President.

[other one]

 

From all the information I can gather, the USA has just over 8,133 tons of gold.

 

that is 260,256,000 ounces of gold.   At the current price of  $1,186 per ounce, we have $308,663,616,000 worth of Gold.

 

 

Given 300,000,000 people in the USA today that would be around $1,030.    When we were on the gold standard, we printed enough money that could only be covered by 40% in Gold.           So we could only print $1,646 for each of us to be incirculation......       If I had $50,000 in the bank, then there would have to be about 30 people with nothing at all at any given moment.

 

We have greatly outgrown the Gold standard for currency......     and if you print more then the price of gold would be much greater and by the time you reach the point of the economy running smoothly our currency would be worthless.

 

The system we have would be ok if our congress would simply not spend what we do not collect in taxes.......   and who elects congress????   The Federal Reserve was created to control the amount of money that is in circulation....   it was never designed to use as a crutch to spend more than we collect in taxes......   and shame on Congress for letting that happen.

 

In a general way,   "We the People" as a whole really sucks....    and that's the problem with the US of A.      The vast majority of the people either don't want to work or those that do want to live way beyond their means.    and that's never going to work no matter what system we use.

This is the wrong way of understanding what 'backing by gold' means. Backing by gold basically fixes the paper money to a standard of measure that cannot be manipulated by create new 'money' out of thin air digitally or by fiat printing.

 

We could re-denominate current dollars to be  1 dollar to 1/1200 of ounce of gold by today's prices and keep that ratio fixed. There you instantly got the dollar fully backed by gold. Once you fixed the dollar to mean a certain weight in gold, you remove the power to create new money out of nothing. The price of gold in dollar just reflects the current value of dollar. The more dollar it takes to get an ounce of gold the less your dollar is worth. Hard assets is has incredible self balancing feature via the free market. If the dollar is worth a lot relative to gold, people would buy more gold with more viable dollar and drive the gold price up. If the gold value is high relative to dollar, people would find new ways to mine more gold. Over time the market would balance the two's relative values.

 

In the past the dollar used to be define as a specific weight in gold and silver, that is when American experience virtually no inflation and there was great prosperity.

 

you can look at it any way you like, but unless you make gold nearly worthless in itself, you can not print enough money and back it with gold and have enough in circulation to run our economy.....   You'd have to price the collar at about a millionth of an ounce, and that's kind of silly for the gold plating in your phone's electric circuit connections would cost several thousand dollars.      Even when we were on the gold standard, it was only backed to 40%.

[udx]

 

 

From all the information I can gather, the USA has just over 8,133 tons of gold.

 

that is 260,256,000 ounces of gold.   At the current price of  $1,186 per ounce, we have $308,663,616,000 worth of Gold.

 

 

Given 300,000,000 people in the USA today that would be around $1,030.    When we were on the gold standard, we printed enough money that could only be covered by 40% in Gold.           So we could only print $1,646 for each of us to be incirculation......       If I had $50,000 in the bank, then there would have to be about 30 people with nothing at all at any given moment.

 

We have greatly outgrown the Gold standard for currency......     and if you print more then the price of gold would be much greater and by the time you reach the point of the economy running smoothly our currency would be worthless.

 

The system we have would be ok if our congress would simply not spend what we do not collect in taxes.......   and who elects congress????   The Federal Reserve was created to control the amount of money that is in circulation....   it was never designed to use as a crutch to spend more than we collect in taxes......   and shame on Congress for letting that happen.

 

In a general way,   "We the People" as a whole really sucks....    and that's the problem with the US of A.      The vast majority of the people either don't want to work or those that do want to live way beyond their means.    and that's never going to work no matter what system we use.

This is the wrong way of understanding what 'backing by gold' means. Backing by gold basically fixes the paper money to a standard of measure that cannot be manipulated by create new 'money' out of thin air digitally or by fiat printing.

 

We could re-denominate current dollars to be  1 dollar to 1/1200 of ounce of gold by today's prices and keep that ratio fixed. There you instantly got the dollar fully backed by gold. Once you fixed the dollar to mean a certain weight in gold, you remove the power to create new money out of nothing. The price of gold in dollar just reflects the current value of dollar. The more dollar it takes to get an ounce of gold the less your dollar is worth. Hard assets is has incredible self balancing feature via the free market. If the dollar is worth a lot relative to gold, people would buy more gold with more viable dollar and drive the gold price up. If the gold value is high relative to dollar, people would find new ways to mine more gold. Over time the market would balance the two's relative values.

 

In the past the dollar used to be define as a specific weight in gold and silver, that is when American experience virtually no inflation and there was great prosperity.

 

you can look at it any way you like, but unless you make gold nearly worthless in itself, you can not print enough money and back it with gold and have enough in circulation to run our economy.....   You'd have to price the collar at about a millionth of an ounce, and that's kind of silly for the gold plating in your phone's electric circuit connections would cost several thousand dollars.      Even when we were on the gold standard, it was only backed to 40%.

 

Even if a percentage of it is back by gold it would slow and limit the process of fiat money creation. The fraud of fiat money creation would have consequences, either we release the release valve slowly or let it implode. The money bubble would deflate one way or the other. Should let market set the price of dollar instead of 'currency' manipulation that USA have been so fond of calling other country out on.

 

We could take a step in the right direction by floating the dollar and let market set its prices and allow for competing currency.

[other one]

 

 

 

From all the information I can gather, the USA has just over 8,133 tons of gold.

 

that is 260,256,000 ounces of gold.   At the current price of  $1,186 per ounce, we have $308,663,616,000 worth of Gold.

 

 

Given 300,000,000 people in the USA today that would be around $1,030.    When we were on the gold standard, we printed enough money that could only be covered by 40% in Gold.           So we could only print $1,646 for each of us to be incirculation......       If I had $50,000 in the bank, then there would have to be about 30 people with nothing at all at any given moment.

 

We have greatly outgrown the Gold standard for currency......     and if you print more then the price of gold would be much greater and by the time you reach the point of the economy running smoothly our currency would be worthless.

 

The system we have would be ok if our congress would simply not spend what we do not collect in taxes.......   and who elects congress????   The Federal Reserve was created to control the amount of money that is in circulation....   it was never designed to use as a crutch to spend more than we collect in taxes......   and shame on Congress for letting that happen.

 

In a general way,   "We the People" as a whole really sucks....    and that's the problem with the US of A.      The vast majority of the people either don't want to work or those that do want to live way beyond their means.    and that's never going to work no matter what system we use.

This is the wrong way of understanding what 'backing by gold' means. Backing by gold basically fixes the paper money to a standard of measure that cannot be manipulated by create new 'money' out of thin air digitally or by fiat printing.

 

We could re-denominate current dollars to be  1 dollar to 1/1200 of ounce of gold by today's prices and keep that ratio fixed. There you instantly got the dollar fully backed by gold. Once you fixed the dollar to mean a certain weight in gold, you remove the power to create new money out of nothing. The price of gold in dollar just reflects the current value of dollar. The more dollar it takes to get an ounce of gold the less your dollar is worth. Hard assets is has incredible self balancing feature via the free market. If the dollar is worth a lot relative to gold, people would buy more gold with more viable dollar and drive the gold price up. If the gold value is high relative to dollar, people would find new ways to mine more gold. Over time the market would balance the two's relative values.

 

In the past the dollar used to be define as a specific weight in gold and silver, that is when American experience virtually no inflation and there was great prosperity.

 

you can look at it any way you like, but unless you make gold nearly worthless in itself, you can not print enough money and back it with gold and have enough in circulation to run our economy.....   You'd have to price the collar at about a millionth of an ounce, and that's kind of silly for the gold plating in your phone's electric circuit connections would cost several thousand dollars.      Even when we were on the gold standard, it was only backed to 40%.

 

Even if a percentage of it is back by gold it would slow and limit the process of fiat money creation. The fraud of fiat money creation would have consequences, either we release the release valve slowly or let it implode. The money bubble would deflate one way or the other. Should let market set the price of dollar instead of 'currency' manipulation that USA have been so fond of calling other country out on.

 

We could take a step in the right direction by floating the dollar and let market set its prices and allow for competing currency.

 

It didn't stop Germany from printing money in between the two wars.....     they just printed away and devalued their Marks....

 

Backing the dollar with gold will not solve our problems.....    stop spending what we don't have is the only way to stop what's going on, and it doesn't really matter if it's backed by gold, silver or just our good will.    The problem isn't fiat money, it's the government spending what they don't have.  Be that silver, gold or a debt to the Federal Reserve.

[udx]

 

 

 

 

From all the information I can gather, the USA has just over 8,133 tons of gold.

