Union française Pneus Faits Quelqu'un ?

[SparrowHawk]

what would the world look like today had we stayed on the gold standard?

You know sometimes you're a pain in the ass!! J/K

Not sure what it might look like, but fiat currency is much to blame for the transfer of wealth to the top 1%.

What we know with certainty is that from 1791 until 1913 is the USD rose 8% in value. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve the dollar has declined 93%.

 

[Dog Wonder]

I never really needed for nothing,

Except an education.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

AH. Got it. I don't read his crap anymore so I guess I missed that connection.

I guess the same argument could be made about letting minorities into the work force. Not to mention letting non-land owners .... Oh hell. Anyone who was not a white land owner. That where it all went down hill.

Arguments like women screwing up the work force are why I ignore him. Just not worth the time.

One of many connections you've missed. I must really get under your skin, mission accomplished.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Except an education.

He can construct a complete sentence, you can't.

 

[RDU Jetblast]

You know sometimes you're a pain in the ass!! J/K

Not sure what it might look like, but fiat currency is much to blame for the transfer of wealth to the top 1%.

What we know with certainty is that from 1791 until 1913 is the USD rose 8% in value. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve the dollar has declined 93%.

Dont mean to be. I have heard about going off the gold standard many times but noone has ever .been able to describe what the world would look like if we had stayed on it. Would there have been more wars? Less? We had a wicked cold war with the soviet union and an arms race. Would we be alive and prosperous or living an apolyptic existence? Would we have laptops, internet, iphones? Would we have had the innovations we enjoy today?

There has to be a plausible vision of what the world would be like if we stayed on the gold standard in order to say going off was a mistake. Would communism still be a threat?

Why didnt we go back when it was still possible. It should be obvious, i dont know much about the decision to go off.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Dont mean to be. I have heard about going off the gold standard many times but noone has ever .been able to describe what the world would look like if we had stayed on it. Would there have been more wars? Less? We had a wicked cold war with the soviet union and an arms race. Would we be alive and prosperous or living an apolyptic existence? Would we have laptops, internet, iphones? Would we have had the innovations we enjoy today?

There has to be a plausible vision of what the world would be like if we stayed on the gold standard in order to say going off was a mistake. Would communism still be a threat?

Why didnt we go back when it was still possible. It should be obvious, i dont know much about the decision to go off.

All fair questions. There are no concrete answers that I'm aware. Plenty of conspiracy theories that I tend to reject. However we can look at somethings to at least get a picture.

Even current Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, Ben Bernanke admits that the currency manipulations caused the Great
Depression.

We also know that Japan's economy never really recovered after events similar to QE 1, 2 and ??. Nor any other economy for that matter.

We know that fiat currencies promote debt and credit instead of savings.

So what would the world look like? Not so sure brighter minds then mine could answer.

 

[Ms Tree]

If someone wants the gold standard they are more than free to do so. The problem with the gold standard is the same problem with currency in general. Granted government can print more money easier than they can find more gold (or loose it). No currency value is guaranteed.

Sparrow, is all your money in gold?

 

[SparrowHawk]

None of your business.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

I was devestated when I heard Obama say that if the sequester is not resolved 1000 home will not be winterized!

 

[delldude]

If someone wants the gold standard they are more than free to do so. The problem with the gold standard is the same problem with currency in general. Granted government can print more money easier than they can find more gold (or loose it). No currency value is guaranteed.

Sparrow, is all your money in gold?

Explain then why most of the worlds heavies are buying up gold like no tomorrow?
End of the dollar as the global currency??? ala Soros?

 

[Ms Tree]

I figured it was not. Being as big a fan of the GS as you are I thought you would be all in. I guess no standard is perfect.

 

[Ms Tree]

Her you go Sparrow. Just for you. This guy lived on the gold standard and boy did he do it right. Shame he never enjoyed it.

http://news.yahoo.com/recluses-gold-fortune-auctioned-taxes-144757875.html

The smaller portion is going to be auctioned off and is expected to net $3 million. I do not know anything about gold coins but it sounds like he had some nice stuff.

"Officials discovered the trove neatly wrapped and stored mostly in ammunition boxes stacked on top of each other. There were more than 2,900 Austrian coins, many from 1915; more than 5,000 from Mexico; at least 500 from Britain; 300 U.S. gold pieces, some dating to 1880; and more than 100 U.S. gold pieces as old as the 1890s"

 

[WorldTraveler]

Not sure what it might look like, but fiat currency is much to blame for the transfer of wealth to the top 1%.

What we know with certainty is that from 1791 until 1913 is the USD rose 8% in value. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve the dollar has declined 93%.

All fair questions. There are no concrete answers that I'm aware. Plenty of conspiracy theories that I tend to reject. However we can look at somethings to at least get a picture.

Even current Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, Ben Bernanke admits that the currency manipulations caused the Great Depression.

We also know that Japan's economy never really recovered after events similar to QE 1, 2 and ??. Nor any other economy for that matter.

We know that fiat currencies promote debt and credit instead of savings.

So what would the world look like? Not so sure brighter minds then mine could answer.

The US economy was relatively isolated from the world for the first 150 years. Post WWII the US economy had to be economically connected to the world in order to sell all the goods that the US produced using the war machinery that had to be maintained after 1945.

Now, because all free market economies are globally connected, currencies not only can but must be devalued to reflect the relative strength of one economy relative to the other.
Given that the strength of a economy is directly related to its borrowing, rate of growth, and unemployment, it is a given that the strength or weakness in one economy in the world will affect the value of its currency relative to others. Since global trade is based on a pretty well-established relationship between global economies today, quick movements in currencies has a very destabilizing effect on all world economies. Thus, Japan's decision to try to stimulate their economy and Italy's weakening economy all have to be matched by actions of other countries or global trade is thrown off balance. Unemployment in Europe cannot occur w/o having a similar level in other countries or the value of other economies relative to Europe will become mismatched. Given that unemployment forces down (or limits the growth of) wage levels but also results in the necessity by democratic governments to implement social programs to limit the pain to the people, it is not realistic to fix one economy as long as others in the same position. Global economics today has resulted in pulling down the strongest economies while at the same time many of the formerly poorest of the poor in the world are better off than they were 30 years ago as their governments export to wealthier economies. Global wealth is being shared more but it is the middle class of Europe and the US that have been most impacted; remember, though, that the concept of middle class is not terribly old in the history of human civilization and it is the US that is recognized as having done the most to develop the middle class.

Les Miserables was a good reminder that people will reach a point when they will overthrow governments in order to protect their own personal interests; being unable to find food for your family is a powerful motivator. However, since most western governments are democratic now, they have little choice but to throw money into social programs in order to stop suffering from going as far as it did right before the French Revolution.

People will act when they reach poverty levels and cannot meet their basic needs; they rarely overthrow and destabilize their country solely to maintain middle class standards of living. The events of Europe today are testing the limits of how far governments can cut and allow the free markets to work with their sometimes painful consequences before people will overthrow their governments.

 

[RDU Jetblast]

If someone wants the gold standard they are more than free to do so. The problem with the gold standard is the same problem with currency in general. Granted government can print more money easier than they can find more gold (or loose it). No currency value is guaranteed.

Sparrow, is all your money in gold?

Another problem with the gold standard is how do we know how much gold is really in fort knox? It's not like price waterhouse counts it every year like they tally votes for the Oscars.

And to WT's point, if the dollar was so strong would we be able to export to economies with weak currencies? It is cheaper the US to buy good from canada and mexico than Vice versa. We are in the midst of a currency war now.

 

[SparrowHawk]

The US economy was relatively isolated from the world for the first 150 years. Post WWII the US economy had to be economically connected to the world in order to sell all the goods that the US produced using the war machinery that had to be maintained after 1945.

Now, because all free market economies are globally connected, currencies not only can but must be devalued to reflect the relative strength of one economy relative to the other.
Given that the strength of a economy is directly related to its borrowing, rate of growth, and unemployment, it is a given that the strength or weakness in one economy in the world will affect the value of its currency relative to others. Since global trade is based on a pretty well-established relationship between global economies today, quick movements in currencies has a very destabilizing effect on all world economies. Thus, Japan's decision to try to stimulate their economy and Italy's weakening economy all have to be matched by actions of other countries or global trade is thrown off balance. Unemployment in Europe cannot occur w/o having a similar level in other countries or the value of other economies relative to Europe will become mismatched. Given that unemployment forces down (or limits the growth of) wage levels but also results in the necessity by democratic governments to implement social programs to limit the pain to the people, it is not realistic to fix one economy as long as others in the same position. Global economics today has resulted in pulling down the strongest economies while at the same time many of the formerly poorest of the poor in the world are better off than they were 30 years ago as their governments export to wealthier economies. Global wealth is being shared more but it is the middle class of Europe and the US that have been most impacted; remember, though, that the concept of middle class is not terribly old in the history of human civilization and it is the US that is recognized as having done the most to develop the middle class.

Les Miserables was a good reminder that people will reach a point when they will overthrow governments in order to protect their own personal interests; being unable to find food for your family is a powerful motivator. However, since most western governments are democratic now, they have little choice but to throw money into social programs in order to stop suffering from going as far as it did right before the French Revolution.

People will act when they reach poverty levels and cannot meet their basic needs; they rarely overthrow and destabilize their country solely to maintain middle class standards of living. The events of Europe today are testing the limits of how far governments can cut and allow the free markets to work with their sometimes painful consequences before people will overthrow their governments.

Spoken like a true Keynesian Jackass. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!
​To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrums. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names — Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.