The gold standard

[rameumptom]

I agree with many things JBS is saying about gold/silver standard, except for two things.

First, with hundreds of millions of more people using money today, we WOULD need more in circulation than in 1930. With gold as rare as it is, the coins would ever become smaller and smaller.

Currently, my 1/10th ounce American gold Eagle coin is worth $70 (down from over $100), even though it says $5 on the coin! How does one make change for a coin, when you only want to buy a candy bar? That coin is fairly small (size of a thin penny) as it is.

If bills are based upon the price of gold, then what does one do with the fluctuations? I know you state that Congress will stamp the value at a certain amount, and it won't change. However, that will limit credit and the ability for companies to borrow money. That is what happened in the 19th century with farmers. Part of the problem is that the gold standard creates a limit to the moneys available for society. It creates its own problem in this manner.

Some suggested fixing this by creating a mixed bi-metal format of gold and silver. Well, what happens if one devalues suddenly, as now you have two metals competing with each other? Then the standard ends up all messed up. That is one of the key reasons many did not want to switch to bi-metalism.

The rarity of gold is what caused FDR to round up everyone's gold, so that the feds would have it to back their money. Suddenly, his grab of the currency made money even more scarce for the working person, and many economists believe this exacerbated the Great Depression. Later presidents and Congresses would devalue the money by only partially covering dollars with gold ($1 bill ensured by 50 cents of gold).

Wealth and the middle class were stuck in reverse for decades through the 19th and early 20th centuries, partially due to the restrictions imposed by a gold standard. I know you'll state that this was not the Constitutionally mandated standard, but they both worked about the same - just different people regulating its value.

[rameumptom]

I DO support stocks. It allows people to OWN a business. Under the idea that only workers own a company, if a worker is with the company for 20 years, and then sets off to start his own company, does he suddenly lose his ownership in the original company? Portability of ownership becomes very difficult, and would destroy the ability to create new businesses, because people would not want to lose the value of what they currently have.

Would the company have to pay out on their portion of the ownership? What if the person holds 1/4 of the ownership? Where is the company going to find 1/4 of its value to suddenly pay someone out? Wouldn't it be cheaper to allow the person to keep his ownership/stock, and move elsewhere also?

Stock is a good thing. What isn't good is the short term perspective of many company boards, and the golden parachutes given to CEOs and company leaders. Those should be severely curtailed, and reflect only when the they create a solid long term profit for the company. My parachute when I lost my job was 2 weeks' salary. That should be their parachute, as well.

[a-train]

Well that would solve that problem. But I would still be wary of private banks controling the supply of precious metals.

The banks would only have control of the coins they legally own. No different than you having rights to whatever coins you own. This would not give either you or the bank control over the whole supply. Anyone that finds gold can have it minted and add to the money supply.

What I mean by that is that everything that is of value and is available to be traded should be represented by a note. So instead of having a banknote that represents metal that can buy something. Just have a note that represents this things to be bought.

But that is true of any currency. You can convert any currency to any product or service as long as the seller agrees.

What I'm saying is, why do we need to go through gold or silver to trade? Why not trade the items directly?

No problems here. But as I mentioned above. Why would I trade land for gold when I could trdae it for something directly. Or in other words Why trade land for notes that are tradabel for gold which is tradable for something else. Just cut out the gold middleman and tie the currency to the items being traded.

Convertibility. What if the product or service you seek comes from a trader that is not interested in your land? Perhaps he will take your land, but only at a much lower price than you would like, because he is only going to trade it for something he really wants. It would be better for you to sell it to someone who is a motivated buyer. Then, you could use whatever he pays you with to get what you want.

Precious metals emerged naturally as the most convertible commodities due to their universal applicability, their portibility, their divisibility, their homogeneity, their recognizability, and their durability. In a barter system, precious metals, if available, will have those properties and be highly monetized without any governmental intervention.

It did NOT take a king or ruler to simply mandate that precious metal had value. The natural, free economy gave rise to the standard of precious metal. Flour, corn, livestock, works of wood, ceramics, glass, you name it, it was traded and monetized in antiquity. But nothing has ever matched the convertibility, the portability, the divisibility, the homogeneity, the recognizability, and the durability of precious metals.

They continue to be just as valuable as a medium of trade today as they ever were.

Let us suppose you were selling an old lawn mower. An old dude comes to buy it. You are asking $100. He offers 18 Morgan Dollars. They are old (they date from 1895 to 1900) and scratched and beaten. They are not in any collectable condition, but they are 90% silver. Would you take them?