 

that is 260,256,000 ounces of gold.   At the current price of  $1,186 per ounce, we have $308,663,616,000 worth of Gold.

 

 

Given 300,000,000 people in the USA today that would be around $1,030.    When we were on the gold standard, we printed enough money that could only be covered by 40% in Gold.           So we could only print $1,646 for each of us to be incirculation......       If I had $50,000 in the bank, then there would have to be about 30 people with nothing at all at any given moment.

 

We have greatly outgrown the Gold standard for currency......     and if you print more then the price of gold would be much greater and by the time you reach the point of the economy running smoothly our currency would be worthless.

 

The system we have would be ok if our congress would simply not spend what we do not collect in taxes.......   and who elects congress????   The Federal Reserve was created to control the amount of money that is in circulation....   it was never designed to use as a crutch to spend more than we collect in taxes......   and shame on Congress for letting that happen.

 

In a general way,   "We the People" as a whole really sucks....    and that's the problem with the US of A.      The vast majority of the people either don't want to work or those that do want to live way beyond their means.    and that's never going to work no matter what system we use.

This is the wrong way of understanding what 'backing by gold' means. Backing by gold basically fixes the paper money to a standard of measure that cannot be manipulated by create new 'money' out of thin air digitally or by fiat printing.

 

We could re-denominate current dollars to be  1 dollar to 1/1200 of ounce of gold by today's prices and keep that ratio fixed. There you instantly got the dollar fully backed by gold. Once you fixed the dollar to mean a certain weight in gold, you remove the power to create new money out of nothing. The price of gold in dollar just reflects the current value of dollar. The more dollar it takes to get an ounce of gold the less your dollar is worth. Hard assets is has incredible self balancing feature via the free market. If the dollar is worth a lot relative to gold, people would buy more gold with more viable dollar and drive the gold price up. If the gold value is high relative to dollar, people would find new ways to mine more gold. Over time the market would balance the two's relative values.

 

In the past the dollar used to be define as a specific weight in gold and silver, that is when American experience virtually no inflation and there was great prosperity.

 

you can look at it any way you like, but unless you make gold nearly worthless in itself, you can not print enough money and back it with gold and have enough in circulation to run our economy.....   You'd have to price the collar at about a millionth of an ounce, and that's kind of silly for the gold plating in your phone's electric circuit connections would cost several thousand dollars.      Even when we were on the gold standard, it was only backed to 40%.

 

Even if a percentage of it is back by gold it would slow and limit the process of fiat money creation. The fraud of fiat money creation would have consequences, either we release the release valve slowly or let it implode. The money bubble would deflate one way or the other. Should let market set the price of dollar instead of 'currency' manipulation that USA have been so fond of calling other country out on.

 

We could take a step in the right direction by floating the dollar and let market set its prices and allow for competing currency.

 

It didn't stop Germany from printing money in between the two wars.....     they just printed away and devalued their Marks....

 

Backing the dollar with gold will not solve our problems.....    stop spending what we don't have is the only way to stop what's going on, and it doesn't really matter if it's backed by gold, silver or just our good will.    The problem isn't fiat money, it's the government spending what they don't have.  Be that silver, gold or a debt to the Federal Reserve.

 

You just proved my point with the Germany example.

 

Backing money with hard assets makes spending what the government don't have a lot harder. The government would have to actually pay market rates for borrowing instead of just cheap money from Federal Reserve.

[other one]

 

 

 

 

 

From all the information I can gather, the USA has just over 8,133 tons of gold.

 

that is 260,256,000 ounces of gold.   At the current price of  $1,186 per ounce, we have $308,663,616,000 worth of Gold.

 

 

Given 300,000,000 people in the USA today that would be around $1,030.    When we were on the gold standard, we printed enough money that could only be covered by 40% in Gold.           So we could only print $1,646 for each of us to be incirculation......       If I had $50,000 in the bank, then there would have to be about 30 people with nothing at all at any given moment.

 

We have greatly outgrown the Gold standard for currency......     and if you print more then the price of gold would be much greater and by the time you reach the point of the economy running smoothly our currency would be worthless.

 

The system we have would be ok if our congress would simply not spend what we do not collect in taxes.......   and who elects congress????   The Federal Reserve was created to control the amount of money that is in circulation....   it was never designed to use as a crutch to spend more than we collect in taxes......   and shame on Congress for letting that happen.

