Cleveland Buck;923340 wrote:I'm with you so far. Right now $1 and $1 worth of gold are worth the same thing. If you have your paper that represents the gold, that implies that you can exchange that paper for the gold. If the amount of papers representing gold are limited to physical gold behind them, then you have a limit to the amount of paper in circulation. There is no limit to the dollars in circulation.

Say you take a snapshot of all of the goods and services in the country right now. If there are $1 trillion in circulation to buy all of that, then all of a sudden there are $2 trillion, as that extra money works through the economy the price of everything will have doubled on average (not every price would double because some of that money might increase some prices more than others).

Say you take a snapshot of all of the goods and services in the country right now. If there are 1 trillion gold backed papers in circulation to buy all of that and the supply of gold stayed constant or grew very little. On average, prices would remain unchanged.

Once again I'm a day late and a dollar (no pun intended) short, I should start a business of being 30 seconds behind someone that states my point and better on net boards.

Cleveland Buck;923340 wrote:I'm with you so far. Right now $1 and $1 worth of gold are worth the same thing. If you have your paper that represents the gold, that implies that you can exchange that paper for the gold. If the amount of papers representing gold are limited to physical gold behind them, then you have a limit to the amount of paper in circulation. There is no limit to the dollars in circulation.

Say you take a snapshot of all of the goods and services in the country right now. If there are $1 trillion in circulation to buy all of that, then all of a sudden there are $2 trillion, as that extra money works through the economy the price of everything will have doubled on average (not every price would double because some of that money might increase some prices more than others).

Say you take a snapshot of all of the goods and services in the country right now. If there are 1 trillion gold backed papers in circulation to buy all of that and the supply of gold stayed constant or grew very little. On average, prices would remain unchanged.

Your argument is technically right in that if the government were to put strict limits on the money supply then our paper could be as good as gold. No government would ever do that though because it relinquishes their power to control the economy and recklessly wage war and buy votes with a welfare state.

So you want us to have a finite amount of money. Say $100 that is backed by $100 pieces of gold. Which we cannot have more money unless we have more pieces of gold. You see the problem with that right?

Manhattan Buckeye;923342 wrote:"$1 of gold and $1 of paper money are exactly the same"

That is correct as long as the jurisdiction recognizes the paper money, paper money is a promise. If there isn't anything backing it, it's an empty promise.

Gold is only valid as long as people recognize it.

I Wear Pants;923353 wrote:Gold is only valid as long as people recognize it.

Which the world does.

Try spending an Australian coin in Singapore (a mistake I've made often), no business will take it. My American dollars are worthless.

Manhattan Buckeye;923354 wrote:Which the world does.

Try spending an Australian coin in Singapore (a mistake I've made often), no business will take it. My American dollars are worthless.

Try spending a piece of gold at Walmart.

I Wear Pants;923352 wrote:So you want us to have a finite amount of money. Say $100 that is backed by $100 pieces of gold. Which we cannot have more money unless we have more pieces of gold. You see the problem with that right?

There is no problem with it. In a free market when the money supply is limited, prices fall. Workers don't have to get an increase in wages to get a pay raise. Their standard of living increases when prices fall. Of course you can always get more gold by exporting more than you import. If we were productive and sold our products around the world, we would get gold from around the world. Also new gold mined from the earth would increase your money supply, which has historically been around 2 or 3% a year. These are ways to slowly expand the money supply without creating boom-bust cycles and keeping deflation from coming faster than people are comfortable with.

I Wear Pants;923357 wrote:Try spending a piece of gold at Walmart.

You know it is possible to have bank accounts and debit cards with gold on them instead of dollars, right? if it were legal to use gold and silver as money, you wouldn't have to carry gold bars around in your pocket.

stlouiedipalma;923297 wrote:Do you also believe that the conservative government of Texas can impose duty on products shipped out of Texas to other sovereign states? Or those products made (or grown) in the socialist state of California? You seem to want to give the states all of the responsibility, are you willing to allow them to take it to an extreme degree?

Provided that what they intend to do is not prohibited by the Constitution, sure.

