Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: WSJ today has ad saying Fort Knox is empty

  1. #31

    please explain if possible

    Quote Originally Posted by Bradley in DC View Post
    He has no credibility.

    Bradley, can you please explain why he has no credibility? I myself found Money Master enlightening as well as factual. Is there some kind of rebuttal to him or the movie? I sure don't want to go around promoting a position on the Federal Reserve if there is no credibility behind it.
    Last edited by ams5995; 02-01-2008 at 01:20 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by AceNZ View Post
    Any amount of gold would be enough.

    In the process of moving to a gold standard, the price of gold would be fixed relative to the dollar at a level much higher than the current price -- perhaps $30,000 per ounce, based on the current money supply and the government's stated reserves (which are probably wrong).

    This concept has been written about extensively. Edward Griffin talks about this in "The Creature from Jekyll Island". You also might want to check out Ron Paul's book, "The Case for Gold".
    I have read some of these arguments, and they just don't make sense from an economic perspective. By fixing the gold price relative to the "dollars" in our economy, you are trading one fiat currency for another. Gold is only worth what it is inherently worth, and it will never be worth 30k (of the current money supply). If you look at the price of gold relative to what it buys, i.e. how much food, oil, etc., the average over time is about the same. It is for sure somewhat undervalued today; it might be worth double, or about $1600 or $1800. It can't be worth $30k. Gold has a certain inherent worth over time, thus if you save money in gold then you can expect to get about the same return for that gold in 50 years. For individuals, in one way, that is good because you don't need to rely on interest because interest offsets inflation. In another way, that is bad because you cannot capitalize on the time value of money -- earning interest on your interest.

    Because the world's population is much bigger than it ever has been, the output of the world's economy is many, many times what can be expressed in gold. All of the world's gold, silver, platinum, palladium, copper and any other valuable metal you can think of would only be a fraction of the total economy. People are what makes something valuable -- people's work to get/ make something (miners, farmers, manufacturers, etc.) and people's need or desire to get that thing. Because the population and their outputs and desires have far exceeded the fixed amount of gold above and under the ground, to go backwards and fix that gold to people's outputs and desires would be creating a fiat currency.

    I agree we are in a pickle with the way our currency has been managed. But a "gold standard' in the traditional sense cannot and will not work.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by paulgirl View Post
    By fixing the gold price relative to the "dollars" in our economy, you are trading one fiat currency for another. Gold is only worth what it is inherently worth, and it will never be worth 30k (of the current money supply). If you look at the price of gold relative to what it buys, i.e. how much food, oil, etc., the average over time is about the same. It is for sure somewhat undervalued today; it might be worth double, or about $1600 or $1800. It can't be worth $30k.
    Gold is not fiat currency. Gold is money. Fiat currency are money substitutes. Why can't gold trade at 1/30,000 ounce per dollar? The time will come, as it always does, when gold will not be for sale for dollars at any price. The nature of fiat currency money substitutes is that they always become worth nothing. But at all times and in all circumstances gold remains money and is valued. Gold can never become worth nothing.

    The current MZM has about $46,000 per ounce of gold. The exchange rate between US$ and gold will change depending on the supply and demand of the commodity, gold, and the synthetic commodity, the US$.

    The 28% rate gain on bullion reduces the demand for gold. The legal tender laws increase the demand for US$. The Fed prints dollars out of thin air increasing the supply. Central banks around the world shy away from accumulating US$ thus reducing demand. All of these factors play a role.

    To be safe RunToGold.com.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by JordanQ72 View Post
    As people ranging from libertarians to anarcho capitalists, I've never understand how you can support a gold standard.

    Do you guys understand what it means to 'fix' the dollar to some valuation in gold? It means a complete manipulation of the gold markets by the governments. That never made any sense to mean, as an argument put forth as a good idea by people dead set in as much free market notions as possible.

    Let gold be gold, let a government's currency be currency, and the two float as the free markets see fit.
    Who's holding the reserves? Private banks?

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by JordanQ72 View Post
    Well that's just semantics, you want the government to engage in price fixing. Say a government wants gold to be $100 to an ounce. To maintain something like that, requires a manipulation of the gold markets. For every new ounce of gold found, the government would issue $100 dollars. This is direct market manipulation in my opinion.
    In your example, the government only has to issue $100 for every ounce of gold presented to it, not for every ounce in existence. Only the gold in its possession is used to back the currency.

    However, this type of "market manipulation" is limited to the amount of gold that a potential manipulator can obtain. Compare that to fiat money, where the government can print an arbitrary amount of money and insert it into circulation. Which approach is more open to manipulation?


    Quote Originally Posted by paulgirl View Post
    I have read some of these arguments, and they just don't make sense from an economic perspective. By fixing the gold price relative to the "dollars" in our economy, you are trading one fiat currency for another.
    That's not correct. What makes a currency "fiat" is that there's nothing backing it up. With fiat money, the government can print as much of it as they want. With a gold-backed money, in order to put new money into circulation, a certain amount of gold has to exist first.


    Quote Originally Posted by paulgirl View Post
    Gold is only worth what it is inherently worth, and it will never be worth 30k (of the current money supply). If you look at the price of gold relative to what it buys, i.e. how much food, oil, etc., the average over time is about the same. It is for sure somewhat undervalued today; it might be worth double, or about $1600 or $1800. It can't be worth $30k.
    Why can't it be worth $30k? If gold backed the currency, the demand for it would increase. The price of gold went up by about 20 times from the early 70's to 1980 -- we're only talking about going up another 30 times.

    However, having said that, you're looking at this backwards. It's not that gold is worth a certain amount of money. Rather, it's that the dollar is worth a certain amount of gold. When gold is used as money, its value is decoupled from its value as a commodity.


    Quote Originally Posted by paulgirl View Post
    Because the world's population is much bigger than it ever has been, the output of the world's economy is many, many times what can be expressed in gold.
    Only if gold is priced as a commodity. When used as money, that's not correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by jonahtrainer View Post
    The current MZM has about $46,000 per ounce of gold. The exchange rate between US$ and gold will change depending on the supply and demand of the commodity, gold, and the synthetic commodity, the US$.
    Agreed. Current (stated) US gold reserves are about 8100 tons. The money supply as measured by M3 is about 11 trillion dollars. Dividing one by the other would make the value of the dollar about 1/46500th of an ounce of gold.
    Working on ending viral disease through development of the world's first broad-spectrum antiviral drug. You can help!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Fort Knox Fun Facts
    By Gideon in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-25-2009, 01:06 PM
  2. Fort Knox
    By Sandman33 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-27-2009, 06:41 PM
  3. Fort Knox only gets $85 from Cash4Gold
    By clb09 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-27-2009, 09:16 AM
  4. WSJ today has ad saying Fort Knox is empty
    By jonahtrainer in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-01-2008, 12:04 PM
  5. Wall Street Journal tomorrow - ad saying Fort Knox is empty
    By jonahtrainer in forum Reagan Library Debate
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-30-2008, 11:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •