The case against Dr. Paul

[dash]

Or these coins, available...not too many places now.

Yeah, that's an interesting reminder. The Liberty Dollars. Also the copper ones. It was an attempt to create an alternative currency to Federal Reserve Notes. But the Federal Government got wise to it -- can't have any competition. So the place was raided and all the metal backing the notes was confiscated. I haven't heard of any updates on the story.
All this was done for our "protection".

Here's my blog entry:

http://dashxdr.blogspot.com/2007/11/us-commits-act-of-terrorism.html

One thing I didn't like was the markup. I think the one ounce notes cost $20 when sliver was $15 per ounce. A bit high. American Eagle Silver Dollars are only around $2 over spot price. I've got some of them. That's real money, not IOU Nothings. My investment is already up 20% since late October...Only the beginning.

-Dave

 

[CaptainManacles]

Yeah, that's an interesting reminder. The Liberty Dollars. Also the copper ones. It was an attempt to create an alternative currency to Federal Reserve Notes. But the Federal Government got wise to it -- can't have any competition. So the place was raided and all the metal backing the notes was confiscated. I haven't heard of any updates on the story.
All this was done for our "protection".

Here's my blog entry:

http://dashxdr.blogspot.com/2007/11/us-commits-act-of-terrorism.html

One thing I didn't like was the markup. I think the one ounce notes cost $20 when sliver was $15 per ounce. A bit high. American Eagle Silver Dollars are only around $2 over spot price. I've got some of them. That's real money, not IOU Nothings. My investment is already up 20% since late October...Only the beginning.

-Dave

They got raided because they tried to pass them off as US currency. "This is a note worth US 20 dollars" is a problematic claim, especially when you refuse to back it with anything worth 20 dollars. Notice that disney dollars are not confiscaded, or anything along those lines. Critical thinking is fun. Try is sometime.

 

[WildCat]

WildCat -- congratulations. You just graduated to my ignore list.

Damn, just when I thought you would be the first gold-standard backer to answer that question!

If you're going to post someone saying that China and Russia were about to start backing their curreency with gold and silver it would be much more credible if you actually showed an official Russian or Chinese source backing up the claim. When it's just some paranoid crackpot making the claim without any evidence at all it's, well, woo.

 

[Suddenly]

Congrats Wildcat!!!

It looks like the Captain might be next to join the list of the chosen, having just read my mind and all...

 

[CaptainManacles]

WildCat -- congratulations. You just graduated to my ignore list. See signature below. Reason: You don't listen to explanations, and you don't refute arguments. I explained how the amount of precious metal is irrelevant, it can back any amount of fiat currency. Read prior posts. At least I give you credit for being more polite. But I don't have infinite time to waste on people who refuse to open their eyes. I'm tired, also, of you saying everything I post is "woo". Bye and I wish all the best for you.

-Dave

It can back the currency, but not without shrinking the economy, which is what he said. A dollar would have to be backed by 2 cents of metal, for example.

 

[dash]

It can back the currency, but not without shrinking the economy, which is what he said. A dollar would have to be backed by 2 cents of metal, for example.

Yep. There is no soft landing. I mean, the distribution of dollars that exists will not automatically translate into the future. Here today, gone tomorrow.

However it's important to note the US dollar can't be backed by gold without such a drastic devaluation. It won't happen overnight. It will happen when the run on gold starts. It might even overshoot! When gold is selling at $40,000 per ounce, us gold bugs will then be selling our gold to the latecomers and buying the stock market, which will have plummeted. We can buy stocks for pennies on the dollar. Buy low, sell high.

There's a common term "Sheeple" used to describe the unaware 99% that believes everything they're spoon fed by the corporate owned media. Then there's the 1% that investigates and has a chance at understanding. Some fraction of this 1% will make out like bandits during the coming economic storm. Wealth is flowing back to where it's most productive. It always happens eventually. It's a good thing, really.

-Dave

 

[Spindrift]

Yep. There is no soft landing. I mean, the distribution of dollars that exists will not automatically translate into the future. Here today, gone tomorrow.

However it's important to note the US dollar can't be backed by gold without such a drastic devaluation. It won't happen overnight. It will happen when the run on gold starts. It might even overshoot! When gold is selling at $40,000 per ounce, us gold bugs will then be selling our gold to the latecomers and buying the stock market, which will have plummeted. We can buy stocks for pennies on the dollar. Buy low, sell high.

There's a common term "Sheeple" used to describe the unaware 99% that believes everything they're spoon fed by the corporate owned media. Then there's the 1% that investigates and has a chance at understanding. Some fraction of this 1% will make out like bandits during the coming economic storm. Wealth is flowing back to where it's most productive. It always happens eventually. It's a good thing, really.

-Dave

This is just a guess, but did you stock up for the year 2000 crash?

 

[David Wong]

Let's use your numbers. $235 billion in gold is 26.111 million ounces of gold, at $900 per ounce. If you want those 26.111 million ounces of gold to back 13 trillion dollars, that works out to $497,874 per ounce. Actually that's way too high, I don't think there are $13 trillion dollars in circulation, that's the yearly GDP I think you're referring to. I think in actual currency it's in the order of hundreds of billions of dollars of actual paper money. It's on the order of $50,000 per ounce as I recall, if you were to back all the dollars in circulation by gold.

Hey, I missed this from earlier.

So you only need enough gold to back the actual paper dollars in circulation? Am I understanding that correctly?

 

[WildCat]

When gold is selling at $40,000 per ounce

 

[David Wong]

Dash, I actually own several ounces of gold. Would you buy it from me for, say, $5,000 an ounce right now? Knowing that you'll be able to make your money back tenfold in a few years?

 

[dash]

This is just a guess, but did you stock up for the year 2000 crash?

Just a bunch of 1 gallon milk bottles of water.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9929&stc=1&d=1201909508

Keep in mind those bottles were all full of water when this picture was taken. So don't mess with me.

-Dave

 

[dash]

Hey, I missed this from earlier.

So you only need enough gold to back the actual paper dollars in circulation? Am I understanding that correctly?

Don't ask me. Look at the original poster's point.

-Dave

 

[Suddenly]

Jeez... I need to keep my wedding ring just in case I can buy a new beamer with it when the sorry people take over.

This is the worst get rich quick scheme I've ever heard. A bunch of people buy up gold, then try to get the world to use it as currency, thus spiking its value to an insane degree. The goldies buying it up now would rule the world...

It sounds like a bad Pinky and the Brain episode...

 

[dash]

Dash, I actually own several ounces of gold. Would you buy it from me for, say, $5,000 an ounce right now? Knowing that you'll be able to make your money back tenfold in a few years?

What part of "Buy low, sell high" are you not understanding?

-Dave

 

[Corsair 115]

Of course it's a failure. The US hasn't finished capturing middle eastern oil.

You're going to have to define "capture." Do Saudi Arabia and Kuwait qualify as "captured"?

The point is capturing middle eastern oil means the US can control the rest of the world's access to oil.

Except for those countries which are, or subsequently get, their oil from other petroleum-producing nations.

Introducing "oil sands" is obfuscation. We're speaking of crude oil. "Oil sands" exploitation is not economic yet.

It most certainly is economically viable. Much of the rise in Alberta's oil production is due to tar sands production coming online. Indeed, with oil at $90-$100 per barrel levels, the economy of Alberta is booming as it can't increase its oil production fast enough to meet demand.

That's not to say there aren't major infrastructure problems in bringing more of the tar sands production online, there certainly are, but really, the U.S. would have been much better served by investing the billions of dollars in Alberta rather than in an alleged military effort to conquer the oil-producing nations of the Persian Gulf area.

And Canada is more than happy to sell oil to the United States. Indeed, under the terms of NAFTA, the U.S. has some energy security in that regard.

 

[dudalb]

If Gold reaches $40,000 dollars an ounce,the economy will have reached such a point of total collapse that guns,ammo,and MRE's would be a lot more useful then a supply of precious metals.

There's a common term "Sheeple" used to describe the unaware 99% that believes everything they're spoon fed by the corporate owned media. Then there's the 1% that investigates and has a chance at understanding. Some fraction of this 1% will make out like bandits during the coming economic storm. Wealth is flowing back to where it's most productive. It always happens eventually. It's a good thing, really.

Now he sound like one of Ayn Rand's "heros" in "Atlas Shrugged".
Once again, his total disregard for human suffering as long he makes a few bucks is truly scary.
And Sheeple is a term we at JREF are very used to seeing, and for most of us it is a red flag that we are dealing with a kook.

 

[dash]

Dash, I actually own several ounces of gold. Would you buy it from me for, say, $5,000 an ounce right now? Knowing that you'll be able to make your money back tenfold in a few years?

David Wong -- you said you ignored me over in the other thread. When I saw your post I had a feeling something was odd...that was it. SO! You didn't actually ignore me. Thanks! So you wanna respond to my response over there?

-Dave

 

[dash]

You're going to have to define "capture." Do Saudi Arabia and Kuwait qualify as "captured"?

Except for those countries which are, or subsequently get, their oil from other petroleum-producing nations.

It most certainly is economically viable. Much of the rise in Alberta's oil production is due to tar sands production coming online. Indeed, with oil at $90-$100 per barrel levels, the economy of Alberta is booming as it can't increase its oil production fast enough to meet demand.

That's not to say there aren't major infrastructure problems in bringing more of the tar sands production online, there certainly are, but really, the U.S. would have been much better served by investing the billions of dollars in Alberta rather than in an alleged military effort to conquer the oil-producing nations of the Persian Gulf area.

And Canada is more than happy to sell oil to the United States. Indeed, under the terms of NAFTA, the U.S. has some energy security in that regard.

Capture = effectively bowing to US will in terms of monetary policy. We prop up unpopular government if they promise to kow-tow to whatever we want. We supply them with arms to keep their population in line. If the government there were not unpopular, they wouldn't need our help to prevent revolution. Quite a trick, eh? Those pesky CIA operations... NOTE: This is just my speculation, don't ask me to back it up.

Tar sands: It's been like a year since I heard about it. I don't follow that area. I'll accept your summary at face value.

I keep trying to make this point -- the US isn't so much concerned with its own access to oil. The US is trying to control other nations' access to oil. It's tacitly understood that Canada, in our own back yard, can be muscled not to provide oil to rogue nations. I mean the ones that don't want to have to acquire US dollars in order to be able to purchase oil on the global markets. Cheney wants us to control Middle East oil because if we can do that the dollar can (hopefully) remain strong, and continue being the world's reserve currency, and we can go on living high on the hog.

Going into Iraq was Bush's wet dream since day 1, but what sped it up was Saddam was making overtures to price Iraqi oil in Euros (as I understand it) instead of dollars. Taking Saddam out was done as a warning to the rest of the region -- Thou shalt not sell thy oil for naught but dollars! Iran -- same story. They don't have nukes, aren't gonna get nukes, aren't a threat.

The whole region knows if they can provoke the US into overextending its military, our economy will collapse into the debt black hole that we're in. It's brilliant, actually.

-Dave

 

[WildCat]

It most certainly is economically viable. Much of the rise in Alberta's oil production is due to tar sands production coming online. Indeed, with oil at $90-$100 per barrel levels, the economy of Alberta is booming as it can't increase its oil production fast enough to meet demand.

I'm just happy those oil sands are in Alberta instead of the US. If they were in the US the environmentalists would never let us mine them!

 

[Suddenly]

Don't worry. When we start full blown coal liquidation West Virginia will make Alberta look like the Green Party is in charge...