Recession or depression? Too early to tell

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Many differences between now and 1930s but some similarities, too

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28698830

Pulled from MSNBC.  We have this wonderful tidbit from (Sub) Prime Minister Bernanke:

“There is no comparison — an order of magnitude difference in what we're seeing — in the slowdown and the financial stress we're seeing in this economy and what happened in the 1930s,” Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a scholar of the Great Depression, said last month in a speech in Austin, Texas. “So let's put that out of our minds.”

And then the article goes on to outline a dozen or so nearly identical parallels between '29 and '09. 

"SO LET'S PUT THAT OUT OF OUR MINDS" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well now, I'm completely at ease.

I think we would all be better served if we did the exact opposite of what Bernanke says.

But it will get better when Geithner is coronated huh?

Morpheus's picture
Morpheus
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2008
Posts: 1200
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

I subsribe to John William's Shadowstats.

 I'ts proprietary ($90/six months) and strictly enforced so I can't really share any excerpts here, but he's predicting a hyperinflationary Depression/Great Depression as EARLY as 2009. It's worth the $90 ($.049 Canadian, LOL) so if interested go here

www.shadowstats.com

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

I think there are always lessons to be learned from history, but there are only a few historical lessons that are perfectly constant (i.e. human nature) and the specific details of how a depression plays out are NOT one of them. Each depression or recession is going to be its own unique beast to some degree, with its own tulip bulbs and its own legal and political environment.

I am firmly convinced that in broader terms this depression will be marked by energy and resource scarcity which will add a whole new level of reality to the picture. Scary to think about, but most Americans are woefully unprepared for this. Believe, me, the hypefinflation scenario bothers me greatly as does the usual list of depression type problems. But more than anything, the question I ask myself is what will I do when there's no gasoline? No Safeway supermarket? If / when computers are not so useful?

These are points taken at the extreme, but I believe it is the general direction we are heading in. As Chris so eloquently pointed out: Societies that are forced to lose complexity are notoriously unpleasant places to be. While all recessions can be said to force some loss of complexity, none in modern times has the potential to unwind a fraction as much as the current one. The canary in the coal mine for all these changes has been the financial industry and housing sector. But I believe there are going to be a number of other "collapses" that will simply "shock" the talking heads and politicians until even they are forced into more productive careers. 

On the one hand, the future is a little scary, but on the other, I am very interested to see how this will really play out. It is mostly unlike anything we've ever seen before.

Mike

keelba's picture
keelba
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 17 2008
Posts: 55
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Q: What is the difference between a recession and a depression?

 A: A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours.

 

It kind of reminds me of a guy a knew from Great Britain. We were discussing American history and I brought up the Revolutionary War. He had no idea what I was talking about. After describing it to him, he eventually exclaimed, "Oh, you mean the Civil War!" because that's what they called it where he was from. Revolution, civil war, recession, depression, it all depends on whom you ask. (Don't ask Bernanke that question)

Gregory K. Soderberg's picture
Gregory K. Soderberg
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 8 2009
Posts: 32
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Why don't we forget about all this talk of depression/recession. We don't have to experience any of the predicted hardships. We can get the liquidity we need with no new debt, no new taxes, no inflation, no deflation, no stagnation, no slavenation. Simply create money and spend it into circulation equal to the value of the productivity gains? We can use electronic book entries just like the banks do now when they create all of our money as unpayable interest-bearing loans. But, this new money will not be a loan. It will be a debt-free payment for work performed, wealth produced that benefits allof society equally and that is needed for healthy commerce. Public Roads and Bridges. Men got us into our situation. Men can get us out. 

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Greg, I've heard of this plan before and it sounds alright in theory. But I remain a bit distrustful that the government would be able to manage it well. Frankly, I doubt the government would even be capable of determining exactly how much "needed" to be spent and where it should go. But even more dangerous is the precedent it would of directly "printing to pay." If it wasn't extremely (impossibly?) well regulated, I could easily see it get completely out of control. Printed money has no inherent integrity.

Not too harp on gold too much, but at the moment, I can't think of a better alternative. The funadmental reason why it carries such integrity is that you can't print more. Plus, further extraction of gold tends to require economic growth before it is mined. The plan of spending money into existence tends to spend first and count on the proper amount of growth to follow. If we measure wealth with the amount of gold, then we are in some way directly measuring the amount of economic activity, since only a robust economy can afford to pay the opportunity cost of not farming to go out and dig for a metal that is in many ways useless. Gold production is also very energy intensive so production quanitities tend to reflect the state of our surplus energy situation.

Any time that money can be created at less than market value (i.e. it costs just 7 cents to print a $100 bill), then I am certain that debt and/or inflation will perpetually doom our society.

Just my 2 cents (and if I was a goverbankster, that would mean approx. $29)!

Cheers,

Mike

drb's picture
drb
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 11 2008
Posts: 95
Would a Rose by Any Other Name Smell as Sweet?

 

From
Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, 1594

Quote:

JULIET:
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

Some claim that Shakespeare was saying that what something IS is what matters - not that which it is called.  I would submit, however, that Shakespeare was saying only children retain the ability to see past a name to underlying truth (adults, being more sophisticated (?), will still be influenced by the label).

I tried to find references to when the label 'recession' was first applied to an economic slump and came across this snippet

Quote:

This term was first used to refer to an economic downturn by one of the
US presidents in the years after WWII (I forget which one). As the
post-war economy began to slump, there became talk that the US might be
entering into another depression -- the Great Depression was still in
recent memory for many people. The president, attempting to alleviate
this growing panic, addressed the nation and said, "There is no need to
worry. This is NOT another depression. This is merely a recession." In
short, he simply pulled a friendlier-sounding term out of thin air in
order to calm the people down. Today, we now have a "recession" that
means something different from a "depression"; although getting
economists to agree on exact definitions still remains a challenge.

http://www.wordpirates.com/index.cgi/R/recession.individual

The word �recession� also means a procession out of a church, which would have earlier origins of use.

 

 

 

 

 

Gregory K. Soderberg's picture
Gregory K. Soderberg
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 8 2009
Posts: 32
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Mike,

Thank you. 

Why do you think that men working in government for just a paycheck simply cannot be trusted to create paper or bookkeeping money without debt or interest, even though they would not gain directly or personally by the creation, that they would surely create too much of it and cause inflation?

Why can only men working as bankers, who get a personal gain from each loan made be trusted to create just the right amount?

How could anyone create too much money if the law only allowed an amount to be created equal to the value of the productivity gain? 

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Greg,

      Again, your proposal sounds good in theory, but its practice would become quickly corrupted, I fear. If indeed there was restraint on the government and laws that prevented corruption, the best case scenario is that we have the government attempting to do what is best. My question then is: How is the government to know exactly how much money the economy needs at a given time? Attempting to determine the exact amount of money required in an economy as complex as ours is futile. As much as I ideologically oppose the Federal Reserve, I sometimes feel a bit sympathetic towards some of the minions that work for them: they are tasked with the impossible, even if they were honest.

     Also, your theory of creating money to fund projects sounds good, but even with laws, it leaves the door wide open for political manipulations and hand outs. If you think laws protect us, just look to the abuses of power in the Bush Administration. I have my doubts.

     In a sense, I wish there were other alternatives than an "old fashioned" gold standard, but from what I can see, there just aren't. The reason is simple: you must have a growing economy in order to produce more gold and increase the money supply. When fiat money can be printed at a cost far below what it is worth, the door is wide open for manipulation. Whether or not the manipulation occurs is dependant on the people managing it, but human nature suggests that if a system invites corruption, sooner or later it will be filled with corruption.

     Not to shoot you down, but this is the way I feel. Our exponential money system does not even work in theory. Your system does as far as I can tell. I simply remain skeptical that it would be incorruptible long term. Just my thoughts.

Mike

 

grl's picture
grl
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Posts: 188
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Gregory, I got tripped up on this solution ... you seem to say that the created money will be directly equal to the value of productivity created in building infrastructure. What I don't understand is how that plan can work if the work performed is building infrastructure because it seems to me that building infrastructure - while it might be a good thing - does not, in and of itself, create wealth. We can't sell our roads and bridges. Am I missing something?

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Abandon the Matrix before it abandons you.....

Mike 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Lisa, Greg, Mike:

Seems to me the underlying assumption of money equivalent to productivity translates to the actual "personal" level of effort exerted to "produce".  That is probably the fatal flaw in this - people just mailing it in.  Then productivity drops off.  You'd think it would be easy to monitor things, but a lot of people in today's unjustifiably self-entitled society are like water in that they seek the lowest level.

