That obviously makes a ton of sense to me. I'm just saying, the power to coin money is given to Congress, not a bank created by Congress.
I did like the fact that Ron Paul intro'd a bill to congress last month, the Free Competition in Currency Act (HR 4248). I talked about that in my show, just before Christmas. Awesome idea.
the biggest problem with the sound money policy is that there is not enough silver in the world to create a 100% backed currency to support the system. I am a big silver investor and a shortage is definitely coming in the next ten years. Gold could be used if it were confiscated by individual holders and revalued at much higher levels, but it would be extremely unpopular. The real problem is that fractional reserve banking is a long term ponzi scheme and needs to be done away with.
I don't buy the "there's not enough gold and silver" argument. But I do definitely agree with the full reserve policy, as opposed to fractional reserves.
The only reason why people believe there's not enough hard money is because we keep having to print fake money to pay off interest to the Fed. The value of gold always stays the same over decades, as opposed to the value of a dollar. So no, I don't buy "there's not enough gold".
I would agree that there is enough hard money (at least gold, silver will continue to get consumed by industry until it goes extinct) in existence, but definitely not enough in fort knox. So if the US government doesn't currently have it, it would have to either purchase it at fair market value - driving up the price to heights never before seen - or pull an FDR and make it illegal to own gold and force the citizens to sell to form a currency with enough backing.
Now here, you're contradicting yourself. You said there's not enough in the world, and now it's just not enough in Fort Knox. I think you need to think things out a bit more before you make comments like that.
As for my standpoint; it doesn't really matter who holds the gold or silver. For all I care, we don't need to really coin it, we can just start trading with what we have. All I care is that the power to coin the government's money is not done by a bank, it should be done by Congress.
I am not saying that there is not enough in the world. There definitely is. Gold anyway. But where is the gold right now? Approximately 1-2% of the population actually has gold in bullion form. I own gold, but am obviously much more bullish on silver. I agree that congress should have the power as well. But you are going to have to find a way to get the gold from that 1-2% of the population and distributed amongst the entire population for use as a medium of exchange. Could be done digitally.
"the biggest problem with the sound money policy is that there is not enough silver in the world to create a 100% backed currency to support the system." -- You.
Personally, I'd stay away from digital, because eventually, the banks will stray away from 100% reserves. Or even fiat (as we see now). So, I'd stay away from digital. And distribute the currency as it's always been done: the free market. I think it's easier than you think. Look at how quickly the Euro was distributed.
I still stay with that opinion- there definitely is not enough silver. In fact there is much more physical gold in the world than silver. There is however enough gold to create a world wide currency if gold were to be revalued properly. Supposedly estimates say that there is between 5-6 billion ounces of physical gold in existence which doesn't really deplete from industrial use. Close to one ounce per citizen of the world. Its concentrated in the hands of 1-2% of the population though.
If you have a money supply with one ounce per citizen and a 100% reserve paper currency to back it, you would have to revalue gold at higher levels which is fine. Using the physical metal for transactions however is not very practical, because no one wants to carry around tons of coin in their pocket and you would probably have to have divisions such as a 1/100th of an ounce or smaller to carry out small transactions. The power that the bankers have is going to stay with them I'm sure.
Yes, the power to make money through interest will stay with them, and they will be issuing certificates, with which citizens can exchange for the actual gold/silver.
But I think you still underestimate the idea of exchanging in BOTH silver AND gold at the same time, instead of just one or the other. BOTH are Constitutional, and one carries less weight (literally) than the other. Think about it...
Money needs to carry out certain functions and have certain characteristics - store of wealth or value, medium of exchange, unit of account (divisible), all of which silver and gold meet. There is less than a 1 billion ounces of physical silver available in bullion form today compared to 5-6 billion ounces of gold. Silver is consumed at astronomical rates due to industrial consumption. The price is suppressed due to the paper silver market and therefore not enough physical exists to be money.
I disagree party. Money IS a medium of exchange, that's it's basic purpose. Because of this, it BECAME a store of weath (not value, take a look at inflation) and a unit of account (when deciding which kind of money to use). And with the kind of logic you have for 1bil oz of silver available compared to 5-6 bil oz of gold available, you'd think that silver would be worth MORE than gold right now.
I am all for making local transactions and exchanges in gold and silver. It may catch on in the future, but so many people see it as a relic of the past that I don't really think it will become widespread. I think food and energy would be a much better medium of exchange in the event of some kind of collapse.
Transacting in silver did catch on for a bit in New Hampshire with the Liberty Dollar. But then, the Feds caught on and arrested the owner of the company. They said that he violated Legal Tender laws.
It would have caught on big time, but the Legal Tender laws are in place so that the only thing we transact in is Federal Reserve Notes (what we call dollars, of course.) Hard money has always been in use for thousands of years. The thought that money isn't gold is preposterous.
I also would continue and say that if it's illegal to own gold and silver, I won't give it up. It's my property, and my right to own what I own. They can't force me to give it up.
And, I think, that if they do rob all of us and make a new dollar, it would actually inflate the new currency they create. They should just use what they have at Fort Knox (if they actually still have gold there) and make a currency out of that.
The problem with taking what reserves we currently have in fort know (if any) and making a currency out it would be that the gold would have to be revalued at probably 50 to 100k per ounce to back all of the dollars in existence because we have the world's reserve currency. The dollar represents about 70% of all worlds fiat currencies.
I think that converting the whole world to some form of hard money standard, as we had only about 30 years ago, is a great idea, and it can be done. It was done incorrectly before, but I think the world would be a lot more free if the government weren't allowed to print money out of thin air. Meaning, money is metal. Not paper.
Yes, bartering would be ok too with food and whatnot. It'd be better than paper. But it should be metal, because it can be measured to a definite standard.
We used gold for over a hundred years in this country. Once the Fed came into existence, they decreased the money supply to start the Great Depression, and they said, "See? You need a central bank." They create the booms and busts, and if we used hard money as currency, and it was housed under the Treasury, we wouldn't be paying interest to the bank. It doesn't matter what dollar value you set the price of gold and silver to, as long as it's fixed. Because there will be no inflation.
I love studying austrian economics and am a libertarian, and I believe that a system must have a stable money system. I absolutely agree with you that the Federal Reserve is the problem with the system, and that its power needs to be transferred to the citizens, however it is still going to be extremely difficult to create a national currency based on gold (or silver) when we as a government have very little right now.
Nationalizing has it risks, certainly if a dictator type leads a country.
just a thought: what's wrong with having jury's of common every day people, like a jury in court, in all public services organizations and even in the house and congress that watch and guard and even may veto based on what we the "slaves" feel and want?
Now THAT is a good idea. I had the idea of having not just one president, but three. Say there was a tough executive decision to make; the three would have to vote on it, instead of just one guy elected by the populous and not leaving for four years.
But that "jury" for Congress is supposed to actually be Congress. Congress is literally supposed to mean "the people's congregation", you know what I mean? That's why we had the Continental Congresses, it's the people coming together.
I don't see why the congress needs to coin money at all. Why not just private companies coining gold and silver?
LisaJ4Liberty 2 years ago
That obviously makes a ton of sense to me. I'm just saying, the power to coin money is given to Congress, not a bank created by Congress.
I did like the fact that Ron Paul intro'd a bill to congress last month, the Free Competition in Currency Act (HR 4248). I talked about that in my show, just before Christmas. Awesome idea.
josda1000 2 years ago
the biggest problem with the sound money policy is that there is not enough silver in the world to create a 100% backed currency to support the system. I am a big silver investor and a shortage is definitely coming in the next ten years. Gold could be used if it were confiscated by individual holders and revalued at much higher levels, but it would be extremely unpopular. The real problem is that fractional reserve banking is a long term ponzi scheme and needs to be done away with.
jonald77 2 years ago
I don't buy the "there's not enough gold and silver" argument. But I do definitely agree with the full reserve policy, as opposed to fractional reserves.
The only reason why people believe there's not enough hard money is because we keep having to print fake money to pay off interest to the Fed. The value of gold always stays the same over decades, as opposed to the value of a dollar. So no, I don't buy "there's not enough gold".
josda1000 2 years ago
I would agree that there is enough hard money (at least gold, silver will continue to get consumed by industry until it goes extinct) in existence, but definitely not enough in fort knox. So if the US government doesn't currently have it, it would have to either purchase it at fair market value - driving up the price to heights never before seen - or pull an FDR and make it illegal to own gold and force the citizens to sell to form a currency with enough backing.
jonald77 2 years ago
Now here, you're contradicting yourself. You said there's not enough in the world, and now it's just not enough in Fort Knox. I think you need to think things out a bit more before you make comments like that.
As for my standpoint; it doesn't really matter who holds the gold or silver. For all I care, we don't need to really coin it, we can just start trading with what we have. All I care is that the power to coin the government's money is not done by a bank, it should be done by Congress.
josda1000 2 years ago
I am not saying that there is not enough in the world. There definitely is. Gold anyway. But where is the gold right now? Approximately 1-2% of the population actually has gold in bullion form. I own gold, but am obviously much more bullish on silver. I agree that congress should have the power as well. But you are going to have to find a way to get the gold from that 1-2% of the population and distributed amongst the entire population for use as a medium of exchange. Could be done digitally.
jonald77 2 years ago
"the biggest problem with the sound money policy is that there is not enough silver in the world to create a 100% backed currency to support the system." -- You.
Personally, I'd stay away from digital, because eventually, the banks will stray away from 100% reserves. Or even fiat (as we see now). So, I'd stay away from digital. And distribute the currency as it's always been done: the free market. I think it's easier than you think. Look at how quickly the Euro was distributed.
josda1000 2 years ago
I still stay with that opinion- there definitely is not enough silver. In fact there is much more physical gold in the world than silver. There is however enough gold to create a world wide currency if gold were to be revalued properly. Supposedly estimates say that there is between 5-6 billion ounces of physical gold in existence which doesn't really deplete from industrial use. Close to one ounce per citizen of the world. Its concentrated in the hands of 1-2% of the population though.
jonald77 2 years ago
If you have a money supply with one ounce per citizen and a 100% reserve paper currency to back it, you would have to revalue gold at higher levels which is fine. Using the physical metal for transactions however is not very practical, because no one wants to carry around tons of coin in their pocket and you would probably have to have divisions such as a 1/100th of an ounce or smaller to carry out small transactions. The power that the bankers have is going to stay with them I'm sure.
jonald77 2 years ago
Yes, the power to make money through interest will stay with them, and they will be issuing certificates, with which citizens can exchange for the actual gold/silver.
But I think you still underestimate the idea of exchanging in BOTH silver AND gold at the same time, instead of just one or the other. BOTH are Constitutional, and one carries less weight (literally) than the other. Think about it...
josda1000 2 years ago
Money needs to carry out certain functions and have certain characteristics - store of wealth or value, medium of exchange, unit of account (divisible), all of which silver and gold meet. There is less than a 1 billion ounces of physical silver available in bullion form today compared to 5-6 billion ounces of gold. Silver is consumed at astronomical rates due to industrial consumption. The price is suppressed due to the paper silver market and therefore not enough physical exists to be money.
jonald77 2 years ago
I disagree party. Money IS a medium of exchange, that's it's basic purpose. Because of this, it BECAME a store of weath (not value, take a look at inflation) and a unit of account (when deciding which kind of money to use). And with the kind of logic you have for 1bil oz of silver available compared to 5-6 bil oz of gold available, you'd think that silver would be worth MORE than gold right now.
josda1000 2 years ago
I am all for making local transactions and exchanges in gold and silver. It may catch on in the future, but so many people see it as a relic of the past that I don't really think it will become widespread. I think food and energy would be a much better medium of exchange in the event of some kind of collapse.
jonald77 2 years ago
Transacting in silver did catch on for a bit in New Hampshire with the Liberty Dollar. But then, the Feds caught on and arrested the owner of the company. They said that he violated Legal Tender laws.
It would have caught on big time, but the Legal Tender laws are in place so that the only thing we transact in is Federal Reserve Notes (what we call dollars, of course.) Hard money has always been in use for thousands of years. The thought that money isn't gold is preposterous.
josda1000 2 years ago
I also would continue and say that if it's illegal to own gold and silver, I won't give it up. It's my property, and my right to own what I own. They can't force me to give it up.
And, I think, that if they do rob all of us and make a new dollar, it would actually inflate the new currency they create. They should just use what they have at Fort Knox (if they actually still have gold there) and make a currency out of that.
josda1000 2 years ago
The problem with taking what reserves we currently have in fort know (if any) and making a currency out it would be that the gold would have to be revalued at probably 50 to 100k per ounce to back all of the dollars in existence because we have the world's reserve currency. The dollar represents about 70% of all worlds fiat currencies.
jonald77 2 years ago
I think that converting the whole world to some form of hard money standard, as we had only about 30 years ago, is a great idea, and it can be done. It was done incorrectly before, but I think the world would be a lot more free if the government weren't allowed to print money out of thin air. Meaning, money is metal. Not paper.
Yes, bartering would be ok too with food and whatnot. It'd be better than paper. But it should be metal, because it can be measured to a definite standard.
josda1000 2 years ago
We used gold for over a hundred years in this country. Once the Fed came into existence, they decreased the money supply to start the Great Depression, and they said, "See? You need a central bank." They create the booms and busts, and if we used hard money as currency, and it was housed under the Treasury, we wouldn't be paying interest to the bank. It doesn't matter what dollar value you set the price of gold and silver to, as long as it's fixed. Because there will be no inflation.
josda1000 2 years ago
I love studying austrian economics and am a libertarian, and I believe that a system must have a stable money system. I absolutely agree with you that the Federal Reserve is the problem with the system, and that its power needs to be transferred to the citizens, however it is still going to be extremely difficult to create a national currency based on gold (or silver) when we as a government have very little right now.
jonald77 2 years ago
a good video w/link to a study series on history/constitution. watch?v=0yTVzMIIOE8
fatpius 2 years ago
awesome video. I may talk about her stuff on my show... thanks a lot for the link!
josda1000 2 years ago
Nationalizing has it risks, certainly if a dictator type leads a country.
just a thought: what's wrong with having jury's of common every day people, like a jury in court, in all public services organizations and even in the house and congress that watch and guard and even may veto based on what we the "slaves" feel and want?
jacobvision 2 years ago
Now THAT is a good idea. I had the idea of having not just one president, but three. Say there was a tough executive decision to make; the three would have to vote on it, instead of just one guy elected by the populous and not leaving for four years.
But that "jury" for Congress is supposed to actually be Congress. Congress is literally supposed to mean "the people's congregation", you know what I mean? That's why we had the Continental Congresses, it's the people coming together.
josda1000 2 years ago