Gold Standard
- Thread starter Seeker
- Start date
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
well it might be easyer than you think especially with the dollar only being worth.
1.00 USD = 0.652908 EUR
when it is worth nothing. I guess it doesn't matter what you start with.
1.00 USD = 0.652908 EUR
when it is worth nothing. I guess it doesn't matter what you start with.
well yes, but...
in my simply understanding of monetary policy; the Gold Standard means the currency is backed by gold held by the govt.
everyone in the US has some greenbacks that aren't worth a canuck dollar how to make it "fair"? would some bills become worthless? would a new currency need to be phased in? Or could We just declare that the currency is backed by gold? What effect would that have internationally?
in my simply understanding of monetary policy; the Gold Standard means the currency is backed by gold held by the govt.
everyone in the US has some greenbacks that aren't worth a canuck dollar how to make it "fair"? would some bills become worthless? would a new currency need to be phased in? Or could We just declare that the currency is backed by gold? What effect would that have internationally?
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
the currency will never be worthless here. But around the world it can be. Some countrys are not accepting dollars right now. The Amero Might be the new currency if the people in charge get their way. and it will be based on the monetary system we have now. Basically worthless.
I am not sure If we can go back to the gold standard. Maybe someone else knows how that could happen.
I am not sure If we can go back to the gold standard. Maybe someone else knows how that could happen.
Well, the obvious way would be to estimate how many dollars there are and how much gold is held by the govt and declare / fix that ratio.
Of course, we've been printing money like crazy.. or rather some private company does.
But hey, if we do experience hyper inflation, those of us with a little foresight will be investing heavily in wheelbarrows.
The government doesn't actually have to possess gold holdings to back the entire GDP. They just need enough to cover day-to-day exchanges.
Ideally, the currency would be backed by multiple commodities, exchangeable with whatever commodity is least valued at the moment.
The Fed, as long as it exists, would have to set the prime rate as if there were a standard involved.
Ideally, the currency would be backed by multiple commodities, exchangeable with whatever commodity is least valued at the moment.
The Fed, as long as it exists, would have to set the prime rate as if there were a standard involved.
Exactly... how much gold does the Treasury possess? Since the federal reserve is secretive and is rarely if ever audited by Congress.... there is no way to know how much gold our country currently has. There is a chance that we have none... we just don't know.
The first step would be to repeal the Federal Reserve Act in order to get rid of the Central Bank. Concerning the Central Bank and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, former President Woodrow Wilson said .....
It's hard to discount the words of a former President.
toybox99615
New member
what the point
unless you are going to drag a bag full of nuggets into the store and trade them for groceries. The concept of a gold is a great sales pitch for those who are willing to take your greenback in exchange for gold.
Note: over the past months gold prices have had some rather drastic fluctuations that might affect your outlook if you bought high and had to sell low.
unless you are going to drag a bag full of nuggets into the store and trade them for groceries. The concept of a gold is a great sales pitch for those who are willing to take your greenback in exchange for gold.
Note: over the past months gold prices have had some rather drastic fluctuations that might affect your outlook if you bought high and had to sell low.
That private company is called the Federal Reserve. Of course, the Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express. The Federal Reserve is a corporation of private bankers "entrusted" by Congress to print our money and to manage our money supply. Hard to believe, but look it up for yourselves if you get a chance between episodes of 24 and Lost.
Money which represents something of actual value is always a better long run bet than money which represents nothing more than promises.
I don't think gold is the best choice, but it would probably hold up better than what we've seen the dollar do recently. If they keep printing them, it'll get worse.
I think kilowatt hours of energy are a better thing on which to base a currency. They are potentially limitless, valued by most everyone, flexible with changing technology, and easily transferred and secured, if not easily stored. All advantages over gold.
I don't think gold is the best choice, but it would probably hold up better than what we've seen the dollar do recently. If they keep printing them, it'll get worse.
I think kilowatt hours of energy are a better thing on which to base a currency. They are potentially limitless, valued by most everyone, flexible with changing technology, and easily transferred and secured, if not easily stored. All advantages over gold.
And OT for this thread, I have to comment on this:
That's not how it happened. The Brits were not after ordinary muskets in homes. They were after a cache of militia (read: privately owned) CANNONS which were hidden on a farm. In other words, it wasn't the kind of arms you ordinarily associate with the term "bear arms" as in rifles. It was serious military hardware.
That's not how it happened. The Brits were not after ordinary muskets in homes. They were after a cache of militia (read: privately owned) CANNONS which were hidden on a farm. In other words, it wasn't the kind of arms you ordinarily associate with the term "bear arms" as in rifles. It was serious military hardware.
Not sure about this one
the problem I have with that concept is the kilowatts (or barrels of oil for that matter), are used up when used. Ok, not technically, due to the law od conservation of matter, but they are changed into an unrecoverable form, effectively used up.
Gold, when used as currency simply changes hands, and is never used up.
As far as going back on the gold standard? Fine by me. But you sure wouldn't like what it would do to the numbers on your paycheck, at first.
One way they could do it is simply print new bills, in the amount of gold we have, and then figure an exchange rate for the dollars in private hands currently. Oh, people will scream, and do it loud, and often, especially if the exchange rate comes out to be something like 10 or 100 for one. But by the time it is done, all the money will be worth a fixed amount.
I can remember when gold was worth $125 dollars an ounce. Period. That was the value of gold, set by law. And so that was the value of the dollar. Nixon's administration took us off the gold standard (along with a lot of other nice things they did for us), and we have been selling our dollars on the world market ever since. Well, guess what, right now, the rest of the world doesn't want our dollars. And because the value is not fixed, the value of the dollar is only what someone who wants them is willing to pay.
