| Author |
Replies: 17 / Views: 2,725 |
|
Valued Member
United States
122 Posts |
Steve Forbes has an interesting column in the upcoming edition of Forbes Magazine. You can read it at the website: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevefo...d-magicians/It just makes sense. It worked well every time it was tried. It's fascinating to think about what an impact it would have. Our politicians are not interested. Read the column and submit your comments.
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
It kind of starts out on a fallacy that we faced no economic trouble on the gold standard. The US Government used to have to be bailed out by private citizens back in those days it just wasnt advertised at the time. When you think about it gold standard and fiat are the same. Gold and silver only have value because people say it does just like money. Its impractical to have gold or silver coins with the price of those metals today and youd see A LOT of money being lost by banks and investors if you all of a sudden say okay gold is 20 dollars an ounce and silver is 1 dollar. Its just not doable.
He does make a good point though about government expansion being to great. But at the same time we have no one to blame but ourselfs. Were the ones who elect big government politicians and want the social programs and reelect people that vote for huge government projects. I forget who said it but a great quote is "Democracies get the government they deserve". And that quote is very true. It wont matter what system of economics you have as long as a large percentage of people want a huge government and the government to run everything youll have financial problems.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5177 Posts |
Quote: Its impractical to have gold or silver coins with the price of those metals today Well, we could never have a standard based on 1930s prices, that's true. Nor one based on 1971 prices, either. But a standard based on 20-25x pre-1964 face for silver (20 would be closer to reality, but would make the new silver coins exactly the same size as the old non-silver series but 20 times more valuable, which is not a good thing) and say 50x pre-1932 face for gold would probably work well in terms of coin size (we'll get $20, 10, 5, 2 and possibly 1 in silver, and $50, 100, 200, 500, and possibly 1000 in gold). The problem is more that there's not enough metal (gold anyway, as the effect of silver seems to be negligible)... even at current prices. I've seen calculations that for the amount of gold at US vaults to equal even several percent of the amount of money in the economy, the price of gold would've had to be something crazy like $10,000 per ounce. And in this case we'd be pretty much stuck following the example of the Indian gold fanam (this unit, also struck as half and quarter fanams, was approximately 0.1 of a gram, or 0.004 of an ounce - would've been $40 at such a price).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4008 Posts |
I don't see any plausible reason why our money cannot be backed or at least partially backed by something that has real value. Something has to limit the amount of paper money that is printed and forcing the government to have on hand some commodity or a basket of commodities to back the paper money is not at all unreasonable. Without this, money can and will be printed to extinction ala Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe... plus numerous others. Even if the money is only backed by the production capacity of the issuing nation, that is at least some kind of a brake on runaway printing presses and the inflation that results. Printing money to solve a liquidity problem is about as effective as taking pain medicine for a severe illness instead of taking a medication that will actually cure the problem and not just temporarily treat the symptoms.
To those who say that "there isn't enough gold and silver to serve as money", I disagree with that as well. Typically, they will make assumptions about the price equivalent between current dollars and gold or silver. This is incorrect because we have had a LOT of inflation baked into this cake over the years that would not be anywhere as much under an honest money system as it has been under the fiat system. Without this self-induced inflation, prices would me MUCH lower than they are today and the amounts of gold and silver would be much closer to being workable.
To those who believe that there has been price suppression of gold and silver, this only exacerbates the problem of knowing what the real equivalent is between fiat dollars and PMs. What would the price of gold and silver be today without any government or central bank interference in prices? Hard to say but it is pretty clear that if there has been price suppression and it has been successful, prices would be MUCH higher today than they are. As a stacker, I appreciate the incredible buying opportunity that has been presented to us. At the same time, I also favor honest, free, and fair markets so am conflicted by this part of the PM story.
None of us has the entire answer to the fiat money / inflation problem and I don't pretend to have it either. But we do know that a significant portion of what we have done and continue to do is not working. If we keep doing the same things we will achieve the same results. We have a marvelous example of what not to do via Japan. They are on, what, QE9 now? Their economy is stuck in a rut and has been since about 1990. How much of this is enough to prove that they are not on the right track? How long must we follow their example before deciding that this is not the right way to go and that we must go elsewhere if we are to be economically and financially successful? This is definitely a topic that needs and deserves a national discussion.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1450 Posts |
The problem is,everyone looks at this with the"present" value system for money. A new revised system that revamps values and "backs" money with metals could work. Simply making money redeemable for gold,rather than making the money from the metal could work. The reason for a gold standard is to limit the currency that can be printed.Some money would need to be removed from the system and the rest revalued. It would be complex but it could work.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote: Some money would need to be removed from the system and the rest revalued. It would be complex but it could work.
