Money was once related to gold and America changed that, I think they changed it to energy a society could have within its control? although it still is gold and also military, of course military is now questionable as to whether the technology is redundant? I mean as nuclear becomes world wide it and missiles seem to negate a winner and the old warfare that is battle fields whereby it becomes a blood bath seems old fashioned, Greg is right to ask what is money? money is a illusion created by a mindset that we all have to obey and not deflect from this idea or the dread is anarchy, the World Bank and the IMF and such institutes reinforce the myth of money, as can be seen by Iceland when they were set up by financiers the unexpected happened, cultures such as Australia cannot afford the courage of Iceland, as one can see the financial elite here, we see banking can become organized crime and are rewarded for this, that is the CEOs, will be all rewarded for maintaining the principals of the club and when our politicians explain the taxpayers why they are well off to have expenditure to afford two cups of coffee per week and pay for billions to corporations they the public are happy to pay money into the hand out knowing that they have paid out for being in bad faith and a collective collusion of being grateful for payments to those who could have the power to turn Australia into a type of Syria.
The primary purpose of tax certainly is, and always has been, to ward off a potential insurrection. As long as you’re prepared to keep coughing up you’re deemed reasonably safe. So every time you drive a car, light a stove, buy food, pay rent or rates…………
The system’s been rigged so as to compel virtually everyone to keep paying tribute/putting energy into a type of religious ritual: The $ factor is merely the periphery of a much deeper issue.
If TPTB didn’t take some currency (as opposed to real money) from us via taxation, we might just wake up to the scam that our financial/monetary system is a giant Ponzi scheme, based upon nothing but own collective gullibility and lack of interest in understanding how the monetary system really works. I still have debates/arguments with supposedly intelligent, informed “adults” as to whether fraction reserve lending is real. Huh?? An actual quote from a friends hubby- “you’re talking shit Phil!! They can’t lend more than they’ve got”. What can one say to that sort of ill-informed response from an “adult?”
If the truth be known, the gubmint could just print currency “up the wazoo” and fund its criminal operation via rampant inflation. Wait until they resort to Universal Basic Income….hyperinflation just around the corner.
Of course, we end up, sooner or later as Zimbabwe, Venezuela or Weimar. Then the cat would be well and truly out of the bag and the’d have some serious ‘splainin’ to do.
Imagine the Governor of the Reserve Bank or the treasurer saying that we have the best regulated and most sounds banks in the world, as they are exposed daily by the Royal Commission, as criminal operations
I contend that any money is anything that is accepted as a medium of exchange of goods and services no matter what its token is.
If you love gold then trade everything you have for gold and eat the gold while the man with a can of baked beans eats them because he refused to trade his real wealth for a token.
I’m not saying that gold doesn’t have any uses. What I am saying is that its value (compared to other things) is determined by its usefulness as stuff to make jewellery, micro printed circuits, etc. etc.
There is no good reason that an economy’s exchange medium should be limited by the amount of that yellow tin that can be dug up or stolen.
If you dis someone’s god you’re obviously going to be accused of “talking shit”. Human belief is more powerful than the intellect and emotions combined.
Phil, Fractional reserve “banking” (really, “creative” money lending) has been a common practice by “them in the know” since Babylonian times according to ledgers deciphered from that period. It may well have been occult practice way before then but, as far as I know, there are no records of it extant. It arose in times when various metals were used as currency tokens and I will contend that “fractional reserve banking” could not have arisen without some equally cumbersome money token.
Essentially, bankers were someone with a secure storage facility who would be paid to keep safe your money, or coinage. Naturally, deposits were issued a receipt of some kind (perhaps a tally stick or written note). It didn’t take long before people who were transferring their coinage to another realised that, instead of withdrawing their coinage and handing it over to another who promptly re-deposited it, could just give him the receipt for the deposit and he could claim it anytime he liked. That is the origin of the “banknote”.
Let’s say that cunning money-keeper soon noticed that most of the deposits sat gathering dust while only a bit near the top of the pile was used in transactions between depositors. So, why not lend out (at interest) fake receipts for the static pile until the rate they came in for “conversion into currency” approximated what he had in the vault? Every “fake receipt” became money because it worked as money. It was just as effectively money as the chunk of gold stamped with the king’s head in the Royal Mint and just as surely “created out of thin air”. Obviously that is fraught with the “difficulty” that might be posed if some calamity caused the receipt holders to want to convert their receipts into coinage all at once. I bet that all those money-lenders had a well fed, fast horse in their back shed. Anyhow, that is the origin of “fractional reserve lending”.
Now the principle remains what it was but the practicalities have evolved with changing circumstance and technology.
This “explanation” is obviously rudimentary but a book length exposition is not acceptable to the comments section of somebody’s blog thing. If there is interest I can expand and explain further.
Phil, please attend the Royal Commission on Banking, in the flesh. What you will hear from witnesses is not the same as what you would read in the paper that night as to what the witnesses said.
Quote unquote, Jaded Visitor to the Lindt Cafe Coroner court (in the flesh)
Y’poor dear! T’ Berk and Th’Buck are similarly detached from the reality of money creation. I am quite happy to argue the point as I didn’t come down in the last shower of capitalist apologists.
Ol David — maybe you’re really “smart” — but maybe you missed the satirical subtlety of the question Greg was posing. I also condensed a 20 min interview into 5 minutes. I’m sure he’d be happy to argue financials.
Then send Greg my way. I will be happy to argue with him in private or in public.
I’ve heard lots of excuses for nonsense but “satirical subtlety” is a new one to me.
Taxation seems to be a form of psychological control. If governments just gave they would seem to be servants, but by giving and taking away they appear to be masters.
I bet they all know that the current financial system can’t last. I suspect the globalists would like crypto to be the next thing. I won’t encourage anyone to buy into it though.
On a different facility now.
What if the tourist presented a fresh lobster rather than a 100 euro note?
Are the banks able to present a fresh lobster out of thin air?
Let them take a dive and we shall see!
I saw that vid long ago along with many others on similar themes.
I have also been essentially aware (for about 40 years) of the plutocratic oligarchy that claims dominion over all people and things that has its roots in the City of London, and I am also aware of the organised idiotocracy that happily trade intellectual and moral integrity for the occult “wisdom”, avarice and ambition that supports that secretive cabal.
In all those years I have also been associated with, or at least aware of, many programmes, or plans, that naively assume that the inherently corrupt system will depose itself if “enough” pressure, or court cases, or complaining and moaning is brought to bear.
Ho hum. We can all see the spectacular results of that mode. I know of several instances where high level pollies and “government” institutions have been “attained” (suspected or accused) of treason according to “Law” or the “Constitution” that the corrupt system has dismissed or “lost” or simply ignored.
That’s why I wrote up the “Civil Authority” document that every up-to-date God and Man hater is revolted by.
So that document’s online somewhere?
If not can you explain the relevance to the “why we pay tax” question ?
