The US currency vs. ...
- Thread starter Wallew
- Start date
Three more:
So, money is a VERY confusing issue that most of us NEVER get a handle on our whole lives.
I still say that the issue of lowering the value of the dollar vs. the Euro is a good thing for us. As long as we keep the 'end' in sight, which IMO is to keep the $$$ flowing world wide and to remain THE currency of choice.
I STILL collect the 'odd and unusual'. This is but one facet of items I've collected over the past thirty five years.
So, money is a VERY confusing issue that most of us NEVER get a handle on our whole lives.
I still say that the issue of lowering the value of the dollar vs. the Euro is a good thing for us. As long as we keep the 'end' in sight, which IMO is to keep the $$$ flowing world wide and to remain THE currency of choice.
I STILL collect the 'odd and unusual'. This is but one facet of items I've collected over the past thirty five years.
Mike Irwin
Gold producers, the gold market and gold owners are not the same things. It is the gold markets where physical gold is traded, and who are the owners of this physical gold that count.
I didn't pull the idea that the most gold is mined and the most physical gold owned and traded, outside the U.S. out of a hat. It is a fact.
And you will probably find that the Canadian, Australian and South African mines are owned or underwritten primarily by people with closer ties to europe than anywhere else, like De Beers for example. In fact those countries are pretty much political and financial extensions of europe - particularly the U.K. But in the "free trade" global market system controlled by people who have no particular loyalty to any particular country "sovereignty" has very little to do with it.
There are three markets for gold; London, New York and the Far East. But every business day a considerable tonnage of physical gold is traded by the heavy hitters in the London market. These people own the physical gold traded - it is not the aggregate of thousands and thousands of remote individuals trading "stocks" or "shares". Every business day their trading determines what is known as the "London Fixing" or the spot value of gold.
We have a far greater slice of the physical silver in the world. The Russians or any other country are not going to be able to upset things for us for very long.
I fail to see where a specie backed currency is any more costly - or subject to catastrophy - than one as complex as the fractional reserve system controlled by a single private profiteering corporation, and subject to the effects of the trade with, and currencies, of a dozen different countries.
If specie backed currencies were so costly and such a liability, the euro would not have been tied to gold the way it is, and foreign countries would not be switching to it as their reserve currency.
Gold producers, the gold market and gold owners are not the same things. It is the gold markets where physical gold is traded, and who are the owners of this physical gold that count.
I didn't pull the idea that the most gold is mined and the most physical gold owned and traded, outside the U.S. out of a hat. It is a fact.
And you will probably find that the Canadian, Australian and South African mines are owned or underwritten primarily by people with closer ties to europe than anywhere else, like De Beers for example. In fact those countries are pretty much political and financial extensions of europe - particularly the U.K. But in the "free trade" global market system controlled by people who have no particular loyalty to any particular country "sovereignty" has very little to do with it.
There are three markets for gold; London, New York and the Far East. But every business day a considerable tonnage of physical gold is traded by the heavy hitters in the London market. These people own the physical gold traded - it is not the aggregate of thousands and thousands of remote individuals trading "stocks" or "shares". Every business day their trading determines what is known as the "London Fixing" or the spot value of gold.
We have a far greater slice of the physical silver in the world. The Russians or any other country are not going to be able to upset things for us for very long.
I fail to see where a specie backed currency is any more costly - or subject to catastrophy - than one as complex as the fractional reserve system controlled by a single private profiteering corporation, and subject to the effects of the trade with, and currencies, of a dozen different countries.
If specie backed currencies were so costly and such a liability, the euro would not have been tied to gold the way it is, and foreign countries would not be switching to it as their reserve currency.
Rich,
They are under someones' control. But their crock of a WWF show certainly isn't invisible.
Why didn't the "we-hate-Bush-liberal-media" expose Bush senior in his scam with his buddy Craig Fuller in a blatant orchestrated theatrical performance of lies over Kuwait? Why have they been so co-operative in similar episodes in Iraq this time around?
The whole show of right vs left in this country is just that; a ridiculous show. WWF.
They are under someones' control. But their crock of a WWF show certainly isn't invisible.
Why didn't the "we-hate-Bush-liberal-media" expose Bush senior in his scam with his buddy Craig Fuller in a blatant orchestrated theatrical performance of lies over Kuwait? Why have they been so co-operative in similar episodes in Iraq this time around?
The whole show of right vs left in this country is just that; a ridiculous show. WWF.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Do "they" have a name?