There is a coin shop in your neighborhood where you could trade those coins for U.S. federal reserve notes. The shop is currently paying $5.50 per coin for Morgans with little or no numismatic (coin collector) value. You could easily take the coins and sell them to the shop. Would you do it?

The old dude offers you 20 Morgans. How about now? You could get $110 for them at the shop. You'd be a fool to say no now. What if he offered you a 1/5th ounce solid gold ring? The local pawn shop would give you around $100 for it, why not?

In the black market and in pawn shops, flea markets, and garage sales all over, these types of transactions happen every day. People trade old CDs, DVDs, Games, electronics, instruments, toys, tools, furniture and virtually everything of value. But precious metals are the most easily convertible.

Perhaps a pawn shop has too many band saws, too many copies of Halo 2 for XBox, or too many dining tables for the owner to be interested in adding another to his inventory. But he will never have too much gold or silver. He is always in the market for precious metal.

There shouldn't be stocks. I don't support corporations. I think that a business should be owned by all those who work in it. The profits of that corporation would be divided among the members of the business accdording to the job and time that a person contributes. Any "stocks" would be loans to help a business get funding that would be paid off with interest and the creditor ending up having no say in the what goes on in the business. Simply put there would be no corporations or emplyers and employees, only really big partnerships.

But now we have more government and bureaucracy to oversee all that regulation and with it, more expense (taxes). If people want to spend or invest their money in a risky way, if they want to pay someone what seems to be a lot of money, let them. They may accomplish their goals, which we neither know nor have a right to dictate. The respect of the individual's right to property is essential.

The point of this whole organization would be to keep down corruption and stop ceos from getting insane wages, while the people who actually keep the business running get next to nothing.

You know why those CEOS continue to exist and why those people continue to run the company? Because they don't get next to nothing. They get enough to want to work, if they did not, they would not be there. Would you work for free? How about $1 an hour? $4 an hour? $10? $15? $20? $100? There comes a point where you decide the income is worth the job. If you can make more elsewhere, you'll go.

If Corp A loses employees to Corp B because Corp B has better pay and/or benefits, Corp A will either raise their pay and/or benefits or lose their employees. A free market actually does a better job than any regulation of giving the most amount of people a good wage and good benefits.

I believe we should have a system where every person gets what they work for. true not everyone will be equal but that will only be because some people will work harder and in different professions than others.

Then you have to support free markets. Only in a free market is this possible.

-a-train

[Hemidakota]

It is me or the government is moving towards nationalizing major corporations in order to save our economy? Government is considering in purchasing GM stocks for loans.

[rameumptom]

Rather than buying stock, I'd prefer the US purchase long term bonds in the companies we need to rescue. As it is, the stocks will be non-voting, so at least the feds won't have too much power over the company. And it would truly be a shame to see GM or Ford collapse, leaving us at the mercy of foreign car companies....

[a-train]

I agree with many things JBS is saying about gold/silver standard, except for two things.

First, with hundreds of millions of more people using money today, we WOULD need more in circulation than in 1930. With gold as rare as it is, the coins would ever become smaller and smaller.

Currently, my 1/10th ounce American gold Eagle coin is worth $70 (down from over $100), even though it says $5 on the coin! How does one make change for a coin, when you only want to buy a candy bar? That coin is fairly small (size of a thin penny) as it is.

Let us not go back to the old gold standard, we need a new one. We will allow all precious metals: Gold, Silver, Platinum, even Nickel and Copper. Whatever metal the market will tolerate will be fine. Let people mint anything the want. However, we won't fix their exchange rates. That is what hurt us before. As long as government mandates off market prices, people will avail themselves of the advantages as much as they can.

If bills are based upon the price of gold, then what does one do with the fluctuations? I know you state that Congress will stamp the value at a certain amount, and it won't change. However, that will limit credit and the ability for companies to borrow money. That is what happened in the 19th century with farmers. Part of the problem is that the gold standard creates a limit to the moneys available for society. It creates its own problem in this manner.

Fluctuations are market decided. We are not averse to the issue now, nor will we ever be. Gas goes up, gas goes down. Wheat is strong against corn, it is weak against corn, meanwhile steel is up against all. It was not the use of precious metal that was problematic, it was fixed exchange rates that were troublesome.

Some suggested fixing this by creating a mixed bi-metal format of gold and silver. Well, what happens if one devalues suddenly, as now you have two metals competing with each other? Then the standard ends up all messed up. That is one of the key reasons many did not want to switch to bi-metalism.

No fixed exchange rate. If gold goes way up against silver, so be it.