At the beginning of a 2008 vid Brian Shaw reads from Ezekiel 3:17 – 19 “if you don’t deliver what you’ve been shown you are liable and accountable for their sin”. That’s actually a recurring theme throughout the entire bible, one that I hold very dear, but as the guy strikes me as being more of a preacher than a teacher he tends to somewhat get up my nose.
Actually I have the same problem with my youngest son: Very smart on-the-ball guy but our communications frequently disintegrate into a “you need to get the hell off that pulpit boy!” stalemate.
My observation is that most ostensibly good male leaders are useless listeners.
Nice to meet you in a fairly direct exchange, berry.
No, the doc. is not online that I know of as I don’t have a web site and no editor has seen fit to publish it. Drop me a line at: dmkzmarwick@bigpond.com and I’ll send it to you.
The main reason we have a taxman is to provide the money-lenders with a coercive instrument to extort from the society interest payments on inevitably and relentlessly increasing debt . Such taxes inevitably passed on to consumers as any tax levied on producers or suppliers is passed on as a business expense. As such, it’s the ordinary man who must spend most, if not all, of his disposable income on the necessities of life foots the bill. It’s not quite that simple but that’s a general overview.
To the crooked economists that manufacture the sales hype a “balanced” or “surplus” budget is when the corporation (government) does not need to borrow more money to pay interest on the existing debt.
Brian Shaw’s didactic style irked me a bit too. But you’ve got to give him top marks for doing his homework.
You should be very pleased to have a young man who pays any attention to anything other than stupid fashions and popular lies.
I, for one, find it impossible to think in a blather of “conversation”.
Yes. It’s an old form of money… not very secure, though.
It is the perfect example of my earlier statement. Money is anything that is accepted as a medium of exchange of goods and services. It doesn’t matter what its token is.
As it would be in just about any community not dominated by a cabal of lawyers, politicians and media sycophants. (Read Lawyers, Pharisees and Scribes).
What a load of codswallop. My guess is that Egon von Greyerz has a big chunk of gold that he would like some suckers to exchange for something really useful like a farm or a house.
It would make some sense for someone who has a real use for gold like a jeweller or micro-circuit manufacturer to have some gold in stock for his intended use but it makes no sense at all for a real man to trade useful property or assets for a chunk of yellow tin. Con men, like thieving usurers and speculators can profit by selling very little for much to the gullible and avaricious. That is the engine of usury.
It also makes no practical sense to have an economy’s exchange medium limited by how much yellow tin can be dug up or stolen from neighbours. How perverse is the idea that we should invade a neighbour, commandeer all their coinage and artifacts so that their economy would grind to a halt for lack of an exchange medium while we should prosper with a plenty of exchange medium (money)?
I think it would be fair for all the lovers of gold to be exiled to a desert island with all their beloved gold so that ordinary people can just get on with their ordinary business of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services; that is what an economy is… money, whatever its token is, is only a man-made convenience to facilitate that economy.
There is much very good reasoning about what money is, what it is made of, where it comes from and all that but, it is all incomprehensible to lovers of money for money’s sake.
(1) “What a load of codswallop.”
Once again you jump into an issue, dismiss another writer’s ideas, cast aspersions on his motives, adopting a posture of superiority, without first providing/demonstrating any basis for your own credibility. On a complex, multi-faceted issue, that has challenged societies through the ages to find effective solutions, and is still a live ongoing debate today, you in your wisdom have already reached a DEFINITIVE conclusion. As the issues are important, I have taken the time and effort to craft a considered response. I hope that the reply is sufficiently clear and meaningful to you.
(2) To start with the basics (Econs101), there are four widely and authoritatively recognised important (essential) functions of money: (i) Medium of exchange; (ii) Measurement of value; (iii) Standard of deferred payments; (iv) Store of value. It could be argued that these are FUNDAMENTAL aspects of good/credible/durable/essential/critical properties and determinants of what entity can serve effectively as “money”. It is true that as a social convention (“a man-made convenience”) many things can be (and have been) used as “money” in human history — ranging (among others) from sea shells, to tally sticks, to animal skins/hides, to “paper money”/fiat currency, bankers notes (IOU receipts), diamonds, art works, accounting units/“electronic money” stemming from credit (or debit) cards and, most recently, crypto-currencies (putting to one side, for now, IMF-issued “special drawing rights” or SDRs). No one can, and you don’t even attempt to, make the case that they ALL perform those 4 important functions (cited above) equally well. That is why many of the earlier forms of “money” have become defunct and have been abandoned, and many currently acceptable forms of “money” also have a questionable/limited “shelf life”, including the previously-dominant but now endangered US$.
(3) Indeed, that is an important aspect of why gold has served as “money” for 5000+ years (a FUNDAMENTAL you don’t seem to recognise). That is also why many nations STILL retain gold as an important reserve asset (in Europe, Russia, China, etc.) Even the USA makes the (dubious/unaudited) claim to have 8000 tons of gold as its reserve asset. It has also transferred (expropriated???) gold from Iraq, Libya, Ukraine after intervening into those countries. WHY??? Several countries (Russia, China, in particular) have also made significant efforts to purchase and substantially INCREASE their national gold reserve asset in recent years. Others, including Germany, Netherlands, Hungary, Turkey, have sought to repatriate their gold stored abroad in foreign vaults to their own domestic vaults for greater surety and control as trust is rapidly fading in the present unstable international context. WHY???
(4) So the issue is NOT simply the mundane one of what you/I/we would willingly exchange/trade/barter “for something really useful like a farm or a house”. (To repeat, we are NOT referring here merely to private, individual, mutual arrangements for exchange/trade, where “anything goes” may prevail.) The more important question is: what would the representatives of society, nations and the international system agree to accept as reliable/effective/credible/durable forms of “money” for both national and international transactions (and the accompanying terms and conditions). In this regard, towards the end of World War II, by international agreement at the Bretton Woods Conference, the major players agreed on the US$ as the new world reserve currency, based on a fixed exchange rate with gold — precisely to give confidence that the US$ would have credible backing. However, yielding to spending/debt pressures, President Nixon reneged on this arrangement in 1971, removed the gold constraint/shackles on the creation of unlimited fiat US$, leading to the explosion and massive export of US$ (unrepayable debt) to all countries, now backed solely by force of arms (exercised liberally); and, according to Egon von Greyerz, leading directly to the madness today of history’s biggest tea party.
