Does

61 currencies worthless

0 gold worthless

sound about right?

-- Teacher (@ .), December 07, 1999

Answers

With the obvious qualification that by "currencies" you mean fiat money, backed by nothing but thin air. A currency backed by gold -- as was the U.S. dollar until 1971 -- is "as good as gold".

24 days.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), December 07, 1999.

I haven't done the research but that sounds low over history. I'm glad to here paper held up that well, I still have a little, as little as possible.

-- goldbug (goldbug@mint.com), December 07, 1999.

Blah blah blah barbaric relic blah blah blah market forces blah blah blah economy is robust blah blah blah (laughter).

Regards,

-- LOL (@ .), December 07, 1999.

Teacher...

.....Don't even waste your time talking about this with MISSter Decker, he's a DWGI, bigtime. For the record, every time a country went to fiat money, in the history of the world, it has ended up at 0.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 07, 1999.

FideliTrade Inc, a Delaware bullion investment firm, said Eagles were priced at a big premium over Canadian and Australian gold coins because even some sophisticated investors thought U.S. dollar- denominated coins would be handier in any disruption of the economy or financial system on January 1.

``If conditions get so bad that cash isn't available for a long term, people think they are going to go to the drug store or grocery store and buy their goods using bullion coins,'' FideliTrade Managing Director Michael Clark said.

``The one ounce coin has a $50 face value and goes for over $300. So you are going to buy a $300 item today with the expectation that, first of all, it's going to be negotiable, and secondly, that you are going to negotiate it for $50,'' he said. ``How logical is that?''

This from a Bullion Investment broker no less!!

-- g (z@c.b), December 07, 1999.

Don't forget silver. In Germany in 1923 it took a bushel basket full of German marks to buy a loaf of bread. The same loaf of bread could be bought with the equivalent of a silver dime.

All Timebombs Have a Clock----This Timebomb IS a Clock

JS

-- Joe Stout (joewstout@iswt.com), December 07, 1999.

Teacher,

Thanks for that post. I hadn't thought of it that way before but when you do, it makes you sit up and take notice. Also, as the fiat currency dives, gold soars in every case as well. Just can't figure why some people are so negative about gold, considering the 1,000's of years of history tied to it. I guess some just love their Fiat's!

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), December 07, 1999.

It is dismaying to know that, while at least 95% of Americans have practically no grasp at all of the monetary system, of the remaining 5% (a courtesy number) who do know something about it the vast majority are gold bugs who understand the advantages of of basing money exclusively on gold, but who never acknowledge the drawbacks and do not seem to understand them.

Backing paper money with gold establishes an impersonal discipline over the issuance of money. This is good because it reduces the temptation to tamper with the money supply. But it doesn't preclude such tampering. President Lyndon Johnson still managed to inflate the money supply even under the discipline of gold pegged at $35. DeGaulle fo France put the screws to the US Treasury and walked off with a lot of cheap gold, until Nixon closed the gold window.

Also, the very impersonality of the discipline gold imposes tends to reduce the amount of control a nation has over its economy. The danger of human greed inflating the paper money supply is clear to any gold bug.

But, there is another kind of danger. An economy is only valuable to the extent it serves human needs. Taking the regulation of money completely out of human hands gives that control over to an impersonal force that can be just as whimsical as any monarch. It is a power that takes no notice of any human need or suffering and will not move an inch to lessen them.

In other words, gold certainly can be made to serve the purpose of money, just as paper can. But even though gold is pretty, don't imagine it is perfect. Just as it has different strengths than paper, it also has different weaknesses. Nations that used gold as money have collapsed, too. Thousands of them.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 07, 1999.

Brian Wrote:

"Nations that used gold as money have collapsed, too. Thousands of them."

But not because they used gold as money.

JS

-- Joe Stout (joewstout@iswt.com), December 07, 1999.

Gordon, the short answer to your question regarding fiat versus gold backed money is the following: A gold standard is democratic, while fiat money is elitist.

This and other insights can be found in Jude Wanniski's works at www.polyconomics.com/1998index.htm; select the category Gold Standard. See in particluar R e: Gold Standard Mechanisms (where the above quotation comes from).

24 days.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), December 07, 1999.