The rarity of gold is what caused FDR to round up everyone's gold, so that the feds would have it to back their money. Suddenly, his grab of the currency made money even more scarce for the working person, and many economists believe this exacerbated the Great Depression. Later presidents and Congresses would devalue the money by only partially covering dollars with gold ($1 bill ensured by 50 cents of gold).

Wealth and the middle class were stuck in reverse for decades through the 19th and early 20th centuries, partially due to the restrictions imposed by a gold standard. I know you'll state that this was not the Constitutionally mandated standard, but they both worked about the same - just different people regulating its value.

All that meddling simply causes more problems. We don't need to fix the price of anything to anything.

Gold is not fixed to oil. But look at the history of the two and you'll see that they remarkably maintain a relatively stable relation. That is the market, not a regulation that does that. As oil becomes more scarce that will change, but that is fine.

-a-train

[a-train]

Rather than buying stock, I'd prefer the US purchase long term bonds in the companies we need to rescue. As it is, the stocks will be non-voting, so at least the feds won't have too much power over the company. And it would truly be a shame to see GM or Ford collapse, leaving us at the mercy of foreign car companies....

It would NOT be a problem. Let the companies collapse. Perhaps GM will go first. What will happen? Ford gets market share. Suppose all US auto makers are done for and we drive US made cars from Toyota and Hyundai and Mexican made cars from Volkswagen. So be it. Americans will then go to jobs that are productive in the global economy and if they are not, they will not last.

-a-train

[JohnBirchSociety]

Well that would solve that problem. But I would still be wary of private banks controling the supply of precious metals.

What I mean by that is that everything that is of value and is available to be traded should be represented by a note. So instead of having a banknote that represents metal that can buy something. Just have a note that represents this things to be bought.

What I'm saying is, why do we need to go through gold or silver to trade? Why not trade the items directly?

No problems here. But as I mentioned above. Why would I trade land for gold when I could trdae it for something directly. Or in other words Why trade land for notes that are tradabel for gold which is tradable for something else. Just cut out the gold middleman and tie the currency to the items being traded.

Yeah as I said it would take a lot of work to get that system to work.

There shouldn't be stocks. I don't support corporations. I think that a business should be owned by all those who work in it. The profits of that corporation would be divided among the members of the business accdording to the job and time that a person contributes. Any "stocks" would be loans to help a business get funding that would be paid off with interest and the creditor ending up having no say in the what goes on in the business. Simply put there would be no corporations or emplyers and employees, only really big partnerships.

The point of this whole organization would be to keep down corruption and stop ceos from getting insane wages, while the people who actually keep the business running get next to nothing.

I believe we should have a system where every person gets what they work for. true not everyone will be equal but that will only be because some people will work harder and in different professions than others.

I'll have a look.

I don't know if you know it or not (I'm hopeful that you don't), but you are essentially quoting Karl Marx in your positions.

In the United States, under the divinely inspired United States Constitution, gold and silver coin is mandated as our money. Only Congress can coin money (not print it, which is impossible). These two facts should give pause to any person who believes in the United States Constitution.

For instance, why did the founders say "coin" money? Why were they so specific? Why did they mandate Gold or Silver coin as US money? Were they wrong, or are we, with our "Federal Reserve"?

The answer to these questions gives us the solution to today's economic fiasco.

We will never solve the problems of today's economy, absent a return to sound money as mandated by, as GOD has said, our divinely inspired constitution.

I stand with the prophets in declaring that it is akin to scripture and that it should espouse the strictest possible adherence.

[deseretgov]

I don't know if you know it or not (I'm hopeful that you don't), but you are essentially quoting Karl Marx in your positions.

I'm sorry I've never studied any of Karl Marx's work. I'm only trying to come up with a fair system. A system where the big guys don't have unfair advantage over the little guys, and everyone gets what they work for.

In the United States, under the divinely inspired United States Constitution, gold and silver coin is mandated as our money. Only Congress can coin money (not print it, which is impossible). These two facts should give pause to any person who believes in the United States Constitution.

I can see what you mean but those two statements don't go together. Artcile I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that congress has the power to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin."

This means that Congerss can coin money as you said, but it can also set the value of that money and set the value of foreign coin in relation to our money. It doesn't say that money value will be determined by the value of gold but it will be set by Congress.

Also Artcile 1, Section 10 says that the States cannot "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." This doesn't say that the US government can only use gold and silver but that only the states can us gold and silver. It makes no mention of what Congress can use for money.

For instance, why did the founders say "coin" money? Why were they so specific?

Because coining is the way money is made.

Why did they mandate Gold or Silver coin as US money?

As I pointed out it says that only States can use gold or silver.

Were they wrong, or are we, with our "Federal Reserve"?

The Federal Reserve system is definately wrong.

