This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
As Confidence In Dollar Wanes, Over A Dozen States Push For Gold As Legal Tender
In more than a dozen states, legislators are pushing for a movement back to a world where gold is considered money. As Bloomberg reports, lawmakers in Arizona are poised to follow Utah, which authorized bullion for currency in 2011. Similar bills are advancing in Kansas, South Carolina and other states to recognize gold and silver coins as legal tender. "The legislation is about signaling discontent with monetary policy and about what Ben Bernanke is doing," which seems confirmed by the recent shift in Texas to bring its gold back from the New York bank warehouse. The new measures would give "people the option of using money that won’t lose any purchasing power to inflation," one supporter of the bill explained, with another adding, "there is a fear that the government, or Bernanke in particular and the Federal Reserve, is pursuing a policy that will lead to the collapse of the dollar." The U.S. Constitution bars states from coining money and also forbids them from making anything except gold and silver coin tender for paying debts. Advocates say that opens the door for the states to allow bullion as legal tender.
Distrust of the Federal Reserve and concern that U.S. dollars may become worthless are fueling a push in more than a dozen states to recognize gold and silver coins as legal tender.
Lawmakers in Arizona are poised to follow Utah, which authorized bullion for currency in 2011. Similar bills are advancing in Kansas, South Carolina and other states.
...
“The legislation is about signaling discontent with monetary policy and about what Ben Bernanke is doing,” said Gatch, who studies alternative currencies at the Edmond, Oklahoma-based school. “There is a fear that the government, or Bernanke in particular and the Federal Reserve, is pursuing a policy that will lead to the collapse of the dollar. That’s what is behind it.”
...
In Texas, lawmakers are considering a measure supported by Republican Governor Rick Perry to establish the Texas Bullion Depository to store gold bars valued at about $1 billion and held in a New York bank warehouse. The gold is owned by the University of Texas Investment Management Co., or Utimco, which took delivery of 6,643 bars of the precious metal in 2011 amid concern that demand for it would overwhelm supply.
The proposed facility would also accept deposits from the public, and would provide a basis for a payments system in the state in the event of a “systemic dislocation in a national and international financial system,” according to the measure.
...
“We are seeing a distinct movement back to a world where gold is considered money,” ...
The measures give “people the option of using money that won’t lose any purchasing power to inflation,” said Rich Danker, economics director at the American Principles Project. The Washington-based public-policy group supports the steps as well as a return to the gold standard, which pegged the dollar’s value to bullion. President Richard Nixon formally ended the convertibility of U.S. currency to the precious metal in 1971.
“People in these states find the idea of having the option to use hard currencies appealing over these policies they have no control over,” Danker said.
The U.S. Constitution bars states from coining money and also forbids them from making anything except gold and silver coin tender for paying debts. Advocates say that opens the door for the states to allow bullion as legal tender. The measure being considered in South Carolina would recognize foreign or domestic minted coins as legal tender.
...
In Utah and some other states, the measures also eliminate state capital gains or other taxes on the coins.
...
Critics say... “It is simply grandstanding to get people afraid that somehow President Obama’s agenda is going to drive us into hyperinflation and economic collapse,” Farley said. “We have enough real problems to deal with. I don’t see undercutting our entire financial structure as a priority.”
...
The bill’s sponsor, Senator Chester Crandell, 66 of Heber, said he is convinced the move is the “logical thing for the state of Arizona to do.”
“I think you look at some of the things that are happening and the amount of money printed by the Federal Reserve and who has control of that money, and I think anybody would be concerned,” Crandell said. “Gold and silver have been around a long time and people are secure with it and we should give them an opportunity to use it.”
- 35412 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


For a flat tax to work the rate would have to be much higher than most people currently pay, or not enough revenue would be produced.
A flat tax is regressive, like all G.O.P. plans.
How about an asshole tax, then you would have to pay more than anybody!
Or most people would have to accept a more realistic (ie SMALLER) amount of government cheese in exchange for their (extorted) contribution to the social good.
Not enough for the current size of government. I want a much, much smaller government. Without the plethora of government "services". Without the government butting into my business, bank account, what food I eat, whether I own a legal gun that has never killed anyone, where I travel, how much salt and vegetables I consume, whether I live in a "food desert", harassing me at the airport, issuing counterfeit "money", incessant wars, confiscating my cash during a traffic stop, constant surveillance from cameras, so many laws the average person commits 3 felonies a day, a tax code so complex no one person can understand it all, ramming a giant government "healthcare" pill down my throat and up my a**, ...
last time I looked the inflation tax is way more regressive - depending on debt and cash levels, of course
Forget the Flat Tax, Dr. K. The tax rate should be on a semi-log scale: The Hor. Axis is the log scale of Income (earned or invested at same rate), and the Vert. axis is the tax rate. Set the min. and max rates for the Min. and Max Incomes, and the Rate will be fairly set.
For purposes of our 'exercise' we set the min rate at, say, 5% for Income of $5000. We then set the max rate at 45% for $1M. We have thus set the Slope of the Rate on this semi-log chart. The rates in between are calculated mathematically. If you wanted to 'force' the "Millionaires" (earning > $1M /yr) to pay more, you give them two choices: Either
(a) The Semi-log rate continues to, say, 80%, and the Gov decides how to spend your Surtax,
or
(b) The rich taxpayer gets a "say" in where it goes (philantropically0. Several such 'buckets' will be provided: Local/Community, State, Federal and Charity/Philanthropy. By setting min and max % that can be allocated to each of these 4 buckets, the rich taxpayer has FAR more control -- and public kudos for their big egos -- for how the spending is weighted. The different Gov levels are now also competing for money via quality of service (imagine that!), not via 'entitlement'.
