The Gold Standard

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

Peter89 said:
I think it's a misconception to think that the Gold Standard needs the monetary authorities - the managers of the national currency - to do something.
Gold Standard means using gold - i.e. a currency representing a fixed quantity of gold - as everyday currency.
When buyer and seller transact in gold, that's for me is Gold Standard.
E.g. using Kinesis' KAU is Gold Standard.
The Fed is not necessary in order to build and expand the Gold Standard. It's up to the people.
Click to expand...
What it needs is honest government ministers of integrity.

We have none, now. It doesn't matter, because we'll not get a gold standard until the hard reset happens (the opposite of Davos Man's masturbatory Grate Reset) - the natural end of when avarice collides with idiocy in a hubris fog.

THAT will cleanse things. How it goes from there, a crap shoot - if we can rediscover basic morality and return to the principles underlying this nation's founding (decentralization of government, morality, relearning that the citizen is sovereign, the family is essential, the community is the structure, the States have plenary powers and the States created and must control the Union.

But half our populace wants some sort of collectivist - fascist government.

We will see. But we'll not see any serious moves to end our debt-based economy with fiat currency.
 
nickndfl said:
A gold standard as we had it limits government spending.
Click to expand...

Casey Jones said:
What it needs is honest government ministers of integrity.

We have none, now. It doesn't matter, because we'll not get a gold standard until the hard reset happens (the opposite of Davos Man's masturbatory Grate Reset) - the natural end of when avarice collides with idiocy in a hubris fog.

THAT will cleanse things. How it goes from there, a crap shoot - if we can rediscover basic morality and return to the principles underlying this nation's founding (decentralization of government, morality, relearning that the citizen is sovereign, the family is essential, the community is the structure, the States have plenary powers and the States created and must control the Union.

But half our populace wants some sort of collectivist - fascist government.

We will see. But we'll not see any serious moves to end our debt-based economy with fiat currency.
Click to expand...

Hello Nick
hello CS
this is Gold Standard


1.png



People own gold
people pay with gold
no need of fiat
no need of bank
Gold Standard
 
You don't hold it, you don't own it.

What's to keep the holders of the gold from "fractional-reserving" the "owners" gold?
 
The gold standard was a monetary system where a country's currency or paper money had a value directly linked to gold. Under this system, governments and central banks would fix the price of their currency in terms of a specified amount of gold, and they would be ready to buy and sell gold at that price. This system was prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with variations in how it was implemented across different countries.

The gold standard provided stability to international exchange rates and helped to maintain confidence in currencies. However, it also had limitations. Countries had to maintain large gold reserves to support their currency, limiting their ability to pursue monetary policies to stabilize their economies. Additionally, the supply of gold was limited by natural factors like mining discoveries, which could constrain economic growth.

The gold standard was gradually abandoned by most countries during the 20th century. The Great Depression and the economic disruptions of World War I and II led many countries to abandon it in favor of more flexible exchange rate systems. Today, most countries use fiat currencies, where the value of money is not linked to any specific commodity like gold.

For those interested in gold investment, companies like BOLD Precious Metals and APMEX provide avenues to learn more about gold and other precious metal investments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
maria13 said:
... However, it also had limitations. Countries had to maintain large gold reserves to support their currency, limiting their ability to pursue monetary policies to stabilize their economies. Additionally, the supply of gold was limited by natural factors like mining discoveries, which could constrain economic growth. ...
Click to expand...

Constraining monetary expansion was a feature, not a bug. Also, the gold standard did not constrain economic growth. It constrained monetary growth. There is a big difference. Economic growth could grow faster than the monetary base and it led to a benign form of (non-harmful) deflation.
 
pmbug said:
Constraining monetary expansion was a feature, not a bug. Also, the gold standard did not constrain economic growth. It constrained monetary growth. There is a big difference. Economic growth could grow faster than the monetary base and it led to a benign form of (non-harmful) deflation.
Click to expand...
Now that paragraph is gold.
 
searcher said:
oilprice.com

The True Cost of Abandoning the Gold Standard | OilPrice.com

While there are some glaring problems with America’s current financial system, a return to the gold standard would come with its own set of issues.
oilprice.com oilprice.com
Click to expand...
"President Nixon "closing the gold window," in 1971, i.e. ending the convertibility of the US dollar to gold in international foreign exchange (FX) markets, is the Original Sin that doomed us to the inflationary Hell of fiat currency, i.e. currency unbacked by anything tangible such as gold or silver."

That is not true. Nixon merely did what was necessary. The damage that was done to cause him to need to close the gold window was done during the previous (democrat) administration.

Nixon's choice was to either let the gold drain away to nothing and then be forced to close the gold window anyways and end up with no gold at all, or to close it early and retain at least some of it. Per my understanding, we had about two weeks before none would have been left. Nixon had no choice but to do what he did.
....but he gets the blame for it as though it was entirely his fault we ended the gold standard.
 
nickndfl said:
A gold standard as we had it limits government spending.
Click to expand...
Which was the biggest point of it.

It's human nature to want more. The Founders were attempting to rein in human nature in their Founding Documents.
 
pmbug said:
Also, the gold standard did not constrain economic growth. It constrained monetary growth. There is a big difference. Economic growth could grow faster than the monetary base and it led to a benign form of (non-harmful) deflation.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Imagine a World where things get slightly cheaper each year. A person would literally be able to save for their own retirement.
....but bankers and gov wouldn't have made much on it. Which is why they hate that type of monetary system.
 
Joe King said:
Exactly. Imagine a World where things get slightly cheaper each year. A person would literally be able to save for their own retirement.
....but bankers and gov wouldn't have made much on it. Which is why they hate that type of monetary system.
Click to expand...
Imagine a world where people respected HONESTY. Where bankers had their role - a small one, on the periphery. Borrowing for extraordinary needs or commercial operations. Recognizing that a stable, contented society that rewarded industry and thrift, was the best way for bank managers to ALSO make it to a secure retirement.

THAT takes MORAL INSTRUCTION. Which is also sorely lacking in today's world. You might say even, that was the difference between a century ago and today.
 
A 2 week supply of gold in 1971 before it was drained if the gold window was not closed by Nixon?

If that is true we do not have long before the COMEX and retail are drained here. By the time American sheep realize what is happening their only options will be 1/10ths @ $500 each.

Watch premiumdrop as gold moves to $3k and silver to $40, then watch them expand after everybody sells because it's all being exported. The government might actually spin it as good for economic numbers, but soon after we might be required to pay for imports partially in gold or at the level beyond our exports of other goods and services.
 
Casey Jones said:
Imagine a world where people respected HONESTY. Where bankers had their role - a small one, on the periphery. Borrowing for extraordinary needs or commercial operations. Recognizing that a stable, contented society that rewarded industry and thrift, was the best way for bank managers to ALSO make it to a secure retirement.

THAT takes MORAL INSTRUCTION. Which is also sorely lacking in today's world. You might say even, that was the difference between a century ago and today.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree, but even a Century ago most people were quick to lick the boot when told to. Same 2/3rds rule applied back then, same as now. It's a human nature thing, mostly. The majority WANT a parent/child relationship with their government.
....and I'll even admit that I do too.

Only difference being that I see it as the gov being on the child side of the deal.

If for no other reason than it is the creation of We The People and the States.
The People are the dad, with the States as the mom, and together we had a baby we called the federal government that we gave certain chores that are explicitly spelled out in its birth certificate that most call the Constitution. Similar to how many parents assign certain chores to their own children. Like feeding the dog, raking the leaves, getting the mail, putting the dishes up, etc.
...but our baby decided it didn't like only doing the chores we assigned to it. It had bigger ideas, and wanted to run the household and decide for itself what it would do.

For some reason, enough of the People let the child do it without question, because it's actions seemed official looking.

Does any real parents let their kid run the show? No, they don't.
So why did we let ours? It was allowed to happen Decades ago. Long before any members here were even a twinkle in their daddy's eye.
 
nickndfl said:
A 2 week supply of gold in 1971 before it was drained if the gold window was not closed by Nixon?
Click to expand...
Yes, per my understanding of the issue. It's based on what I've read and have heard.

Keep in mind that for accounting purposes, the gold that is supposedly still held is valued at $42.2222/oz.
 
Joe King said:
Absolutely agree, but even a Century ago most people were quick to lick the boot when told to. Same 2/3rds rule applied back then, same as now. It's a human nature thing, mostly. The majority WANT a parent/child relationship with their government.
Click to expand...
The problem of today, there is no check on the egos or ambitions of the Elites.

Morality put a brake on that, in the past. It was why banksters of a century ago, didn't try what today's banksters are doing for, and pressuring government to do. Henry Ford was every bit the control freak that Zuck the Cuck is; but he channeled it into pressuring MORAL BEHAVIOR.

The Ford Service Department was his Moral Police. They conducted home "interviews" and fired men if there was whiskey in the house, or if the wife had too many clothes, or if there wasn't evidence of church membership, or evidence of unionism.

That was bad. What Cuckerberg and Bozos are doing over at Face___k and Amazon Web Services, is a million times worse - censoring speech, not even necessarily on their own platforms, but just ON THEIR SERVERS.

Henry Ford, like Andrew Carnegie and even John Rockefeller, had some moral scruples and some level of guilt. Rockefeller, retired, amused himself by giving dimes to passing children. He once said he wanted to be remembered as "The man who gave out dimes." A dime would be about $5 in today's money.

Carnegie built libraries for small towns - not an insignificant gift. Ford had some charitable instincts, and created the Ford Foundation. What was done with it after his death, is another issue; but he wasn't trying to brainwash and depopulate - he was trying to salve his own guilty conscience.

None of that is in evidence in the Gates Poison-Distribution Foundation, or the Clinton Embezzlement Initiative, or any other modern NGO charity.

Moral breakdown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom