A Few Words in Favor of Fiat Currency

[Crazy CanuckMember 4215]

Saying gold doesn’t have much value is crazy. Paper money have always crashed sooner or later. In Canada after the depression the Canadian government printed money backed with GOLD. This is why Canada recovered from the great depression sooner than other countries.
Gold isn’t an invest it is an insurance policy. The gold is being manipulated by the elites mainly with paper gold not real gold.

http://www.internationalman.com/articles/manipulation-of-the-gold-price

"If pussy was a stock it would be plummeting right now because you've flooded the market with it. You're giving it away too easy." - Dave Chapelle

[Anonymous 0]

Crazy Canuck wrote:

Saying gold doesn’t have much value is crazy. Paper money have always crashed sooner or later.

Consider this; no fiat money system has lasted more than 70 years. Here’s the math. The Gold Standard was abolished in 1971. If you use that date and add 70 years you come up with 2041 as the longest time our current system could possibly survive. (historically)
And now apply that to your current situation. If you are 20 years old; you will most likely live to see that. At that moment in history you would be well served by owning gold. (1971+70=2041 ergo 2041-2015=26. You would 46 years old when the market collapses.
If you are 63 plus your chances are slimmer. Will you live another 26 years is the question? (1971 +70=2041 ergo 2041-2015=26). In my situation (age 63) it would be this: 63+26=89. Maybe My concern is having enough precious metals/commodities to survive when ever that happens.

Please note: that when such an event happens, all commodities are only worth what the two parties to a trade believe it is worth. Will gold be worth more than water? Not likely. Worth more than food? shelter? safety? weapons? ammo? These then become commodities of value and money in whatever form is only convenience. Will such a catastrophic event happen? I’m sure there were times in history when that did happen. It would be a good idea to be prepared. IMHO

Crazy Canuck wrote:

Gold isn’t an invest it is an insurance policy.

EXACTLY!!
Substitute the word gold for “what ever commodity that has value at that moment” If you are in a desert, water is worth more than gold. If you are beside a lake in Switzerland, gold is worth more than water.

These are my opinion and feelings on the matter and I would welcome a further dialogue on this issue. Thanks to Doc for starting this. Also, I am impressed with the professional manner with which other’s that have posted here have presented their opinions.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Rebane wrote:

It took the Federal Reserve to produce events like the Great Depression and the Great Financial Crisis.

So again we come back to the idea that it isn’t so much the form that currency takes but rather manipulation of that currency by a private organization that controls it.

Currency (in the form of certificates of deposit for gold) was being inflated prior to the end of the gold standard by bankers who simply wrote receipts for gold that had never been deposited.

From the article I originally linked: “the goldsmith [bankers of 17th Century England] wrote receipts for people who were not depositing gold. These receipts too circulated as money. So receipts for more gold than the banker actually had in his vaults were circulating. The goldsmith had only a fraction of the amount of gold needed to meet the claims [receipts] against him. They were issuing $10 in receipts for each $1 in gold.”

All commodity backed currencies are subject to manipulation just as much as non-commodity backed ones are and we’ve still yet to refute the central assertion that gold itself is fiat currency, having no intrinsic survival value. This insinuation that backing currency with gold is somehow a recipe to magically stabilize an economy is the illusion that the article I linked sets out to debunk.

So again I ask, does gold have intrinsic survival value or is it a fiat currency and, if so, are fiat currencies the issue or is it manipulation of the money supply by private entities that we should be talking about? Arguing against fiat currency is like arguing against offensive words on the grounds that if you take away a word, the people who use it to offend won’t be able two formulate the thoughts any more.

[QuietlyquietlyParticipant 728]

Okay, i am on my cellphone so i can’t provide you with links or references, and this will be shorter than if i was on my PC.

Nothing has intrinsic survival value without a time component as part of its composition. Any food is only as good as how long it lasts before going off. Tools until they break. And this is the missing part of the argument: gold doesn’t go off. Ever. It is the only thing ever found to have this property. Hence its long term value.

All other metals tarnish, rust, radioactively decay, oxidize, or otherwise spoil. But not gold.

All foods go off, with the exception of honey, which is water soluble, obviously a flaw with regards to time.

All tools break.

Gold is unique with respect to time.

[FrankOneParticipant 1426]

This pretty much tells the tale.

Gold is not a fiat currency by definition, because it backs a currency. One can’t print more gold.

And the dollar, was not a complete fiat currency until 1971 when Tricky Dick [Nixon] closed the gold window. As far as telling the tale, inflation was insignificant until the Fed was established in 1913. And of course, it shot through the f~~~ing roof in 1971 when Tricky Dicky gave us a TRUE fiat currency. So central banking has been a massive failure. In an earlier Age, Jefferson warned against it [the first Central Bank].

In the early days of the Republic, banks issued their own private currencies (notes). There is a huge difference between a currency that is BACKED by something of value, and one which isn’t.

Look at a chart of US inflation since 1775; inflation picks up when the government meddling picks up. And in wars.

We have no fiscal discipline in the US. Fiat currency contributes to this. If we had to pay ALL the money to finance Big Government, this spending would be more visible to the average Joe, and thus, less acceptable. It is much less visible when we can borrow against the future and devalue the currency, which has been going on since I was born in 1970.

Wealth inequality caused by private control of money? Really? When ‘money’ is controlled publicly, what does economic growth look like? That is, when investment is governed by politics? The Soviet Union is one example; it was devastating to growth. SOE’s (state owned enterprises) are another. Aside from SOE oil operations (which it’s hard to f~~~ up, since you pay no taxes and get free mineral rights), they’ve been disasters.

I am only in the top 3% for my age group, so I’m not a ‘1%er’. I actually RESPECT 1 percenters — they save and invest and create growth and businesses… I don’t have much respect for inherited wealth, though. I don’t envy the 1%; I ADMIRE them. In America we used to want to emulate them. Now, we want to take their wealth. Which entity will be more efficient at charity? The Bill Gates Foundation driven by metrics, or government programs driven by politics? Which one will engender self sufficiency, and which dependency? You decide.

As for all the rich banker conspiracies, somehow, these Dr. Evil bankers don’t comprise a sifnificant fraction of the list of top 100 richest individuals [read: men} in the world. Does that disprove the conspiracies? You decide.

Roydal: I agree on bonds, the yields are crap!

Rebane: Thanks for the explanatory information, but the first post plot was labeled clearly as Dow/gold ratio. I would add to your analysis, the booms/busts are a GOOD thing and result in the most efficient allocation of resources. So eliminating them is NOT a public good. This is the creative destruction that is the dynamo of capitalism; we make few CRT’s because flatscreens have surpassed them. I agree government created the Great Depression and the swings have been wider in amplitude since the establishment of the Fed — so it hasn’t done what it advertised.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Anonymous wrote:

Consider this; no fiat money system has lasted more than 70 years.

Is that so? The Pound Sterling has been around since 1694. Devalued significantly relative to the value of silver, to be sure, but still in use.

My argument from the start has been in the utility of a currency for facilitating the exchange of values, not necessarily for storing that value long term. So you don’t believe your currency will hold its value in the long run… fair enough. What’s the solution? Let me propose a couple:

1) Spend your currency as soon as you earn it,
2) Convert your currency into useful commodities that can be stored and drawn against long term for your own, personal use.
3) Purchase undervalued land with natural resource rights and live on it.
4) Invest in your own ability to produce value in the future.
5) Invest in someone else’s ability to produce value in the future.
6) Wipe your ass with it when SHTF.
7) Use your gold bullion as radiation shielding when SRHTF!!

If you’re trying to store value you produced today for 70 years and you have no faith in the money system under which you live to allow you to preserve that value then you’re suffering from a massive delusion. There simply is NO form of money that can store value like that which can’t be f~~~ed with by someone determined to do so. If you don’t trust money then you had better get used to living off of your immediate productivity and what you can preserve for the future yourself, but don’t be so foolish as to believe that 8 billion people can live like that even if we did go back to the days before the Enclosures and the seizure of the Commons.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Quietlyquietly wrote:

All other metals tarnish, rust, radioactively decay, oxidize, or otherwise spoil. But not gold.

All foods go off, with the exception of honey, which is water soluble, obviously a flaw with regards to time.

All tools break.

Gold is unique with respect to time.

Sure, and that’s the mystique that has enabled people to believe the myth that it has value since the beginning, but all you’ve said is “gold stays shiny therefore it’s valuable”. Bunk.

It has medical and industrial uses we’ve recently discovered, sure, but not real value for normal people, aside from being shiny.

So how is gold backed currency any different from faith-and credit-of-the-government backed currency or cryptography backed currency other than one backing has physical form and the other two don’t?

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Bottom line, doc is delusionnal, but he’s feels right because so many others are delusional as well.

Fiat currencies have always failed. Period. They have a new one waiting in the wings for oligarchs only. it’s called strategic drawing rights.

Have I ever said fiat currency won’t fail? I have repeatedly argued that it is being manipulated by individuals for their own enrichment but that the fault lies with the individuals, not the form of currency and that we should be talking not about the tool but about how to deal with the hand that wields it. I didn’t even state that I think fiat currencies are a good idea, I just quoted an article that did for people to read and comment on (which nobody has done yet).

Calling me delusional is not an argument. Or is “I’m right! I’m right!” The only thing you have to offer?

If you want to be right, answer this simple question: Given that the ogliarchs are manipulating money and the economy to enrich themselves to the detriment of working people, what do we do to stop them and reverse the damage?

Hint: restating your established position is not an answer.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Notice he started a new thread because he was beaten so thoroughly in the other one. This n~~~~ is runnin on fumes.

That’s the must meaningful thing you’ve said this entire thread, it tells me you have no interest in participating in a mature and responsible debate.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

With gold backed currency you can go to the bank and get gold. A pile of full faith of the us government doesn’t buy jack s~~~

And then do what with it? Eat it? Plant it in your garden? Take it to another bank and put it back in? When you trade your worthless paper currency for its gold backing, your gold becomes your currency… and since it has no intrinsic worth, you’ve just traded one intrinsically worthless form of currency for another which is more bulky and heavy and hard to subdivide and must be weighed and proofed before being exchanged for anything, assuming you can find anyone who would do that.

How are you now better off than you were before?

Let me tell you what I’ve purchased with my pile of faith and credit of the government… an entire lifetime of food, shelter, clothing, transportation, entertainment, education, travel, experience, peace and security. Never once have I needed to hold an ounce of gold to have done any of it.

Believe me, when the day comes that faith and credit of the government is valueless, your gold will be too.

No, the true value of a gold backed currency was that, theoretically, the amount of circulating (intrinsically worthless) currency accurately represented the amount of (intrinsically worthless) gold people had on deposit… and since people had this mystic faith in gold already, it helped keep everyone more honest about the receipts… until it didn’t. The gold standard wasn’t worth s~~~, ultimately, because criminal bankers fudged the receipts and ultimately did away with the standard, just as they would do with any form of currency. Am I wrong?

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

The thing is with a commodity backed paper it’s a fixed amount of the commodity. You cannot be robbed through inflation. Do you get that subtle point about the fixed amount?

Oh but it could be and it was! You just write more receipts than you take in deposits. Voila, inflation.

And then you seize the underlying commodity and claim the receipts are now the money. Soooo, where is your “commodity” backed currency now? Someone stole it. Let’s talk about them and what to do about them, shall we? Or do you somehow irrationally believe that the gold standard prevented that from happening or that going back to some other form of commodity backed currency would prevent the same thing from happening again?

p.s. Gold isn’t a commodity in the sense that it has any intrinsic value, it’s just what was used for money before paper receipts for it were used for money.

[RebaneParticipant 215]

Stargazer wrote:

* Fiat currencies and centralized control of a society’s money supply leads to stability and prosperity (Roman Nomisma, Colonial Script, Lincoln Greenbacks, etc)

* Since the value of any given commodity can and will fluctuate radically as a result of market manipulation, no currency backed by a commodity can ever be stable.

* Private control over money by monarchs, plutocrats and private banks is the cause of financial destabilization, wealth inequality and societal economic collapse

I’m arguing against these three statements. I agree that all commodity backed currencies are subject to manipulation just as much as non-commodity backed ones. History has many examples how gold standard and fiat currency have failed. It’s living beyond our means that causes manipulation (or downright breaking the rules). Gold standard currency is rigidly representing a fixed quantity of the gold-money on deposit with a banking or other financial institution that are redeemable on demand. Fiat money’s value is unrelated to the value of any physical quantity. There’s a major difference in this.

If you would be the only person on the market, would anything have intrinsic value? I think not. But if there’s 2 people then it’s already different. A few thousand years of history supports the idea that gold HAS intrinsic value and it’s not just a pet rock.

What killed the gold standard last time was largely caused by WWI and WWII and the rise of democracy. Both were extremely expensive and deficit spending under gold standard is problematic. Fiat currency allows to wage wars and keep up a huge nanny state while running deficit spending. But as we are seeing now the problems eventually pile up and all these years of creating debt on future generations might cause a nasty crash.

[QuietlyquietlyParticipant 728]

Stargazer wrote:

Quietlyquietly wrote:

All other metals tarnish, rust, radioactively decay, oxidize, or otherwise spoil. But not gold.

All foods go off, with the exception of honey, which is water soluble, obviously a flaw with regards to time.

All tools break.

Gold is unique with respect to time.

Sure, and that’s the mystique that has enabled people to believe the myth that it has value since the beginning, but all you’ve said is “gold stays shiny therefore it’s valuable”. Bunk.

It has medical and industrial uses we’ve recently discovered, sure, but not real value for normal people, aside from being shiny.

So how is gold backed currency any different from faith-and credit-of-the-government backed currency or cryptography backed currency other than one backing has physical form and the other two don’t?

I cited something scientific that no other substance known to man has as a property, and something which i believe the article Doc cited did not mention – time.

I actually agree with the Doc on this one – that ultimately nothing material has any intrinsic value, but this strays far and deep into philosophical territory, and is only something i come across in my Buddhist life. To go that direction is to take the topic into a very intellectual discussion which strays far beyond life and death, and will never once entertain the idea of what you should really invest (either your money or your faith) in.

[FrankOneParticipant 1426]

Doc: You ignored my post, and the chart. The Nixon shock [1971 decision to close the gold window] was instrumental in creating the stagflation of my early youth, along with the oil embargo. What was the alternative? Get out of Vietnam, end foreign adventurism and aid, and shrink the size and scope of government.

I realize you didn’t answer my other questions, but how about this one. Since you seem to argue gold is a fiat currency, how then, has it never exhibited hyperinflation? The obvious answer is you can’t create more of it, other than by slowly mining it and processing gold-rich ore.

The bottom line: Price stability is good for economic growth. Fiat currencies don’t promote price stability. Don’t believe it? Look at my chart again and note the events at 1913, and 1971.

Is Gold corruptible? Yes. Does its value change relative to other commodities? Yes Can nanny state governments produce large amounts of it out of thin air, to pay debts and provide bread and circus games to the masses (read: entitlements, foreign wars, etc)? No to that one.

Doc: Yes, there have been cases where more receipts were issued (for deposited gold) than there was actually held gold. That’s why it’s good to have a 3rd party audit of reserves. No system is free from manipulation. Even with the system in place pre-Nixon Shock, there were not enough reserves to allow redemption for gold of even a small fraction of the currency…

As for ‘criminal bankers’, I say, let banks lend at any reserve ratio they please… But don’t provide government insurance of deposits! What would that do? Well, banks that had independent audits and were conservative, would get deposits. Riskier banks would have to pay higher interest. Banks would have to compete with one another. ‘Too Big to Fail’ would not be policy. Oh, and perhaps eliminate limited liability for banks. That would certainly reduce recklessness! Either way, government couldn’t set interest rates in a private banking system. This used to be called a ‘Free Economy’, something that predates my lifetime.

Rebane: You understand economics. I agree with most of what you said, though I’d argue that it was Nixon’s need to be re-elected the put the final nail in the coffin by closing the gold window — in private, he knew closing the gold window was a terrible idea long term. Certainly the need to pay for the Vietnam War contributed.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

NotMyProblem wrote:

Also you are correct that pure capitalism is by it’s nature cutthroat and always leads to a huge wealth divide. It’s survival of the fittest. If you don’t work or do something that society values, you die. I’m a blue collar working man that supports capitalism because I want the opportunity to better my future through work.

I’ve already pointed out my viewpoint on this issue on the original poster of this subject, by Sovereign. So, here I will add something concerning competition. Firstly, I’d like to point out that this may be, for the first time in history, due to technological advances, that we don’t actually *necessitate* competition. Meaning, we have the technology, and there is enough empty land, that if it weren’t for the laws, we should all be able to live peaceably and in abundance by the sweat of our own brows. I’d like to point out a couple of things:

NotMyProblem wrote:

Also you are correct that pure capitalism is by it’s nature cutthroat and always leads to a huge wealth divide. It’s survival of the fittest. If you don’t work or do something that society values, you die. I’m a blue collar working man that supports capitalism because I want the opportunity to better my future through work.

If you support competition, in a system where a monopoly on violence exists in the hands of the ruling class, who have an institutionalized advantage, you are volunteering to lose. The ruling class forces us to compete, while they collaborate. They win, the rest of us lose. Is *MIGHT* truly right? Is the competition us versus each other, or is it *actually* the state versus YOU?

NotMyProblem wrote:

Also you are correct that pure capitalism is by it’s nature cutthroat and always leads to a huge wealth divide. It’s survival of the fittest. If you don’t work or do something that society values, you die. I’m a blue collar working man that supports capitalism because I want the opportunity to better my future through work.

Capitalism can’t ever truly exist. Psychopaths will always refuse to lose, and use tactics like murder, arson, sabotage, blackmail, assassination, etc to *defeat* anyone who threatens their businesses. Are we really naive enough to think that people will always win the competition by surpassing their competitors, rather than destroying them? As soon as you establish a free market, it doesn’t take long for the winner of the contest to start bribing the authorities to transform it into fascism, communism, socialism, or any other form of authoritarian government where the ruling class uses the monopoly on violence to permanently secure it’s status in the hierarchy. This is exactly what happened to the capitalism that we had here in the US, and is why we have communism/socialism now.

NotMyProblem wrote:

If you were to play God and decide the most fair, the most moral way to divvy up the remaining scarce resources in society, how would you do that?

Personally I would let people fight it out, through business and working, not violence. The more value you provide to society, the more resources you get. That is capitalism.

I’d start by returning all of the land that has been confiscated by the government to the people, and allowing people to inhabit uninhabited property. I’m tired of seeing dilapidated houses on property no one is using, or intends to use for a long time, while people are sleeping on the street. It’s bulls~~~. Let people fight it out without violence? Fighting it out with violence is what the government does. A business bribes congressmen to legislate an advantage for themselves or a disadvantage for their competitors and anyone who breaks those laws are met with violent resistance by state religious zealots. In other words, the law renders people defenseless against the ruling class. If you attempt to start a business that can either compete with, or outright destroy for example, the oil industry, you might as well start the timer to your demise, because the state is coming after you. As for equality, Ragnar Redbeard pretty much pegged it with this quote:

“Equality can only exist between equals.
Civilization implies division of labor, division of labor implies subordination and subordination implies injustice and inequality.”

“If I have to work, so do you. There is no free lunch.”
So, if you are a slave, I must be a slave as well? Everyone *has* to work in order to survive, there is no question of that. However, the question is, must I work for someone else? Why can’t I just purchase my land and live by the sweat of my own brow by growing my own food and constructing my own house, etc. The state prevents this with taxes, laws, and building codes. There is free lunch all day long for the people who print money, or have passive incomes, where someone else earns their money for them.

“The average workman’s … “virtues” (as he calls them, poor devil) are extreme laboriousness, extreme docility, extreme political and religious credulity – together with extreme pusillanimity in his own defense.” – Ragnar Redbeard

I would rather the complete collapse of civilization. At least then, I could actually see and fight my enemies, instead of them paying someone else to fight me, or steal from me with an incorporeal hand of the wraith. If I absolutely *must* compete, because the rest of humanity leaves me no other option, then it should be at least on fair terms where I can retaliate against my attacker. Such is not the case in modern society, where it is illegal to defend yourself. That being said.. I do not wish to compete. I do not view all rich people as my enemy and I would much prefer the end of a class war. The end of the war, on the poor. I really wish that they would stop viewing us as the enemy.. because the only reason we might be, is because they do. In the end, it’s not just a matter of someone else having more, it’s a matter of the use of legislation and financial tactics to ensure that someone else has less in order to compel them to servitude.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

FrankOne wrote:

I realize you didn’t answer my other questions, but how about this one. Since you seem to argue gold is a fiat currency, how then, has it never exhibited hyperinflation? The obvious answer is you can’t create more of it, other than by slowly mining it and processing gold-rich ore.

Just curious for anyone to answer…but in 1971 the US population was 207 million. In 2015 we are at 322 million. If gold is somehow a better currency because we can’t “print” more of it, wouldn’t we just suffer from deflation instead as we’d be splitting a relatively stable currency supply over an ever increasing population? Every year the average wealth per capita would simply decrease instead of increase and I have a funny feeling the same people bitching about inflation eroding their savings would just turn around and bitch about how deflation is instead making the rich richer every year.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Veniversum wrote:

Capitalism can’t ever truly exist. Psychopaths will always refuse to lose, and use tactics like murder, arson, sabotage, blackmail, assassination, etc to *defeat* anyone who threatens their businesses. Are we really naive enough to think that people will always win the competition by surpassing their competitors, rather than destroying them? As soon as you establish a free market, it doesn’t take long for the winner of the contest to start bribing the authorities to transform it into fascism, communism, socialism, or any other form of authoritarian government where the ruling class uses the monopoly on violence to permanently secure it’s status in the hierarchy. This is exactly what happened to the capitalism that we had here in the US, and is why we have communism/socialism now.

So basically you say capitalism can’t exist because of crime and corruption…but those problems don’t stop with communism/socialism. Its not capitalism that is the problem…its the crime and corruption, and we should be dealing with those things, not demonizing a system that allowed our nation to become the greatest in the world…and ironically our nation is now in decay as we move away from it.

Veniversum wrote:

I’d start by returning all of the land that has been confiscated by the government to the people, and allowing people to inhabit uninhabited property. I’m tired of seeing dilapidated houses on property no one is using, or intends to use for a long time, while people are sleeping on the street. It’s bulls~~~.

Where are all these properties? Are you talking about foreclosures…because that’s not the government confiscating property. Its people borrowing money to buy a house and using the house as collateral for the loan, and not paying the loan back so the bank takes the house to hopefully sell and recover its money.

Or are you talking about decaying cities like Detroit where people don’t want to live because what’s the point of moving to a high tax high crime area with poor job prospects.

http://www.zillow.com/homes/recently_sold/Detroit-MI/17762_rid/0-300000_price/0-1112_mp/priced_sort/42.462979,-82.875882,42.242497,-83.322201_rect/11_zm/1_sch/

Look how many houses there literally sold for 1 dollar lol…they are basically giving them away and still can’t even find enough takers They’re only good for a squatter or to demolish just to get rid of the eyesore they are and hope that in the future if the city revives the land can be redeveloped into something worthwhile.

This isn’t a new phenomena…its been going on well before we ever left the gold standard. I live in New England, and we have a ton of areas up here that are referred to as mill towns. Basically a company would build a large mill/factory/warehouse or whatever you want to call it, and around that factory they’d often build mill houses for the employees, so they could have a near by place to live since cars weren’t really a thing back then. You’d then get a plethora of businesses that would crop up around that town, and it would essentially create a small city centered around a big business. If the mill closed the town pretty much died, as it was essentially the mill employees that supported the small businesses as well. People would leave. Sure they’d try to sell the houses and the factory, but nobody really wanted them because there wasn’t any opportunity in the area.

[QcummerParticipant 652]

my dick has intrinsic value

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Qcummer wrote:

my dick has intrinsic value

You are right, it has 18 years worth of resource confiscation in it if you aren’t careful.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

I’m speaking of masses of land that government owns, which it claims belong to the people, as well as foreclosures, not just in Detroit. I can walk around my town right now, and there are properties on the damned city corners with rotting houses just sitting there. There is absolutely no excuse for preventing people from living on a property like that while no one uses it. It’s getting to where just about every city has multiple properties like that.

[Author]

Posts