The answer to these questions gives us the solution to today's economic fiasco.

We will never solve the problems of today's economy, absent a return to sound money as mandated by, as GOD has said, our divinely inspired constitution.

Very true.

I stand with the prophets in declaring that it is akin to scripture and that it should espouse the strictest possible adherence.

YEs but even Joseph Smith knew the Constitution would fail. The Constitution has served it's purpose. It's time for us to move on to the next stage of our progression.

Edited October 28, 2008 by deseretgov

[JohnBirchSociety]

I'm sorry I've never studied any of Karl Marx's work. I'm only trying to come up with a fair system. A system where the big guys don't have unfair advantage over the little guys, and everyone gets what they work for.

I can see what you mean but those two statements don't go together. Artcile I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that congress has the power to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin."

This means that Congerss can coin money as you said, but it can also set the value of that money and set the value of foreign coin in relation to our money. It doesn't say that money value will be determined by the value of gold but it will be set by Congress.

Also Artcile 1, Section 10 says that the States cannot "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." This doesn't say that the US government can only use gold and silver but that only the states can us gold and silver. It makes no mention of what Congress can use for money.

Because coining is the way money is made.

As I pointed out it says that only States can use gold or silver.

The Federal Reserve system is definately wrong.

Very true.

YEs but even Joseph Smith knew the Constitution would fail. The Constityution has served it's purpose. It's time for us to move on to the next stage of our progression.

Wow, you wish to abandon the inspired Constitution? Wow!

That view is at odds with the Church and liberty.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I'm sorry I've never studied any of Karl Marx's work. I'm only trying to come up with a fair system. A system where the big guys don't have unfair advantage over the little guys, and everyone gets what they work for.

I can see what you mean but those two statements don't go together. Artcile I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that congress has the power to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin."

This means that Congerss can coin money as you said, but it can also set the value of that money and set the value of foreign coin in relation to our money. It doesn't say that money value will be determined by the value of gold but it will be set by Congress.

Also Artcile 1, Section 10 says that the States cannot "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." This doesn't say that the US government can only use gold and silver but that only the states can us gold and silver. It makes no mention of what Congress can use for money.

Because coining is the way money is made.

As I pointed out it says that only States can use gold or silver.

The Federal Reserve system is definately wrong.

Very true.

YEs but even Joseph Smith knew the Constitution would fail. The Constityution has served it's purpose. It's time for us to move on to the next stage of our progression.

I never said that Congress is constrained to Gold or Silver only. However, because the States can use only Gold or Silver, and given what the Founders said about it, that was to be the primary metal(s) used.

The Coinage Act of 1792 allows for copper pennies.

The fairest system is the Free Market. Allow men to freely trade with one another, using honest money (as established by law, the ONLY proper function of Government in the economy) and you shall have the most propsperous people in history.

It is only when government intervenes where it ought not, where inequities arise.

As A-Train said, "Economics in One Lesson" is a GREAT work on the Free-Market. It is a quick read.

For a very intensive treatise of paper currency read, "The Paper Aristocracy".

For the greatest treatise on sound money ever written, read, "MONEY: Ye shall have honest weights and measures"

If you can read those three things and still espouse Marxist-Communism (knowingly or not) then so be it.

[deseretgov]

Wow, you wish to abandon the inspired Constitution? Wow!

That view is at odds with the Church and liberty.

Yes, becuase I want to move on to the next inspired constitution. The United States is falling as Joseph Smith and most other prophets have prophecied. The United States divinly inspired Constitution served it's purpose and now it is being destroyed. God will proved the next constitution to potect his people. That's the Constitution I will be following when the time comes. But until then I still uphold the US Constitution. I'm just stating that the time is coming for the next one.

But I'm getting off topic. Maybe we can start another thread about this.

[a-train]

Yes but even Joseph Smith knew the Constitution would fail. The Constitution has served it's purpose. It's time for us to move on to the next stage of our progression.

Joseph Smith predicted that the Elders of the church would bare the constitution away from harm when it hangs by a thread, not move away from it.

-a-train

[deseretgov]

I'll be offline for a bit. I'm reading those books you referred me to.

Here's one I'll refer you to: "It Seems Like Heaven Began on Earth": Joseph Smith and the Constitution of the Kingdom of God

I would also like to ask JohnBirch what elements of my views does he feel are communist?

Edited October 28, 2008 by deseretgov

[FunkyTown]

Deseret? Don't be concerned if someone says you're a communist. JohnBirchSociety would term me a socialist because I believe:

1) Companies are not inherently infallible or ethical.

2) Governments are not inherently infallible or ethical.