I Wear Pants;923311 wrote:Can someone remind me how switching to gold or silver vs the dollar would solve anything? It's one arbitrary object representing a certain amount of labor vs another. Calling it "worthless paper" is a trick to make the others seem like a better idea.

It's not the content of the paper itself. It is what is backing it (read: makes it a "promissory note"). With nothing backing it, as much money can be printed as the Fed decides to print.

The problem with that, however, is that with each bill printed, the value percentage of the whole becomes less. It's a scarcity issue. With more being printed, it doesn't mean that there is actually more value being created. It simply means that a larger number of bills combine to equal that same value.

Since gold, silver, etc. are not created virtually ex nihilo, they hold a value that can be used as a basis for the value of the dollar bills that are used as currency.

Skyhook79;923322 wrote:I know plus imagine how difficult it will be carrying Gold and Silver to the grocery store?

The money itself doesn't have to be made of gold or silver, though honestly, little change wallets really aren't THAT difficult to carry around, and given the deterioration of the value of a dollar, it won't be long before the mass of a silver dime at one time will be less than the mass of dollar bills that would equal the same value, accounting for such inflation.

But that's not the point, I suppose. The point, as I said, is that the money itself doesn't have to be the precious metal, so long as the money is BACKED by the precious metal. As such, instead of actually carrying around a silver dime, you would carry around a promissory note that represents the quantity of silver in a silver dime, so long as that quantity of silver is accounted for.

I Wear Pants;923333 wrote:$1 of gold and $1 of paper money are exactly the same. We assign the same value to each and we use it to purchase labor or the results of labor with each.

Indeed. However, because we've been free to print money ex nihilo, $1 of paper today and $1 of paper 30 years ago is not the same, just as $1 will buy you less gold today than it would that same 30 years ago.

I Wear Pants;923333 wrote: And besides. No one wants to carry around a bunch of damned gold. So we then print paper money which is a representation of that gold which we use to represent a certain amount of labor or results of said labor (I want your burger which you say is worth two gold, I give you two gold).

This would be fantastic, but the problem is that we no longer use the gold/silver/platinum/whatever as the foundation for how much money is circulating.

I Wear Pants;923333 wrote: What we use to facilitate trade is entirely arbitrary. Gold and silver aren't magic.

Naturally, but being objects of limited availability (as well as objects that remain in the same state timelessly), their values are more stable than a note whose value is arbitrarily granted "just because the Fed said so."

Cleveland Buck;923340 wrote:I'm with you so far. Right now $1 and $1 worth of gold are worth the same thing. If you have your paper that represents the gold, that implies that you can exchange that paper for the gold. If the amount of papers representing gold are limited to physical gold behind them, then you have a limit to the amount of paper in circulation. There is no limit to the dollars in circulation.

Say you take a snapshot of all of the goods and services in the country right now. If there are $1 trillion in circulation to buy all of that, then all of a sudden there are $2 trillion, as that extra money works through the economy the price of everything will have doubled on average (not every price would double because some of that money might increase some prices more than others).

Say you take a snapshot of all of the goods and services in the country right now. If there are 1 trillion gold backed papers in circulation to buy all of that and the supply of gold stayed constant or grew very little. On average, prices would remain unchanged.

Your argument is technically right in that if the government were to put strict limits on the money supply then our paper could be as good as gold. No government would ever do that though because it relinquishes their power to control the economy and recklessly wage war and buy votes with a welfare state.

You explain it pretty well here.

I'm not against a commodity-backed paper system, provided that there were enough checks on the printing process.

What's really scary is that with money becoming increasingly digital, it will make inflating through an increase of currency in the system even easier.

I Wear Pants;923352 wrote:So you want us to have a finite amount of money. Say $100 that is backed by $100 pieces of gold. Which we cannot have more money unless we have more pieces of gold. You see the problem with that right?

We have a finite value of the overall monies in the system whether we want it or not. Printing more dollar bills doesn't mean there is more value to the currency in circulation. It means there is the same value in circulation (from a price perspective), but that each dollar is worth less, in and of itself.

Printing the money doesn't solve the problem. Say I make up my own currency, the Otrapium. I currently have 100 pieces in circulation, and each Otrapium is worth $4. If I just create more without more to back it, all I'm doing is devaluing the Otrapium in relation to products, services, and other currencies. For example, if my 100 Otrapiums were worth 4 US dollars, but I created 100 more with no new commodity backing it, then I now have 200 Otrapiums in circulation, but they're only worth 2 US dollars each. So I don't actually have more monetary value in circulation just because I've printed more money to exist in circulation.

I Wear Pants;923353 wrote:Gold is only valid as long as people recognize it.

But the scarcity is relatively static and can be quantified. Such is not the same of any fiat currency.

What stops a country using a gold/silver backed dollar from simply printing more of them just as fiat based governments do? Is someone going to go and count all the dollars and all the gold and say "hey, you printed more dollars!"

I understand why gold can retain its value, just don't see how it would significantly alter anything.

I Wear Pants;923617 wrote:What stops a country using a gold/silver backed dollar from simply printing more of them just as fiat based governments do? Is someone going to go and count all the dollars and all the gold and say "hey, you printed more dollars!"

I understand why gold can retain its value, just don't see how it would significantly alter anything.

If the actual promissory note makes no mention of the gold for which it can be exchanged, then you're right.

However, if my $1 note is printed as saying that it can be exchanged for XX units of a commodity, then regardless of the year, it will still be worth the same. Now, if governments decided to print more dollar bills, they would have to be worth less, but they wouldn't change the promissory notes already in circulation.

If, however, there is no such standard value correlation between a monetary unit and a commodity, you are correct that it wouldn't change much. Ultimately, that's what is meant when it is said that the money is "backed" by a commodity.

Think about a commodity-backed monetary system as a series of IOU notes with the amount able to pay the IOU already in the bank. Those who have the IOU notes can exchange them amongst themselves, and they carry value regardless of who has them because if everything else goes to hell, they can still be used in exchange for the commodity backing them.

I love this guy!! - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/herman-cain-slams-wall-street-protestors-if-you-don%e2%80%99t-have-a-job-you%e2%80%99re-not-rich-blame-yourself/

Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself! [...]
These demonstrations…I honestly don‘t understand what they’re looking for…It is not someone’s fault because they succeeded, it is someone’s fault if they failed.”

BG.....do you also support his statement that these protesters are un-American and don't support Americans?

If he would happen to win the nomination(which won't happen)....this statement will bring him major trouble in the general

Ty Webb;923662 wrote:BG.....do you also support his statement that these protesters are un-American and don't support Americans?

If he would happen to win the nomination(which won't happen)....this statement will bring him major trouble in the general

Statements like they are making are VERY American. They are exercising one of the most basic rights they are given by the US Constitution.

They're STUPID, but that doesn't make what they're doing un-American at all. It's rather silly to assert that it's un-American to protest in this way.

I have to admit, the "liveable wage, regardless of employment" thing had me in stitches. If everyone stops working, they're still supposed to receive a liveable wage? Have fun with your money when nobody is around to sell you food or build your home.

I Wear Pants;923617 wrote:What stops a country using a gold/silver backed dollar from simply printing more of them just as fiat based governments do? Is someone going to go and count all the dollars and all the gold and say "hey, you printed more dollars!"

I understand why gold can retain its value, just don't see how it would significantly alter anything.

This is where the free market has to come into play. When banks print too many notes that are redeemable in gold, the notes lose purchasing power and people go to the bank and demand redemption in gold (or silver or whatever). When the banks can't meet the redemptions they are insolvent and should be liquidated through bankruptcy. This happened several times in the 1800s, only instead of letting the banks fail the government allowed the banks to suspend payment in specie (gold or silver) and continue operating, effectively bailing out the banks and robbing the people of their money.

If a bank knows they will fail if they print too many notes that they can't redeem with money, it gives them incentive not to do it. If they know they will be bailed out, why not do it? This is why people, myself included, aren't necessarily convinced we need to go back on a gold standard, because the government would never abide by it anyway.

I like Ron Paul's bill to allow competing currencies. Then I don't care what they do to the dollar if I have real money. Say I have an account at a precious metals bank with 20 ounces of silver. You go to the gas station and gas is 0.1 oz. of silver/gal and you use your Visa Silver Card and to fill up costs you 1.5 oz. of silver that are withdrawn from your account. Right away it won't seem to be a big deal, but in 2 or 3 years when gas is $6 or $7 or $10/gallon, but it is still 0.1 oz. of silver, you will see why it was a big deal. Eventually people would stop using dollars if the government and Federal Reserve didn't restrain themselves.