Tere was also a time, within the past century, when ordinary citizens were forbidden by law from owning gold (other than as jewelry or registered coin collectors). This was during the FDR administration.
As noted, the Federal Reserve is a private organization. The US mint(s) print the money, then they give it to the Federal Reserve, who then loans it to our Federal Government! You have to wonder if that is what our Founding Fathers felt was the right thing for our nation.
the problem I have with that concept is the kilowatts (or barrels of oil for that matter), are used up when used. Ok, not technically, due to the law od conservation of matter, but they are changed into an unrecoverable form, effectively used up.
Gold, when used as currency simply changes hands, and is never used up.
As far as going back on the gold standard? Fine by me. But you sure wouldn't like what it would do to the numbers on your paycheck, at first.
One way they could do it is simply print new bills, in the amount of gold we have, and then figure an exchange rate for the dollars in private hands currently. Oh, people will scream, and do it loud, and often, especially if the exchange rate comes out to be something like 10 or 100 for one. But by the time it is done, all the money will be worth a fixed amount.
I can remember when gold was worth $125 dollars an ounce. Period. That was the value of gold, set by law. And so that was the value of the dollar. Nixon's administration took us off the gold standard (along with a lot of other nice things they did for us), and we have been selling our dollars on the world market ever since. Well, guess what, right now, the rest of the world doesn't want our dollars. And because the value is not fixed, the value of the dollar is only what someone who wants them is willing to pay.
Tere was also a time, within the past century, when ordinary citizens were forbidden by law from owning gold (other than as jewelry or registered coin collectors). This was during the FDR administration.
As noted, the Federal Reserve is a private organization. The US mint(s) print the money, then they give it to the Federal Reserve, who then loans it to our Federal Government! You have to wonder if that is what our Founding Fathers felt was the right thing for our nation.
We'd never willingly go back to the gold standard. Governments can not inflate currency and therefore loses its ability to buy tomorrow's goods and services at today's prices.
Second, every president who has mixed it up with the Federal Reserve has died in office.
Third, not only is the Federal Reserve a private corporation, it is majority owned by European banks.
We are well past due a hard nosed investigation into the FED. It appears to be a lot more than originally billed.
Second, every president who has mixed it up with the Federal Reserve has died in office.
Third, not only is the Federal Reserve a private corporation, it is majority owned by European banks.
We are well past due a hard nosed investigation into the FED. It appears to be a lot more than originally billed.
gold is an internationally traded commodity, and so is the USD we control the price of neither. If we established 1,000 dollars is worth x pounds of gold what happens when gold continues to go up and the USD down? Everybody tries to cash in their dollars for gold, the government runs out and the dollar is worthless outside America.
It seems to me that if the dollar were tied to gold, that if gold went up so would the dollar.
In that, as Waitone stated, "Governments can not inflate currency" - a loss of Power - seems like the best recommendation for the gold standard. (although, I can't quite wrap my mind around "ability to buy tomorrow's goods and services at today's prices.")
As for method; it seems to me that paln A: Amout of gold/ # of Dollars would be the simplest solution inthe US, I think it would run into trouble internationally - bickering and smuggling if one group fixes the value of gold as X and the rest of the world as Y).
The exchange method might work best - and if the dollar is tied to the price of gold, and the dollar regains its status as the currency of trade, wouldn't that cause the price of gold to stabilize? Also, how much of the recent, apparent, fluctuations in the price of gold were the result of perspective i.e. fluctuations in the value of the dollar - so that the value of gold did not change rather it just tok more or less dollars to buy that same piece of gold?
and as for Firemaxs' Wilson quite and comment "It's hard to discount the words of a former President. " - You're right and I am reminded of some Famous Last Words about: European entanglements; and another about the Millitary-Industrial Complex. appears that hindsight is 20/20
In that, as Waitone stated, "Governments can not inflate currency" - a loss of Power - seems like the best recommendation for the gold standard. (although, I can't quite wrap my mind around "ability to buy tomorrow's goods and services at today's prices.")
As for method; it seems to me that paln A: Amout of gold/ # of Dollars would be the simplest solution inthe US, I think it would run into trouble internationally - bickering and smuggling if one group fixes the value of gold as X and the rest of the world as Y).
The exchange method might work best - and if the dollar is tied to the price of gold, and the dollar regains its status as the currency of trade, wouldn't that cause the price of gold to stabilize? Also, how much of the recent, apparent, fluctuations in the price of gold were the result of perspective i.e. fluctuations in the value of the dollar - so that the value of gold did not change rather it just tok more or less dollars to buy that same piece of gold?
and as for Firemaxs' Wilson quite and comment "It's hard to discount the words of a former President. " - You're right and I am reminded of some Famous Last Words about: European entanglements; and another about the Millitary-Industrial Complex. appears that hindsight is 20/20
Well, stabalize in terms of dollars, yes. Price/time would be a constant. A nice flat line graph.
Just look at the price of gold in different currencies over the last decade to see how that is exactly what happened. i.e. price of gold is much smoother and less steep than in the dollar.
also compare price of oil and price of gold to see that same effect the devaluation of the dollar has had on each.
The dollar relative to gold will not fluctuate if you set the dollar (for example) to be equal to 33mg of gold. No matter what, the price of gold would be equal to the price of the dollar. (Incidentally, 33mg of gold per dollar is about $860 per ounce) As long as you had the gold to back every dollar in circulation, you are set.
You don't need to back every dollar in circulation. Gold would be a metric. If people start converting dollars to gold you contract the money supply until they stop. If people convert gold to dollars, you expand the money supply until they stop. It is an objective way to maintain equilibrium. At least that's how it's supposed to work. Read "The Way the World Works" by Jude Wanniski for a fuller explanation.