3) People are not inherently infallible or ethical.

Therefore, I believe:

4) Companies must exist with checks and balances to protect the weak from the strong. This requires government oversight in to many things.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Deseret? Don't be concerned if someone says you're a communist. JohnBirchSociety would term me a socialist because I believe:

1) Companies are not inherently infallible or ethical.

2) Governments are not inherently infallible or ethical.

3) People are not inherently infallible or ethical.

Therefore, I believe:

4) Companies must exist with checks and balances to protect the weak from the strong. This requires government oversight in to many things.

And you would be wrong.

I to do not believe companies are inherently infallible or that government are inherently infallible or that people are inherently infallible.

I to believe that companies should have a check on them by government. Government must insure that contracts are upheld. That is the proper function of government. In the United States the Federal Government is to provide sound money (constitutional) for proper commerce. All of this insures property rights.

Your not socialist unless you believe the labor of one should be taken by force and given to another.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I'll be offline for a bit. I'm reading those books you referred me to.

Here's one I'll refer you to: "It Seems Like Heaven Began on Earth": Joseph Smith and the Constitution of the Kingdom of God

I would also like to ask JohnBirch what elements of my views does he feel are communist?

1) The Kingdom of God as a government on Earth will come at the second coming of Christ.

2) Joseph Smith said we were to save the Constitution, not get a new one, until Christ returned.

3) The following is communism and Marxist:

"I'm also a fan of another system. It's a type of fiat system where the Government prints money as legal tender then sets it's value. With government enforcement it would always retain that set value. This would only work in a planned economy where products were of set value as well. So regardless of how much money was made it would have the same value. No inflation or deflation. Instead of the value being determined by international trading it is set. Obvoiusly this would take a lot of work to actually work."

Karl Marx said the following in his treatise, "The Communist Manifesto", wherein he gives ten steps to achieve communism:

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Edited October 28, 2008 by JohnBirchSociety

[FunkyTown]

Your not socialist unless you believe the labor of one should be taken by force and given to another.

Hahah. You know I support taxation and social programs for the poor. Though I will admit that due to government bureaucracy far too much of that goes to bloat and corruption. In my ideal society, there would be minimal bloat and there would be an equality by consensus.

Of course, in my ideal society, I'd be a shepherd on seaside cliffs, overlooking the ocean and smelling the salt air.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Hahah. You know I support taxation and social programs for the poor. Though I will admit that due to government bureaucracy far too much of that goes to bloat and corruption. In my ideal society, there would be minimal bloat and there would be an equality by consensus.

Of course, in my ideal society, I'd be a shepherd on seaside cliffs, overlooking the ocean and smelling the salt air.

Then you are socialist.

[FunkyTown]

Yep. I believe in the terrible ideal that it is the government's job to take care of the less fortunate.

(Insert dramatic music here). I am FunkyTown - SOCIALIST!

[JohnBirchSociety]

Yep. I believe in the terrible ideal that it is the government's job to take care of the less fortunate.

(Insert dramatic music here). I am FunkyTown - SOCIALIST!

That ideal is bluntly stated as theft, government sponsored theft.

If the individual has no right to take of a persons labor and give to another, then no amount of individuals combined have the right.

Government has no "rights" whatsoever.

To take from one, by force, and give to another, what is not theirs, is theft.

[BenRaines]

How do we define less fortunate. Is someone less fortunate that chooses not to work because it is easier to collect food stamps and welfare payments? I consider someone less fortunate who has to leave an abusive relationship and children need to be supported. I have seen many single mothers struggle and make ends meet and provide for their children and take little of what government has to offer.

At least that is my opinion.

Ben Raines

[JohnBirchSociety]

How do we define less fortunate. Is someone less fortunate that chooses not to work because it is easier to collect food stamps and welfare payments? I consider someone less fortunate who has to leave an abusive relationship and children need to be supported. I have seen many single mothers struggle and make ends meet and provide for their children and take little of what government has to offer.

At least that is my opinion.

Ben Raines

Yep. Who decides? The Government?

The government is the most non-efficient means of doing almost anything. Why would you want the government in charge?

It is theft, whether the government does it, or I do it.

[BenRaines]

There are very few things that I want the government deciding for me.

Ben Raines

[FunkyTown]

Hahah. I agree, Ben. There are abuses of the welfare system. However, the alternative of having no support for those who desperately need it is simply not acceptable.

You're right. A very large group abuse the care and love we have for our fellow man, but to privatize that would be to leave the innocents out in the cold. I'd rather be cheated of a few dollars than do that. I wish there were a better way, but until I see that help as many people as the government does, I can't.