Since the rich did not get there by having a brain that's 1,000 faster or smarter, did not work 24,000 hrs/day, often did not use a his % of own capital (but borrowed cheap fiat) -- in other words -- since the rich got there by leveraging their ideas and skills via the additional ideas and skills of many other people, a good portion of 'their' wealth justly needs to be recirculated back into the community. Ideally. Most of the rich will never put up with this.
Ideally, of course, the size (cost), competence and productivity of the Gov should also be bench-marked and set to a high-performance level -- which means that the Civil Service would no longer have rules & policies to hire the bottom half of the food chain (no more PC BS!), but hire purely on skills & merit. Like a private corporation. The civil service will never stand for this Merit-based system either. The IRS, tax lobbyists and special interests would be jobless and would therefore threaten and bribe every politician, to prevent this from happening. Their attitude might be described as: "God forbid that we'd have a hi-tech, turbo-charged gas miser, when a low-tech gas guzzler of a monster engine will do."
But something like this -- whatever the actual numbers and % we finally sort of agree on -- would definitely bring back equity to the system. Not 'fairness' but 'equity'.
NONSENSE, 10% flat tax is plenty of revenue, merely cut the excess waste on government workers’ travel, dinners, excess bonuses and cut the military back to a safe level. Currenty military deployments are incredibly unsafe because they demand more violence with no benefit to national security and also lead to excessive debts no one can pay or should pay. There’s all pain & no gain there – cut it.
Krugman,
There's no question the income tax can go. The federal government functioned just fine for over 100 years before the income tax was implemented in 1913. Prior to 1913, the government generated enough revenues through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes.
This topic always boils down to what the role of government should be. I don't need anyone to "govern" me, so I think it should have a very limited role. At least give me the option to opt out if others want government to exist in its current bloated state. Let the feeble shoot themselves in the foot by asking for big government, but don't force me into it.
Dr. Krugman answer me this??
"If growth is defined in monetary terms and money is debt (interest bearing), please explain how exponential growth of debt is sustainable into eternity.
If money (debt) exponential growth is not sustainable into eternity, then WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE EXPONENTIAL MONEY (DEBT) GROWTH FAILS?
TIA..."
The only alternative to property taxes is anarchy.
Truly you are a philosopher.
What a shill, do you have proof for those ignorant claims. Guess what, I'll let you in on a little secret shill, there is no law that requires an individual to pay income taxes, it's all a banker fraud.
"income" in that amendment is what prevents the Congress from defining income because there is no legislative enabling clause for the 16th amendment..
That would seem to mean that the congress also would be precluded from defining "whatever source." Since the net effect of the sixteenth amendment is solely to remove the "income" tax from the area of direct taxation, the principle on which the Pollock case was decided, thus removing the need for apportionment among the several states, The sixteenth amendment doesn't authorize the taxation of "whatever source" but the "income, from whatever source derived." The use of the word that leaves the income tax in the area of excise taxes
This, then, leaves the congress in the position of being able to tax only that which was taxable prior to the passage of the sixteenth amendment, Duties, Imposts and Excises.
see also
31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
Taxpayer v Nontaxpayer- Which one are You?
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/TaxpayerVNontaxpayer.htm
Property Taxes are another massive fraud and trespass against the people. Show me the clause in the constitution that abolished property rights
Constitution 101: Congress can not create laws, treaties or amendments that violate the constitution. All the laws are written correctly, it is the people who don't understand them. This is done through fraud, word smithing and trickery.
Try telling that to the SWAT team when they bust in your door. The Constitution is now mere toilet paper for the President, Congress, and the Judiciary.
Where did you get that idea, TV
Oh, they function now? Please tell me how we got into this mess. I'll tell ya, theft. Plain & simple. No PHD or Nobel required.
"I don’t see undercutting our entire financial structure as a priority."
And now you.
Nice to see the admissions that your system cannot survive transparency and accountability.
Question for you though: How is our government functioning these days?
End property taxes? End the income tax? End the sales tax? How will governments function?
Oh wait, they won't! And we will be living under anarchy rule. Great.
****
And creatures like you will have to find honest work. I've got a job for you Doc; I don't want to get real specific but it includes the phrase 'money shot.' Say, you're an expert on money! I think you'd be a pro.
I wouldn't want to become a banker, if that is what you are insinuating.
Anarchy simply means, absence of government. There are rules, just no rulers. I don't see the problem here.
What you fear is the unknown and the perceived potential for chaos - the opposite of order. Chaos is exactly the byproduct of government
This is not the real Krugman, I repeat NOT real Krugman... just a chumping troll who enjoys polluting this venue. Please don't negatively reinforce his behavior anymore you morons!
He's as pedantic as the real Krugman though. Maybe it's really him?
Anyone who believes that the gold standard era was marked by price stability, or for that matter any kind of stability, just hasn’t looked at the evidence. The fact is that prices have been far more stable under that dangerous inflationist Ben Bernanke than they ever were when gold ruled.
There is a remarkably widespread view that at least gold has had stable purchasing power. But nothing could be further from the truth. There may be bubble aspects, but there’s also a pretty clear (and economically understandable) relationship between the real price of gold and the real interest rate: when real rates are low, real gold prices are high.
And when are real rates low? High inflation can do that, as it did in the late 1970s; but so can a severe economic slump due to a deleveraging shock, as in recent years.
What does that tell us about how a gold standard would work? Faced with the kind of shock we’ve just experienced, the real price of gold would “want” to rise. But under a gold standard, the nominal price of gold would be fixed, so the only way that could happen would be through a fall in the general price level: deflation.
So if we’d had a gold standard operating in this crisis, there would have been powerful deflationary forces at work; not exactly what the doctor ordered.
Now, the gold bugs will no doubt reply that under a gold standard big bubbles couldn’t happen, and therefore there wouldn’t be major financial crises. And it’s true: under the gold standard America had no major financial panics other than in 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1907, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933. Oh, wait.
The truth is that returning to gold is an almost comically (and cosmically) bad idea.
To have a currency solely based on trust, and then fuck that trust up absolute 100% doesn't seem so smart to me either ...
Maybe we should back our money with printers.
It isn't about trust, it is about generating the revenue to pay down the debt. Thus why we must grow the economy now - to get out of the depression and pay down the debt later.
Thats your debt...........not mine..............
Do you use the roads? The bridges?
Have you or will you ever call 911?
Do you care if children whose parents can not afford to send them to private school get an education?
If you answer yes to any of these questions, or any like questions, then you need to pay your dues. And if you don't like the fact that as an America you have the responsibilty to pay for what you use, then move.
I will gladly repair and keep up the roads around my location if was extremely limited Government. Homeschooling or at a local level is preferred to the brainwashing the schools are currently churning out.
You will fix the roads? Get ready to work at that 40 hours a week and miss whatever job you currently have. Or would it be better for you to keep your current occupation and let someone else do that job.
Society functions best when everyone has their own expertise. Let the lawyers discuss law and let the teachers teach.
And my statement was not meant to those who can afford to homeschool, because some can not. Some people have a one parent household where said one parent works all day and can not afford the time to homeschool nor afford a private school.
and what do economists do?
Any productive job is a good job & that will be a well-paid job of its own.
“Some people have a one parent household where said one parent works all day and can not afford the time to homeschool nor afford a private school”
That’s because they already got taxed. Take away the tax & inflation from money-printing and it’s all affordable again. That much really was stolen & should be returned as it will be better used.
where I come from, crime victims do not pay a criminal's restitution. Once again, your statements ignore history and human nature. This system has been completely taken over by criminals. People are starting to figure that out. And it is coming down.
Do you use the roads? The bridges?
Same way we did it in the 1950's, 60's, 70's.....without all the debt.
I reject your debt-based money and all its evils.........Borrowing from the future is no way to run a society...........
Road construction is paid for via gasoline excise taxes, not income tax.
Historically, law enforcement and public education has been funded at a state or local level, not national. Both have only gotten more expensive and less effective as a result of Fed govt intervention.
Also, govt power to do anything is limited by its charter, and if it disregards its charter, it does not have the authority to undertake these things. It's self evident that the Fed govt has taken the charter, shredded it, and then used the shreds to wipe its ass. Therefore, anything it does has no legal basis, only might-makes-right basis, which it appears you endorse, you small-handed shrimpy little bully.
Try again Dr.
Yet on this very blog people deplore a gas tax, so how are we supposed to pay for the roads? Income tax? Nope, they hate that one too.
I can only speak for myself, but what I think many people object to is profound divergence the U.S. govt has taken from the Constitution. Again, once govt violates its charter (the Constitution) it no longer has any legal or moral authority for what it does.
Excise taxes are allowed under the Constitution, therefore the gasoline tax is constitutional. Direct, unapportioned taxes are not allowed under the constitution, hence its unconstitutionality.
Besides, the incentives at play are profoundly different, between taxing consumption and taxing labor. Cmon Doc, do I really have to spell this out for you? Maybe in the interest of fairness, since you're obviously ignorant about basic economics such as this, I should take over your gig at the NYT.
#1 build it without tax
#2 build it with opt-in only tax called a road tax because it’s for roads
Bogus and tired argument. Tell you one thing, Mr. Fraud: trillions in bailouts for the criminal banksters didn't help the roads or schools around here one bit, you fucking twit.
Statist idiots always trot this argument out. "Derp, you use teh skoolz eh?? What about 911! Checkmate!"
If the federal government had left those responsibilities to the States, as was intended, or even managed to confine itself to only those things, we likely wouldn't be having this argument. Instead, the government intrudes into every facet of our lives, spends money studying snail sex and the migration patterns of insects, creates departments for no purpose other than to justify budgets, kills brown people halfway across the world who were not and will never be a threat to the mainland. I could go on and on, and this troll knows it. He loves it. Spending is good, period. Breaking shit that has to be rebuilt is good. Paying people to watch animals hump is good. Paying people to teach kindergartners proper condom use is good. If you don't like it, then you must hate education and emergency services.
Statist idiots like this don't even know that they end up pushing someone like me, who used to actually believe that there is some basic level of 'good' government, into wanting total and complete anarchy. I want to see ALL OF IT BURN. I want people like Krugman to end up muttering economic theory to themselves as they slowly starve to death, all the while cursing about some captured "Tea Party" who just wouldn't spend that extra $400 billion, or $4 trillion, or $40 quadrillion, or whatever made up, bullshit, nonsensical "very large amount" that would've surely saved us all.
Oh and my kids will never step food into the cesspool you call "public education."
911? Have you seen what the police have been up to? No, sounds like more trouble than it’s worth.
We tried that in 2008.....didn't work.
In 2008 I asked for a bigger stimulus; if we had recieved that then it may well have worked fine.
Embrace failure......it's good for a free market.....and it's a lot cheaper.
Just imagine the jobs that could have been created on the carcasses of those idiotic failures.
Yeah, it's because we just didn't go big enough. Unbelievable. Bring on the trillion dollar plat coins and stimulus packages kids. Let's REALLY fuck things up.
Funny how William K. Black agreed with my take on the trillion dollar coin; I know he is revered in circles here.
Krugman and the Trillion Dollar Coin featuring Bill Black:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9520
Why not to write it off directly? Without the platinum coin farce having no value at all compared to the debt it is to service.
I'm all for, let's write off the whole debt, including mortgages, ok?
Because then the world would lose faith in our ability to pay back future debt. This would be a worst case solution.
LMFAO! Here we already are, and you are near the helm kibbitzing about how long to get there.
Why? Every person burdened with loan or mortgage would pay off his or her debt exactly the same way you propose for the government, say, with one microgram of platinum dust. The platinum grain would be stamped by sort of nanotechnology and issued by the US Treasury exactly as the trillion dollar baby, and, poof!, all of the debt goes away.
Issuing 1T Pt coin to pay off the government debt already means that there is no way to pay back its debt in the standard way. That is, by this sole act the faith is inherently questioned. If it weren't there would be no need to play around with the idea.
And, by the way, every normal person lost this faith long ago as it became clear the debt couldn't be paid off. Or, do you still rely on the overall stupidity of the masses? I would be very cautious here. Time is changing.
"It isn't about trust..."-
Mon, 04/08/2013 - 10:09 | 3421682 Dr Paul Krugman"Because then the world would lose faith in our ability to pay back future debt."
What a bunch of fucking nonsense!
Issuing a platinum coin that has inconsequential value in relation to the debt ensures the world will continue to have faith the U.S. government will pay back its future debt? Why not just issue a cow pad instead if the world is that stupid? The cow pad, like a platinum plated slug, has a small amount of physical value (fertilizer and fuel). And it doesn't lie to you either. It knows that it's bullshit.
What, you actually think this debt will be paid back? LMAO.
History question: What country and the only country in the history of the world paid off its public debt and did not default?
What is worse, borrowing money that you know you will not pay back, or loaning out money that you know will never be paid back?
And if I had received the bigger raise I asked for in 2008 I'd be a millionaire. Boo hoo.
You mean the $650 billion stimulus you asked for back in 2008? Seems to me we have MASSIVELY surpassed that number by now.
How's it working so far?
hahahahahahahaha!
How the fuck you became a Doctor? How much do you pay for a PHD? I would like to have one.
There's always the "more was needed" excuse. The inability to disprove its assertions is a necessary characteristic of all cargo cults. Keynesianism could be no different.
Hold on- let me go flip the "grow the economy now" switch. I'll be right back.
The debt will never be paid. Never.
We will never generate lasting growth with our current approach to governance.
The idea that we will pay down the debt at some point in the future when our financial environment improves is ridiculous.
Everything is about trust. ANd as you can see, when you lose it, you lose it.
Aye Davey
Trust is fundamental and essential to confidence.
Wasn't most of the debt created after we left the gold standard?
Of course, I understand the ponzi scheme behind the US monetary system required this to happen.
Under our current system (Federal Reserve), we must create more money (and the cooresponding debt) then we created last year plus all of the interest that was accrued on the outstanding money. The gold standard prevented that kind of growth and so it had to be eliiminated, first through devaluations and then the closing the gold window. Since then, our debt has skyrockted and is now hitting that "hockey stick" moment.
Given that this is how the current system had to end, don't you think that is a lot worse then the periodic price shocks that occurred under the gold standard.
It's a bad system but TPTB keep it in place because it has enabled them to make all of us debt slaves.
So, while the gold standard may have it's problems, it is based on freedom and decentralization. The Federal Reserve system, however, is based on central control and manipulation. It's no wonder it is so appealing to control-freak pscyopaths like Dr. Krugman and a majority politicians and big bankers.
We can agree that economic growth is the correct answer, the issue is how does one best get it. This obsession with zero interest rates and money printing seems misguided as some kind of panacea that can create wealth. It also creates instability as people lose faith in the currency, it encourages more debt, fosters capital misallocation by mispricing the cost of money for extended periods of time, creates speculation and volatility, etc. I would argue that NONE of that is good for maximizing long term growth.
I have to wonder, if I had been making 5% a years on my $100,000 savings for the past 5 years and now had $125,000, I'd probably be more likely to spend some money and maybe that would help the economy more than someone buying something they can't afford. Real wealth is from savings and investment, not debt. Rather, I am cutting expenses to the bone, worrying that I won't have enough to live as the cost of living continues to rise ( not talking CPI here, but the expensive things in life like healthcare, education, taxes, etc. which have and continue to rise well beyond a couple percent).
The stock market "wealth effect" in my 401k is also overstated. I can't take it out now without penalty, know that it can drop dramatically in the years ahead or maybe not keep up with the cost of living. I also know that the government debt is getting so large, that nothing is off the table and the government may decide to tax it at a very high rate when I retire.
The big risk of the current policies is the loss of trust from the breakdown in property rights. If you print more money and make my money worth less, you are stealing from me. I can't get back the limited time I have on this planet to get that wealth back. At some point, you print that marginal dollar, people lose faith in the currency and the levee breaks. Inflationary, destabilizing and dumb.
our zh mr krugman much like the dr krugman, seems happy with stimulus, that goes to enrich the .01%...how about a system that enriches the common man, grows his net worth..the current use of public debt has not created any increase in the wealth of our families unless your name ends in corzine, or paulson, or buffett..mr krugman look in the mirror and see what evil truly looks like.
Dr Paul Krugman You a one delusional FuckTard. I would love to smack you so far into tomorow that you wouldn't know what hit you.
Some get entertainment from your dribble.
But you make me damn near puke.
Love to meet you some day.........
You fucking sack of shit.
Get your very own Doc PK designer t's with fresh financial slogans like:
...it's not about trust, it's about generation! Generation for freedom!
I want my economy and I want to grow it NOW!
Depression? Get out! Pay later!
That's worth at least 45 bucks in t-shirts... That debt will be paid down in no time!
So then.....why not just print up $17 trillion and pay off the debt right now? Why collect income taxes....or for that matter any taxes at all? What's the need for such things when 'money' can be conjured at will?
Why not take the $85 billion/month and just send it out to the citizens?
http://www.google.ae/imgres?um=1&hl=en&biw=1376&bih=689&tbm=isch&tbnid=O-55Ha1LCYHnOM:&imgrefurl=http://www.chinaglobaltrade.com/fact/us-and-china-foreign-exchange-reserves-monthly-1993-2011&docid=7hXK0d4iWpGhdM&imgurl=http://www.chinaglobaltrade.com/sites/default/files/us-china-trade-data-foreign-exchange-reserves-1993-2011.jpg&w=968&h=562&ei=-_ViUdS3Gof3rQe4xIGQCg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:0,s:0,i:76&iact=rc&dur=643&page=1&tbnh=171&tbnw=295&start=0&ndsp=15&tx=224&ty=69
Wake me up when US FR crosses 500bn
I don't know who you are, but if "growing the economy" is synonomous with creating digital fiat w/o any effort, natural resources, labor, etc., then you're even more obtuse than I suspected. If I adopted your philosophy with my credit card, I'd NEVER get it paid off due to accruing interest. The FED and it's policies are the problem here, quit trying to avoid the root issue. Find out who owns the fed, prosecute and incarcerate
any and all of them indefinitely... for life as a message to those who might attempt to reinvent the FED one day.
Later with what money? Even at the best possible growth & income possible the debt is still too high.
The idea of having a currency backed by something real is a good thing. Going back to a gold standard however is not. We don't need another monopoly currency. We need competing currencies.
Your comment is based on a logical fallacy.
If you have a true gold standard no one can create money from nothing (particularly private banks) ergo, you would not have the kind of "shock we just experienced" (nor like the one in the 70's). All monetary "shocks" came from the manipulation of fiat currency. Remove fiat, remove shock.
If you want to look at the crises of the 19th century these too were caused by credit bubbles driven by banks.
Fiat IS the problem Dr. PK.
"But under a gold standard, the nominal price of gold would be fixed,"
yes, better to have eveything else "fixed" no? And wait, are you telling us that forces are not at work trying to control the price of gold as we speak? Like your theories, just because they're failing doesn't mean no one's trying. You have a very selective use of evidence..and history
"relationship between the real price of gold and the real interest rate: when real rates are low, real gold prices are high"
I hear it works with other items too. This has nothing to do with a stable monetary reference
"prices have been far more stable under that dangerous inflationist Ben Bernanke than they ever were "
have you shopped lately? Just because there's a lid on a boiling pot doesn't mean it's not coming off
"But under a gold standard, the nominal price of gold would be fixed,"
Yes, but, fixed b y the market and that would be based upon the fiat that has been printed which is about $10,000 an ounce. See anything wrong with that?
+1
We think so much alike, it's freaky. I might as well never post anything again and just give up arrows your posts.
Be interesting to know where we differ. I don't have a problem with the guns and ammos crowd, but I do worry about them - especially posting their intentions so openly. People at Waco and Ruby Ridge died excruciatingly painful and slow deaths infront of their children, and that was at a time when we had some human beings working for the Federal agencies, and not some procedural robots and desk jockeys with predator drones. Unless you have a $12 million dollar anti aircraft system installed in your garden, the sort of heroic "Red Dawn" mentality is unlikely to help your personal survival, and being a tough gun expert online is highly likely to get you flagged on a federal database, if you haven't been flagged already. Not trying to scare anyone, but stating the obvious.
Given a choice between solving a problem peacefully or violently, I'd go for peace every time. And call me a coward, but failing a peaceful resolution, I would run away. Fast and as far as I could away from danger to my family. If there is even the remote possibility that the Federal govt will enact another Lincoln-esque war to hold the states together, then it would probably be a good idea to get out of the states preparing to secede. Pride notwithstanding.
Thanks. About three years ago, I got into a go around with someone who turned out to be a 911 author about "violence" being the only solution. Normally, I side with Assimov. I think it's a false debate though. My expereince in criminal law has helped firm this conviction. Violence, like history is defined by the victor isn't it. We would all be "violent" in certain situations and often, in those situations, "the law" will make those actions "legal." But hisotry shows us over and over that situations can get so bad that people, collectively, see it as the lesser of two evils. And it is evil, at least the situation. There's a difference between the actors and the situation. For it is evil that brings humans to that point. Let's hope we don't get there. I do think passivism, in the ultimate form, is a non violent "violence" which is more effective. Do not participate. Do not act. Bring the system to a hault. This is, like "violence," a physical action as a "defensive" act. In fact, I predict this will be redefined by a corrupt system as an active crime. That is already beginning.
Yep. Even share the same taste in SF. Don't let this put you off, but apparently Krugman's whole outlook on life was inspired by Asimov! Seriously.
Http://m.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/dec/04/paul-krugman-asimov-economics
I agree about the power of passive protest. We're all doing some of that these days in our own ways, and of course that can only work until protests of any kind is equated with terrorism. We all know that law enforcement are now being told to look out specifically for those who know the law and constitutional rights to target them first. I'm not sure just how much Americans will stand before they break, and when they do, whether their bravado will hold under fire. But if that ever happens, it will be no place for our families. Let's just hope it never comes to that.
Right, so you’ll be providing everyone everywhere a safe place to hide & body armor so they are safe from the violence put upon them. Right? No? Then passivism is suicide. I am not advocating response, merely admitting the nature of all living things is to take action, swiftly, to survive and passivism isn’t on the list – run or fight. All living things must find this way. Even in the ‘passive’ sense of plants escaping a dangerous environment, gigantic clouds of spores or seeds that can catch in the wind or endure fire, or plants exuding toxins to cause bitter distaste or even death to animals that try to eat them, survival requires an aggressive response in one nature or another in the face of a violent environment that clearly endangers survival.
When entire cities are taken out like Ruby Ridge the entire nation will revolt & that will end the problem. It’s end-game. It leaves the terrorists no chance to keep the status quo.
At Waco barbed razorwire was wound around the buildings so that everyone would be killed who tried to escape the fire. The FBI wound the wire and set the fire. It was a mass execution then the media was fed a story that had no relation to the truth. In today’s media world this would be captured 10000x times from that many cameras, none of which are owned by CNN, and that would blow the entire story up.
The story I just mentioned was broken by Abby Martin from Breakintheset on RT, @abbymartin on twitter, ‘breakingtheset’ channel on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7CDQn_ZgJs
is john corzine your daddy? oh my bad it's ben,sorry pog
Interesting actual quote from Krugman:
http://web.archive.org/web/19980610100009/www.redherring.com/mag/issue55...
"Sometime in the next 20 years, maybe sooner, there will be another '70s-style raw-material crunch: a disruption of oil supplies, a sharp run-up in agricultural prices, or both. And suddenly people will remember that we are still living in the material world and that natural resources matter."
I know everyone was pointing out this article to show the "internet slowdown" prediction, but I think the above quote is the real story here. He sounds like ZH's very own LawsofPhysics!
It's too bad this isn't the real Paul Krugman.
It's still fun. It's about the arguments, not the person.
Krugman,
You can spit out all the economic theory you want. You could even be technically correct with regards to all your theories (you're not) but that's not the point because it all boils down to this: I have the right to choose whatever medium I want to function as money whether it's gold, silver, paper, or seashells as long as the other party agrees to accept it. No one has the right to force me to use, or others to accept, what they think is the "best" money. This is called freedom.
So go to the grocery store and offer them shiny rocks for food, see where that gets you.
Y
O U
J E
ST?
The reason I cannot do that now is because of the barriers put in place by government. Government has cornered the market so that it is practically impossible to live without using their decreed mediums of exchange.
"So go to the grocery store and offer them shiny rocks for food, see where that gets you."
True. It may be a "store of value" against inflation ('money printing'), but is not terribly convenient as a medium of exchange.
That's where BTC comes in. The Govs hate it because they hate anything they can't control, tax or regulate -- it's just the nature of the civil service beast (that needs built-in job security). And the gold speculators (looking to make a quick fiat buck in spite of their BS rhetoric) also hate it, as it competes with gold and prevents gold prices from rising. But as a medium of exchange (and other reasons), I am certain that BTC will kick the crap out of PM. Even though I own some PM also. But that's because my world is in 24 bit color, not 1 bit grayscale of the many bloggers, so to speak.
You are so right. The panhandler I had to wait for was exchanging 5 frn face value worth of coinage he received at the intersection for a 5 frn paper note. Never mind the .05 coins he was exchanging were worth 40% more than the face value of the paper he got in return.
I have to laugh. Anybody want to make 40% more on their pay? Take it in nickles.
I have an aunt that worked for B of A in the mid sixties. She took her pay in coinage and retired wealthy.
(Still living by the way.)
Soon as you make it legal to do so, Paulie.
Shit, I can't even pay cash without being charged for using a credit card.
They took mine. Colourized steel, brass, zinc, etc., all shiny rocks just of lesser value than copper, gold & silver. I could use copper, it’s accepted, but I prefer to hold those for later.
Krugman. You are my favorite ZH troll. What an asshat.
I am thinking you are one of the Tylers trying to stir the pot.
No one could be so galactically stupid. Oops, scratch that.
Given the return-replies between mdb & krug here I think I’m confident that both are the same
Too bad that "stability" you so proudly describe cost the country the "American Dream", and is sending us ever closer to third-world status.
Do you even know what real capitalism is?
Capitalism? I won my Nobel on the work I did on trade. Firms have a great advantage in todays world, and I uphold this position as reflexive on the functioning of the economy. Have you not seen my Nobel Laureate speech?
The Increasing Returns Revolution in Trade and Geography:http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=1072
Last week you said debt 'did not matter'..............now you are worried about paying 'your' debt?
what gives?
You are mixing up two very different statements: our current debt "does not matter" in affect that it is not burdensome; if we defaulted then the lose of faith and credit would matter.
How much does the CIA pay you to write this drivel??
That IS the burden.
What can’t be paid causes loss of confidence & disrupts capital flow, so that’s why it matters as a burden.
And having money backed by nothing more than a promise to give more paper sounds like a completely plausible and fantastic idea right?
and if gold dont matter why was it confiscated in 1933?
The executive order was issued because hard times had caused "hoarding" of gold, thus stalling economic growth and making the depression worse.
LOL....if gold is not money, who cares who or what was 'hoarding' it? How does such 'hoarding' of a non-monetary shiny metal 'stall economic growth'?
The executive order was issued because hard times had caused "hoarding" of gold...
For the love of God, hard times had caused people to save — not "hoard." Quit engaging in this Orwellian word substitution garbage. It makes you nothing more than a propagandist. And don't give me any "paradox of thrift" argument, either. How people decide to save or spend is none of the government's business.
It's incredibly disturbing to hear statists trot out the Newspeak to claim that someone's property isn't his own, that it should be taken from him by force in order to supposedly spur economic growth. Never forget that the gold was "purchased" by the government at a low price and then immediately revalued higher. It was nothing more than government-sanctioned theft. You believe that somehow legitimizes the act, and in so doing, you condone a form of slavery.
+1 for saving vs hoarding and for the "paradox of thrift" - meanwhile I've read a few things from you I'd call imho "propaganda", too
I respect your opinion, so give me an example. I try to stick to facts, but I freely admit I'm a bit over-the-top* at times.
*understatement, hence my name
"It makes you nothing more than a propagandist"
he's a self made propagandist
the logic is so circular, I can't believe he believes it.
You evade the answer. Hoarding of gold, linens, lumber, etc., why should gold alone matter? If gold doesn’t matter then hoarding it can’t cause any economic harm, no depression, nothing.
And, isn’t it true, for things of value people who do not hoard in hard times will die of starvation? Will be subject to complete and absolute poverty? Yes, yes it is true.
Gold has little use except as money... As a consequence gold is the standard by which true price discovery is made.... Unfortunately, paper gold has distorted this natural mechanism... On the other hand, nothing man made will stand against nature forever...
First, gold is not money, Ben Bernanke went on record about that. Second, price discovery is predicated upon trade.
And Bernake is wise because of what decision?
The look on his face was priceless when Dr. Paul asked him that question.
Your fiat house of cards is falling. I hope some entitlement junky gets to "occupy" your house when its over.
Gold IS money. Banks hold only assets which are money and banks hold gold. Second, you were told price discovery is predicated on trade so you don’t get to make a point by repeating what was told TO you by re-writing it.
Little use? How many phones, computers & various sensors use gold (and silver) that keep your life affordable much less to live at all, moment of birth to this very day? How about communications where gold is radiation shielding for satellites? If that’s ‘little use’ then I can’t imagine what you think of anti-biotics, soap or running water.
Those last 4 "panics" were complements of the Federal Reserve and it's "advisors".
And then you conveniently left out all of the "panics" after 1933.
If you want to look at some serious "panic", check out the first 13 years of our new millenium.
The tech bubble was caused by irrational exuberance in the market. The recent bubble was a housing bubble, which was caused by preditory lending. What we need is more regulation, not a barbarous standard of "money".
"The recent bubble was a housing bubble, which was caused by preditory lending."
Yeah, CDS's and derivatives didn't have anything to do with it.
Do you need a flashlight? Is there any sunshine in there?
You mean something like Glass Steagal? Already in place until your banking buddies bought off the politicians. All part of the plan to eliminate private property ownership in the US. During the last 4 years, how many trillions of dollars of real estate have been transfered to the banks. Not only do they get the property, they also get cash via the bailouts.
Not sure who said this but it surely stands true today
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
No, the tech bubble is the irrational exuberance in the market, not caused by it. The cause is the irrational credit issued by Greenspan, echoed now by Bernanke.
Predatory lending was the product of regulation, not to be prevented by it. The regulators are in fact the same as the banksters who did the crime – revolving door between banks and regulatory jobs.
But gold was not the cause, the amount of paper and debt were the catalysts.
Same as always, politicians spending more than tax receipts and bankers creating money from thin air.
The purpose of gold is that it keeps the above mentioned pricks in check. They like to own it but they would rather purchase items with 1s and 0s. Pretty nice gig it you can get it.
So if we’d had a gold standard operating in this crisis, there would have been powerful deflationary forces at work; not exactly what the doctor ordered...
I would contend the "gold standard" has been operating, whether the doctor orders it or not. There are different inflation / deflation forces at work that many assume are the same but are actually quite different. There is "monetary" inflation / deflation and there is a very different "price" inflation / deflation. This is evident when you see US mints "selling" face value coinage at far different "prices" than the stamped denomination.
The US "dollar" has benefitted greatly by having it's historic definition tied to an intrinsically valuable circulating coinage and strong commitment to the rule of law, i.e. voluntary compliance to the Constitution which is currently under assault. And contrary to your belief that trust has nothing to do with economic stability, the reason other nations valued US presence in their respective economies was due to our previously dependable self reliance and reward of persons willing to sacrifice for their loved ones.
We are undergoing severe difficulties due to our increasing dependancy on titles, degrees, things and systems, none of which can take the place of caring and loving family and friends. Coinage is reflective of the trust and not the other way around. The more trustworthy the society, the more intrinsically valuable the circulating coinage. I doubt the US will ever have a truly circulating gold or silver coinage currency due to our inability to live trustworthily. Our current debased coinage is merely reflecting our debasement as a society. imo.
"...under the gold standard America had no major financial panics other than in 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1907, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933...."
Most under McKinley's [reserve] gold standard. The bimetallic standard was a bit more stable, but had its issues, too. Neither of them allowed for a shadow banking derivative bubble 20x the world's GDP.
My favorite one that Paulie don't answer - WHY were there panics when we were on the gold 'standard'? He'll never admit it was scrip (bank notes) issued by the banks far in excess of the gold they held IN EVERY CASE that caused consumers (including other banks and investors) to lose faith in the bank's ability to repay their FIAT BANK NOTES which were redeemable (in theory) in gold.
Go ahread Paulie. Cite me ONE case where this was not true. Not using your feeble rhetoric, using VERIFIABLE facts.
The evidence is here:
http://www.gold-speculator.com/attachments/paco-ahlgren/1628d1237753565-dow-dollar-gold-parity-what-does-mean-value-investors-200yrgraphdow-gold.gif
The only large-scale volatility began after the Federal Reserve and attack on the gold standard. All else was stable until then.
Absofuckinglutely !!!
Can I get an Amen on this? Freakin' property taxes... aarrgghh...
AND INCOME TAXES!!
http://www.truthattack.org/jml/index.php/law-library/what-is-income
.
Wait....you mean states aren't monetizing ButtCoin? But they're the same as Gold and Silver except that they're intangible! </sarc>
Eeeeeeewwwwwwwww. Buttcoin. Is that like Asscoin?
I have 2 AK-47s, 1 M-16 and lots of ammo. I can take anybody's gold for free!
I got a long bow, which pulls over 50 lbs. You'll not even hear the arrow coming ....
RIGHT ON!... also got one of those very handy Swiss Twinbow II Compound Crossbows which i bought a few years ago,set me back a few $'s i tell ya... 400 fps and 100ft/lb kinetic energy....tis'silent and deadly especially with a broadhead attached.
Upvote for knowing what a bow really is ...
Bring it don't sing it, you little eigenvalue bitch.
Is that a semi-auto?
...gold for free?
Well, if that's what your life is worth...bud. Come on.
I have plenty of options to take you out but my preferred way will be to use my Barrett M107A1 .50 BMG. No mess around the house to clean up.
Ain't that very expensive to use?
You can try. But you'd better bring a lot of friends along with you, because you likely won't be facing just a single gold owner, you'll be facing his entire community...
A community which respects private ownership. Only liberals feel the need to steal from anyone.
The issue you would run into is that many physical gold holders also have firearms, and unlike you, actually know how to use those firearms. I ultimately agree with you that, as a citizen of a country, that country can ultimate force you to give up everything you have, but I would suggest that physical gold is among the hardest to find and attain. Consider other things that have already been in process of confiscation:
1. Brokerage accounts
2. Customer deposits at banks
3. Pension funds
4. "Tax havens"
So much easier to steal your shit if your shit is stored as 1's and 0's, which are in turn representations of "faith" and "credit" in the country you are holding your wealth with.
With the difference being that gold can be purchased right now, at any one of hundreds of stores and or sites.
Not so much with the ammo.
Shelves empty for over two month now.
If you cannot buy it... its priceless.
5.56 is platnium, then.
I wonder if I can get a pack of Lucky's for 20 rounds of .22LR. I don't smoke but this will turn to Depression era with the Chicago Muslim and Ben Shalom.
Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the guns....makes the rules.
He who has the guns...gets the gold.
Surely you mean: He who has the scuba gear... gets the gold.
long salvage
glub glub
glub glub
charleeeeeee !! SWIM AWAY FUGU FISH, SWIM AWAY!
As long as you have loaded guns......There's two kinds of people-those with loaded guns,and those that dig.You dig.
What are the 12 states? I am seceding from Connecticut in 3 months. I hardly believe that this fucking dying state would be so smart. I hope this whole state goes belly up and if they stay on this path, IT WILL.