Ty Webb;923662 wrote:BG.....do you also support his statement that these protesters are un-American and don't support Americans?

If he would happen to win the nomination(which won't happen)....this statement will bring him major trouble in the general

They aren't necessarily un-American, they are just complete retards.

jmog;923736 wrote:They aren't necessarily un-American, they are just complete retards.

They are, in fact, VERY American, but your sentiment on the latter point is very true. They apparently don't realize that there demands are so asininely impossible that you have to question their grasp of macroeconomics at all.

O-Trap;923756 wrote:They are, in fact, VERY American, but your sentiment on the latter point is very true. They apparently don't realize that there demands are so asininely impossible that you have to question their grasp of macroeconomics at all.

I only said they "aren't necessarily un-American" because quite honeslty many of their complaints are the exact opposite of what this country stands for, but the fact that they are peacefully protesting is very American (if that makes sense).

jmog;923777 wrote:I only said they "aren't necessarily un-American" because quite honeslty many of their complaints are the exact opposite of what this country stands for, but the fact that they are peacefully protesting is very American (if that makes sense).

Fair enough. I see what you mean.

I was simply attributing their positions to ignorance, but I see what you mean, and I agree with it.

Cleveland Buck;923670 wrote:This is where the free market has to come into play. When banks print too many notes that are redeemable in gold, the notes lose purchasing power and people go to the bank and demand redemption in gold (or silver or whatever). When the banks can't meet the redemptions they are insolvent and should be liquidated through bankruptcy. This happened several times in the 1800s, only instead of letting the banks fail the government allowed the banks to suspend payment in specie (gold or silver) and continue operating, effectively bailing out the banks and robbing the people of their money.

If a bank knows they will fail if they print too many notes that they can't redeem with money, it gives them incentive not to do it. If they know they will be bailed out, why not do it? This is why people, myself included, aren't necessarily convinced we need to go back on a gold standard, because the government would never abide by it anyway.

I like Ron Paul's bill to allow competing currencies. Then I don't care what they do to the dollar if I have real money. Say I have an account at a precious metals bank with 20 ounces of silver. You go to the gas station and gas is 0.1 oz. of silver/gal and you use your Visa Silver Card and to fill up costs you 1.5 oz. of silver that are withdrawn from your account. Right away it won't seem to be a big deal, but in 2 or 3 years when gas is $6 or $7 or $10/gallon, but it is still 0.1 oz. of silver, you will see why it was a big deal. Eventually people would stop using dollars if the government and Federal Reserve didn't restrain themselves.

Do you know how damned unlikely it is that you'll be able to get everyone to switch to that method? The cost companies would have to put out to change their registers, train employees, etc,etc to accept gold or silver would be incredible.

It's a pipe dream IMO.

If you want to make the changes you wish for it is best to do so through enacting legislation to make it so that rampantly printing money is not allowed, not by trying to get everyone to switch back to a precious metal based currency.

Also, what's to stop the price of gas from rising to .3 oz of silver? If their costs go up because it's increasingly hard to find and refine oil do you really think it'd stay the same? No.

I Wear Pants;924057 wrote:Do you know how damned unlikely it is that you'll be able to get everyone to switch to that method? The cost companies would have to put out to change their registers, train employees, etc,etc to accept gold or silver would be incredible.

10 years ago, I might have genuinely agreed. However, there are two defeaters I see to this point of view today.

(1) Though it was carried out poorly overall (because people treated it like a collector's item instead of just another dollar), the Sacagawea dollar was readily able to be used in cash registers.

(2) With the rising use of plastic at the register, a "silver" card or "gold" card could be made to be used just like the current credit card.

I Wear Pants;924057 wrote: If you want to make the changes you wish for it is best to do so through enacting legislation to make it so that rampantly printing money is not allowed, not by trying to get everyone to switch back to a precious metal based currency.