"g" -- what is STAMPED on the coin is immaterial. It's the gold content. Anyone using a coin stamped "$50" and "selling" it for $50 worth of goods when the content is worth "$300" would be an idiot. If your understanding of what the coin dealer said is correct, then he is an idiot; otherwise you are an idiot.

-- A (A@AisA.com), December 07, 1999.

The debate about fiat money versus gold is a very complex issue.Trying maintain some sense stability in a complex world such as ours is very difficult task. Here is more on gold versus the dollar. As you can see it is delicate art.

Click here

-- n (a@a.k), December 07, 1999.

A, what if you bought it in 1980,at $800.00? g. PS, This was in an article on yahoo.

-- g (s@m.n), December 07, 1999.

For a full history on how the american public have been royally screwed by international bankers see the links in my earlier post at

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001wmI

The book referred to from 1899 (link to full text provided) shows from the congresional record the laws the bankers pressured congress to pass that culminated in the private bank known as the "Federal" Reserve.

The corruption that must have existed to get such laws passed makes the corruption of the third world pale by comparison.

If you have any sense of what the Federal Reserve is really about, you will go balistic when you read, for example, about 1861/2 when a law was passed by Congress that made US greenbacks not acceptable by the US government for payment of duties the US government levied!!!. That's right the US government passed a law stating that it won't accept its own currency (and left the field wide open for bankers to begin dicating terms from that day forward to the US government on every issue under the sun).

We have no one to blame but our own complancy for our current situation.

Handcuff yourself before you start reading, else you'll be so mad at the end of Chapter 2, you'll probably destroy anything within reach.

This is not some consiparcy theory rubbish but a history of (and quotes fromt) the actual laws the Congress passed that state specifically they are undermining their own authority.

It is a seminal piece of work that is a required read by anybody who wants to know the truth from the only reliable source there is: the records of Congress itself.

-- Interested Spectator (is@aol.com), December 07, 1999.

The great advantages of private financial markets are that they decentralize decision-making and prevent persistent mistakes. By so doing, when the small scale enterprises meet financial tests, they expand. If they fail, the loss to society is much smaller than the case of the government-sponsored failed grandiose project -- which frequently is not allowed to fail.

The continued spending is then justified by a large army of government sponsored economists, the priesthood of our times, who never fail to come up with half-baked theories of market failures to be remedied by the smart, altruistic, government regulators and bureaucrats. The result of this myth-creation is that more good money is being thrown after bad -- and nevermind mismeasured aggregates. Having said this,should we give banking authority back over the Government?? It seems we have only two ways to go.Unless you have a better plan. It seems that everybody is willing to jump on one bandwagon or another but is unable find that 3rd. wagon. If anybody has a better plan ,lets hear it!!!

-- confused (we@gh.mn), December 07, 1999.

Lets start with what Jeffereson and countless luminaries from our history (not the least of which are the Constituional Framers themselves as they wrote in the Constition) have fought to protect and for good reason: The State and only the State should have the authority to issue currency.

Next lets understand just what happens with the current system. The problem is that everybody thinks the current system is the only one that will work. Well the fact is that (if you study some history, such as in the book referred to) each and every time private central banks are setup, the public are rendered as slaves to bankers and are at their complete mercy. Which is why the framers had the good sense to make it illegal to do so and to ensure that such power remains with a government rather than private interests. And the US did just fine without such central banks. They were artifically setup with one objective only - to provide power to international banks. They were setup with laws that would boggle your mind and no sane person would ever consider passing if he valued his freedom.

The problems these days is we are all like animals who have lived their entire life in cages and know not of what freedom means. We have had ingrained into us that inflation and debt are just a modern fact of life.

Read the book and see exactly how we are a living breathing economic "Matrix". I guarantee you'll re-think the wisdom of keeping the current system and see that the solution is quite simple: Just go back to what the constition requires. It will be painfull at first, but just like a caged animal that has been set free you have to decide do you wish to be in a cage or be set free and learn how much better freedom is, even though it may be difficult at first.

