Why Gold Is The Currency Of The Free And Idle

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

strong men

link

Finally, we wish to leave you with a couple of brief historical points about the BoE’s history for nothing more than general education and to gain some small insight into some of the players. After being founded in 1694 by Scotsman William Paterson, it remained a private lender to the government for more than 250 years. As the bank size grew, it also became the banker’s banker. It was given the sole right to issue banknotes in 1844. It was fully nationalized in 1944. In 1977, it was set up as a private limited company in order for it “To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them....” Weird, if you ask us. The BoE was also granted an exemption from the disclosure requirements and is also protect by its Royal Charter status and the Official Secrets Act. We abhor this veil of secrecy thrown in front of central bankers, especially those charged with handling the stability of the global reserve currencies. All these special exemptions are nothing more than a facility to permit them to avoid telling the truth. After all, the public does not have access to their same information, so central bankers can delay releasing information at their will, similarly to Uncle Benny’s tempo with subprime.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

 

So from my point of view it is not governments and bankers who love these things. The fact there has just been an enormous housing bubble shows that people love the idea too.

 

who benefits the most from the country being indebted

 

So in your alternate system it seems to me that you need to have a group of people who say what you can and cant do and that is not a free market.

 

you mean like fannie mae and freddie mac - affordable housing disaster

 

In a free market i am entitled to say what you are or are not saying or are you going to regulate that out of existance too?

 

i dont want to regulate nothing - its you who is the fan of regulation

 

i think you have a history of putting words into peoples mouths to help your argument

 

 

 

 

[aliveandkicking]

strong men

link

 

Obviously if you have a free and fair system of government you dont want the public to know the intimate details of your market plans and actions so they can speculate against the position you intend to keep to provide stability in difficult times. Instead you want some kind of psi ops to ensure the market does not know the position.

 

I am not saying we do have free and fair systems. Just pointing out what i think is pretty self evident.

 

 

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Obviously if you have a free and fair system of government you dont want the public to know the intimate details of your market plans and actions so they can speculate against the position you intend to keep to provide stability in difficult times.

no we have people deciding monetary policy so that those in the know can benefit from their knowledge under the illusion that they operate in secret to provide for stability

 

lets save AIG but not Lehmen Brothers - and why would that be

 

a fair system

 

 

 

- i dont think so

[aliveandkicking]

who benefits the most from the country being indebted

 

We can agree that if we take what you just said at face value it is not a good idea. Some people benefit from being able to borrow. Some people cant handle debt and dont benefit. An indebited country does not sound a good idea.

 

you mean like fannie mae and freddie mac - affordable housing disaster

 

Which as i understand it was created by people who wanted to help the poor against the better judgements of republicans who felt it was a disaster in the making. the UK also supposedly has a government with an emphasis on helping the poor. When people meddle they create these kinds of disasters. Without meddling there are other kinds of disasters.

 

i dont want to regulate nothing - its you who is the fan of regulation

 

Obviously you are seeking to regulate me.

 

i think you have a history of putting words into peoples mouths to help your argument

 

What i do either helps my presentation or it does not. You are claiming i am putting words into your mouth and other people claim i put words into their mouths. I claim i observe what i see and report it. I realise people dont like it.

 

How about focusing on the discussion if you dont like getting personal? If you dont want to regulate nothing then regulate nothing.

 

What i see in you is lack of consistancy in your thinking. You want free markets but you have not thought it thru. Why do you object to a free market in speech for example? Why do you even begin to want to regulate that market? I have the impression you want to somehow bully me into being different. What kind of free market is that?

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

What i see in you is lack of consistancy in your thinking. You want free markets but you have not thought it thru.

 

utter tripe

 

i will no longer respond to any other rubbish you spout

[aliveandkicking]

if more people understood the issue then the poeple would regulate it

 

i dont want to regulate nothing - its you who is the fan of regulation

 

i think you have a history of putting words into peoples mouths to help your argument

 

What i see in you is lack of consistancy in your thinking. You want free markets but you have not thought it thru.

 

 

utter tripe

 

i will no longer respond to any other rubbish you spout

 

[romans holiday]

why are free markets anarchic

 

if i go to a market and want to buy someones bananas for a price both I and the seller are both prepared to accept without the rules of how straight they are, what colour they are, whether they are priced in lb's or kg, whether he/she has complied with health and safety legislation, paid his business protection money (business rates) and his government protection money (taxes). Anarchy?

Markets do not exist in some abstract space. Neither do they spontaneously arise but rather develop concretely within a social order and can never be "free" from the constraints and regulations of society because it is this very society which provides the conditions and law by which people can trade.