(5) You briefly put your finger on a key issue in passing, but fail to appreciate and expand on its full significance, when you wrote: “Con men, like thieving usurers and speculators can profit by selling very little for much to the gullible and avaricious.” Indeed, con men and confidence (and other) tricks are an important/critical aspect of why “anything will do” is NOT a viable option for “money” — whether as an entity or as a mode of operation. And usury (charging of interest on loans/debts, possibly rising to exorbitant rates) is only ONE aspect of possible trickery/deception/cheating/exploitation — ranging (among others) from the shenanigans that Australian banks are currently being exposed for; to bankers issuing very many more receipts/notes/IOUs than received deposits; to governments/central banks printing and issuing (unbacked) fiat currency “out of thin air” without restraint (thus inflating/devaluing the value/“worth” of the currency, to the detriment of the holders of those currencies); to governments bailing out insolvent major banks (at public/taxpayer expense) following the 2008 global financial crisis; to arrangements already in place for “bail-ins” (penalising depositor funds) at the next (coming) financial crisis; to the sellers of “paper gold” based on deposits of “unallocated” physical gold, or “derivatives” based on NO gold (or any other real asset, i.e., completely fictitious entities). Egon von Greyerz (and others) emphasise that physical gold in your direct possession is NOT fictitious, and NOT debt-based, and offers better PROTECTION against all kinds of con men and their multiple nefarious tricks/cons. In this regard, to glibly dismiss the advocates of gold as the basis for sound money (WITHOUT offering a credible alternative — “money, whatever its token is”, meaning “anything will do”, is NOT a credible response, for several reasons already mentioned above) as merely “lovers of money for money’s sake” is to miss completely the crux of the debate on these matters!!!
(6) Finally, you actually admitted that “There is much very good reasoning about what money is, what it is made of, where it comes from and all that but . . .” Here again, you hint at a great deal (“ and all that”), but end with that glib/dismissive remark that delivers little/nothing of any significance to enhance our understanding of these important matters. When you are able to acquire greater knowledge/understanding/appreciation of what Egon von Greyerz and several others have written (supported by evidence + coherent arguments over many years), on the STILL important (but presently significantly suppressed/manipulated) role for gold in the present monetary system, and the fact that gold is STILL accepted and held as reserves by many governments and central banks, you may be less dismissive of what you call “a load of codswallop”. You may even be able to appreciate why Egon von Greyerz (and others) anticipate that the current madness of human history’s biggest tea party, based on unrestrained and irresponsible efforts to transcend the gold standard, is coming to its end, with alarming consequences for all.
(7) To conclude, the most important point that you fail to appreciate sufficiently YOURSELF, and to explain more clearly to readers is that (a) under certain conditions, which DO NOT YET exist, there IS (would be) a case to “go beyond gold”, and (b) there is also a WAY(s) to do so that could transform the present world of rat-racing, shark-infested, “dog-eat-dog”, conflict-ridden, unending wars by increasingly repressive (deep) states — a way that is also NOT dependent on some mythical God(s) to deliver salvation. But, before/until the world reaches that state of readiness/well-being, you/we first have to understand and appreciate better the important role that gold can (and WILL) play in the prevailing situation, and UTILISE it, to facilitate (lever) the transition to that potential for a better/transformed world. WITHOUT an effective instrument/lever to offer, you remain on the sidelines, impotently sprouting YOUR “load of codswallop” (e.g., “money, whatever its token is”). Is your load better than anyone else’s???
Good one, kermit.
There are few Sacred Cows more sacred than the ones made of gold. Kicking the Golden Calf is surely the Materialist’s penultimate blasphemy.
All of what you’ve said is entirely dependent on the assumption that money is a commodity and NOT just a man made tool to facilitate trade. ALL the grand larceny, usury, speculation of the present financial “industries” is dependent on that carefully contrived and propagated hoax, nonsense, codswallop. A superstition (irrational belief) does not become a fact or “reality” just by being commonly accepted.
There is an army of “economists” pumping out specious stories to perpetuate the myth that money is a commodity and that theft by usury is a legitimate “business”. Sycophantic corruption is a rewarding career for those that produce nothing but a smokescreen for the real crooks (big bankers) to hide behind. The lie is even protected by establishing prestigious “schools of economics” to spuriously “justify” the perverse and perfidious system.
I say again: ALL money is “created out of thin air” no matter what its token is. A chunk of gold is only a chunk of metal just as is a chunk of copper. Its real value is in its usefulness. If it is useful for making coins out of, well and good. But equally useful coins can be made of copper or aluminium. But until the base material is minted into a coin (becomes money out of thin air) its value is only its material usefulness…
So then, the problem with money is not that it is created out of thin air but that it is asumed to be a commodity that is “lent” to an economy as an interest-bearing debt to the economy. There is practically no “legal tender” in existence that is not “borrowed” at interest. Even stockpiles of gold are bought with debt money. Every penny in anyone’s pocket is someone else’s debt. Every “repayment” to the banks is made out of someone else’s debt, whether that debt is in another country or local.
Your assertion that money is: : (i) Medium of exchange; (ii) Measurement of value; (iii) Standard of deferred payments; (iv) Store of value. sounds like it came from the “Austrian school”. I will contend and maintain that the only real and proper purpose of money is a medium of exchange. That the exchange of goods and services need not be immediate (as in barter) does not mean that it is not just a medium of exchange. Money cannot “measure” anything… it is only the medium by which the transactors of goods and services swap the relative usefulness of their goods and services for trade purposes between themselves and trade their legitimate claims to goods and services with third parties. The “store of value” business is another codswallop. If I had stored the sixpence my grandfather gave me in 1955 it wouldn’t even buy a box of matches today.
The love of money serves the money lenders very well indeed.
“If I had stored the sixpence my grandfather gave me in 1955 it wouldn’t even buy a box of matches today.”
What was the date on that sixpence you were given? The early sterling (92.5% silver) sixpence would get you around $1.85 whereas the later debased sixpence (50% silver) would get you $1.
Hmm, that word ‘debase’, I’ve read about that before in monetary history.
The kits from WWII are neat as they have a sovereign, two half sovereigns, two French coins and 3 gold rings.
Gold is a universal money. It doesn’t matter which continent you’re on, Europe, Africa, Asia, South America – people recognize it as MONEY.
The Chinese, the Indians, and people in the Middle-East are reputed to have a tradition to store/preserve significant portion of savings/wealth in gold (and silver) and to transmit wealth by this means (e.g., as dowries, inheritance transfers, etc.) over generations (outside of the formal banking system, and the official currency system). Also useful in periods of hyperinflation, e.g., during the German Weimar Republic days and even today in situations of currency value collapse e.g., in Venezuela, earlier in Argentina/Brazil, and now in Turkey as illustrated in these charts: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-25/gold-surges-record-turkey-and-other-emerging-markets-currencies-collapse
Even the current world reserve currency (with fluctuations) has depreciated significantly (per oz) from US$20.67 in 1900, to US$32.32 in 1933, to US$44.60 in 1971, to US$272.65 in 2000, to approx. US$1300 this week (DESPITE significant ongoing establishment efforts to manipulate/suppress the price). No wonder many national Central Banks STILL store/accumulate significant amounts of gold (and silver) as one of their reserve assets. No kidding!!! https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-11/stunning-photos-inside-russias-fort-knox
Egon von Greyerz, James Richards (and others) even anticipate the possibility of the future gold price rising to US$10,000 (or more?) per oz. The point is not just HOW HIGH in price gold (and silver) might go but, more importantly, how disrupted/distressed/chaotic the situation/economy/world would be if (when?) these prices (are led to) soar, in an environment of unrestricted money printing, and unregulated electronic/digital issuance. Of course, we can hope/pray such situations DON’T eventuate. But, as you noted, they DID (probably still do) issue those gold “tokens” to those pilots/agents for emergencies.
(1) Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for you, Oldavid, because, in summary, (a) You are unfamiliar with even very basic concepts relating to “money” specifically, and Economics more generally, (b) your own understanding of these matters is restricted to a few limited propositions, which you repeat over and over again, (c) anything that extends beyond your very limited range of accepted propositions is dismissed as simply “another codswallop”, (d) this makes further intelligent discussion on these matters futile, if not impossible. Let me expand a little on these points, so that you can understand better what I mean.
(2) The 4 principal functions of money are NOT specifically derived from “Austrian Economics”, and certainly NOT my “assumptions”. They come from basic Economics 101, found in most Introduction to (first year, mainstream orthodox/“Neo-classical”) Economics textbooks, and can also be located online with a simple internet search. If you are unfamiliar with these stipulated functions, and question even these basic understandings, there is little scope for further deeper/extended discussion on matters relating to money, such as inflation/deflation, reserve assets/currencies, the role of gold in the monetary system as perceived by Egon von Greyerz (and others), currency wars, and other aspects of International Political Economy.
(3) Your own understanding of matters relating to money is restricted to these few propositions: (a) “money, whatever its token is”, meaning (I interpret as) “anything will do”. You don’t perceive a special/reserve role for gold (or any other “commodity”), or even seem to see the need for any reserve asset in the monetary system. (b) You recognise one, and only one, principal function of money — solely as a medium of exchange. Specifically, “Money . . . is only a man-made convenience to facilitate [exchange in] that economy”; “money is . . . just a man made tool to facilitate trade.” Strangely, you argue that “Money cannot “measure” anything” yet (in your words) can serve as “the medium by which the transactors of goods and services swap the relative usefulness of their goods and services.” (c) You firmly reassert, “I say again: ALL money is “created out of thin air” no matter what its token is.” But several people may be surprised that you would view a “token” of physical gold as equivalent to a “token” of fiat/“paper” currency, as also equivalent to a “token” of bitcoin, because they are ALL (in your view) “created out of thin air” (d) You equate advocates for the use of gold in the monetary system (you call them “lovers of gold”), such as Egon von Greyerz, with “lovers of money for money’s sake”, and (worse) “Con men” (thieving usurers and speculators) who “profit by selling very little for much to the gullible and avaricious”, and who operate “the engine of usury”. (e) You don’t say that all the “lovers of gold” should just jump into the sea, but you would like them “to be exiled to a desert island with all their beloved gold so that ordinary people can just get on with their ordinary business”. (f) I also get the feeling from your disparaging remarks that you are contemptuous of (or you just don’t LIKE) big bankers, money lenders, “lovers of gold”, “lovers of money for money’s sake”, Con men, thieving usurers and speculators, the army of “economists”, “Materialists”, worshippers of the Golden Calf, “those that produce nothing”. Anyone else???
(4) Some of your views cited above flow from a number of misunderstandings. Just to cite one gross example of your misunderstanding of basic economics and its ramifications: you very confidently proclaim that “The “store of value” business is another codswallop. If I had stored the sixpence my grandfather gave me in 1955 it wouldn’t even buy a box of matches today.” THAT, my dear Oldavid is PRECISELY WHY economists, policy makers, taxpayers, and even the ordinary man in the street, are concerned about the retention of value in “money” against the significant ravages of inflation or, worse, the total decimation of the currency, from various possible causes. THAT is PRECISELY where the CONCEPT of the function of money as a “store of value” is especially relevant/pertinent/necessary. THAT is PRECISELY where a person such as Egon von Greyerz perceives an important role for gold as a reserve asset in the monetary system, as (arguably) a bulwark against such possible calamities. THAT is PRECISELY why any/all rational discussion of these matters would become difficult/impossible if we were to accept your firm conviction that “The “store of value” business is another codswallop.”
(5) Conceptualisations and analysis/discussions/debates on money in particular, and Economics in general, have extended far beyond your limited propositions/understanding of these matters, but any(every)thing that extends beyond your limited understanding or range of accepted propositions is glibly dismissed as simply another “load of codswallop”. “ALL . . . grand larceny,” “speculation”, “carefully contrived and propagated hoax, nonsense, codswallop”, “A superstition (irrational belief)”, “myth”, “specious stories”, “Sycophantic corruption”, “a smokescreen for the real crooks (big bankers) to hide behind”, “The lie . . . to spuriously “justify” the perverse and perfidious system”. It is very difficult/impossible to argue against (or even communicate rationally in the face of) such superior intelligence. It is already increasingly difficult to separate the chaff from the wheat. It is even harder when the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. [Side comment: The good thing about the internet is that any/every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Number can say whatever he/she likes. The bad thing about the internet is that any/every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Number can say whatever he/she likes.]
(6) To conclude, I accept that “it is what it is”, and it is NOT my intention or responsibility to change your thoughts on these matters, especially as you already have very firm convictions, and you prefer your own load of codswallop to someone else’s load of codswallop. Hence, I reserve further comment, and hope that (as another commentator on a different thread cited) we remain “good friends” on this blog. Probably no one else will read or be interested in these robust exchanges (now, in plain sight, equivalent to a private conversation) between us, especially since the focus has moved on to more recent threads/topics. So cheers to you.
Oh dear!, Kermit! (I suppose that Kermit is that sock puppet frog thing from that Yank children’s head-shrinking show on telly).
If we’re going to gain an understanding of the philosophy of money you’ve got to start with the fundamentals… the nature and purpose of the stuff. This has been known and expounded in practical terms for about 100 years that I know of. Clifford Hugh Douglas had a simple and practical proposal that he called “Social Credit”.
The government owned and controlled creation of credit was used with great success in Australia in the 1920’s and in Canada in the 1930’s. It took several years of bribery, corruption and deceit for the bankers to take back their perfidious monopoly of creation of credit as debt to the economy in both cases. Kaddafi and Hussein were working toward another version of a similar thing. There are some hints that Al Assad is similarly ill disposed to international banking fraud.
Anyhow, the real and proper backing for currency is not some arbitrarily applied “gold standard” but the natural resources such as the industry and capability of the people. Even though a deficiency of currency can cripple an economy the currency itself cannot create anything, it can only facilitate economic activity (the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services). Just think of “the great depression”… all the natural resources like land, rain, sunshine, minerals, skilled and willing workers etc. were still present the only thing lacking was the lubricant (money) that allowed the “machine” to work efficiently. The bankers deliberately restricted the money supply so that they could gain increased control (ownership) of natural resources (human and material).