Don't think that because we are in the 20th century that our monetary problems and issues are more "sophisticated" and therefore require us to abandon history and its teachings. Nothing has changed with respect to money. It has and always will have a source and who ever controls that source controls the country. It was to the US founders' credit that their wisdom let them fully understand this princple, and that this princple is ageless, that they specificially wrote in the constitution that only congress will have the power to issue currency.

The international bankers have tried time and time again to establish privately controlled central banks in the US, and after each success have laid america to waste, and consequently had their charters cancelled when renewal was due. So they finally learned that they should set up a "system" that doesn't need to be renewed. That system started in 1862 and was essentially complete by mid 1870s. It was just formalized into one institution in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was established.

-- Interested Spectator (is@aol.com), December 07, 1999.

"g" -- this has been gone over and over on this forum.. There is stuff here other than just the last few days posts. Look in the fricking archives.

SHort answer -- the way to make money in the market is to buy low and sell high. Idiots (average persons) do it the other way. $800 was high. 'Nuff said.

-- A (A@AisA.com), December 08, 1999.

A, The "way" to make money in the market is NOT to get caught up in fearful hype.Example; Several weeks ago I.B.M. mentioned "Y2K" and price went down to $89.00 a share! I almost missed it,but thanks to the "Doomer" screeching,I bought a "few" shares at $90.00+. Yesterday I.B.M. closed at $116.62 a share. A 29% gain in a few weeks time. Not counting change,it was a nice 5 figure profit.Thank you,thank you,wall street. P.S., How about sell high and buy to cover low, A.K.A. short selling??? OH well,to each his. Gotta go,Market about to open. Good luck.

-- g (s@g.m), December 08, 1999.

It was a nice 5 figure profit on paper. This is funny money, g. When the music stops, you will more than likely lose your ass. Get out before the elephants dance.

-- a (a@a.a), December 08, 1999.

Nope!! Paper profits converted to hard assets. Momma already went shopping.Money in hand. Best to you. g

-- g (s@m.m), December 08, 1999.

It's irrelevant how many times currencies and gold have become worthless. Y2K is unlike any disaster we've ever had. When TSHTF, BOTH will become worthless.

-- Tod (tod_berg@hotmail.com), December 08, 1999.

All in all, this thread has turned out to be rather amusing. For the usual Fed conspiracy buffs, let me post the "Debunking" link once again:

http://www.cofc.edu/~flaherty/conspire.html#14

As for gold, Brian makes a good observation. The logic underlying the initial thread is flawed. If I might digress, some Native American tribes used shells or other natural artifacts as money or "wampum."

"WAMPUM, polished shell beads, formerly used as a medium of exchange by North American Indian tribes and also worn as decoration and insignia of rank and dignity. The beads were strung on hempen strings or woven into belts. In trade, unstrung beads were exchanged by a count, and belts and strings were traded by the fathom, or number of beads that could be sold for a price of five British shillings. Wampum belts were also used to document intertribal transactions and important public events. A communication from one tribe or council to another became official with the delivery of a belt woven into a symbolic representation of the message or treaty."

http://www.fwkc.com/encyclopedia/low/articles/w/w028000114f.html

The Native American tribes and their "currency" were largely destroyed by the American expansion. Wampum no longer exists... but it is difficult to draw any conclusions about the Native Americans' medium of exchange from this result.

As for gold, it is a nonproductive asset. Let's say it's 19000. You had a choice between a 1,000 ounces of gold (over 60 pounds) or $10,000 in a 6% 100-year bond. Today, the gold would be worth less $300,000. Your bond would mature and be worth over $3 million. Six percent is a modest return, but that is the difference between a productive asset and an inert metal.

The gold bug make the same mistakes as the mercantilists. As Adam Smith correctly noted, the real wealth of nations is in productive capacity, not gold reserves. Do you think Bill Gates should have chosen a stack of gold bars or the IBM "Disk Operating System?" Investing in unproductive assets intends to defend wealth, rather than create it. And gold does a relatively poor job defending wealth.

If I thought the U.S. would completely collapse next year, I might consider an investment in gold... though I doubt it. Unless we experience a complete meltdown, gold is just another commodity... and an unproductive one at that. I still prefer raw land as an inflation hedge... and it has the added advantage of potentially providing food, water, shelter and a place to plant flowers.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 08, 1999.