 

In a general way,   "We the People" as a whole really sucks....    and that's the problem with the US of A.      The vast majority of the people either don't want to work or those that do want to live way beyond their means.    and that's never going to work no matter what system we use.

This is the wrong way of understanding what 'backing by gold' means. Backing by gold basically fixes the paper money to a standard of measure that cannot be manipulated by create new 'money' out of thin air digitally or by fiat printing.

 

We could re-denominate current dollars to be  1 dollar to 1/1200 of ounce of gold by today's prices and keep that ratio fixed. There you instantly got the dollar fully backed by gold. Once you fixed the dollar to mean a certain weight in gold, you remove the power to create new money out of nothing. The price of gold in dollar just reflects the current value of dollar. The more dollar it takes to get an ounce of gold the less your dollar is worth. Hard assets is has incredible self balancing feature via the free market. If the dollar is worth a lot relative to gold, people would buy more gold with more viable dollar and drive the gold price up. If the gold value is high relative to dollar, people would find new ways to mine more gold. Over time the market would balance the two's relative values.

 

In the past the dollar used to be define as a specific weight in gold and silver, that is when American experience virtually no inflation and there was great prosperity.

 

you can look at it any way you like, but unless you make gold nearly worthless in itself, you can not print enough money and back it with gold and have enough in circulation to run our economy.....   You'd have to price the collar at about a millionth of an ounce, and that's kind of silly for the gold plating in your phone's electric circuit connections would cost several thousand dollars.      Even when we were on the gold standard, it was only backed to 40%.

 

Even if a percentage of it is back by gold it would slow and limit the process of fiat money creation. The fraud of fiat money creation would have consequences, either we release the release valve slowly or let it implode. The money bubble would deflate one way or the other. Should let market set the price of dollar instead of 'currency' manipulation that USA have been so fond of calling other country out on.

 

We could take a step in the right direction by floating the dollar and let market set its prices and allow for competing currency.

 

It didn't stop Germany from printing money in between the two wars.....     they just printed away and devalued their Marks....

 

Backing the dollar with gold will not solve our problems.....    stop spending what we don't have is the only way to stop what's going on, and it doesn't really matter if it's backed by gold, silver or just our good will.    The problem isn't fiat money, it's the government spending what they don't have.  Be that silver, gold or a debt to the Federal Reserve.

 

You just proved my point with the Germany example.

 

Backing money with hard assets makes spending what the government don't have a lot harder. The government would have to actually pay market rates for borrowing instead of just cheap money from Federal Reserve.

 

but we don't have the gold to back our economy and have it run....     there really isn't any difference in having fiat dollar or backing it up with .005 grams of gold.   Neither would be worth anything.    Germany didn't stop printing money and the people behind the printing now would not stop printing either.    When they do they won't be in power any longer for "We the People's"  general population are addicted to our present system and do dump it and go to gold silver backed monitary system would take a huge cut in population, or gaining a huge amount of gold and silver.

 

Right now if what I read about having a bit over 8,000 tons of gold, that would at todays price only allow about $1,700 for each of us in circulation.....   that means that if I save up for a new truck that costs $30,000 dollars, then about 15 people would not have any money circulating that they could be paid for any work they did...   not until I spend the thirty grand to put it back into savings.......         How many people would have starved to death from what we put back for retirement....

 

So unless you can come up with about three trillion dollars worth of gold, you can't make an economy work in a country with this economy and the living standard that we have grown to expect in this country.......     if you have $25 in your pocket and some form of house to live in and no other debt, you are in the top 10% of the people of the world.

[udx]

Th

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From all the information I can gather, the USA has just over 8,133 tons of gold.

 

that is 260,256,000 ounces of gold.   At the current price of  $1,186 per ounce, we have $308,663,616,000 worth of Gold.

 

 

Given 300,000,000 people in the USA today that would be around $1,030.    When we were on the gold standard, we printed enough money that could only be covered by 40% in Gold.           So we could only print $1,646 for each of us to be incirculation......       If I had $50,000 in the bank, then there would have to be about 30 people with nothing at all at any given moment.

 

We have greatly outgrown the Gold standard for currency......     and if you print more then the price of gold would be much greater and by the time you reach the point of the economy running smoothly our currency would be worthless.

 

The system we have would be ok if our congress would simply not spend what we do not collect in taxes.......   and who elects congress????   The Federal Reserve was created to control the amount of money that is in circulation....   it was never designed to use as a crutch to spend more than we collect in taxes......   and shame on Congress for letting that happen.

 

In a general way,   "We the People" as a whole really sucks....    and that's the problem with the US of A.      The vast majority of the people either don't want to work or those that do want to live way beyond their means.    and that's never going to work no matter what system we use.

This is the wrong way of understanding what 'backing by gold' means. Backing by gold basically fixes the paper money to a standard of measure that cannot be manipulated by create new 'money' out of thin air digitally or by fiat printing.

 

We could re-denominate current dollars to be  1 dollar to 1/1200 of ounce of gold by today's prices and keep that ratio fixed. There you instantly got the dollar fully backed by gold. Once you fixed the dollar to mean a certain weight in gold, you remove the power to create new money out of nothing. The price of gold in dollar just reflects the current value of dollar. The more dollar it takes to get an ounce of gold the less your dollar is worth. Hard assets is has incredible self balancing feature via the free market. If the dollar is worth a lot relative to gold, people would buy more gold with more viable dollar and drive the gold price up. If the gold value is high relative to dollar, people would find new ways to mine more gold. Over time the market would balance the two's relative values.

 

In the past the dollar used to be define as a specific weight in gold and silver, that is when American experience virtually no inflation and there was great prosperity.

 

you can look at it any way you like, but unless you make gold nearly worthless in itself, you can not print enough money and back it with gold and have enough in circulation to run our economy.....   You'd have to price the collar at about a millionth of an ounce, and that's kind of silly for the gold plating in your phone's electric circuit connections would cost several thousand dollars.      Even when we were on the gold standard, it was only backed to 40%.

 

Even if a percentage of it is back by gold it would slow and limit the process of fiat money creation. The fraud of fiat money creation would have consequences, either we release the release valve slowly or let it implode. The money bubble would deflate one way or the other. Should let market set the price of dollar instead of 'currency' manipulation that USA have been so fond of calling other country out on.

 

We could take a step in the right direction by floating the dollar and let market set its prices and allow for competing currency.

 

It didn't stop Germany from printing money in between the two wars.....     they just printed away and devalued their Marks....

 

Backing the dollar with gold will not solve our problems.....    stop spending what we don't have is the only way to stop what's going on, and it doesn't really matter if it's backed by gold, silver or just our good will.    The problem isn't fiat money, it's the government spending what they don't have.  Be that silver, gold or a debt to the Federal Reserve.

 

You just proved my point with the Germany example.

 

Backing money with hard assets makes spending what the government don't have a lot harder. The government would have to actually pay market rates for borrowing instead of just cheap money from Federal Reserve.

 

but we don't have the gold to back our economy and have it run....     there really isn't any difference in having fiat dollar or backing it up with .005 grams of gold.   Neither would be worth anything.    Germany didn't stop printing money and the people behind the printing now would not stop printing either.    When they do they won't be in power any longer for "We the People's"  general population are addicted to our present system and do dump it and go to gold silver backed monitary system would take a huge cut in population, or gaining a huge amount of gold and silver.

 

Right now if what I read about having a bit over 8,000 tons of gold, that would at todays price only allow about $1,700 for each of us in circulation.....   that means that if I save up for a new truck that costs $30,000 dollars, then about 15 people would not have any money circulating that they could be paid for any work they did...   not until I spend the thirty grand to put it back into savings.......         How many people would have starved to death from what we put back for retirement....

 

So unless you can come up with about three trillion dollars worth of gold, you can't make an economy work in a country with this economy and the living standard that we have grown to expect in this country.......     if you have $25 in your pocket and some form of house to live in and no other debt, you are in the top 10% of the people of the world.

 

Ah, this is a common misunderstanding of backing by gold means.

Many people use this same excuse to explain that it is impossible to back by gold because there is not enough gold, understandable. I highly recommend you to read the book "Creature from Jackyll Island" it explains what it means to be backed by gold a lot better than I can.

 

Actually there doesn't need to be 'enough' gold to go back to gold standard. At the end of the day, people don't care about number of dollars, francs, marks, pesos, yen, in their wallets, they care about eh purchasing power. Using gold as a standard allows the market to work itself out, as I explained before, dollar and gold values would balance if market is allow to work itself out. There are enough gold in the world that this isn't an issue.

 

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/how-to-return-to-the-gold-standard

[wingnut-]

Ah, this is a common misunderstanding of backing by gold means.

Many people use this same excuse to explain that it is impossible to back by gold because there is not enough gold, understandable. I highly recommend you to read the book "Creature from Jackyll Island" it explains what it means to be backed by gold a lot better than I can.

 

Actually there doesn't need to be 'enough' gold to go back to gold standard. At the end of the day, people don't care about number of dollars, francs, marks, pesos, yen, in their wallets, they care about eh purchasing power. Using gold as a standard allows the market to work itself out, as I explained before, dollar and gold values would balance if market is allow to work itself out. There are enough gold in the world that this isn't an issue.

 

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/how-to-return-to-the-gold-standard

 

 

 

This really sums it all up.  What has occurred basically is this, the economists who have created this new system of operation also have flooded the world with a wave of disinformation to try and convince people that there was a sound reason for abandoning the gold standard.  So they will claim that we cannot return to it, we had to leave it and come up with something new.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  They took us off the gold standard and put us on this merry go round so that they can accumulate all the wealth for themselves.  You see, they can't get their hands on all of the gold in the world, can they?

[other one]

Th

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From all the information I can gather, the USA has just over 8,133 tons of gold.

 

that is 260,256,000 ounces of gold.   At the current price of  $1,186 per ounce, we have $308,663,616,000 worth of Gold.

 

 

Given 300,000,000 people in the USA today that would be around $1,030.    When we were on the gold standard, we printed enough money that could only be covered by 40% in Gold.           So we could only print $1,646 for each of us to be incirculation......       If I had $50,000 in the bank, then there would have to be about 30 people with nothing at all at any given moment.

 

We have greatly outgrown the Gold standard for currency......     and if you print more then the price of gold would be much greater and by the time you reach the point of the economy running smoothly our currency would be worthless.

 

The system we have would be ok if our congress would simply not spend what we do not collect in taxes.......   and who elects congress????   The Federal Reserve was created to control the amount of money that is in circulation....   it was never designed to use as a crutch to spend more than we collect in taxes......   and shame on Congress for letting that happen.

 

In a general way,   "We the People" as a whole really sucks....    and that's the problem with the US of A.      The vast majority of the people either don't want to work or those that do want to live way beyond their means.    and that's never going to work no matter what system we use.

This is the wrong way of understanding what 'backing by gold' means. Backing by gold basically fixes the paper money to a standard of measure that cannot be manipulated by create new 'money' out of thin air digitally or by fiat printing.

 

We could re-denominate current dollars to be  1 dollar to 1/1200 of ounce of gold by today's prices and keep that ratio fixed. There you instantly got the dollar fully backed by gold. Once you fixed the dollar to mean a certain weight in gold, you remove the power to create new money out of nothing. The price of gold in dollar just reflects the current value of dollar. The more dollar it takes to get an ounce of gold the less your dollar is worth. Hard assets is has incredible self balancing feature via the free market. If the dollar is worth a lot relative to gold, people would buy more gold with more viable dollar and drive the gold price up. If the gold value is high relative to dollar, people would find new ways to mine more gold. Over time the market would balance the two's relative values.

 

In the past the dollar used to be define as a specific weight in gold and silver, that is when American experience virtually no inflation and there was great prosperity.

 

you can look at it any way you like, but unless you make gold nearly worthless in itself, you can not print enough money and back it with gold and have enough in circulation to run our economy.....   You'd have to price the collar at about a millionth of an ounce, and that's kind of silly for the gold plating in your phone's electric circuit connections would cost several thousand dollars.      Even when we were on the gold standard, it was only backed to 40%.

 

Even if a percentage of it is back by gold it would slow and limit the process of fiat money creation. The fraud of fiat money creation would have consequences, either we release the release valve slowly or let it implode. The money bubble would deflate one way or the other. Should let market set the price of dollar instead of 'currency' manipulation that USA have been so fond of calling other country out on.

 

We could take a step in the right direction by floating the dollar and let market set its prices and allow for competing currency.

 

It didn't stop Germany from printing money in between the two wars.....     they just printed away and devalued their Marks....

 

Backing the dollar with gold will not solve our problems.....    stop spending what we don't have is the only way to stop what's going on, and it doesn't really matter if it's backed by gold, silver or just our good will.    The problem isn't fiat money, it's the government spending what they don't have.  Be that silver, gold or a debt to the Federal Reserve.

 

You just proved my point with the Germany example.

 

Backing money with hard assets makes spending what the government don't have a lot harder. The government would have to actually pay market rates for borrowing instead of just cheap money from Federal Reserve.

 

but we don't have the gold to back our economy and have it run....     there really isn't any difference in having fiat dollar or backing it up with .005 grams of gold.   Neither would be worth anything.    Germany didn't stop printing money and the people behind the printing now would not stop printing either.    When they do they won't be in power any longer for "We the People's"  general population are addicted to our present system and do dump it and go to gold silver backed monitary system would take a huge cut in population, or gaining a huge amount of gold and silver.

 

Right now if what I read about having a bit over 8,000 tons of gold, that would at todays price only allow about $1,700 for each of us in circulation.....   that means that if I save up for a new truck that costs $30,000 dollars, then about 15 people would not have any money circulating that they could be paid for any work they did...   not until I spend the thirty grand to put it back into savings.......         How many people would have starved to death from what we put back for retirement....

 

So unless you can come up with about three trillion dollars worth of gold, you can't make an economy work in a country with this economy and the living standard that we have grown to expect in this country.......     if you have $25 in your pocket and some form of house to live in and no other debt, you are in the top 10% of the people of the world.

 

Ah, this is a common misunderstanding of backing by gold means.

Many people use this same excuse to explain that it is impossible to back by gold because there is not enough gold, understandable. I highly recommend you to read the book "Creature from Jackyll Island" it explains what it means to be backed by gold a lot better than I can.

 

Actually there doesn't need to be 'enough' gold to go back to gold standard. At the end of the day, people don't care about number of dollars, francs, marks, pesos, yen, in their wallets, they care about eh purchasing power. Using gold as a standard allows the market to work itself out, as I explained before, dollar and gold values would balance if market is allow to work itself out. There are enough gold in the world that this isn't an issue.

 

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/how-to-return-to-the-gold-standard

I have read the book, and taken economy classes so I could understand how an economy works.....

What price would you set the dollar worth today if we went back to gold?

[other one]

Wingnut, what do you say to Other One that showed we don't have enough gold to meet the demand of the amount of currency we need in circulation?  You could conceivably add additional precious metals to the mix, especially silver.  I actually have an old silver certificate somewhere that guarantees it can be exchanged for physical silver on demand.  I don't see why you would have to limit it to a gold standard, but I understand about having something backing up the currency.  There has to be a better system than what we are using today, and I am sure if enough people put their heads together, they could figure out a way to abolish the federal reserve and come up with something better. 

My point Butero is that no system will work with our spending habits.     And other countries in the past history have had the same problem with hard backed currencies.

 

The problem isn't what backs our money, it's what we spend.

 

When the Federal Reserve was created, it put enough money in circulation for our economy to prosper and it did so for many years.....   it was partially backed up by gold, but not nearly 100%.    Things went right until the 30's when the Fed took out a lot of the dollars circulating and caused the great depression...... 

 

The Federal Reserve is a global control system that is controlled by less than a hundred people.   Probably the most stroke lies within the Rothschild Family, and it's goals are really not the best thing for "We the People".   But they do need "We the People" to make it work.                 

They dropped the gold standard when it became obvious that there wasn't enough gold to back up the amount of currancy that it takes to run the USA much less making the dollar the world standard currency and need enough in circulation for not only the US, but to back other currencies also.

There isn't enough gold in the world to back what is needed for a global monetary system.

 

In June of this year there was 1.37 trillion dollars in circulation just in the USA...    even at todays price what we are reported to have is less then 350 billion dollars.   So if we stop spending more than we take in in taxes and stop borrowing, it would take devaluing the dollar by at least 400%    or pulling all but about 500 billion dollars out of circulation and that would make the great depression look like nothing we have ever seen.....   well maybe Germany in the Early 1930's when things were so bad that people actually started listening to Hitler.....

[Uncertain]

To deal with the current system of overspending, you have to vote people in that won't overspend.

This will take two things that most are not willing to do.

First you have to be willing to sacrifice a couple election cycles to get a viable 3rd party as it has been shown neither of the current parties will cut spending. They talk a good game but it is all a lie.

Second you have to quit voting based on social wedge issues. If you want to improve the fiscal health of the country, focus on that at the voting booth. Right now a person with small government ideas and the best fiscal ideas would lose anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of conservative votes if he was in favor of same set marriage.

When votes are based on social and not fiscal issues you get what we have now.