Why would anyone want gold standard?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

please define "long term" ?

Lets go with a lifetime. So 70-80 years.

in the real long term it will outperform ANY paper "asset", ie you will GET a return on digging it up off the seabed several hundred years later. medieval or Roman bondholders etc.. not so much.

I have no interest in the value of my Coca-Cola*** stock certificate in 3000 years.


***I used Coca-Cola as an example. I may or may not own shares.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

IMO the next 2 decades will bring many things the world has never seen before, along with plenty that we have...

I agree.

Just like the previous 2 decades, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that, and the 2 decades before that...

 

[kevsta]

Of course it can, in fact 99% of the current value of gold is artificial.

could you share the arithmetic or reasoning from which you derive this figure?

also any previous examples of physical gold failing due to counterparty risk would be interesting too

"value" is subjective and ultimately decided by markets not us.

I would also think that combat pilots who ever had to use the gold coins supplied for accidental excursions behind enemy lines would think they're pretty valuable.

what I'm getting at here is that possibly the rest of the (non-civilised) world might not agree with you, and that the decision may get taken out of your hands at some point.

if you think this is all complete nonsense maybe you should ask yourself why the Pentagon have now started conducting Financial Warfare simulations.

in the first simulation, the USA lost, China won, by launching a gold backed currency with Russia, and demanding all payment for their resources in it.

game over USA. it wouldnt much matter what Bernanke & Keynes thought about it all then.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

if you think this is all complete nonsense maybe you should ask yourself why the Pentagon have now started conducting Financial Warfare simulations.

in the first simulation, the USA lost, China won, by launching a gold backed currency with Russia, and demanding all payment for their resources in it.

Yes, but I heard we won the second simulation by forcing the Chinese computer to play tic-tac-toe.

 

[WildCat]

could you share the arithmetic or reasoning from which you derive this figure?

Sure: Utility of gold: 1% of its value.
Artificial value: 99%.

also any previous examples of physical gold failing due to counterparty risk would be interesting too

What was the price of gold in 2000?

"value" is subjective and ultimately decided by markets not us.

Just like fiat money! Only far less convenient.

I would also think that combat pilots who ever had to use the gold coins supplied for accidental excursions behind enemy lines would think they're pretty valuable.

what I'm getting at here is that possibly the rest of the (non-civilised) world might not agree with you, and that the decision may get taken out of your hands at some point.

This will happen right after Bush et al get hung for packing the WTC with thermite, yes?

if you think this is all complete nonsense maybe you should ask yourself why the Pentagon have now started conducting Financial Warfare simulations.

Maybe you could explain what such a thing has to do with a gold standard.

in the first simulation, the USA lost, China won, by launching a gold backed currency with Russia, and demanding all payment for their resources in it.

And yet neither Russia or China are gong to a gold standard.

game over USA. it wouldnt much matter what Bernanke & Keynes thought about it all then.

Argument by fantasy?

 

[kevsta]

this is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen written in here.

I am however super impressed by your knowledge in advance of what the future brings

thanks for the belly laughs, but none of that deserves a serious response.

 

[WildCat]

this is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen written in here.

I am however super impressed by your knowledge in advance of what the future brings

thanks for the belly laughs, but none of that deserves a serious response.

Feel free to come back when you have a clue.

 

[kevsta]

Lets go with a lifetime. So 70-80 years.

I have no interest in the value of my Coca-Cola*** stock certificate in 3000 years.

***I used Coca-Cola as an example. I may or may not own shares.

so price in 1930 $20.65 http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf

current price < $1800 ish = 8700% ish?

but then we have to factor in the 98% debasement of the medium.

so if it isnt as good an investment as Coca Cola, its much better money than the $.

how did Coke pan out over the period?

and then can we look at comparative performances over the last decade please?

 

[kevsta]

could I ask you kind people to watch this video from Bloomberg news yesterday?

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/79944740/

do you think Jim Rickards is delusional? just trying to sell his book? doesn't know what he's talking about? I would be interested in your thoughts, whatever they may be.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

so price in 1930 $20.65 http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf

current price < $1800 ish = 8700% ish?

but then we have to factor in the 98% debasement of the medium.

so if it isnt as good an investment as Coca Cola, its much better money than the $.

how did Coke pan out over the period?

and then can we look at comparative performances over the last decade please?

Wow, that's impressive! Check out the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans. How come gold bugs aren't clustered at the top? How come there are no gold bugs on the list, period? Surely they should be the wealthiest.

 

[kevsta]

lol. and you don't think the ponzi masters have good amounts of it tucked away?

edit http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Steve-Forbes-Gold-Standard/2011/05/11/id/395949

is that the same Forbes?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

lol. and you don't think the ponzi masters have good amounts of it tucked away?

edit http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Steve-Forbes-Gold-Standard/2011/05/11/id/395949

is that the same Forbes?

How come he's not at the top of his own list?

Who are the "ponzi masters"? Is this an Earth-based group?

 

[kevsta]

the people who have managed to profit most from the design of the current system.

they are stacked, vaulted and guarded, you can be sure of that.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

the people who have managed to profit most from the design of the current system.

they are stacked, vaulted and guarded, you can be sure of that.

Oh, the Jews. Why didn't you say that? "Ponzi masters" just causes confusion.

 

[kevsta]

Oh, the Jews. Why didn't you say that? "Ponzi masters" just causes confusion.

can you people stop attempting to put words in my mouth please? if you knew me you would understand how utterly lame that is.

your list throws up a couple of examples of people I would consider ponzi masters, Soros at 7 and Paulson at 17.

They are not profiting by being part of the institution (although many in banking are) but by having an even better understanding of the system (at times anyway) than the establishment side, and knowing how to exploit central planning weakness before the market does the inevitable.

incidentally speaking of value, Gold is also possibly more valuable to Paulson than to most right now too as its just about the only position they have that isn't massively underwater isn't it?

Eric Sprott is #41 in Canada, does that count?

where are you going with this? did you watch the bloomberg video?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

did you watch the bloomberg video?

No. I'm busy organizing my sock drawer.

 

[kevsta]

: / nobody even clicks links do they?

too many here just troll away with nonsense tangential sniping, ignoring anything anyone links to, because there's never any counter to anything, just more lame sniping.

Is Bloomberg run by conspiracy theorists? do you think the Pentagon would pick someone with no idea what he is talking about (Rickards) to take part in that? If he did indeed have no idea what he was talking about, was it a lucky "win" ?

Rickards has been through all of this collapse stuff before, from the inside with the Saving and Loans crisis. he is knowledgeable and treated as very credible by the financial media generally, even with the things he says.

Are you really so sure that you know better than he does what might be coming?

all I am doing is taking the side of why we might want to think about a gold standard as per OP.

seriously if you're not interested in discussing just don't answer, or do I have to put you on ignore too?

or are you actually reading them all and deciding actually you don't know how to answer that and so that's why this, well basically just trolling really?

 

[commandlinegamer]

No. I'm busy organizing my sock drawer.

[Thinks]

Maybe we should adopt a sock standard?

No-one ever runs out of socks. Odd-ones appear but I'm sure that's the result of their secret breeding rituals.

Different colours might represent different currencies and if you need to devalue you just swap silk ones for cotton.

The only downside is moth-based depreciation.

 

[Cavemonster]

: / nobody even clicks links do they?

too many here just troll away with nonsense tangential sniping, ignoring anything anyone links to, because there's never any counter to anything, just more lame sniping.

Is Bloomberg run by conspiracy theorists? do you think the Pentagon would pick someone with no idea what he is talking about (Rickards) to take part in that? If he did indeed have no idea what he was talking about, was it a lucky "win" ?

Rickards has been through all of this collapse stuff before, from the inside with the Saving and Loans crisis. he is knowledgeable and treated as very credible by the financial media generally, even with the things he says.

Are you really so sure that you know better than he does what might be coming?

all I am doing is taking the side of why we might want to think about a gold standard as per OP.

seriously if you're not interested in discussing just don't answer, or do I have to put you on ignore too?

or are you actually reading them all and deciding actually you don't know how to answer that and so that's why this, well basically just trolling really?

Generally it's good manners when asking people to take the time to watch a video, to be clear and specific about the contents of the video, how it supports your case, and why you are asking them to sit through a video instead of writing the points made yourself and allowing others to digest them more easily.

This is especially true when you enter an argument by making and defending something silly like an appeal to tradition.

Your argument with the video seems to be an appeal to authority and a shrugging off of the burden of proof, asking us to prove why Rickards is wrong.

do you think Jim Rickards is delusional? just trying to sell his book? doesn't know what he's talking about? I would be interested in your thoughts, whatever they may be.

You can point to Ronald Reagan, one time leader of the free world who happened to be a Christian and consult astrologers. In a discussion of the validity of Christianity or astrology, linking to a video of Reagan and asking us if we thought he was delusional would be the same kind of red herring appeal.

Either the facts stand up, or they don't. If you want to make a case that certain informed authorities support your view and their opinion should be taken seriously, then make that point. Don't half-assedly suggest it with a link and a JAQ.

 

[kevsta]

Generally it's good manners when asking people to take the time to watch a video, to be clear and specific about the contents of the video, how it supports your case, and why you are asking them to sit through a video instead of writing the points made yourself and allowing others to digest them more easily.

This is especially true when you enter an argument by making and defending something silly like an appeal to tradition.

Your argument with the video seems to be an appeal to authority and a shrugging off of the burden of proof, asking us to prove why Rickards is wrong.

You can point to Ronald Reagan, one time leader of the free world who happened to be a Christian and consult astrologers. In a discussion of the validity of Christianity or astrology, linking to a video of Reagan and asking us if we thought he was delusional would be the same kind of red herring appeal.

Either the facts stand up, or they don't. If you want to make a case that certain informed authorities support your view and their opinion should be taken seriously, then make that point. Don't half-assedly suggest it with a link and a JAQ.

ok, thank you for explaining that. I would have thought that anybody in here responding to posts on the topic would be interested enough to watch to understand the arguments they are attempting to oppose a bit better, but clearly not.

I'm waiting for delivery of Rickards book and will revisit this once I have exactly what you ask for.