Jump to content

Ron Paul Calls for Audit of US Gold Reserves


cavanami

Recommended Posts

Why gold? What about say, tulip bulbs? Sea shells worked for Hawaiians.

 

Tying currency to any commodity is simply asinine as has already been pointed out.

 

 

Two main reasons for gold and silver:

 

First is that tulips don't have a three or four thousand year history as money. Gold and silver do.

 

Second, and maybe more important, is that gold and silver are acceptable, along with a few other commodities, for certain payments according to the Koran.

 

It has been coming for a long time but Kelantan state in Malaysia took a huge step recently in reintroducing asset-backed currency. Although this was equal to a hundred economic Pearl Harbors it went without much notice or mention in the US press.

 

Did you see the new trade facilities HSBC is now offering in Chinese yuan? A year ago this was unthinkable. These things are not happening in isolation and are a vote by bankers and central bankers on the Federal Reserve.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/182a2b70-b130-11df-b899-00144feabdc0.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Why gold? What about say' date=' tulip bulbs? Sea shells worked for Hawaiians.

 

Tying currency to any commodity is simply asinine as has already been pointed out.[/quote']

 

 

Two main reasons for gold and silver:

 

First is that tulips don't have a three or four thousand year history as money. Gold and silver do.

 

Second, and maybe more important, is that gold and silver are acceptable, along with a few other commodities, for certain payments according to the Koran.

 

It has been coming for a long time but Kelantan state in Malaysia took a huge step recently in reintroducing asset-backed currency. Although this was equal to a hundred economic Pearl Harbors it went without much notice or mention in the US press.

 

Did you see the new trade facilities HSBC is now offering in Chinese yuan? A year ago this was unthinkable. These things are not happening in isolation and are a vote by bankers and central bankers on the Federal Reserve.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/182a2b70-b130-11df-b899-00144feabdc0.html

 

Couple of problems here:

 

(1) As India's and China's affluence grows, so grows their cultural demand for gold. This has and will greatly influence demand for gold.

 

(2) As a commodity, gold is a bit weird in that it has limited commercial value (except in limited quanities in electronics). It is valuable because it is valuable (like Paris Hilton is famous for being famous). Thus the price of the commodity or more prone to manipulation.

 

(3) Commodity prices ARE prone to manipulation. And on a global basis, we cannot reasonably expect our government, or any other government, to control that manipulation. Would we really want our currently to be tied to a commodity that a bunch of Chinese or Arab speculators might artificially manipulate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When most countries were under the gold standard and we were not as big (economically) as we were I assume England and the rest of europe had far more gold than we did. And although not as powerful as they are now, China and other regions had vast sums of gold as well as known gold underground as well as assumed gold yet to be found (south america, africa, etc.)

Wouldn't these countries have tried manipulate it then? We had no control over their actions then but we grew.

 

Bascically, I'm saying is what's different than when we were on it? Countries were doing what you said would happen I asume, right?

 

Under the current system, firms with billions of dollars at their disposal can manipulate currencies and have, including ours, albeit short term. Under the present system China has indirect control over our currency. Under the present system, OPEC, China or others can decide to use another currency other than the dollar. At one time it was the British pound that was master globally and ours weren't but we grew by leaps and bounds.

 

Again, I'm not married to the gold standard as I am married to the concept of getting rid of the fed. It doesn't have to be the gold standard that replaces it. The transparency of having the U.S. Treasury in charge is my primary point. Its what our founders intended. LK brought up Paul's wish to go back to it as part of a reason not to end the federal reserve. Those two are mutually exclusive.

 

Could there be problems with the gold standard? Sure. However, I don't think its as crazy as an idea as we are led to be. Is there a better way? Probably. But all I know is the present system has leading us on a decline.

 

The FACTS are we grew and became the world's biggest economy while on the gold standard and without a federal reserve. I would ask the question, had we had no gold standard and had a federal reserve from the onset of this country would we have been the power we became?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go have an audit. I could give a shit. But funny that GOPers who don't want to extend unemployment benefits for people virtually starving are willing to pay for this waste of time. :dunno:

 

It is just that if you think we need to go back to a gold standard and eliminate a central bank, you need to go back and understand macroeconomics 101, the basics, the stuff that is not debatable by any reputable economist be he a von Mises disciple or Keynesian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we need to go to a gold standard abolish the fed etc...I am just asking what happens after the audit, if it goes either way? Ans so far, all those calling for the audit cannot or I should say, have not answered this. In short, I see no real point to the audit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...