I’m putting on my pointy steel cap boots to kick your Golden Calf now, Kermit.
Oh dear, Oldavid,
You are putting on your kicking boots because you can’t sustain (have lost) the argument??? — those who lose the debate seek to settle scores by “other means”!!!
Just to let you in on some info you are not aware of: I KNOW of CH Douglas, I LIKE his ideas, and I SUPPORT his policies (I mean, I would if they were being implemented — which we both know they aren’t — and WON’T be, by the lot you elected to Parliament.)
You mentioned Gaddafi and Hussein. Did you know that Hitler also had strong elements of those policies??? (Did Hitler learn from Douglas or vice versa?) THAT was (an important part of) how Germany recovered so quickly/strongly and effectively from her disastrous defeat in WW1, and after horrendous reparations were levied on her to pay for the costs of the war (even those incurred by her allies). Starting from the basics (“square one”), he was able to get the economy cranking again, get the population back to work, solve the unemployment problem, and also have the resources to revive military strength so effectively as to be able to overrun most of Europe and drive the Brits back into the sea at Dunkirk, AND make significant advances into Russia, until they stopped him on the Eastern front at great human cost to both sides. (Most people don’t know much/anything about the events on the Eastern front; but know lots about the efforts of a country which joined in with fresh troops in the late(r) stages of the conflict on the Western front!!!)
WOW!!! What kinds of policies (economic/financial/employment/reconstruction) enabled such quick/strong and effective post-WW1 recovery of national strengths and capabilities. Can other countries learn about and from those policies, and achieve similar “miraculous” results??? Well, you know what subsequently happened to Herr Hitler — he, his efforts and policies were demonised in toto, and very few people learn/know/appreciate how he achieved Germany’s stupendous post-WW1 recovery and transformation. And now Germany remains a subjugated colony with foreign military bases STILL on her soil to (shall we say) “maintain the peace” decades after the war. (Can you think of another country with multiple foreign bases on its territory???).
Just to confirm/reinforce the point, most people don’t know (did you???) that under Gaddafi Libya achieved the status of the most developed country in the African continent. Free education to university level, subsidised housing for citizens, massive successful public projects (for water, telecommunications, etc.), direct democracy, etc., etc., etc. (search for youtube video on 10 things they don’t want you to know about Gaddafi). Again, WOW!!! What kinds of policies (economic/financial/social/etc.) enabled such achievements??? (Of course, Libya has rich oil resources — but other oil-rich African countries, e.g., Nigeria, did not come close to Libya’s achievements). Well, you also know what happened to Mr Gaddafi — he also was demonised in toto (dictator, killing his own people, all-round bad guy, etc.), the national infrastructure was extensively destroyed, country decimated, now slave markets operate openly in the country, and many boat people seeking refuge across the Mediterranean in Europe (they won’t get pass Manus Island in this direction!!!)
Also, what happened to German and Libyan gold after their defeats/decimation/collapse??? WHAT . . . you didn’t KNOW they had substantial gold assets??? (What FOR???) You want to kick them for worshipping the Golden Calf??? I don’t know how old you are Oldavid, but you/I/we are NEVER too old to learn. Learn to be more discriminating (in the good sense) in the sense of being more effective in separating the chaff from the wheat. Just because you have significant hang-ups about gold, doesn’t mean that there are not important useful aspects about it/its uses. One reason why Gaddafi was treated so horribly was because he wanted to move away from the use of the US$ — but, even WORSE, he had plans to create and promote a (unifying) common African Union currency system, based on the GOLD dinar! BIGGGG no, no!!! “They” DON’T WANT him/Africa/you/ANYONE to turn to (use) gold!!! WHY??? And that is a lesson you yourself also DON’T WANT to learn — because you have hang-ups about the Golden Calf, etc. So your mind is completely made up/shut down/closed!!! See what I mean about (not) having the ability to sort the chaff from the wheat (and vice versa)???
One major problem with you Oldavid — you are prejudiced (bogged down by old/fixed/preconceived biases)!!! Thinking largely/wholly in (binary) black and white — missing the greys, greens, blues, pinks, purples, etc. Insufficiently flexible, discriminating (in the good sense) to sieve the wheat from the chaff. Just because you are enamoured by CH Douglas’ Social Credit ideas (me too!!!) doesn’t mean that you must completely ignore/shut out all alternative/competing perspectives, e.g., Classical/orthodox mainstream neo-Classical/Libertarian/Fabian Socialist/Anarcist/Marxist/post-Marxist/etc. perspectives. Find the useful gems/insights from each, combine them in new/fresh ways wherever possible/relevant, and avoid being labelled and trapped in a strait jacket! Social credit is (only) ONE (important/key) concept/perspective/approach. There are others too! Have a BROAD repertoire of concepts/ideas/tools/skills, and apply them flexibly in varying combination, in congruence with different/changing situations/demands/requirements. Ok, enough — I’ve exposed too much of my secrets to you, already.
Finally,
(a) put away your kicking boots Oldavid, unless you want to confirm that you can’t stand up to a robust debate.
(b) this Kermit is NO sock puppet! But I do like Kermit’s song. Do a search for the video on the internet and tell me what you think of it.
(c) a tip for your bedtime reading: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49487.htm
A Warning by Professor Dr Eberhard Hamer. You have been informed!!!
Don’t you enjoy these private conversations we are having???
Well, I’m glad that we have at least some common ground. As far as my being enamoured with Douglas and his “Social Credit”; it’s over 40 years since I read his proposals… there’s plenty of more recent stuff with the same or similar theme.
The point I am making is that this fascination with gold is a silly distraction that hides the real issues about money. All Adolf’s gold did not make a single bomb or create a single gallant young man to go on a mission of murder and mayhem. Even after Germany had been just about reduced to rubble and much of its production had been exported to be busted and rusting in fields or oceans the gold remained to be carried away and stuck down another hole in the ground in another country.
In Libya a young married couple were not given a wheelbarrow with 5000 gold Dinars in it to get them started making a home. All Gaddafi’s gold did not create a single road or irrigation project, it stayed put until it was pillaged to be carted away to be put down another hole in the ground.
Gold is a stupid superstition. With great expenditure of manpower and resources we dig huge holes in the ground to extract and refine the stuff and with more expenditure of resources it’s shifted around the globe to be stuck down another hole in the ground where an army of forklifts shift it from one pile to another ad infinitum. You don’t need gold to create money. You only need people and resources and economic activity. Money only facilitates economic activity… it does not create it. Although a lack of exchange medium can stiffle economy you can’t create an economy by just flooding a society with money… or gold. The piles in the fat-cat’s coffers or the bank’s books does not count as exchange medium because it’s dead and out of circulation.
If I was afraid to “debate” with you I would have run away and hid after your first verbose apologetic defending the system.
I did not “elect” any government or system lackey. For about 30 years I have written across the ballot paper “no suitable candidates”.
I read the article you linked to. While I am cautiously in agreement with much of it I’ll not be recommending it as a good exposure of banking fraud. Some of the commenters seem to have a good grip on the problem, though.
Now here’s one for you: http://cecaust.com.au/Pass-Glass-Steagall/
I’ve known about this Australian mob on-and-off since its inception. Until recently they’ve been pretty cautiously softly, softly, but they seem to have gained in confidence in the last few months.
Oldavid, I took time and effort to peruse the 2 links you posted above:
(1) the link to the CEC advocacy for the introduction of Glass-Steagall banking rules in Oz has merit. BUT note that after existing for decades in the US, these rules were brushed away after the GFC. in 2008. This (among other consequences) permitted the major (insolvent) banks to be bailed out at public/taxpayer/govt expense. While there were some subsequent murmurs in the US about bringing them back, the likely strong opposition from the banking/finance industries and other establishment forces make it very unlikely. In this context, there is also unlikely to be a successful campaign for their introduction in Oz. The CEC could still make the effort, but there are many things that would be “nice”/good to have, that still won’t/don’t get accepted for various reasons, not the least, the opposition of TPTB.
(2) For your second link you simply say, “Have a look around his site. He (albeit rather cautiously) debunks the gold myth.”
Well HE (Anthony Migchels) is NOT necessarily an objective/neutral analyst on all aspects of Hitler and his policies. He posted an article that was followed by 267 comments, many from readers who question/contest/challenge his views!!! Several readers posted links to videos that have been BLOCKED (DELETED???) by Youtube — which suggests that the mainstream does NOT accept/approve/tolerate those alternative/opposing/different perspectives from people who critique Migchels!!! How could you/we conclude from these that (cautiously, or not) he successfully/effectively DEBUNKS the “gold myth”??? Did you also miss the part where the author of the article, Anthony Migchels, wrote: “A [Reichsmark] Gold peg remained in place [after 1931]. There were [also] 1, 2 and 5 Reichsmark silver coins.)”??? So, the best that could be postulated is that this topic continues to this day to be a complex, multi-faceted, hotly debated issue (which I had already earlier indicated), NOT a settled matter congruent with YOUR assertions about gold. Rather than defending and digging into your fixed/frozen biases (prejudices/prejudgements) about gold and its (irrelevant, to you) uses/role in the economy/society/monetary system shouldn’t this substantial and ongoing heated controversy encourage you to be at least a bit more open/flexible/amenable to other perspectives on this topic??? Or is this truly a case of you closing your mind prematurely and, thus, preferring your load of codswallop to someone else’s load of codswallop?
(3) For me, the critical questions are: (a) How did Hitler (Gaddafi, Hussein, etc,) achieve remarkable/transformative results for his nation’s economy and society — taking into account that much mainstream info about them and their efforts/achievements are distorted/erroneous, and accurate/important info are or may be blocked/suppressed, (b) from these and other historical cases (and various /different analytical/theoretical perspectives, e.g., Douglas and others), are there possible lessons/useful ideas/guidelines for those who also want to improve/uplift/transform their own difficult/problematic/unsatisfactory national situations/conditions, (c) what useful role (if any) can gold/silver (specifically) and “money” (in general) play in this effort??? These then lead to the question: (d) what can I/you/“we” (???) do about it???
(e) Do we address (d) before or after we address and understand (a), (b), (c)???
No. The Glass-Steagall bizzo was repealed in 1999 which directly facilitated the explosion in derivatives, “sub-prime mortgages” and all that fraudulent and speculative activity that caused the GFC of 2008, which resulted in mountains of debt being transferred to the “government” (i.e. the people) in various “bail-out” measures. All the gold in Fort Knox stayed what it was… completely useless except as bait for silly speculators.
Sorry for the delayed response, Oldavid — some urgent matters needed attention, made special effort to get back to reply to you! Yup, Glass-Steagall went away in 1999 (should have picked that up if not distracted by other matters), repealed by none other than the honourable Bill Clinton, and replaced by Gramm-Leach-Bailey Act, which paved way for shenanigans leading to GFC 2008. These distinguished gentlemen were probably well rewarded for their efforts.
Anyway, will miss our private conversations as will be out for reach/range/touch for quite awhile. But won’t have much impact, as your mind is STILL all made-up!
It’s like all my birthdays come at once.
Yay!
Money was once related to gold and America changed that, I think they changed it to energy a society could have within its control? although it still is gold and also military, of course military is now questionable as to whether the technology is redundant? I mean as nuclear becomes world wide it and missiles seem to negate a winner and the old warfare that is battle fields whereby it becomes a blood bath seems old fashioned, Greg is right to ask what is money? money is a illusion created by a mindset that we all have to obey and not deflect from this idea or the dread is anarchy, the World Bank and the IMF and such institutes reinforce the myth of money, as can be seen by Iceland when they were set up by financiers the unexpected happened, cultures such as Australia cannot afford the courage of Iceland, as one can see the financial elite here, we see banking can become organized crime and are rewarded for this, that is the CEOs, will be all rewarded for maintaining the principals of the club and when our politicians explain the taxpayers why they are well off to have expenditure to afford two cups of coffee per week and pay for billions to corporations they the public are happy to pay money into the hand out knowing that they have paid out for being in bad faith and a collective collusion of being grateful for payments to those who could have the power to turn Australia into a type of Syria.
The primary purpose of tax certainly is, and always has been, to ward off a potential insurrection. As long as you’re prepared to keep coughing up you’re deemed reasonably safe. So every time you drive a car, light a stove, buy food, pay rent or rates…………
The system’s been rigged so as to compel virtually everyone to keep paying tribute/putting energy into a type of religious ritual: The $ factor is merely the periphery of a much deeper issue.
If TPTB didn’t take some currency (as opposed to real money) from us via taxation, we might just wake up to the scam that our financial/monetary system is a giant Ponzi scheme, based upon nothing but own collective gullibility and lack of interest in understanding how the monetary system really works. I still have debates/arguments with supposedly intelligent, informed “adults” as to whether fraction reserve lending is real. Huh?? An actual quote from a friends hubby- “you’re talking shit Phil!! They can’t lend more than they’ve got”. What can one say to that sort of ill-informed response from an “adult?”
If the truth be known, the gubmint could just print currency “up the wazoo” and fund its criminal operation via rampant inflation. Wait until they resort to Universal Basic Income….hyperinflation just around the corner.
Of course, we end up, sooner or later as Zimbabwe, Venezuela or Weimar. Then the cat would be well and truly out of the bag and the’d have some serious ‘splainin’ to do.
Imagine the Governor of the Reserve Bank or the treasurer saying that we have the best regulated and most sounds banks in the world, as they are exposed daily by the Royal Commission, as criminal operations
What is “currency” and what is “real money”?
I contend that any money is anything that is accepted as a medium of exchange of goods and services no matter what its token is.
If you love gold then trade everything you have for gold and eat the gold while the man with a can of baked beans eats them because he refused to trade his real wealth for a token.
https://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml
I’m not saying that gold doesn’t have any uses. What I am saying is that its value (compared to other things) is determined by its usefulness as stuff to make jewellery, micro printed circuits, etc. etc.
There is no good reason that an economy’s exchange medium should be limited by the amount of that yellow tin that can be dug up or stolen.
If you dis someone’s god you’re obviously going to be accused of “talking shit”. Human belief is more powerful than the intellect and emotions combined.
Phil, Fractional reserve “banking” (really, “creative” money lending) has been a common practice by “them in the know” since Babylonian times according to ledgers deciphered from that period. It may well have been occult practice way before then but, as far as I know, there are no records of it extant. It arose in times when various metals were used as currency tokens and I will contend that “fractional reserve banking” could not have arisen without some equally cumbersome money token.
Essentially, bankers were someone with a secure storage facility who would be paid to keep safe your money, or coinage. Naturally, deposits were issued a receipt of some kind (perhaps a tally stick or written note). It didn’t take long before people who were transferring their coinage to another realised that, instead of withdrawing their coinage and handing it over to another who promptly re-deposited it, could just give him the receipt for the deposit and he could claim it anytime he liked. That is the origin of the “banknote”.
Let’s say that cunning money-keeper soon noticed that most of the deposits sat gathering dust while only a bit near the top of the pile was used in transactions between depositors. So, why not lend out (at interest) fake receipts for the static pile until the rate they came in for “conversion into currency” approximated what he had in the vault? Every “fake receipt” became money because it worked as money. It was just as effectively money as the chunk of gold stamped with the king’s head in the Royal Mint and just as surely “created out of thin air”. Obviously that is fraught with the “difficulty” that might be posed if some calamity caused the receipt holders to want to convert their receipts into coinage all at once. I bet that all those money-lenders had a well fed, fast horse in their back shed. Anyhow, that is the origin of “fractional reserve lending”.
Now the principle remains what it was but the practicalities have evolved with changing circumstance and technology.
This “explanation” is obviously rudimentary but a book length exposition is not acceptable to the comments section of somebody’s blog thing. If there is interest I can expand and explain further.
Phil, please attend the Royal Commission on Banking, in the flesh. What you will hear from witnesses is not the same as what you would read in the paper that night as to what the witnesses said.
Quote unquote, Jaded Visitor to the Lindt Cafe Coroner court (in the flesh)
Oh dear! Greg T’Berk has no idea of what money is or where it comes from. If he is not being paid heaps from the money lenders then he should be.
Who be T’Berk? Did I miss something?
Y’poor dear! T’ Berk and Th’Buck are similarly detached from the reality of money creation. I am quite happy to argue the point as I didn’t come down in the last shower of capitalist apologists.
Ol David — maybe you’re really “smart” — but maybe you missed the satirical subtlety of the question Greg was posing. I also condensed a 20 min interview into 5 minutes. I’m sure he’d be happy to argue financials.
Then send Greg my way. I will be happy to argue with him in private or in public.
I’ve heard lots of excuses for nonsense but “satirical subtlety” is a new one to me.
Taxation seems to be a form of psychological control. If governments just gave they would seem to be servants, but by giving and taking away they appear to be masters.
I bet they all know that the current financial system can’t last. I suspect the globalists would like crypto to be the next thing. I won’t encourage anyone to buy into it though.
Is that you, Richie?
Hi Rosalie, Fancy meeting you here!
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40189959
commentwithcensored.
sowestminsterburntdown,fancy
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=tally+sticks&view=detail&mid=F7445D5E03034222AA9EF7445D5E03034222AA9E&FORM=VIRE
acyberbonfireresolvesall
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/an_answer_to_a.html
Missing?thebanks
On a different facility now.
What if the tourist presented a fresh lobster rather than a 100 euro note?
Are the banks able to present a fresh lobster out of thin air?
Let them take a dive and we shall see!
Legal status of Aus Taxation Office discussed at 6:13
I saw that vid long ago along with many others on similar themes.
I have also been essentially aware (for about 40 years) of the plutocratic oligarchy that claims dominion over all people and things that has its roots in the City of London, and I am also aware of the organised idiotocracy that happily trade intellectual and moral integrity for the occult “wisdom”, avarice and ambition that supports that secretive cabal.
In all those years I have also been associated with, or at least aware of, many programmes, or plans, that naively assume that the inherently corrupt system will depose itself if “enough” pressure, or court cases, or complaining and moaning is brought to bear.
Ho hum. We can all see the spectacular results of that mode. I know of several instances where high level pollies and “government” institutions have been “attained” (suspected or accused) of treason according to “Law” or the “Constitution” that the corrupt system has dismissed or “lost” or simply ignored.
That’s why I wrote up the “Civil Authority” document that every up-to-date God and Man hater is revolted by.
So that document’s online somewhere?
If not can you explain the relevance to the “why we pay tax” question ?
At the beginning of a 2008 vid Brian Shaw reads from Ezekiel 3:17 – 19 “if you don’t deliver what you’ve been shown you are liable and accountable for their sin”. That’s actually a recurring theme throughout the entire bible, one that I hold very dear, but as the guy strikes me as being more of a preacher than a teacher he tends to somewhat get up my nose.
Actually I have the same problem with my youngest son: Very smart on-the-ball guy but our communications frequently disintegrate into a “you need to get the hell off that pulpit boy!” stalemate.
My observation is that most ostensibly good male leaders are useless listeners.
Nice to meet you in a fairly direct exchange, berry.
No, the doc. is not online that I know of as I don’t have a web site and no editor has seen fit to publish it. Drop me a line at: dmkzmarwick@bigpond.com and I’ll send it to you.
The main reason we have a taxman is to provide the money-lenders with a coercive instrument to extort from the society interest payments on inevitably and relentlessly increasing debt . Such taxes inevitably passed on to consumers as any tax levied on producers or suppliers is passed on as a business expense. As such, it’s the ordinary man who must spend most, if not all, of his disposable income on the necessities of life foots the bill. It’s not quite that simple but that’s a general overview.
To the crooked economists that manufacture the sales hype a “balanced” or “surplus” budget is when the corporation (government) does not need to borrow more money to pay interest on the existing debt.
Brian Shaw’s didactic style irked me a bit too. But you’ve got to give him top marks for doing his homework.
You should be very pleased to have a young man who pays any attention to anything other than stupid fashions and popular lies.
I, for one, find it impossible to think in a blather of “conversation”.
Don’t forget to follow Ned’s second link about tally stick currency.
A brilliant idea I have never heard of until now.
Very inspiring…
Yes. It’s an old form of money… not very secure, though.
It is the perfect example of my earlier statement. Money is anything that is accepted as a medium of exchange of goods and services. It doesn’t matter what its token is.
I live in a very productive small comunity. It would be secure here.
