increase its value by limiting its supply thus allowing them to become wealthier in goods and services without effort?

No. I don’t think so. Hording gold serves no purpose as its only purpose is to exchange goods – not only that, but people would still not necessarily carry around gold. People who “hold” gold would ultimately become banks. I think the worst thing that could happen is if one government were able to hoard gold. Gold should be privately held and currency should be allowed to compete.

Ultimately competing banks would print the equivalent number of paper certificates to represent the held weight which would guarantee that the gold would be kept – 100% Reserve Banking. Paper money would only be a receipt for gold kept in the vaults. This would allow for true monetary competition. The digital age will be the best insurance against bank runs and provide efficiency of delivery. [/quote]

Gold being privately held as the central reserve with an external currency competition sounds interesting but with a world still filled with powerful governments based on diverse ideology’s getting them all to play nice seems a bit far fetched. Governments aren’t famous for relinquishing power gracefully once acquired. And of course collusion between private business and government is far from uncommon. I do tend towards cynicism sometimes so please add more if you think this is way off base.

136

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You never googled the Hunt Brothers, did you?

Yes. I did. The reason why they started hording silver was because they were motivated by government intervention. The government provided the opportunity for them to make money; just like the black market and the war on drugs. You prove my point about intervention and unintended consequences.

First they create an incentive by outlawing the private ownership of gold so people go to the next best thing – silver. Then, once people try to compete the Fed fixes the price.

But really, I don’t hear much complaining from too many people about the “Great Silver Scare of '79.”

I still don’t see how this is an argument against gold as money. A paper receipt (dollar) would be pegged against a fixed weight of gold. It doesn’t matter who holds the gold it’s still retained by definition of the monetary unit. If a bank writes more receipts for gold than is held in its vault then it goes bankrupt if people make a run. This will incentivize banks to make prudent decisions – efficient banks will be able to meet customer demand and will prosper.[/quote]

You maintain that a precious metal can’t be horded. the Hunts damn near cornered the market. Not that big a deal because we were not on the gold, or silver standard. Yes - we used silver as well.

The same could happen to gold.

Anytime you want to limit the size of the pie - you are asking for a shutdown in the economy.

You really need to stop reading so much theory, and actually try and live in the real world.

137

[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You never googled the Hunt Brothers, did you?

Yes. I did. The reason why they started hording silver was because they were motivated by government intervention. The government provided the opportunity for them to make money; just like the black market and the war on drugs. You prove my point about intervention and unintended consequences.

First they create an incentive by outlawing the private ownership of gold so people go to the next best thing – silver. Then, once people try to compete the Fed fixes the price.

But really, I don’t hear much complaining from too many people about the “Great Silver Scare of '79.”

I still don’t see how this is an argument against gold as money. A paper receipt (dollar) would be pegged against a fixed weight of gold. It doesn’t matter who holds the gold it’s still retained by definition of the monetary unit. If a bank writes more receipts for gold than is held in its vault then it goes bankrupt if people make a run. This will incentivize banks to make prudent decisions – efficient banks will be able to meet customer demand and will prosper.

You maintain that a precious metal can’t be horded. the Hunts damn near cornered the market. Not that big a deal because we were not on the gold, or silver standard. Yes - we used silver as well.

The same could happen to gold.

Anytime you want to limit the size of the pie - you are asking for a shutdown in the economy.

You really need to stop reading so much theory, and actually try and live in the real world.
[/quote]

Didn’t the Hunts lose about $1,000,000,000 on that attempted corner?

I remember selling some hoarded silver dimes for $1.25 each and quarters for $3.00.

No matter what anyone says, gold has always been a traditional store of value. Governments come and go, paper and paer promises come and go, yet gold remains. Paper money has always been a swindle — just think of Germany in 1923.

Gold never decays and is recognized around the world as a universal form of money. Sure, the dollar may reign supreme for a few decades, but the temptation to spend more than we earn, to attempt to cheat reality by blanketing that reality with paper, is just a long-term disaster waitng to happen.

I suppose paper money reflects our ‘paper’ philosophy: that all morality is relative, there are no absolutes, that you can spend forever and not have to pay your bills, that we can exist IN DEFIANCE OF REALITY.

But, guess what? Gold (and reality) win in the end. We lose.

138

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You maintain that a precious metal can’t be horded. the Hunts damn near cornered the market. Not that big a deal because we were not on the gold, or silver standard. Yes - we used silver as well.

The same could happen to gold.

Anytime you want to limit the size of the pie - you are asking for a shutdown in the economy.

You really need to stop reading so much theory, and actually try and live in the real world.
[/quote]

Rain, If we were on a gold standard and there were true competition between banks it could not possibly be horded unless every individual ended up going in debt to the same debtor. Imagine trying to get a monopoly on paper money. Its the same idea. Not very likely when it is used as an exchange medium.

It was the act of the gov’t outlawing private ownership of gold that provided for a gov’t monopoly on gold. The worse thing that could happen is allowing any gov’t to hoard gold. The only thing they need worry about is setting the standard.

The size of the pie doesn’t matter; what matters is that the ratio of weight in gold to the dollar does not grow or shrink once the standard is set. The economy doesn’t care if there is 100 billion pounds of gold or if there were 10 trillion. The whole idea of a standard is that each piece of paper represents a certain weight. When it was originally decided it was set at 1/20 oz per dollar. A dollar today is worth far less than that thanks to the fact that we went off of a set standard and started using deflatable fiat.

139

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…The size of the pie doesn’t matter; what matters is that the ratio of weight in gold to the dollar does not grow or shrink once the standard is set. …[/quote]

This is incorrect. If/when the economy grows and the supply of money does not then there can be trouble.

It can lead to deflation. This is bad for lenders because people will default on loans.

The gold standard would be fine if population, technology and productivity never grew.

140

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…The size of the pie doesn’t matter; what matters is that the ratio of weight in gold to the dollar does not grow or shrink once the standard is set. …

This is incorrect. If/when the economy grows and the supply of money does not then there can be trouble.

It can lead to deflation. This is bad for lenders because people will default on loans.

The gold standard would be fine if population, technology and productivity never grew.[/quote]

Why?