Illuminati?
Rich
Illuminati?
Rich
I loved the silver bubble. People were willing to sell all sorts of old silver coins as the price rose from next to nothing to over $50 an ounce. The best part was that they'd let me cherry pick the good dates and mint marks before they sold them for bullion prices to the traveling dealers at the local motel.
And the Hunt family was very, very rich. And greedy.
John
____________
Googled up at random...
"The Hunt Brothers and the Silver Bubble
Brian Trumbore
President/Editor, StocksandNews.com
In 1973, the Hunt family of Texas, possibly the richest family in America at the time, decided to buy precious metals as a hedge against inflation. Gold could not be held by private citizens at that time, so the Hunts began to buy silver in enormous quantity.
In 1979 the sons of patriarch H.L. Hunt, Nelson Bunker and William Herbert, together with some wealthy Arabs, formed a silver pool. In a short period of time they had amassed more than 200 million ounces of silver, equivalent to half the world's deliverable supply."
And the Hunt family was very, very rich. And greedy.
John
____________
Googled up at random...
"The Hunt Brothers and the Silver Bubble
Brian Trumbore
President/Editor, StocksandNews.com
In 1973, the Hunt family of Texas, possibly the richest family in America at the time, decided to buy precious metals as a hedge against inflation. Gold could not be held by private citizens at that time, so the Hunts began to buy silver in enormous quantity.
In 1979 the sons of patriarch H.L. Hunt, Nelson Bunker and William Herbert, together with some wealthy Arabs, formed a silver pool. In a short period of time they had amassed more than 200 million ounces of silver, equivalent to half the world's deliverable supply."
I sent this thread to a friend of mine who is a retired FRB employee. In it, he says he is not an economist and that is correct. He is not an economist, but he does know more about the FRB than anyone else I know. Here is what he said:
I agree with most of what you say, but most of us don't agree with "everything" that any one person says. BUT, I certainly think you have a better handle on it than any of the other guys you're sparring with in the e-mail trade.
I'm not an economist so wouldn't claim to have any better views than you.
I've never thought of the Federal Reserve Banks being owned by the government. Naturally it is a quasi-government organization; the Board in Washington is controlled by the President (though supposedly rigged so no one President can stack it but we know that happens anyway). Each Reserve Bank is actually owned by the member commercial banks in each District) I agree the govt. borrows from the Fed because the Reserve Banks are the biggest holders of Govt. Debt investing in most of the U.S. Treasury Bonds and Notes, using deposit of the commercial banks to fund it - Each Reserve Bank takes the interest income, pays salaries and other expenses and a piddly dividend on the FRB stock owned by each member bank and then turns over about 95% or so of its profit back to the Treasury each year (that's why the hair on the back of my neck always stood up when someone said "I pay your salary with my taxes!" (Although indirectly I agree the more fiscally irresponsible the Fed is, the less they give to the Treasury and the more the govt. has to borrow, raise taxes or whatever from other sources) Without the gold standard, my understanding is that each Reserve Bank must have U.S. Government Securites on the assets side of its balance sheet at least equal to the amount of currency it has in circulation in the District or something like that.
Here is the link he left me with, called : Why Not the Gold Standard?
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.html
Live and learn I always say.
I agree with most of what you say, but most of us don't agree with "everything" that any one person says. BUT, I certainly think you have a better handle on it than any of the other guys you're sparring with in the e-mail trade.
I'm not an economist so wouldn't claim to have any better views than you.
I've never thought of the Federal Reserve Banks being owned by the government. Naturally it is a quasi-government organization; the Board in Washington is controlled by the President (though supposedly rigged so no one President can stack it but we know that happens anyway). Each Reserve Bank is actually owned by the member commercial banks in each District) I agree the govt. borrows from the Fed because the Reserve Banks are the biggest holders of Govt. Debt investing in most of the U.S. Treasury Bonds and Notes, using deposit of the commercial banks to fund it - Each Reserve Bank takes the interest income, pays salaries and other expenses and a piddly dividend on the FRB stock owned by each member bank and then turns over about 95% or so of its profit back to the Treasury each year (that's why the hair on the back of my neck always stood up when someone said "I pay your salary with my taxes!" (Although indirectly I agree the more fiscally irresponsible the Fed is, the less they give to the Treasury and the more the govt. has to borrow, raise taxes or whatever from other sources) Without the gold standard, my understanding is that each Reserve Bank must have U.S. Government Securites on the assets side of its balance sheet at least equal to the amount of currency it has in circulation in the District or something like that.
Here is the link he left me with, called : Why Not the Gold Standard?
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.html
Live and learn I always say.
redhawk,
Look at it this way. Because of a lower dollar vs. the EU, ALL US goods sold in Europe are about forty percent cheaper. Of course, ALL of the EU probably pounds us with importation taxes, so the price goes up a certain amount. I don't know how much per country, cause I just don't care.
Anyway, that means we have LESS of a trade deficit WITH EUROPE. It also means that we have a 'handle' on Europe's economy. Why? Because if they don't buy our stuff and just buy theirs (no, I'm not forgetting China), it costs them MORE than if they buy US products. SO, regardless of whether they like us or not, they ARE buying OUR products instead of theirs. Call it an economic pancea for Europe.
OR we are to Europe what CHINA is to the US. We provide quality goods for a low price. I don't wish to argue whether or not China produces quality products or not, but they DO provide US citizens with low cost items, thereby giving us a little more 'jingle in our step' as it were (money in our pocket).
Unlike the Chinese, most of whom live an agrian life, MOST of us here in the US live a technological lifestyle. We have the BEST standard of living across the world. BECAUSE we buy low (China) and sell high (to Europe - though to Europeans, it's at a low cost TO THEM).
Does that help any?
---
My buddy sent me another email. He added:
Reminds me of one other thought and since you I both, I think, share a reasonable similar conservative view, I imagine you agree. So many politicians, like the former Henry Gonzalez of Texas and San Antonio specifically, "despise" the Fed because of it's independence. True, Greenspan must testify before Congress, etc. etc. but he really is not controlled by them. As well, even though the President appoints the Fed Chair he doesn't control him/her either once the selection is made, other than he can obviously make life miserable and force a resignation and reappoint someone else. Independence is obvious considering that the first Bush still blames his "own" Greenspan for his loss of the election to Clinton. And although Greenspan is of the Republican persuasion, he still says Bill Clinton was the most intelligent president (economics-wise) he ever worked with or knew. (and, I agree, tho there wasn't much else about Clinton I liked)
But, where I was going - so many in the House and Senate despise the fact they don't have total control over the Fed. There's always moves to bring the Fed under control of the Legislative Bodies. I think one of the guys you're e-mailing with on the site even alluded to that. My response always is - "When you look at the things that go on in the House and in the Senate and some of the silly-ass laws we end up with; the kind of pensions and other benefits they give themselves, the partisan arguments that result in bills being passed that include provisions that maybe strip funds for protective armor for our soldiers in Irag and give it to some wierdo in Tennessee to study why some birds travel north instead of south in the winter, then you have to ask 'Do you really want Congress setting the country's monetary policy, trying to keep inflation, economic growth, unemployment levels, etc at appropriate levels' !!!!!
I used the BOLD font to make what he said at the end stand out. There you go folks.
Look at it this way. Because of a lower dollar vs. the EU, ALL US goods sold in Europe are about forty percent cheaper. Of course, ALL of the EU probably pounds us with importation taxes, so the price goes up a certain amount. I don't know how much per country, cause I just don't care.
Anyway, that means we have LESS of a trade deficit WITH EUROPE. It also means that we have a 'handle' on Europe's economy. Why? Because if they don't buy our stuff and just buy theirs (no, I'm not forgetting China), it costs them MORE than if they buy US products. SO, regardless of whether they like us or not, they ARE buying OUR products instead of theirs. Call it an economic pancea for Europe.
OR we are to Europe what CHINA is to the US. We provide quality goods for a low price. I don't wish to argue whether or not China produces quality products or not, but they DO provide US citizens with low cost items, thereby giving us a little more 'jingle in our step' as it were (money in our pocket).
Unlike the Chinese, most of whom live an agrian life, MOST of us here in the US live a technological lifestyle. We have the BEST standard of living across the world. BECAUSE we buy low (China) and sell high (to Europe - though to Europeans, it's at a low cost TO THEM).
Does that help any?