Not unlike the star college "scholarship" athlete who has a job as a car washer at a car dealer (that just happens to be owned by a wealthy alumni booster) and gets paid with a BMW or Mercedes.

 

 

machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Here is the reference that dr barbour was looking for --

From 1929 to 1933, real GNP
fell by about 30%. It began to
recover in late 1933, and had almost recovered by 1936. As you will note, there was a second
decline in 1938, when the economy went into a second decline.
When it happened,
President Roosevelt was asked if his policies were not putting the nation
into another depression. Roosevelt, a
very smooth and glib politician, dismissed the charge by saying that this
wasn't a Depression, but a "Recession", thus coining a new term,
which we use to this day.

http://www.personal.kent.edu/~cupton/bbamacro/ma12.htm

Even the older term 'depression' was a euphemism, invented to avoid
the even uglier expression 'bank panic' -- which is what we've got on
our hands now. Bank panics were dreaded in the 19th and early
20th centuries, because governments didn't customarily step in and bail
out depositors as they do today.

In a recent leader, the Economist defined a 'depression' as a 10
percent drop in GDP. It ranked the 12 worst depressions of the past
century. The US experience in 1929-32 came in at No. 2 in severity.
However,

Among the 25 emerging economies covered each week in the back pages of The Economist,
there have been no fewer than 13 instances in the past 30 years of a
decline in real GDP of more than 10%. Argentina and Poland were
afflicted twice. Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand all suffered
double-digit drops in output during the Asian crisis of 1997-98, and
Russia’s GDP shrank by a shocking 45% between 1990 and 1998.

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12852043

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

I've added these 2 links as I feel they have relevance :-

The Crash Of 1929

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7233622324068640582&hl=en

 

America Of The 1930's (Could this become the future of the USA for a second time?)

http://people.tribe.net/albionmoonlite/blog/dbfed29a-69f9-499e-a3e3-d8b5ae58c9ca

Paul

 

Gregory K. Soderberg's picture
Gregory K. Soderberg
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 8 2009
Posts: 32
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Come on, Mike.

Yes. We must be vigilant ongoing. It's a responsibility and requires some effort, maybe sacrifice but absolutely worth it and neccessary. Why should we not be willing to maintain our principles at home, when at the same time we force our principles on everyone all over the world. If it's always going to become corrupt, why worry about it? Why resist murder, rape, robbery, fraud, drugs, etc.?  Unchecked it will just get that way anyway?  

You say, "Our exponential money system does not even work in theory." It not only does not work in theory, it does not work in practice. It's easy to understand why.

When all money is created and loaned into circulation the borrowers are servants to the lender. When interest is added the debt is greater than the money supply and must constantly grow eventually causing the financial problems we are now finally experiencing. Debt cannot be paid with debt and get rid of debt.

Who really knows how much money the economy needs at any given time when most people do not even know how much they need..how about savings? I think you have enough savings right now. That's enough for you. You don't need anymore.  

With total liquidity of $8 Trillion dollars all evidence of debt and accruing interest according to a personal letter to me from (Timothy P. Schilling, Public Information Specialist Federal reserve Bank of Chicago) and most recent total debts of $53 Trillion how could anyone think we might create too much money, especially when loan principal repaid to the bank is extinguished? ( John B. Henderson, Senior Specialist Price Economics, Congressional research Service.)  

How can too much money be created when money is only created as a payment for production created by labor? When you get paid at the end of the week is that too much money? Do you owe it and have to pay all your checks back to your employer the day you retire? 

I'm not talking about creating money to fund just any 'projects' but money created as wealth and payment for production that everyone benefits from equally.

That's what the principles of gold and silver were under the 1792 Coinage Act. The people first labored to extract raw bullion from the earth. They took it to the Mint that weighed, assayed and made it into 'coins' free of charge returning the production to the producer who spent or traded the wealth money into circulation for other production. No debt was created in the entire process. The money was never uncreated. It did not accrue interest due. The equally social benefit of all this was a debt-free medium-of-exchange.

Those same principles of creating and 'spending' money into circulation are what 'monetizing' public roads and bridges employs. The people provide the materials and labor just like they do now and they get paid. Goods increase. Money increases. No new debt. No new taxes. Just the right amount. The equally social benefit of all is a debt-free medium-of-exchange.

You say, "You must have a growing economy in order to produce more gold and increase the money supply." The economy grows with more production when we maintain and build public Roads and Bridges. When money is created to pay for that production the money supply increases-just like you say.  

Fiat money is simply that which the government declares to be money. Legal tender Gold and silver coins are fiat money.

You could research the silver supply but I know there is not enough gold to make for a good general medium-of-exchange. But, if that's what you would like to use, I want to be the only source of that gold so that I can lend it to you and everyone else at interest. I will only accept payment in the same thing I loaned you.

The problem has never been 'too much money'. The problem is 'too much debt.'

Now when you say 'Gold Standard' what exactly do you mean?

 

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Greg: Again I don't disagree with the fundamentals of your proposal, but I personally have too much respect for history and human nature to think that we can trust anyone with this sort of system.

As for fiat, I am going to propose a more strict definition than is widely circulated. Here's what I propose:

fiat money: Money which is created at a lower cost than the purchasing power it represents.

And that is the fraud of the whole system. Gold is not fiat, so long as it is valued on an open market, according to the cost of producing it, refining it, etc. Greenbacks are fiat, because it costs pennies to print something that carries the purchasing power of $100. 

If you spend the money on the roads and bridges and infrastructure, you must assume that the government knows just how productive those items will be over their lifecycle. That is: a bridge is an asset to the economy, but it is also a liability in that it requires some maintenance and eventual replacement. Furthermore, if the government believes that bridges and roads will increase our productivity, how can we be sure how much they will increase productivity. If the economy structurally changes as oil is depleted, I see we could create a lot of money for roads and bridges and then have to deal with the fact that they are less useful in a world without oil. Perhaps that's a limiting case, but it's easy to see what could happen. I will, however, grant you that roads, bridges, and infrastructure are bound to enhance the nation's productivity far more than iPods and flat screens.

Finally, a review of history suggests that monetary systems are largely put in place to benefit the nations that command the most power. In this way, the concept of money at the national level tends to play out as a matter of military and politics, believe it or not. The 20th Century is rife with examples of economic and military warfare that were highly interrelated with monetary and financial systems. My point in saying this is that governments that have power tend to use the monetary system to project their power domestically and internationally. If we had the type of money system that you suggest, where we can print money, even if we made it illegal to spend the money on anything but productivity enhancing projects, what is to say that someone couldn't secretly (illegally) game the system by having a printing bonanza one night? Gold doesn't require laws, the integrity is baked into the cake.

I acknowledge that I am a bit idealistic in saying a lot of this and I present what I view as theory. I acknowledge that no government would want its power limited by a gold standard, so I acknowledge that it is unlikely to play out in a perfectly equitable way for We The People. But if we don't set our sights high, we are bound to repeat history, again and again and again.

Thanks,

Mike

Gregory K. Soderberg's picture
Gregory K. Soderberg
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 8 2009
Posts: 32
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Mike,

Thank you.

First of all, everyone would be far better off in their perspectives if they would quit saying, "The Government." Believe it or not, 'We the people" are supposed to be the government in this country. It's easy to put it off on :"The Government". That way one separates himself from it no longer being a part of the responsibility or fault with it. You and I have to make it happen. Not "The Government". "The Government" is a reflection of the quality of its people.

How can you have 'respect' for a human nature that you cannot trust?

You can propose all the definitions you like but the definitions of fiat, fiduciary, commodity and wealth monies have already been established.  

Everything does not have to be complicated for it to function well. I know we have been taught and conditioned to believe that things can only work when some highly educated person explains it to us in terms we cannot understand so that we throw up our hands and let them take control.    

The proposal to monetize public roads and bridges does not bring new money in to pay for the productivity of the bridge but for the productivity of the people themselves in producing the bridge. As the bridge or road is cared for and maintained by the people's labor and materials over time, it is paid for with new or recirculated money through an excess profits tax on the banks as the people are again productive. It's not a matter of how much productivity the bridge will produce. It's the value of the productivity of the people. 

Money systems are suppose to be a way to provide for the fair and just division of labor. Nothing else.

