The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

[Fiat Currency]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

So why is it that Greenspan at the age of 84 is still saying what he's paid to? Now that he's a consultant to Paulson - who holds gold - he now is back to talking about how everything he used to do was bad.

IMO, you are giving the man too much credit. He's a just a whore.

Personally I think he was a great mind, that had all the right stuff. In the end he fell for the power, wealth, glory, and greed of the oligarch's system - just as some people fall into drugs or other bad things unintentionally. So in the end you are right - he became a whore for FIRE. Most people also forget that he was a champion for the deregulation of derivatives - which still has to play out.

I don't think he intended to though - almost like how John Daly struggles with alcohol.

[gnk]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

Again you deliberately ignore actual history in service to your view that a gold standard somehow promotes liberty.

There were tyrants throughout recorded human history under the gold standard, and there can still be tyranny under the gold standard. In fact, the independence of the United States was from a nation which operated under the gold standard - and the cause wasn't the form of the currency, it was taxation without representation. In other words, bad government.

Furthermore it is not that going off the gold standard caused the wars.

The gold standard diminution was an effect. Going off gold was a tool much as QE is a tool with fiat.

Simply wishing it weren't so isn't going to make it so.

So while I continue to understand where you are coming from - your arguments will continue to fail so long as these myriad counterexamples cannot be adequately explained.

I was going to let this thread go, but I need to respond here.

But I should have chosen my words better... what I meant to say was leaving gold per se does not cause wars, it makes them more possible. e.g. a war is decided upon before the monetary change, the monetary change facilitates the war.

In a gold backed system, a country's spending is restricted. That's why often the European powers would leave the gold standard temporarily - to prosecute a war, or to pay back the debts post bellum incurred by war. i.e. to stealthily tax their populations thru inflation. Same with Rome.

The US pre revolution was not a sovereign nation, it was a colony whose existence was solely for the benefit of the mother country. Maunfacturing in the American colonies was severly restricted - the Americans colonies existed to feed England cheap raw goods. Your example is irrelevant without mentioning this.

As for China - I do not need to belabor the point. I find it to be an obvious policy... my links and references stand on their own.

So again, why does a Chinese bank offering bullion sales - as do banks in Europe and Russia and likely elsewhere - make for a new Chinese philosophy?

The dollar (debt based) international paper standard is collapsing. The rest of the world knows this, apparently, you do not.

As for Greenspan, his arguments in that essay have been used by John Exter, Antal Fekete, and a host of others at the Mises Institute, as well as other economists and political thinkers. I post the essay because it not only contains conclusions, but historical examples. The same thoughts have been said by many others. Greenspan's authorship does not change the philosophy contained in the essay - or the economic conclusions. Sorry, but to me, you seem intellectually stubborn to dismiss an article based on authorship alone.

Do you disbelieve everything Greenspan says? What if his opinion is that water is wet, the sky is blue, and democracy is the best form of government? Would that make you change your mind because you cannot agree with Greenspan?

[c1ue]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

Personally I think he was a great mind, that had all the right stuff. In the end he fell for the power, wealth, glory, and greed of the oligarch's system - just as some people fall into drugs or other bad things unintentionally. So in the end you are right - he became a whore for FIRE. Most people also forget that he was a champion for the deregulation of derivatives - which still has to play out.

I don't think he intended to though - almost like how John Daly struggles with alcohol.

I've never said Greenspan was stupid, merely that he is corrupt.

His history as a paid mouth would discredit the possibility that he became corrupted only recently. His continuing behavior reduces that possibility even further.

I was going to let this thread go, but I need to respond here.

But I should have chosen my words better... what I meant to say was leaving gold per se does not cause wars, it makes them more possible. e.g. a war is decided upon before the monetary change, the monetary change facilitates the war.

And yet you've still not responded to my view that it is credit creation - not the 'hardness' or 'softness' of a currency which is the ultimate point.

Having and enforcing regulations against reckless credit creation would do far more than having a gold-backed currency.

As I've repeatedly shown, borrowing for wars occurred both with and without gold-backed currency.

In a gold backed system, a country's spending is restricted. That's why often the European powers would leave the gold standard temporarily - to prosecute a war, or to pay back the debts post bellum incurred by war. i.e. to stealthily tax their populations thru inflation. Same with Rome.

A country's spending is only restricted IF IT CHOOSES TO BE. A sovereign nation can borrow hard currency just as much as it can create fiat money - the only difference is that the peasants are then directly squeezed militarily to repay the loans vs. indirectly squeezed via inflation. Review some of the economic history in the Middle Ages, in the Italian city states, etc etc; there are numerous examples as counterpoint.

The US pre revolution was not a sovereign nation, it was a colony whose existence was solely for the benefit of the mother country. Maunfacturing in the American colonies was severly restricted - the Americans colonies existed to feed England cheap raw goods. Your example is irrelevant without mentioning this.

And the US citizenry is equally not sovereign.

They can equally be viewed as a resource whose existence is solely for the benefit of the US government.

The abuse of the American (and other) colonies to fortify England's economy was a governance issue just as limiting credit creation is a governance issue.

I repeat: a gold backed currency neither fixes an existing governance issue nor prevents one from occurring.

You've also not spoken at all to my other point: that a 'hard' currency also has its bad points. The artificial limitation of gold upon money creation - even if it were followed in practice as you believe it should be in theory - would similarly limit economic progress.

The population increases; productivity increases; technology is introduced. All of these require changes in finance because a unit of labor today does NOT yield the same as a unit of labor in 1800.

Do you disbelieve everything Greenspan says? What if his opinion is that water is wet, the sky is blue, and democracy is the best form of government? Would that make you change your mind because you cannot agree with Greenspan?

I disbelieve everything he says because whatever he says, he was paid to.

Show me something he has written which is truly original. Maybe then I'd change my mind.

The only value in paying attention to someone who flatters existing beliefs is ego fortification - and that has no value for me.

[gnk]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

And yet you've still not responded to my view that it is credit creation - not the 'hardness' or 'softness' of a currency which is the ultimate point.

Re: War Financing - Absolutely. Credit creation is a necessity. But I prefer my government to face as many hurdles to this as possible. That's been my point. The first hurdle? A gold standard. Which is easier for a country, as a starting point? Fiat or Gold? Let's have gold and the government at least is bound by an extra pair of handcuffs it needs to pick. A government with a debt-based fiat standard is a violent, licensed thief from the get go.

My hope is that one day, as resource depletion changes how we view the economic permagrowth fantasy, that the world is on a gold standard. And from that point on, when a nation leaves that standard - its population and other nations become legitimately alarmed. Because long term, nothing good comes of it.

For your reading pleasure, here's another "gold bug" that worked in the Federal Reserve System, yet has always been a vocal proponent of gold:

John Exter

(his timing was off... but very prescient nonetheless. Ever heard of Exter's Pyramid? This is the guy. Too bad he's not alive to witness the historic changes taking place.)

http://the-moneychanger.com/articles...my/exter.phtml

And mark my words... gold will attain a new role, or rather, regain its old role. Much, much sooner than you think. You know why? It ALWAYS returns. Always has, always will.

-gnk

[medved]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

My hope is that one day, as resource depletion changes how we view the economic permagrowth fantasy, that the world is on a gold standard. And from that point on, when a nation leaves that standard - its population and other nations become legitimately alarmed. Because long term, nothing good comes of it.

That is because the printing presses are run by the greedy capitalists. If we replace them by smart and honest gov't officials, everything will be wonderful, and nobody will ever need gold anymore.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

I disbelieve everything he says because whatever he says, he was paid to.

"Disbelieve" has two meanings: to doubt the truth of, and to reject as false.

I suspect you doubt the truth of whatever Greenspan says, because (in your view and I tend to agree) he's a paid shill.

I doubt you reject all he says as ipso facto false, just because he said it.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

We were informed the zerohedge does not permit itulip.com links and has not for some time.

Well, it took me a week, as Zerohedge only gets around to authorizing new member requests every few days or so ... But:

Zerohedge allows iTulip links.

See for example an iTulip link I just added to an old xPat post, at: http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/debun...comment-437966

[c1ue]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

"Disbelieve" has two meanings: to doubt the truth of, and to reject as false.

I suspect you doubt the truth of whatever Greenspan says, because (in your view and I tend to agree) he's a paid shill.

I doubt you reject all he says as ipso facto false, just because he said it.

You got it Mooster.

I was merely allowing GNK the noose to hang his beliefs from.

In my view, there is no such thing as absolute truth. Truth is contextual - and something that sounds true coming from a liar must be treated differently than something that sounds false coming from an honest person.

Again, I have nothing against gold ownership per se - merely pointing out that those who push gold ALSO may have an ulterior motive.

[vinoveri]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

In my view, there is no such thing as absolute truth.

clue, I'm aghast; you are one of the last folks on this forum I would expect such a statement from - say it ain't so.

w/o absolute truth I suggest then that all the dialog, dialectic and diatribe are for nought and in vain lest the purpose is mere persuasion to one's own personal advantage or cause (versus the search for Truth) ... in which case ... we are all corrupt... oh dear.

[c1ue]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

clue, I'm aghast; you are one of the last folks on this forum I would expect such a statement from - say it ain't so.