Which is exactly why it can and will never be done. Where is that money that gets removed supposed to come from? Either the banks will lose billions if not trillions or youll be confiscating wealth that goes against everything this country stands for. Im probably in the minority in this section of the board but gold or silver are no more valuable than a bill unless the government dissolves. In an anarchy trade system you would want gold or silver. As long as the government is there money is just as valuable if not more valuable. Money has value because we say it does, gold and silver has value because people say it does. Theyre both backed by the fact people say it has value. Its also important to remember we went bankrupt in the gold standard too as a government, they had to get loans from private citizens to bail them out. They even mention that on the next episode of the men who built america on the history channel that JP Morgan has to loan the government a billion dollars of todays money to keep it from doing into debt. Gold standard fiat money it doesn't matter. What matters is the type of government you have an how the money is spent. As long as people keep getting voted in that are in favor of expanding the government youll have the same problems under any system. History has taught us time and time again massive governments that control everything collapse under their own weight and thats true from the USSR to early empires that literally used gold and silver for money
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
122 Posts |
Babsbal21. you are right. Every time I have delved into thisidea I come back to that conclusion. The real problem is getting control of our spendthrist government. Can't figure out how to do that.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
310 Posts |
It could be done, but we'd have to do something we've never done before. Demonetize our current currency and issue a new one. Create a new more valuable currency. Have commerce repriced in the new currency. Would be pretty neat to be paying 10 cents a gallon for gas. Only thing is that if we did go to a metal backed currency again, it would have to be a single metal. The rest of the world would still trade them as a commodity and the ratios wouldn't be stable enough to be bi-metallic. Also, the our exchange rate with other currency would be at the will of the metals market. say you backed it with silver and silver prices dropped, prices would rise, etc. There's no way the government could peg the price of silver or gold anymore. They are too much of a global commodity anymore. The government would lose it's ability to control inflation rates, etc.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote: The real problem is getting control of our spendthrist government. Can't figure out how to do that. Its going to take baby steps and honestly most likely the bankrupting of one of our social systems like disability to be the wake up call. Theres people in congress and the senate that are serious about making some changes on both sides of the aisle the problem though is Harry Reid has pretty much brought everything to a grinding hault. Not even getting into his politics but hes 72, he knows he probably wont be around when social security explodes so he has no interest in risking his seat to fix something that doesn't affect him. Once more turnover in the old guard of the house and senate happens well probably start to see more legit reforms or at least attempts. If people really wanted it itd be reformed in a week if they thought itd get them reelected, but not enough people care right now. Really its our own faults for the way the public votes. Being able to vote for your leaders is a democracies greatest strength and weakness.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
2087 Posts |
When specie ruled the monetary world it didn't stop the Southsea's bubble, tulip speculation or the 1929 crash. Its management of risk and speculation that is more important. I also get amused when people slam Keynes.......he was the one who recommended that in good times governments should save and then should usin those savings to maintain the economy when things got bad. Some how politicians only swallowed half the message......they borrowed when times were good and borrowed even more when they were bad.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
561 Posts |
WE ARE NOT (OR AT LEAST WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE) A DEMOCRACY
Sorry for yelling but there is a HUGE difference between a democracy and a representative republic founded with a constitution.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4008 Posts |
Yes, there is Merc but we don't need to scream about it. What most of us mean when we say democracy is not mob rule but the democratic 1-person 1-vote system of representation. Being a republic is pretty much a separate issue... at least to us. And yes, we DO know the difference. Shorthand typing on the Internet being what it is, however, corners are cut... IMHO. 
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36844 Posts |
I agree with you Merc man. Americans have lost sight of what the founding fathers gave us. There is no reason why gold can't back a currency, the price would have to rise to cover the amount of paper needed for commerce. The dollar would once again have real value and not be eaten up by inflation. The problem is politicians don't want any restrictions on how much money can be created out of thin air to buy votes with.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote: There is no reason why gold can't back a currency, the price would have to rise to cover the amount of paper needed for commerce. The dollar would once again have real value and not be eaten up by inflation. Inflation and deficits happened under the gold standard. The problem isn't how you have the money backed or unbacked its how its spent. No large government can survive forever. When the government takes things over the price soars, the only way to survive long term is to have the government get out of things and leave it to the states or private industry. Gold standard wont change any of that Plus a major reason people like the idea is they think that if the dollar loses value they can turn it in for gold. Would never happen. Gold standard or not if the country fails and goes bankrupt your going to have what you have and nothing else
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3692 Posts |
Not only is a gold-backed currency intended to curb an increase in the money supply, Ed, but remember that it is also to curb counterfeiting. Money had a distinct "sound" in the past.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4008 Posts |
Quote: Inflation and deficits happened under the gold standard. I don't think that the issue is whether they did or not but of magnitude. A $16 TRILLION debt, not to mention upwards of $125 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities? Wow! That the debt alone is more than 100% of the US GDP. No person, local government, state government, national government, or world government can possibly operate that way and be financially viable. This is not so much about a gold standard or politics as it is about basic math and economics.
|
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 2,725 |