 

I am amazed that markets became so polarized to government in the economic politics of new right ideology. Something so contrary to common-sense could only arise as a violent reaction to what proceeded it, namely socialism.

 

Neither a socialist nor libertarian be.

[littledavesab]

PS There will always be was while governments are in charge. But if they don't have the power to print money then sheer economics will reduce the scale of these wars.

 

Read not listened to article. Sorry to say this but looks like you had your gold tinted specs on when you wrote this

 

WW1 occured with the gold standard in full effect. WW1 resulted in a major deflation in terms of world population thanks to the machine gun (and useless generals) plus (eventually) to Germany experiencing hyper inflation where they were "saved" by Hitler and to UK loosing its role as the worlds reserve currency (after WW2 where the unfinished business was finally sorted).

 

Also if we go back to making stuff and not consuming...... who is going to be buying?

 

Incidentally if Benanke/Greenspan really are responsible for the current financial mess by keeping interest rates on an artifically low level for an extended period of time, for all the backslapping of free markets that goes on - the free (Stock) markets didnt exactly object did they? No... there was a nice run up between 2001-2007.

 

 

[chazza]

Incidentally if Benanke/Greenspan really are responsible for the current financial mess by keeping interest rates on an artifically low level for an extended period of time, for all the backslapping of free markets that goes on - the free (Stock) markets didnt exactly object did they? No... there was a nice run up between 2001-2007.

 

Not in real terms

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Read not listened to article. Sorry to say this but looks like you had your gold tinted specs on when you wrote this

 

WW1 occured with the gold standard in full effect. WW1 resulted in a major deflation in terms of world population thanks to the machine gun (and useless generals) plus (eventually) to Germany experiencing hyper inflation where they were "saved" by Hitler and to UK loosing its role as the worlds reserve currency (after WW2 where the unfinished business was finally sorted).

 

Also if we go back to making stuff and not consuming...... who is going to be buying?

 

Incidentally if Benanke/Greenspan really are responsible for the current financial mess by keeping interest rates on an artifically low level for an extended period of time, for all the backslapping of free markets that goes on - the free (Stock) markets didnt exactly object did they? No... there was a nice run up between 2001-2007.

 

took me a while to track down this thread

 

 

ForgottenAnniversary

 

Two governments with the greatest

war-making power in the world introduced coercion forcing their subjects to accept and use debt

as money. This was a ‘first’ in history. In particular, the governments were forcing the military,

as well as civil servants, to take paper promises as ultimate payment for services rendered.

Of course, the use of the phrase ‘legal tender’ in this way is an oxymoron. A promise to

pay that is at the same time an ultimate payment is not a promise. It is an ukase. This was a

reactionary step, designed to facilitate the unlimited augmentation of monetary circulation

regardless of the gold reserve. It allowed the financing of the coming war with government

credits, much of it interest free and with no maturity date. The burden was thrown on the

shoulders of the people without their concurrence.

The measure was represented as an innocent house-keeping change. There was no public

debate on its wisdom. Nobody at the time could see the ominous consequences. Nobody

suspected bad faith on the part of the government. As a proof of good faith gold coins were

allowed to remain in circulation for another five years. Banks paid them out routinely as before,

without fuss. There was no noticeable increase in the hoarding of gold coins by the people, a sign

that they implicitly trusted their government. When the war finally broke out in 1914, the “guns

of August” heralded the delayed effect of the legal tender laws. All gold coins went into hiding at

once. Banks refused to meet any request for payment in gold. Members of the legislation,

including all the socialist deputies, voted all the war-credits the government had asked for

without demur.

The first author to unmask the connection between the Legal Tender Laws of 1909 and

the outbreak of the war five years later, in 1914, was the German economist Heinrich

Rittershausen (1898-1984). He also predicted the Great Depression, and linked the coming

unprecedented wave of unemployment to legal tender, as I am going to discuss it in more details

in a minute.

We are left to second-guess history. Would the senseless killing and destruction of

property have come to an early end in the absence of legal tender laws, just as soon as the

belligerent governments had run out of gold to finance it? Most contemporary observers had

predicted that it would have. There was no way to finance a conflict of this magnitude out of

taxes. People did not understand that legal tender was an invisible form of tax to pay for the

greatest war up to that point in history. They did not understand the power of credit that would

enable governments to expend blood and treasure freely, without any restraint. People did not see

the Moloch behind the façade of legal tender ― the god that was preparing to devour his own

children.