The next sentence is that truth exists - but only in context.

We're not talking about facts. Facts are facts.

Truth as in "TRUTH" in a belief system cannot be universally applicable.

You'll note that I have never been one of those who says that 'this' or 'that' is the way things should be or must be.

And the fact is we are all corrupt to our own advantage in some way.

Self interest is endemic to the human condition - only by actively striving to avoid this self-interest that hopefully some objectivity can be realized.

[sishya]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

Yes, ZeroHedge is like a "drudgereport" for finance, but you can't make investment decisions based on that because the news is already out.
Actually you would be better of taking the opposite side of "zerohedge's" position. But they are long Gold- don't know since when ?

[gnk]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

The next sentence is that truth exists - but only in context.

We're not talking about facts. Facts are facts.

Truth as in "TRUTH" in a belief system cannot be universally applicable.

You'll note that I have never been one of those who says that 'this' or 'that' is the way things should be or must be.

And the fact is we are all corrupt to our own advantage in some way.

Self interest is endemic to the human condition - only by actively striving to avoid this self-interest that hopefully some objectivity can be realized.

You want to see truth? Here's some "truth":

Wall Street Banksters are lying crooks that possess a high degree of political influence, and thus, have made the economic system unfair.

Now go and tell me how we can measure this "truth" or "fact," or is it a "belief?"

Should we fight this system? Or should we be wishy-washy and play Hamlet? Or do I have an ulterior motive in stating the above?

[vinoveri]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

And the fact is we are all corrupt to our own advantage in some way.

Self interest is endemic to the human condition - only by actively striving to avoid this self-interest that hopefully some objectivity can be realized.

I agree with the first point ... notwithstanding the observation that if one sincerely "wills the good of another" to the extent of suffering for the good of that other, then one's self-interest in doing what one wills (the good of the other), would imply corruption (perhaps it is unwanted, and meddlesome nonetheless).

On the second point, actively striving to avoid self-interest would be contrary to our very nature, and I would suggest folly. Perhaps truth reveals (religion, game theory, etc) that our self interests are intertwined and cannot be divorced (i'm not talking about buying and selling stocks as you can tell). Lying is contrary to the self interest of all (including the liar) although it may result in desires being fulfilled and pain being avoided. If there is no absolute Truth, there is no reason not to lie (other than to avoid social or criminal penalties when caught).

[FRED]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

Well, it took me a week, as Zerohedge only gets around to authorizing new member requests every few days or so ... But:

Zerohedge allows iTulip links.

See for example an iTulip link I just added to an old xPat post, at: http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/debun...comment-437966

Either they removed the redirect or we were misinformed. Either way, thanks for letting us know. Zerohedge is once again on our friends list.

[c1ue]

Re: The G20 and Gold... and how it could really unravel

Now go and tell me how we can measure this "truth" or "fact," or is it a "belief?"

If you are a bankster, you don't consider lying, cheating, or buying influence in any way unfair.

After all, anyone can do the same.

If you're one of the bought politicians, you may or may not believe you are bought. I would not be the least bit surprised that some politicians believe they are actually doing to most good for their constituents.

So clearly the statement is different for different people.

As for fighting the system - what exactly should be fought? The 'free market' does not enshrine not telling lies, it doesn't enshrine playing fair, nor does it reward good intentions per se.

The egregious behavior of the banksters is merely one expression of a society in which money is the paramount virtue. But even this behavior wouldn't matter without the complicity of society - after all, banksters existed long before this era.

On the second point, actively striving to avoid self-interest would be contrary to our very nature, and I would suggest folly. Perhaps truth reveals (religion, game theory, etc) that our self interests are intertwined and cannot be divorced (i'm not talking about buying and selling stocks as you can tell). Lying is contrary to the self interest of all (including the liar) although it may result in desires being fulfilled and pain being avoided. If there is no absolute Truth, there is no reason not to lie (other than to avoid social or criminal penalties when caught).

Not all self-interest is destructive, but neither again is all altruism good. As I've noted before - too much self-interest yields Somalia while too much altruism yields ant-dom.

As for lying - again I do not agree that it is universally bad.

Is it better to be truthful and hurtful? Or a liar and considerate?

There is no single simple answer. That's why for me it is vital to understand what my true motivation is - is it because I want something for myself, or because I want to deny something which benefits someone else more?

As for lying being against the interest of everyone - I don't agree.

In reality, lying is only bad if too many people do it.

Human society requires some level of trust to function, but below the level of lying at which said trust is lost - lying is of great benefit for those who do it.

I personally don't like to lie, but simultaneously I see lies all around me: lies of omission, lies of distraction, lies of self-promotion, etc etc.

Being totally honest just makes everyone think you're an a**hole.