This would certainly be better than the current system, but there would be virtually no check to ensure that it is being followed, really. Also, you'd still be left with the governing body simply ascribing value to any given promissory note.

It'd be the "it's-worth-a-dollar-because-we-say-so" dollar instead of the "it's-worth-a-dollar-because-at-any-moment-it-can-be-exchanged-for-X-units-of-<insert commodity here>."

Ty Webb;923662 wrote:BG.....do you also support his statement that these protesters are un-American and don't support Americans?

If he would happen to win the nomination(which won't happen)....this statement will bring him major trouble in the general

I didn't hear that quote. I'd have to hear or read it in context in how it was asked/answered. Clearly, the act of protest is certainly a 'murican ideal. Unless, of course, you are on a Ford commercial lambasting Barry and the Agitators, then you get threatened.

On the other hand, these street urchins certainly espouse anti-'murican beliefs, as noted on the other thread posted by fish. Herman told them to get a job if they want to get rich. Pretty sound advice, eh? Either that or start an inefficient solar panel plant, borrow $530,000,000, and run all the way to the 5th Amendment protection to protect your theft. Yeah...that's the ticket.

I Wear Pants;924057 wrote:Do you know how damned unlikely it is that you'll be able to get everyone to switch to that method? The cost companies would have to put out to change their registers, train employees, etc,etc to accept gold or silver would be incredible.

It's a pipe dream IMO.

I suppose it might take a month or two for the proper software to deal with these new accounts to be written. I don't see why that is a big deal. No one is proposing a bill that requires anyone to accept gold and silver as payment for anything. If a business doesn't want to accept it they don't have to. Of course as people stop wanting to pay inflated dollar prices for things they will shop at businesses that do accept real money, but everyone is free to succeed or fail as they wish.

I Wear Pants;924057 wrote:If you want to make the changes you wish for it is best to do so through enacting legislation to make it so that rampantly printing money is not allowed, not by trying to get everyone to switch back to a precious metal based currency.

That would be nice but it will never happen and if it did they would never abide by it. Right now the Fed has to print money almost non stop to keep interest rates low so that we can afford the interest payments on the national debt. If they stop the federal government will go bankrupt.

I Wear Pants;924057 wrote: Also, what's to stop the price of gas from rising to .3 oz of silver? If their costs go up because it's increasingly hard to find and refine oil do you really think it'd stay the same? No.

Supply and demand could certainly raise some prices and lower some prices depending on various factors. That is what should determine prices, not the glut of currency in circulation.

I don't at all see the harm in this bill even for people who think it is pointless. All it is doing is allowing gold and silver to compete with dollars. It isn't forcing anyone to use gold or silver. If your paper dollar is so valuable, then by all means keep using it. It changes nothing for you.

Nothing is stopping anyone from accepting gold or silver right now though I don't believe. I mean, the dollar is legal tender so it has to be accepted but I'm not aware of anything that says you can't use gold or silver. So if you want your gold and silver start using it.

jmog;923736 wrote:They aren't necessarily un-American, they are just complete retards.

I like how a week or two ago they decided no one was paying enough attention to them so they went and blocked a bridge or something.

Those demands are proof some people are so stupid as to be unemployable.

I Wear Pants;924474 wrote:Nothing is stopping anyone from accepting gold or silver right now though I don't believe. I mean, the dollar is legal tender so it has to be accepted but I'm not aware of anything that says you can't use gold or silver. So if you want your gold and silver start using it.

Right now there are a few things keeping gold and silver from being freely used as money.

1. Our legal tender laws make it impossible to enforce contracts to be paid in gold or silver. If you have a contract to be paid in gold for something and they pay you in dollars, you have no recourse, because Federal Reserve notes are "legal tender for all debts public or private".

2. When you sell gold and silver you are subject to capital gains taxes.

3. Barter transactions require both parties to report what they received as income, and when you have a legal tender, everything else is a barter transaction. Say you trade gold for a car, you are required to report that car as income on your taxes, just as the seller is required to report the gold on his or her taxes.

You get rid of these barriers and you will see more and more places start taking gold and silver as payment. Hell, there are a couple of states out west that already started doing this, but it will never fully catch on until the federal legal tender laws are repealed and the capital gains tax removed from precious metals.