Please stop using the term 'print money'. We do not 'print money'. What you see being printed is not 'money' according to a personal letter to me from the United States Treasury Department. All money is created today as a book entry on the ledger of a bank. This is not 'printing'. It is 'electronic entry.' The phrase 'print money' is very misleading to those who are trying to understand our monetary system. Federal Reserve Notes (the thing you see being printed that you call money) are only evidence of 'the book entry' money.They are not available for direct delivery to the public. They may only be obtained through your local lending institution. You must buy them with the bank created checkbook money. At that point they are 'monetized'.  

You say, "Gold doesn't require laws, the integrity is baked into the cake." If gold requires no law and it has such integrity why isn't it functioning so that we do not have the situation we have today?

Now, in previous replies to you I have tried to address many of the points in your comments. Would you please address some of mine? Again, 

1. What do you mean exactly by Gold Standard?

2. How would you implement this system, step-by-step, to get us from where we are now to where we want to be?

3. How much gold would it take?

4. What would a gold dollar be defined as?

5. How many 'dollars' would there be if the gold supply was measured in your definition of gold 'dollars'? 

Respectfully,

GregoryK. Soderberg

 

 

 

 

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Mike -

 William Strauss and Neil Howe make compelling arguments in "Fourth Turning" that no matter how high we set our sights, history will repeat itself and that society will undergo a significant tempering and evolution.  They examine the cycles of human crisis and how society changes going in to and coming out of a major crisis (American Civil War, Great Depression, WWII, American Revolution, etc.) and the subsequent 'decline' or change in society afterwards that leads into the next crisis. 

According to the book, the next crisis phase is upon us - it started in 2005.

Although the material is fairly subjective (and I'm pretty much a hardcore measurable and objective data kind of person), given everything that is going on today, it's hard to argue with how they present their case, that we are at the next 'Fourth Turning' cycle.  I have been pitching the book all over the threads on this site and haven't heard anyone yet who's read it and had a negative impression.

 PS - Are you coming to the cookout when I get back from Japan?  You're welcome to come (even though you went to Mr. Jefferson's University).

We'll have our Hokie sociologist show you how to hold the utensils.

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Greg - My responses are numerous. They are my viewpoints and I bet you will differ..

A) Government should be by "We The People." Try to tell someone in the Gulag era of Soviet Russia that all they have to do is vote differently to make it all better. Heck, Russia doesn't really have an honest voting system now. In America, I think there are a number of barriers to entry into the political class that limit the true ownership we can claim over the system. Still, I think our system is more democratic than most, and I do largely agree with you: We let this happen to ourselves.

B) I have respect for human nature in that I think trust is earned. And I find trust easier to earn on an individual level than on a group level. Any sort of group organization that has any position of influence and power invites the power hungry to get to the top by any means available. It doesn't always play out that way, but it's a temptation. Human nature shows us that for pretty much all of human history, there have been acts of dishonesty, corruption, and manipulation. I wish we lived in a perfect world, but we don't.

C) I never wanted to sound elitist and I very much agree with you that generally the best designed systems are the simplest. Most of the time, they don't require an advanced education to understand. Interestingly enough, I have met a great number of people without college degrees that are buying guns and Kruggerands lately. To them, it is simple: gold will never lose its value because it can't be printed. Yep, for them life is just that simple: hunt, fish, take care of your family, have some savings in gold.

D) Agreed. Printing money is my shorthand way of saying creating it at a cost far lower than its purchasing power. 

E) A large part of the reason gold is not money now is because of human nature (see B, above). The more I've studied the history of the 20th Century, the more it's become clear to me that financial interests tended to do whatever they could to control economies and wars simply to benefit themselves. A fiat system with nothing to secure it but mere human beings is just but the latest incarnation, and it's now reached its point of failure. The only solution is to reawaken the awareness of the American people and to take the power back, as you suggest. In the past, such coups have had unpleasant consequences.

And now, your questions. Thank you for challenging me. I appreciate the opportunity to re-evaluate my beliefs.

1) A fully redeemable gold standard is one in which gold is money. For convenience, gold can be deposited and paper currency carried around with the understanding that the paper can be redeemed for a fixed amount of gold at any time and with no restrictions. The gold belongs to the people and not to the banks. This tends to limit the risks the banks can take, since the people can check the banks' power. It's not 100% ideal, but it's a lot better than pure fiat. If there was strong enough reason to distrust the banks, people would simply choose to not deposit their gold at all.

2)  I think one of the first steps would be to freeze all increases to the fiat money supply. I haven't looked into this aspect as much, but I suppose it is possible to simply see how much gold we have, and how much money we have and fix the dollar value to the weight of gold on that basis. This exchange rate would not be adjustable. Dealing with the massive debts that we have would be a hurdle to overcome and we would have to decide whether we would cancel them or agree with ourselves to attempt pay them. I think repaying debts is necessary, but entitlements would have to be dramatically reduced.

3) There is no minimum or maximum amount of gold, per se. If we are to believe the official US reserves, our nation has roughly 8,0000 tons in addition to a great number of items in people's personal possession. This would come out to around 0.85 ounces of US gold per person in addition to what they had in their possession. Of course, we could also add silver into the equation as well. There are certainly some issues with simply switching to a gold standard, and these would need to be investigated. I'm not suggesting the transition would be simple, but I am suggesting that the result would be (much) more sustainable.

4) A gold dollar would initially have to be created out of the fiat dollar at some exchange rate. A "gold dollar" could be set equal to a milligram for example. Adding silver into the picture would allow the dollar to be exchanged for more metal. 

5) The number of dollars available would depend on the echange rate that is set and the amount of gold and silver backing the currency. The transition would not be seamless and would likely involve some rapid inflation / deflation swings in the first few years. But it would be far more sustainable. 

Greg, I wish that we did not have to dig metal out of the ground to use it as money, but I have not found a system that carries the integrity with it that precious metals do. Even now, when we say we do not have a gold standard, many people (and banks!) are hoarding gold because they know that it is money more than it is anything else. If we can have a massive change in our government that re-establishes trust and integrity, I'd feel better for a time. Call me a cynic, but I would feel saddened to think that my grandchildren might then be around to see the collapse of that system as well. And I would feel quite confident that whatever happened politically, gold would hold a good bit of value the whole way through. Yes, it is odd that we use a metal for money and it is nearly worthless to us in most other practical respects. But maybe therein lies the reason that we use it as money: it is ideally suited for that.

I'm open to hearing a better way, and your suggestion is reasonable, but I don't have that much faith in my government, certainly not right now. I've had enough of the banksters and politicians robbing the wealth of the people and redistributing to fund wars, corruption, and self-serving pet projects. The power belongs to the people.

Cheers,

Mike

 

 

 

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Hello Dogs,

I will certainly add that to my "to read" list and hopefully get it soon. I've currently got a backlog of 5ish books I've been meaning to read. 

I certainly don't think there's too much that can really be done to stop this crisis. Someone had a theory that people have to feel pain before they change. I think that will happen to us. But I will continue to do what I can to educate others and fight for what's right, I just don't plan on completely sacrificing myself in that attempt.

I would love to come to a cookout! I have some other friends at VA Beach that I haven't seen in a long time as well. Just let me know the details.

Mike

P.S. Davos and I know where the best place to live in America is, so I will disregard this Hokie pish posh.  

 

Gregory K. Soderberg's picture
Gregory K. Soderberg
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 8 2009
Posts: 32
Re: Recession or depression? Too early to tell

Lisa,

Thank you.

Production is wealth. Can you think of anything that is not produced as a wealth? Maintaining (upkeep) and building of Roads and bridges produces wealth in the very act. Wealth is that produced by combining our ideas, labor and raw resources of the earth to improve our lives.The finished or maintained road or bridge is new wealth that everyone can then use with no taxation or debt. Elimination of no longer needed Fuel taxes, axel taxes, etc. would be tax cuts that would also have wide reaching benefits. The very payment that the people got paid with would be a wealth providing a medium of exchange to pay debt with. Right now there is nothing to pay debt with. We can only transfer the debt to someone else (the next generation). We cannot pay debt with debt and get rid of debt.

Would you consider your home 'wealth' that enhances the way yo live or only beneficial to you when you sell it?

Production is wealth. Money should be a representation of that wealth. Money today is not wealth and does not represent wealth but rather debts owed to the banking industry.It may have 'value' but it does not enhance our lives but is destroying the existing basis of our society. Money may have value but value is not necessarily money.

You may learn more about how our money was switched from an evidence of wealth to evidence of debts at www.wealthmoney.org     But, I will also get back with you here in time.

I hope I helped.

Thank you for your question, Lisa.

 

 

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments