The Gold Standard

[searcher]

Nothing to see unless you want to watch Rudy move from one end of the sofa to the other. Better to listen in one tab, play around the forum in a different tab.

The War on Gold and Individual Freedom Intensifies​

Dec 9, 2024 #dollar #bitcoin #federalreserve


23:44

 

[Casey Jones]

Bitcoin ain't goin' to infinity unless someone helps it along. And if they do, it's probably preparation for a rug-pull.

Gold has never been worth nothing. It may be banned in trade, but such bans don't last. The commoners may be forbidden to own it - as with some tyrannies, they have been forbidden to own other wealth - but that doesn't mean there's not the demand for it.

There is no safe bet from tyranny and government oppression. If it happens, and you're targeted for looting, you will be looted or worse. But gold is going to be a safer item to hold, than code...dependent on that tyranny's technological infrastructure.

 

[Peter89]

You don't hold it, you don't own it.

I'm for bringing back sound money.

Our economy can't function exchanging pieces of metal.
Even during the gold standard your father didn't buy shoes using pieces of metal. It was paper backed by gold stored some place.
If you really want to bring back sound money you have to adapt how sound money (gold) is used to the economy you live in.

So either you want to touch and hold it or you want to bring it back as everyday currency.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.


You are confusing gold as investment with gold as currency.
When talking about investing in gold, you can use the "If you don't touch/hold it etc" saying. It makes sense.
But when talking about how to use gold in order to buy gasoline, you can't.
That saying doesn't make any sense, because if the only way to use gold as everyday currency is touching and holding it, then forget it.
In our economy this is not viable.

Gold backed digital currencies are not a way to invest in gold.
They are a way to use gold as everyday currency.
When talking about gold backed digital currencies, it doesn't make any sense to dismiss them using the "If you don't touch/hold it etc" argument.

 

[Casey Jones]

Our economy can't function exchanging pieces of metal.
Even during the gold standard your father didn't buy shoes using pieces of metal. It was paper backed by gold stored some place.

Oh?

What was this?

If you really want to bring back sound money you have to adapt how sound money (gold) is used to the economy you live in.

What is your suggestion?

I concede there's problems. But PAPER MONEY is, first, unconstitutional; second, up until Roosevelt's ban on gold ownership, only used in wartime or other stressed economic periods. Twentieth-Century paper currency was stated to be backed by silver.

I'd be open to such a consideration, but this idea of CTRL+PRNT money for whatever crackpot scheme the Mitch-McConnells of this world are fixated on at the moment...THAT HAS TO STOP.

 

[Peter89]

What was this?

I have no idea Casey. Is this a gold coin?
Did you parents pay shoes and groceries with gold or silver coins?
Well maybe they did, the USA of 100 years ago is a world far away from mine.
Did I make a bad example as always? : )

My point is a modern economy cannot function using coins and bars as currency.
Think of money transfers. Sending money becomes a nightmare when money is coins and bars.
Have fun paying with coins and bars at the gas station or at the restaurant.
Would you go on a journey bringing with you a pound of precious metal?

The currency during the gold standard in the USA was pieces of paper backed by gold.
Pieces of paper representing ownership of bullion stored some place.
Nobody dismissed that currency based on the "If you don't hold it..." argument.

What is your suggestion?

A gold backed currency of course.
After all we are all gold standard people here, right : )

A gold backed paper currency - like in the old gold standard - or a gold backed digital currency, you ask.
A gold backed digital currency of course, as our economy has evolved from the economy of 100 years ago. Our current economy cannot function without transactions in digital form.

 

[nickndfl]

I paid for lunch with a $1 bill and got silver change.

 

[Casey Jones]

I have no idea Casey. Is this a gold coin?

A Treasury-minted $20 gold coin.

Did you parents pay shoes and groceries with gold or silver coins?
Well maybe they did, the USA of 100 years ago is a world far away from mine.
Did I make a bad example as always? : )

Not to bust your chops...but, yeah. Not a good example.
No harm, no foul.

My parents were children when the world of FRB notes was introduced; when the Marxist Roosevelt banned gold ownership. Yes, my grandparents paid for things with gold and silver coins.

My point is a modern economy cannot function using coins and bars as currency.
Think of money transfers. Sending money becomes a nightmare when money is coins and bars.
Have fun paying with coins and bars at the gas station or at the restaurant.
Would you go on a journey bringing with you a pound of precious metal?

This is where personal checks/cheques came into play.

Demand deposits at the bank. Write a draft and pay a merchant who was satisfied you and your cheque were good.

For strangers...in the USA, we had a device called "Traveler's Checks." Basically, a bank or intermediary such as American Express Company, would hold your money, issue you a book of Traveler's Cheques in pre-printed denominations. You would countersign each as you cashed it locally. Typical breakdowns were $20. I've used them.

They were safe to the merchant - you wouldn't hold those cheques until you'd actually paid for them. If they were stolen, they could be replaced. If a merchant received a stolen cheque from a swindler, the issuing company would absorb the loss while the robbery was investigated by authorities.

Those are of course gone now; but there's nothing to keep us from returning.

The currency during the gold standard in the USA was pieces of paper backed by gold.
Pieces of paper representing ownership of bullion stored some place.
Nobody dismissed that currency based on the "If you don't hold it..." argument.

Only since the 1920s.

$20 gold coins were CURRENCY.

And $20 was a lot of money 120 years ago. It represented a laborer's monthly income. It would pay more than a month's rent; it would buy an expensive suit of clothes.

Same as what an ounce of gold ($2600-ish) today would buy.

There is no reason why we couldn't return to circulating gold currency.

A gold backed currency of course.
After all we are all gold standard people here, right : )

A gold backed paper currency - like in the old gold standard - or a gold backed digital currency, you ask.
A gold backed digital currency of course, as our economy has evolved from the economy of 100 years ago. Our current economy cannot function without transactions in digital form.

I am about out of patience with the Tourette's sufferers who keep repeating, "digital-currency, digital-currency....blockchain, blockchain...."

This was...WAS...an interesting idea. Of course, the lowest strata of man, got involved - to weaponize it, to turn it into a weapon for the Elites to TRACK and WATCH their lessers. Even before digital currency comes into common use.

So before it's even in practice, we see what they're striving for. To CONTROL our movement, our diets, our personal habits...and PREVENT ANY DEVIANCE, and ABSOLUTELY NO DISSENT.

It's well it came to this so fast - that we can see just how morally-bankrupt is our current Elite Leadership Class and what they are aiming for, that we can resist this latest transformation.

 

[Peter89]

but this idea of CTRL+PRNT money ...

I looked at my keyboard... I see the ctrl... but where TF is the prnt button
what keyboards do they have over there

 

[Casey Jones]

I looked at my keyboard... I see the ctrl... but where TF is the prnt button
what keyboards do they have over there

Okay, I'm busted.

I haven't owned a printer in 15 years. The few documents I actually need paper copies of, I take a flash drive over to FedExKinko's and print it off. Very cheap.

I got tired of throwing out a printer with dried ink that I maybe printed 15 pages off.

As to the PRNT button...I just looked at my year-old keyboard...it's not there!

USED to be, there was a PRNT or "print" button, along with the HOME and END. Often it was another key, assigned that function with SHFT pressed.

Gone now. I can't keep up with the changes, now.

Another reason I don't like the idea of crypto-tokens. What happens when my flash drive or medium, is obsoleted, and new computers won't support it?

Won't happen? I have three early thumb drives that I can't read, because they're not supported. I don't THINK there's anything on them; and I keep hoping to get access to a machine that can read them (I could just go down to the library or to my computer geek, but it's not worth it) so I keep them around. For now.

If my "life savings" were on there - such VALUABLE 1s and 0s - I'd be REAL upset.

It won't happen to me. It may very well happen to others. Even in the radio and podcast community, there are several yakkers who got some bitcoin early on and then forgot/lost the passwords.

 

[Peter89]

Another reason I don't like the idea of crypto-tokens. What happens when my flash drive or medium, is obsoleted, and new computers won't support it?

Won't happen? I have three early thumb drives that I can't read, because they're not supported. I don't THINK there's anything on them; and I keep hoping to get access to a machine that can read them (I could just go down to the library or to my computer geek, but it's not worth it) so I keep them around. For now.

If my "life savings" were on there - such VALUABLE 1s and 0s - I'd be REAL upset.

It won't happen to me. It may very well happen to others. Even in the radio and podcast community, there are several yakkers who got some bitcoin early on and then forgot/lost the passwords.

That's right, that's why I'm talking about gold backed currencies aka gold standard, not about crypto-tokens.
The crypto tokens specialist here is the Bug, not little Pete.

As to the PRNT button...I just looked at my year-old keyboard...it's not there!

USED to be, there was a PRNT or "print" button, along with the HOME and END. Often it was another key, assigned that function with SHFT pressed.

You see? Me with shitty examples, you making up non existent keys... Let's hope the all seeing Bug has mercy with us.
If google see how we are messing around here they debunk this website to the ground : )

 

[pmbug]

FWIW, CTRL + P = Print

And a decentralized blockchain with transaction privacy is not an oxymoron. There are several projects out there (including Monero (XMR), Zcash (ZEC), et al) that have developed solutions for this.

 

[Peter89]

The all seeing Bug... saw!

Not to bust your chops...but, yeah. Not a good example.

Well based on what you tell me... it's better than you think Casey - hence my chops are safe (for once).
That example's point was namely that you call gold standard a monetary regime - at least from 1920 until 1933 - where pieces of paper (banknotes) - not only coins - got used as currency.
Banknote holders didn't hold the bullion represented by those banknotes. There was no holding and no touching. And yet, you call that system gold standard.
You call the usage of gold backed paper currency, gold standard. You don't dismiss it with the "If you don't hold it..." argument.
But when it comes to gold backed digital currency, then you bring up the "If you don't hold it..." argument in order to dismiss it.

This is you:
Exchanging gold backed digital currency? No. If you don't hold it you don't own it.
Exchanging gold backed paper currency? Yes. It's gold standard.



As far as the holding and the touching are concerned, there is no difference what so ever between gold backed paper currency and gold backed digital currency.
In both cases currency holders don't hold and don't touch the bullion represented by those currencies.
That bullion is in both cases stored in some vault.

 

[pmbug]

@Peter89 - you are confusing two separate ideas.

Gold standard = gold is recognized as legal tender and used to settle trade (whether directly via gold coin or indirectly via paper/digital claim to gold stored/vaulted by the government)

Possession (if you don't hold it, you don't own it) = Paper/digital claims entail counterparty risk. The risk might be small and unrealized for years and then one day, "poof", the claims are no longer valid. It's happened time and time again throughout history irrespective of whether the counterparty is government or a private entity.

 

[Peter89]

This is where personal checks/cheques came into play.

No Casey, you can't talk about checks after you dismissed gold backed digital currencies based on the "If you don't touch it..." argument.
If you want to use the "If you don't touch it..." argument, then you can't come up with no checks, no banknotes, no certificates...
You have to stick to coins and bars.

You can't use an argument in order to dismiss a type of currency and then leave that argument aside when proposing another type of currency.

You say, gold backed digital currency no, because If you don't hold it you don't own it.
Well when your parents/grandparents used those gold backed dollar bills between 1920 and 1933... they didn't hold the gold backing those bills - there was no holding and no touching - but for some reason you are ok with those bills. You even call it gold standard.

Gold backed paper currency? Yes. It's gold standard.
Gold backed digital currency? No. If you don't touch it you don't own it.

Casey, as far as the holding and the touching are concerned, there is no difference between gold backed paper and gold backed digital.

In both cases currency holders don't hold and don't touch.
The bullion backing those currencies is in both cases stored in some vault - outside of the reach of the currency holders!
This is necessary because very few would accept a gold backed dollar bill were the gold backing that bill stored in the basement of the bill holder!

 

[Peter89]

@Peter89 - you are confusing two separate ideas.

Gold standard = gold is recognized as legal tender and used to settle trade (whether directly via gold coin or indirectly via paper/digital claim to gold stored/vaulted by the government)

Possession (if you don't hold it, you don't own it) = Paper/digital claims entail counterparty risk. The risk might be small and unrealized for years and then one day, "poof", the claims are no longer valid. It's happened time and time again throughout history irrespective of whether the counterparty is government or a private entity.

Thanks PMB

We are talking about gold standard.
We are talking about gold backed currencies.
There is someone : ) saying that gold backed paper currency is gold standard while gold backed digital currency is not.
In order to justify his statement he falls back to the possession argument: "gold backed digital currency? No thanks. If you don't hold it you don't own it!
I'm trying to explain to him that the possession-argument plays the same role in regards to gold backed paper and gold backed digital.

Gold standard = gold is used to settle trade (whether directly via gold coin or indirectly via paper/digital claim to gold stored/vaulted by the government)

Digital
You are saying that digital claims to vaulted gold i.e. gold backed digital currencies are gold standard.
I know it wasn't your intention but between Casey and me you are backing me : )

Casey and the whole crew of gold backed digital currency haters are disagreeing with you - but they keep quite because of fear
This whole exchange between me and Casey circles around his view that gold backed digital currencies - or, as you call them, digital claims to vaulted gold - are NOT gold standard.
He dismisses them because If you don't hold it you don't own it.

 

[nickndfl]

When you can buy medical weed at the weed store with gold or silver coins is when the world will be right again.

 

[Casey Jones]

No Casey, you can't talk about checks after you dismissed gold backed digital currencies based on the "If you don't touch it..." argument.
If you want to use the "If you don't touch it..." argument, then you can't come up with no checks, no banknotes, no certificates...
You have to stick to coins and bars.

That's ridiculous.

There's a difference between making gold the monetary BASIS, and banning other forms of exchange.

If you want to ban all other forms, you might as well ban sales contracts.

Think of cheques as a contract - which is what they are. A demand draft. Payable to bearer in legal tender.

In the case of a gold-based monetary system, would be gold or a claim on that bank's gold stores.

In an honest monetary system, that would be your choice.

But if you ban checks because they are not gold, you also ban contracts and promissory notes. Can you imagine how cumbersome and risky would be closing a sale of real estate?

 

[Peter89]

That's ridiculous.

There's a difference between making gold the monetary BASIS, and banning other forms of exchange.

If you want to ban all other forms, you might as well ban sales contracts.

Think of cheques as a contract - which is what they are. A demand draft. Payable to bearer in legal tender.

In the case of a gold-based monetary system, would be gold or a claim on that bank's gold stores.

In an honest monetary system, that would be your choice.

But if you ban checks because they are not gold, you also ban contracts and promissory notes. Can you imagine how cumbersome and risky would be closing a sale of real estate?

Agree 100% Casey! and thanks for making my point.

It's ridiculous to dismiss a type of gold backed currency with the "If you don't hold it" argument, like you do.
It's ridiculous because once you apply that argument to all types of gold backed currency - as you should do if you are consequent - no gold backed currency would be acceptable,
i.e. no gold standard would be possible.

In the case of a gold-based monetary system, would be gold or a claim on that bank's gold stores.

Exactly Casey. In the case of a gold-based monetary system there would be no touching and no holding for the currency users.
As you say it correctly, the bullion would sit in a vault.
That's why it's wrong to dismiss gold backed digital currencies using the "If you don't hold it..." argument.

 

[Cigarlover]

A gold standard with a fixed gold price is deflationary. (We could use a little deflation right about now) However the constitution allows for congress to regulate the value of gold which allows for an expanding money supply which is needed to run a modern economy.

Martin made a good point in yesterdays podcast on palisades radio. You have 10 people and each have 1 gold coin. The population then increases to 20 people and no new gold has been found. Each person now only has 1/2 a gold coin to spend.

Of course none of this will matter soon anyway. He says by 2028 we are in a depression if Trump does these tariffs. I agree 100%. Tariffs were a great way to fund government back in the day before the income tax. You cant have both though. Tariffs will destroy the worlds economies with the US being the last to go down but it will go down. A lot of smart people listen to Martin so hopefully someone gets the message to Trump before he destroys the world.

 

[Unca Walt]

As far as the holding and the touching are concerned, there is no difference what so ever between gold backed paper currency and gold backed digital currency.

@Peter89 -- I just gotta step in here becuz you are not seeing some obvious things "that used to be" that have gone and should come back.

Traveler's Checks <-- These were fungible in all civilized countries.

But the main thing is "dollars" <-- It would not take a total genius to conceive of a "dollar" being something (any federal design) with a specified amount of actual gold in it.

Does not have to be a greenback imitation. It could be like Euro coins. If you do not like weight, it could be anything down to sheets of some material sandwiching a measure of gold between them. The possible "in-your-handable" gold currency forms are in the hundreds just from me.

 

[pmbug]

... the constitution allows for congress to regulate the value of gold ...

Small nit to pick on this, but the Constitution (specifically Article I, Section 8, Clause 5) says Congress has the power to regulate the value of money that they coin - not the value of gold outright (as a commodity/asset).

 

[Unca Walt]

Thassa nit the size of a horseshoe crab. Gold is fargin gold. The Kaiser cannot change that. Genghis Khan could not change that. Even miraculous democratic post-midnight voters could not change that.

What that means is that a gold coin minted by the US Gummint might have enough value to buy a new car. Or it might not. <-- The answer will not be up to Congress, but up to what cars are worth to people.

NOTE TO REMEMBER: Throughout ALL of human history, there has never been a day where gold was not valued by Man. Throughout ALL of human history, there has never been a fiat currency of any "backing" that has lasted. Can we conclude sumpin' from that data?

Proof: Here are one hundred and fifty two (152!) different currencies issued by gummints. Every single fargin one has taken a shit. The USD is not included because it has not yet gone to its inevitable demise -- But I will put up ten ounces of gold against anyone that thinks the USD will survive another decade. Any takers? This time it's different?

Over all human history, fiat currencies (eg: NOT gold) have had an average lifespan of 24.6 years. The median lifespan is 7.0 years. <-- TINS

Just click the link several times. It will get magnified.

 

[nickndfl]

All they need to do is change the color of the dollar from green to whatever and all the old money is worthless.

 

[WinkWink]

... Think of cheques as a contract ...

 

[Cigarlover]

Small nit to pick on this, but the Constitution (specifically Article I, Section 8, Clause 5) says Congress has the power to regulate the value of money that they coin - not the value of gold outright (as a commodity/asset).

You are correct and it is what I meant in regards to gold.

 

[Peter89]

@Peter89 -- I just gotta step in here becuz you are not seeing some obvious things "that used to be" that have gone and should come back.

Traveler's Checks <-- These were fungible in all civilized countries.

But the main thing is "dollars" <-- It would not take a total genius to conceive of a "dollar" being something (any federal design) with a specified amount of actual gold in it.

Does not have to be a greenback imitation. It could be like Euro coins. If you do not like weight, it could be anything down to sheets of some material sandwiching a measure of gold between them. The possible "in-your-handable" gold currency forms are in the hundreds just from me.

Hello Unca

The holder of a gold backed paper currency holds in his hands a piece of paper.
The bullion represented by that piece of paper sits in a vault.

The holder of a gold backed digital currency holds an account.
The bullion represented by his digital currencies sits in a vault.

The holder of the gold backed paper currency doesn't hold/touch the gold, because the bullion sits in a vault.
The holder of the gold backed digital currency doesn't hold/touch the gold, because the bullion sits in a vault.

As far as the holding and the touching are concerned, there is no difference between gold backed paper currencies and gold backed digital currencies.

If you reject gold backed digital currencies because "If you don't hold/touch it you don't own it" - like Casey does -, logic requires that for the same reason you reject gold backed paper currencies too.

Yes?

 

[Casey Jones]

Hello Unca

The holder of a gold backed paper currency holds in his hands a piece of paper.
The bullion represented by that piece of paper sits in a vault.

The holder of a gold backed digital currency holds an account.
The bullion represented by his digital currencies sits in a vault.

The holder of the gold backed paper currency doesn't hold/touch the gold, because the bullion sits in a vault.
The holder of the gold backed digital currency doesn't hold/touch the gold, because the bullion sits in a vault.

As far as the holding and the touching are concerned, there is no difference between gold backed paper currencies and gold backed digital currencies.

If you reject gold backed digital currencies because "If you don't hold/touch it you don't own it" - like Casey does -, logic requires that for the same reason you reject gold backed paper currencies too.

Yes?

My vote is: No.

There are differences between blockchain crypto and paper notes. Irregardless of whether they're backed by gold.

To start with, ANY currency that is not itself worth the face value, is a counterparty liability. But, a paper note is anonymous. If you believe in paper, and the kid raking your leaves believes in paper, you pay him the requisite notes for doing the job.

You do that with blockchain, and in all likelihood, an algo will be triggered to record the kid's income and that you're involved in some way with a kid. Maybe he's getting a means-tested reduced-price school lunch. Maybe he hadn't done all the math to see how that affects him.

And maybe he didn't tell his parents he was hustling for a few extra bitcoin/fedcoin/etc. But the IRS algo knows...

Loss of privacy.

Loss of ability to trade when someone else doesn't have the requisite equipment ready, or in emergencies with communications/power out.

Those are just three off the top of my head.

Bank notes are a risk - but they can be minimized. If we have, say, ounce-gold coins floating around - at $3000, not $20 - no risk.

If like the misers of past (or some of us now) you choose to hold your cash at home, and not hold paper, but coin...no risk. Not from default, anyway.

We always had demand deposits, bank drafts, other instruments. Even as gold and silver were the coin of the realm.

We NEVER had the surveillance possibilities of crypto.

 

[Casey Jones]

They're a counterparty liability, yes.

They're not fiat created from nothing. Not unless the bank creates the account from nothing, and that is what is in your account.

And usually you have to bribe the bank to do that for you - by signing a loan promissory note.

 

[Unca Walt]

Hello Unca

The holder of a gold backed paper currency holds in his hands a piece of paper. Nope.
The bullion represented by that piece of paper sits in a vault. NOPE.

The holder of a gold backed digital currency holds an account.
The bullion represented by his digital currencies sits in a vault.

The holder of the gold backed paper currency doesn't hold/touch the gold, because the bullion sits in a vault.
The holder of the gold backed digital currency doesn't hold/touch the gold, because the bullion sits in a vault.

As far as the holding and the touching are concerned, there is no difference between gold backed paper currencies and gold backed digital currencies.

If you reject gold backed digital currencies because "If you don't hold/touch it you don't own it" - like Casey does -, logic requires that for the same reason you reject gold backed paper currencies too.

Yes?

No. Lemme state it again: The GOLD IS IN YOUR FARGIN HAND!

I laid out several offa-the-top of my balding head ways that ACTUAL FARGIN GOLD could be made into fungible-anywhere-on-earth currency in ANY FARGIN DENOMINATION. Read what I wrote above and you will see you missed the point I was making. Twice.

Sorry that I hadda shout, but it is 4AM and my old wounds ache.

 

[Peter89]

My vote is: No.

There are differences between blockchain crypto and paper notes. Irregardless of whether they're backed by gold.

To start with, ANY currency that is not itself worth the face value, is a counterparty liability. But, a paper note is anonymous. If you believe in paper, and the kid raking your leaves believes in paper, you pay him the requisite notes for doing the job.

You do that with blockchain, and in all likelihood, an algo will be triggered to record the kid's income and that you're involved in some way with a kid. Maybe he's getting a means-tested reduced-price school lunch. Maybe he hadn't done all the math to see how that affects him.

And maybe he didn't tell his parents he was hustling for a few extra bitcoin/fedcoin/etc. But the IRS algo knows...

Loss of privacy.

Loss of ability to trade when someone else doesn't have the requisite equipment ready, or in emergencies with communications/power out.

Those are just three off the top of my head.

I agree (again) 100% Casey, Paper > Digital based on criteria like privacy, tech requirements and power dependence.
I addressed only the touching/holding ...

As far as the holding and the touching are concerned, there is no difference between gold backed paper currencies and gold backed digital currencies.

... because this was the criterion that you used in order to discriminate between Paper and Digital.


Anyway, Casey, this exchange between us started after you rejected gold backed digital currencies because "If you don't hold it you don't own it".
Now look at here

Gold standard = gold is recognized as legal tender and used to settle trade (whether directly via gold coin or indirectly via paper/digital claim to gold stored/vaulted by the government)

PMB says that Gold Standard takes place - among others - when digital claims to vaulted gold (aka gold backed digital currencies) are used to settle trade.
Would you agree?

 

[Casey Jones]

Yes, that would be a Gold Standard.

Not the same as gold used as money; but we're splitting hairs. Those are not contradictions; just different means of working to the same end.

If you hold paper, it's either because your economy is fiat-debt-based or because the paper represents something of intrinsic value. Like, I don't know...gold, maybe.

If your Central Bank notes are backed by gold...well, you have a problem, the problem of counterparty liability. The paper you hold is a claim on the Central Bank's gold.

If the Central Bank is transparent (none are, over time) and the gold is audited by outside sources, then you're at little risk.

If your CURRENCY is in fact precious metals - gold, large-denomination coins, silver, small denomination, copper for tiny denomination...then the only risk is if you lose money out of your pocket. OR if you elect/allow an unscrupulous false-populist into government, who commences debasement of the currency.

Now, I see no reason why gold coins and bank notes cannot exist in the same sphere, if all prudent safeguards are in place. Paper is convenient; but gold, not that much less so. I have 1/10th-ounce gold coins worth about $280 each. They're the size of dimes and a tenth of an ounce. The only inconvenience in using them as currency, is, getting used to a change purse instead of a folding wallet for bank notes.

But just as we use credit-cards and paper checks with currency, we could use gold-BACKED bank notes with gold coins.

 

[Peter89]

Yes, that would be a Gold Standard.

When I mentioned gold backed digital currencies you replied "If you don't hold it you don't own it" - I took it as you saying Gold Standard can't be made with gold backed digital currencies.
I'm glad about you saying, we can build a Gold Standard with gold backed digital currencies.

 

[Peter89]

Just remember, the "If you don't hold it you don't own it" applies to holders of gold backed paper currencies just as much as to holders of gold backed digital currencies, because in both cases the bullion backing those currencies sits in a vault.

If you go "If you don't hold it you don't own it" when gold backed digital currencies are mentioned, logic requires that you do the same with gold backed paper currencies.

 

[Unca Walt]

@Peter89 -- I am insisting on the stone fact proven many times over: "If you do not hold it, you do not own it."

Now I would like a ten-second spliff on what I posted and got lost in metaphorical paper/bank/yada guaranteed fail bullshit you two are slinging:

GOLD in hand. In your wallet, on peel-off stickers on your ass, it doesn't matter: The GUMMINT puts gold in all denominations of their issued currency.

You can have a dime. It may look like anything that would contain a specified amount of pure gold.

You can have a dollar. A fifty. A thousand. A ten-thousand dollar US-issued, "it's weight in gold" THING in your hand.

It could be a disk. It could be a plastic sheet of convenient size and shape. It could be anything that HAD THE GOLD ACTUALLY IN IT.

Like a currency that is real. Genuine, non-inflationary, freaking REAL currency. Oh... and it would hold exactly the same full value forever.

Will you please gimme your take on that solution that would even work worldwide (and it would be instantly fungible worldwide, wouldn't it)

LATE EDIT ADD: You guys are doing the metaphorical thinking/arguing. I am doing the physical thinking/arguing.

Tell me truly: If you were able to reach in your wallet right now and discover all your fiat has been transformed into convenient gold just like every other human being's fiat has been transformed... and you know that inflation has stopped with a clang. Congress can spend what they have and not a goldie more. Ever.

Did you guys note there were no banks involved when gold coins were struck in Rome? Did those coins EVER lose value?

The bloody damned fact you guys are missing and should not be missing:

IF YOU DO NOT HOLD YOUR GOLD, SOMEBODY ELSE HAS THAT ACTUAL GOLD IN HAND THAT YOU THINK IS YOURS.​

 

[Unca Walt]

And I claim first patent on a $100 dollar bill that has "no gold" areas that form lines so the hundred could be "broken" into two fifties, or four twenty-fives, or ten tens, or a hundred singles. <-- Each piece containing exactly the amount of gold to value it perfectly.

 

[Voodoo]

And I claim first patent on a $100 dollar bill that has "no gold" areas that form lines so the hundred could be "broken" into two fifties, or four twenty-fives, or ten tens, or a hundred singles. <-- Each piece containing exactly the amount of gold to value it perfectly.

Too late. Already beautiful examples exist.

 

[Casey Jones]

Tell me truly: If you were able to reach in your wallet right now and discover all your fiat has been transformed into convenient gold just like every other human being's fiat has been transformed... and you know that inflation has stopped with a clang. Congress can spend what they have and not a goldie more. Ever.

Did you guys note there were no banks involved when gold coins were struck in Rome? Did those coins EVER lose value?

Of course you just stated exactly WHY we will not have a gold standard - short of complete, Biblical collapse.

Because currency debasement is an easy way to extract "free money" out of the system - for crackpot projects that no one in his right mind would pay for. Like, putting 40-million Third World military-age men, in our cities, and then on the dole forever. Like putting a corrosive solvent in our motor fuels. Like paying subsidies to put up those bird-choppers - and the costs, greater than the value of the little bit of electricity they generate.

Like a Globalist midwit "plan" to "control global population" - with a very-expensive "vaccine" that leads to a time-bomb road to death or disability, and in many cases, brain damage or neurological harm.

NONE of this would be possible with sound money; but MOST of this is why our Elites got INTO government. Because these dull-normals are also esteem-enhanced and are control freaks.

So here we are. They have the world, because they control the money; and it won't stop until it comes to its inevitable gory end.

 

[Unca Walt]

Of course you just stated exactly WHY we will not have a gold standard - short of complete, Biblical collapse.

Because currency debasement is an easy way to extract "free money" out of the system - for crackpot projects that no one in his right mind would pay for. Like, putting 40-million Third World military-age men, in our cities, and then on the dole forever. Like putting a corrosive solvent in our motor fuels. Like paying subsidies to put up those bird-choppers - and the costs, greater than the value of the little bit of electricity they generate.

Like a Globalist midwit "plan" to "control global population" - with a very-expensive "vaccine" that leads to a time-bomb road to death or disability, and in many cases, brain damage or neurological harm.

NONE of this would be possible with sound money; but MOST of this is why our Elites got INTO government. Because these dull-normals are also esteem-enhanced and are control freaks.

So here we are. They have the world, because they control the money; and it won't stop until it comes to its inevitable gory end.

Or, our government has 90% of its employees let go shitcanned to find jobs that add to the economy and are NOT paid by the government.

Moreover -- There is now communication between many, many like-minded people where before they were ghosted by the cabal.

So between just those two things, all the other idiocies are faced straight-on: Hey, Pedro! You no have ticket to ride? Get on the freighter.

 

[Peter89]

And I claim first patent on a $100 dollar bill that has "no gold" areas that form lines so the hundred could be "broken" into two fifties, or four twenty-fives, or ten tens, or a hundred singles. <-- Each piece containing exactly the amount of gold to value it perfectly.

You mean something like this?

 

[Unca Walt]

You mean something like this?


View attachment 14865

Vaguely. I would expect the gummint to somehow make it not in an awkward size/shape, though. That is the concept.

OH!! Speaking of concepts! Every fiat currency ever made has had counterfeiters. Every currency also had no genuine backing, so the counterfeiters were just doing what the fiat issuers were doing: creating "money" out of thin air. <-- This crucial difference with a worldwide-fungible currency would result in universal reaction down to anyone anywhere using counterfeit money anywhere to anyone.