---
My buddy sent me another email. He added:
Reminds me of one other thought and since you I both, I think, share a reasonable similar conservative view, I imagine you agree. So many politicians, like the former Henry Gonzalez of Texas and San Antonio specifically, "despise" the Fed because of it's independence. True, Greenspan must testify before Congress, etc. etc. but he really is not controlled by them. As well, even though the President appoints the Fed Chair he doesn't control him/her either once the selection is made, other than he can obviously make life miserable and force a resignation and reappoint someone else. Independence is obvious considering that the first Bush still blames his "own" Greenspan for his loss of the election to Clinton. And although Greenspan is of the Republican persuasion, he still says Bill Clinton was the most intelligent president (economics-wise) he ever worked with or knew. (and, I agree, tho there wasn't much else about Clinton I liked)
But, where I was going - so many in the House and Senate despise the fact they don't have total control over the Fed. There's always moves to bring the Fed under control of the Legislative Bodies. I think one of the guys you're e-mailing with on the site even alluded to that. My response always is - "When you look at the things that go on in the House and in the Senate and some of the silly-ass laws we end up with; the kind of pensions and other benefits they give themselves, the partisan arguments that result in bills being passed that include provisions that maybe strip funds for protective armor for our soldiers in Irag and give it to some wierdo in Tennessee to study why some birds travel north instead of south in the winter, then you have to ask 'Do you really want Congress setting the country's monetary policy, trying to keep inflation, economic growth, unemployment levels, etc at appropriate levels' !!!!!
I used the BOLD font to make what he said at the end stand out. There you go folks.
so ideally, if the value of the dollar dropped below the value of the Chinese currency (RenMinBi), we could reverse the trend of cheap Chinese imports.
However, since the Chinese have a considerable dollar investment, this is not possible because at a certain point the Chinese would just dump their dollars and then we would really be screwed.
So the balancing act is to find somewhere that domestic products are attractive in both quality and price compared to Chinese imports, without China pulling its dollar investments.
Is the dropping the dollar value a battle in an economic war with China?
However, since the Chinese have a considerable dollar investment, this is not possible because at a certain point the Chinese would just dump their dollars and then we would really be screwed.
So the balancing act is to find somewhere that domestic products are attractive in both quality and price compared to Chinese imports, without China pulling its dollar investments.
Is the dropping the dollar value a battle in an economic war with China?
wallew, ok i'll make a deal with you:
i will rent and watch "ROLLOVER" if you rent and watch "Fight Club" (unless you have already seen it).
"You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your ******* khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."
hey kidding, no need to deal, i'll check out the flick. your choice on "Fight Club".
i will rent and watch "ROLLOVER" if you rent and watch "Fight Club" (unless you have already seen it).
"You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your ******* khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."
hey kidding, no need to deal, i'll check out the flick. your choice on "Fight Club".
Rich Lucibella
Rich said
Lak said
Well, in this case, "they" refers to the major TV news, radio and print media etc. Perhaps if you were less interested in trying to ridicule me personally, and more in point on point content we might get somewhere - even if we do not agree.
But everything mainstream certainly is in lockstep. If you do not think so perhaps you can point out the roaring tide of nationalism, thriving American culture and something that could be called a national border I am missing. Not to mention small points like the words of many of our recent leaders, including George himself ....
"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land." - George Bush, to the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 2001
If George is reluctant to explain what their agenda is, perhaps you can And if you want to get into actions, I could list hundreds of examples and not even scratch the surface. The U.N. has it all explicitly laid out. The only question is who opposes them, and who keeps us there. Our mainstream media certainly isn't giving any air time to people who oppose them, and actively seek to get us out of their criminal organization.
So I'd like to see some evidence presented that they - our mainstream media - are not in lockstep. Outside of temporary or token mock opposition things haven't stopped rolling since as far back as I can remember in the late 1960s.
Rich said
Lak said
Well, in this case, "they" refers to the major TV news, radio and print media etc. Perhaps if you were less interested in trying to ridicule me personally, and more in point on point content we might get somewhere - even if we do not agree.
But everything mainstream certainly is in lockstep. If you do not think so perhaps you can point out the roaring tide of nationalism, thriving American culture and something that could be called a national border I am missing. Not to mention small points like the words of many of our recent leaders, including George himself ....
"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land." - George Bush, to the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 2001
If George is reluctant to explain what their agenda is, perhaps you can
And if you want to get into actions, I could list hundreds of examples and not even scratch the surface. The U.N. has it all explicitly laid out. The only question is who opposes them, and who keeps us there. Our mainstream media certainly isn't giving any air time to people who oppose them, and actively seek to get us out of their criminal organization.So I'd like to see some evidence presented that they - our mainstream media - are not in lockstep. Outside of temporary or token mock opposition things haven't stopped rolling since as far back as I can remember in the late 1960s.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
You can't prove a negative, LAK. In any debate, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion. If you claim that the mainstream media are in lockstep, then the burden of proof is yours, not Rich's.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
LAK-
This is an absurdly easy challenge, even for a high school kid willing to read the dailies. Unfortunately the "proof" wouldn't be good enough for you, I think. It's like administering medicine to the dead....hopeless.
