New Documentary: THE SECRET OF OZ

[dannno]

I really hope somebody posts this when it is released. Too bad it can't be uploaded to google video.. though it might be a good one to own. I have a legit copy of The Money Masters.

[Epic]

Money Masters is a leftist monetarist anti-fed documentary.

The people there don't understand Austrian economics, or the case for gold.

Whenever someone brings up Money Masters at Mises.org, they get laughed at.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/3868.aspx

[0zzy]

I KEEP NO SECRETS!

I'M NOT A COMMIE!

I swear!

[dannno]

Money Masters is a leftist monetarist anti-fed documentary.

The people there don't understand Austrian economics, or the case for gold.

Whenever someone brings up Money Masters at Mises.org, they get laughed at.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/3868.aspx

Well, there is evidence that moneyed interests have been able to manipulate the gold supply for their ends, which is why I think that government should not be mandating any sort of currency. People should be able to trade whatever they want...however, I see no problem with the government issuing gold or silver as tender for tax payment purposes, etc..

I don't really see how they are leftist just cause they don't support the gold standard.. they do a great job calling out the Fed and proving how the banking system steals wealth from individuals and society.

[enjerth]

The video promotes the idea of a government issuing it's own money, free from debt. While that would solve some problems we face today, I believe it would create even worse problems.

Any stable system will have equal balances, and interest on debt is a balance. Taking (or creating) money without interest frees it from the destructive nature of usury, but that destructive nature is an important balance. Without it there is no restraint on inflation, a form of balance that comes about naturally in the absence of planned balance, but then it's not just the one who incurred the debt that pays the price of balance.

[dannno]

The video promotes the idea of a government issuing it's own money, free from debt. While that would solve some problems we face today, I believe it would create even worse problems.

Any stable system will have equal balances, and interest on debt is a balance. Taking (or creating) money without interest frees it from the destructive nature of usury, but that destructive nature is an important balance. Without it there is no restraint on inflation, a form of balance that comes about naturally in the absence of planned balance, but then it's not just the one who incurred the debt that pays the price of balance.

That's why it is important to follow the rest of the Constitution, too. There is no reason to have government pay interest on money it is spending on behalf of other people. The moral hazard has already been removed because it isn't their money.

[jon_perez]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, the question is not what backs the money -- gold, silver or nothing -- it's who controls its quantity. Even if you mandate government controlling the quantity of gold-backed money -- as Article 1, Section 8 puts it, "... regulate the Value thereof ...." -- history has shown that once you strap the money supply to gold, the plutocrats will simply manipulate the quantity of gold and thereby have defacto control in no time flat. This has happened time and time again in history.

Most of the people on this forum (as well as Ron Paul) do not believe the above, but I tend to agree. Historical evidence that the amount of gold (and other metals) in circulation can and has been manipulated seems to be pretty easy to come by nor is it hard to believe that such events can and have occurred.

In fact I don't think there are any sure or easy answers when it comes to monetary theory. I think good execution (no matter what regime is in place) is more important than any on-paper theory. Surely having congress control the amount of fiat money being issued is conceivably worse than an independent [quasi-governmental] Fed doing it.

Anyway once you go along this line of thinking, Hayek's idea of privately issued fiat money is suddenly not as ridiculous as it sounds.

[tmosley]

I watched the preview and went to the site www.SecretOfOz.com. Here is a quote from the site:



So what do you guys think of this? There has been a huge push lately for people to start investing in gold, especially on this forum. Are we all being duped?

You can manipulate it so that gold is more valuable by hoarding it, but that doesn't really harm the economy (save to the extent that the government has high taxes in order to gather their hoard of gold). You can't manipulate it such that there is more gold than there actually is, or at least, not normally. The US had some success in doing this up until 1971. If you use circulating gold coins, then there is no way to manipulate the price down. All you can do is restrict supply, which makes those who are holding gold richer (which I think is what that quote was referring to).

However, that was really only the case with mercantilist economies. In a free economy, even that type of manipulation is difficult. When people hoard gold, they don't get any real economic benefit, unless they create their hoard when there was a lot of gold, and spend it when there is little, in which case it's a good thing because that creates a speculative market which would help to regulate the price of gold. If there is only one hoard, the owner of the hoard gets no benefit, because each piece of gold he draws out of the economy is more expensive than the last, while each piece he spends, buys less than the last--it ends up being a zero sum game. By collaborating with rich people, it could enrich a few at the expense of the many, though that expense is the result of the taxation required to create the hoard rather than the change in the value of gold (which on the whole is always neutral, all other things being even).

The only way I could see a benefit would be for an entity to hoard gold and wait for a large increase in population, which would mean that the supply of gold per person has gone down, meaning they can purchase more labor with it than they could have had they spent it right away, but that is just one of the benefits of saving. The only real crime is the taxation.

[dannno]

You can manipulate it so that gold is more valuable by hoarding it, but that doesn't really harm the economy (save to the extent that the government has high taxes in order to gather their hoard of gold). You can't manipulate it such that there is more gold than there actually is, or at least, not normally. The US had some success in doing this up until 1971. If you use circulating gold coins, then there is no way to manipulate the price down. All you can do is restrict supply, which makes those who are holding gold richer (which I think is what that quote was referring to).

However, that was really only the case with mercantilist economies. In a free economy, even that type of manipulation is difficult. When people hoard gold, they don't get any real economic benefit, unless they create their hoard when there was a lot of gold, and spend it when there is little, in which case it's a good thing because that creates a speculative market which would help to regulate the price of gold. If there is only one hoard, the owner of the hoard gets no benefit, because each piece of gold he draws out of the economy is more expensive than the last, while each piece he spends, buys less than the last--it ends up being a zero sum game. By collaborating with rich people, it could enrich a few at the expense of the many, though that expense is the result of the taxation required to create the hoard rather than the change in the value of gold (which on the whole is always neutral, all other things being even).

The only way I could see a benefit would be for an entity to hoard gold and wait for a large increase in population, which would mean that the supply of gold per person has gone down, meaning they can purchase more labor with it than they could have had they spent it right away, but that is just one of the benefits of saving. The only real crime is the taxation.

Ya this makes me a bit skeptical of their lack of faith in the gold standard.. but damn, The Money Masters spends so much time going through the history of banking that it's still really worth the watch anyway.

[tmosley]

Ya this makes me a bit skeptical of their lack of faith in the gold standard.. but damn, The Money Masters spends so much time going through the history of banking that it's still really worth the watch anyway.

They probably just don't understand where the damage was coming from, or how the elites were actually getting rich. You can't really manipulate gold to make yourself wealthy without luck/insight (free market speculation), or corruption and the power to tax (as was the case when gold was manipulated, thus the quote by Jefferson about inflation and deflation leaving your children penniless).