More important, though: this is the very heart of your debating process. "If you can't DISPROVE my claims that all Corporations, National and International Political Figures, Wealthy Individuals, TV, Radio and Print Media are under Central Control, then I MUST BE RIGHT."
That's not debate; it's not even rational. I'm sorry if you believe that I ridicule you personally. I don't. I do ridicule ridiculous statements....to the extent that you may feel you are but the sum of your words here, I can understand you taking that personally. But that would not be MY problem.
Rich
Just a couple of things.
LAK,
Don't take this the wrong way, but I worked in corporate America for more than thirty years. I have even worked for the Federal Reserve Bank in two different cities during that same time frame. Mainly computers, but in other areas also.
Believe me when I tell you that most companies with more that 25 employees have a hard enough time getting everyone INSIDE the corporation moving in the same direction at the same time. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to get them ALL moving in the same direction under the control of ONE person, agency, conspiratorial cabal, whatever FROM THE OUTSIDE. It's just NOT in our pysche to agree to be controlled. From above OR below.
And the majority of people (80% or better) work for companies that are LESS than 25 employees, so they don't come into this.
ALSO, the last time a LARGE percentage of the American public TRIED to move their money into hard metals, can ANY ONE HERE tell me what happened?
Yes, you in the back row.
Absolutely correct. FDR made it ILLEGAL for Americans to own gold and every one had to turn in their gold for GREENBACKS. So, who here thinks that if GOLD were one of the few ways to hang on to a small percentage of their wealth during the coming world wide depression, that the power that be WON'T require us to turn in all worth while assets YET AGAIN?
Those who don't study history have a tendency to repeat it.
LAK,
Don't take this the wrong way, but I worked in corporate America for more than thirty years. I have even worked for the Federal Reserve Bank in two different cities during that same time frame. Mainly computers, but in other areas also.
Believe me when I tell you that most companies with more that 25 employees have a hard enough time getting everyone INSIDE the corporation moving in the same direction at the same time. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to get them ALL moving in the same direction under the control of ONE person, agency, conspiratorial cabal, whatever FROM THE OUTSIDE. It's just NOT in our pysche to agree to be controlled. From above OR below.
And the majority of people (80% or better) work for companies that are LESS than 25 employees, so they don't come into this.
ALSO, the last time a LARGE percentage of the American public TRIED to move their money into hard metals, can ANY ONE HERE tell me what happened?
Yes, you in the back row.
Absolutely correct. FDR made it ILLEGAL for Americans to own gold and every one had to turn in their gold for GREENBACKS. So, who here thinks that if GOLD were one of the few ways to hang on to a small percentage of their wealth during the coming world wide depression, that the power that be WON'T require us to turn in all worth while assets YET AGAIN?
Those who don't study history have a tendency to repeat it.
i am sure that no one here needs convinced of this, and i heard a story that made a good case for it (again) last night:
guns are a good investment
i would much rather invest in guns than in any paper, whether stock or silver certificates or what have you.
the guy in the story at one time had over 80 guns, but when times were tuff and he had no income he had to sell half those to pay the cost of living for a time.
guns will always be worth something, they are always useful, at least you can get dinner with them, and when the government decides to confiscate those ala FDR and gold well ...
... enough said.
guns are a good investment
i would much rather invest in guns than in any paper, whether stock or silver certificates or what have you.
the guy in the story at one time had over 80 guns, but when times were tuff and he had no income he had to sell half those to pay the cost of living for a time.
guns will always be worth something, they are always useful, at least you can get dinner with them, and when the government decides to confiscate those ala FDR and gold well ...
... enough said.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Redhawk-
I could not agree more. My collection started exactly that way years ago. It may not have appreciated at the rate of Blue Chips, but it's basically recession-proof.
Wanna talk about Currency at TEOTWAWKI......how about ammunition....by the handful or truckload.
Rich
I could not agree more. My collection started exactly that way years ago. It may not have appreciated at the rate of Blue Chips, but it's basically recession-proof.
Wanna talk about Currency at TEOTWAWKI......how about ammunition....by the handful or truckload.
Rich