As it would be in just about any community not dominated by a cabal of lawyers, politicians and media sycophants. (Read Lawyers, Pharisees and Scribes).
It would not work well in a high density living environment. I consider that a strength. Dont trade with thieves, bludgers, and bitcoin investers.
The updated story of Alice in Wonderland, told by Egon von Greyerz:
https://goldswitzerland.com/the-most-ingenious-invention-in-the-history-of-finance/
Enjoy the tea party while it lasts!!!
What a load of codswallop. My guess is that Egon von Greyerz has a big chunk of gold that he would like some suckers to exchange for something really useful like a farm or a house.
It would make some sense for someone who has a real use for gold like a jeweller or micro-circuit manufacturer to have some gold in stock for his intended use but it makes no sense at all for a real man to trade useful property or assets for a chunk of yellow tin. Con men, like thieving usurers and speculators can profit by selling very little for much to the gullible and avaricious. That is the engine of usury.
It also makes no practical sense to have an economy’s exchange medium limited by how much yellow tin can be dug up or stolen from neighbours. How perverse is the idea that we should invade a neighbour, commandeer all their coinage and artifacts so that their economy would grind to a halt for lack of an exchange medium while we should prosper with a plenty of exchange medium (money)?
I think it would be fair for all the lovers of gold to be exiled to a desert island with all their beloved gold so that ordinary people can just get on with their ordinary business of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services; that is what an economy is… money, whatever its token is, is only a man-made convenience to facilitate that economy.
There is much very good reasoning about what money is, what it is made of, where it comes from and all that but, it is all incomprehensible to lovers of money for money’s sake.
(1) “What a load of codswallop.”
Once again you jump into an issue, dismiss another writer’s ideas, cast aspersions on his motives, adopting a posture of superiority, without first providing/demonstrating any basis for your own credibility. On a complex, multi-faceted issue, that has challenged societies through the ages to find effective solutions, and is still a live ongoing debate today, you in your wisdom have already reached a DEFINITIVE conclusion. As the issues are important, I have taken the time and effort to craft a considered response. I hope that the reply is sufficiently clear and meaningful to you.
(2) To start with the basics (Econs101), there are four widely and authoritatively recognised important (essential) functions of money: (i) Medium of exchange; (ii) Measurement of value; (iii) Standard of deferred payments; (iv) Store of value. It could be argued that these are FUNDAMENTAL aspects of good/credible/durable/essential/critical properties and determinants of what entity can serve effectively as “money”. It is true that as a social convention (“a man-made convenience”) many things can be (and have been) used as “money” in human history — ranging (among others) from sea shells, to tally sticks, to animal skins/hides, to “paper money”/fiat currency, bankers notes (IOU receipts), diamonds, art works, accounting units/“electronic money” stemming from credit (or debit) cards and, most recently, crypto-currencies (putting to one side, for now, IMF-issued “special drawing rights” or SDRs). No one can, and you don’t even attempt to, make the case that they ALL perform those 4 important functions (cited above) equally well. That is why many of the earlier forms of “money” have become defunct and have been abandoned, and many currently acceptable forms of “money” also have a questionable/limited “shelf life”, including the previously-dominant but now endangered US$.
(3) Indeed, that is an important aspect of why gold has served as “money” for 5000+ years (a FUNDAMENTAL you don’t seem to recognise). That is also why many nations STILL retain gold as an important reserve asset (in Europe, Russia, China, etc.) Even the USA makes the (dubious/unaudited) claim to have 8000 tons of gold as its reserve asset. It has also transferred (expropriated???) gold from Iraq, Libya, Ukraine after intervening into those countries. WHY??? Several countries (Russia, China, in particular) have also made significant efforts to purchase and substantially INCREASE their national gold reserve asset in recent years. Others, including Germany, Netherlands, Hungary, Turkey, have sought to repatriate their gold stored abroad in foreign vaults to their own domestic vaults for greater surety and control as trust is rapidly fading in the present unstable international context. WHY???
(4) So the issue is NOT simply the mundane one of what you/I/we would willingly exchange/trade/barter “for something really useful like a farm or a house”. (To repeat, we are NOT referring here merely to private, individual, mutual arrangements for exchange/trade, where “anything goes” may prevail.) The more important question is: what would the representatives of society, nations and the international system agree to accept as reliable/effective/credible/durable forms of “money” for both national and international transactions (and the accompanying terms and conditions). In this regard, towards the end of World War II, by international agreement at the Bretton Woods Conference, the major players agreed on the US$ as the new world reserve currency, based on a fixed exchange rate with gold — precisely to give confidence that the US$ would have credible backing. However, yielding to spending/debt pressures, President Nixon reneged on this arrangement in 1971, removed the gold constraint/shackles on the creation of unlimited fiat US$, leading to the explosion and massive export of US$ (unrepayable debt) to all countries, now backed solely by force of arms (exercised liberally); and, according to Egon von Greyerz, leading directly to the madness today of history’s biggest tea party.
(5) You briefly put your finger on a key issue in passing, but fail to appreciate and expand on its full significance, when you wrote: “Con men, like thieving usurers and speculators can profit by selling very little for much to the gullible and avaricious.” Indeed, con men and confidence (and other) tricks are an important/critical aspect of why “anything will do” is NOT a viable option for “money” — whether as an entity or as a mode of operation. And usury (charging of interest on loans/debts, possibly rising to exorbitant rates) is only ONE aspect of possible trickery/deception/cheating/exploitation — ranging (among others) from the shenanigans that Australian banks are currently being exposed for; to bankers issuing very many more receipts/notes/IOUs than received deposits; to governments/central banks printing and issuing (unbacked) fiat currency “out of thin air” without restraint (thus inflating/devaluing the value/“worth” of the currency, to the detriment of the holders of those currencies); to governments bailing out insolvent major banks (at public/taxpayer expense) following the 2008 global financial crisis; to arrangements already in place for “bail-ins” (penalising depositor funds) at the next (coming) financial crisis; to the sellers of “paper gold” based on deposits of “unallocated” physical gold, or “derivatives” based on NO gold (or any other real asset, i.e., completely fictitious entities). Egon von Greyerz (and others) emphasise that physical gold in your direct possession is NOT fictitious, and NOT debt-based, and offers better PROTECTION against all kinds of con men and their multiple nefarious tricks/cons. In this regard, to glibly dismiss the advocates of gold as the basis for sound money (WITHOUT offering a credible alternative — “money, whatever its token is”, meaning “anything will do”, is NOT a credible response, for several reasons already mentioned above) as merely “lovers of money for money’s sake” is to miss completely the crux of the debate on these matters!!!
(6) Finally, you actually admitted that “There is much very good reasoning about what money is, what it is made of, where it comes from and all that but . . .” Here again, you hint at a great deal (“ and all that”), but end with that glib/dismissive remark that delivers little/nothing of any significance to enhance our understanding of these important matters. When you are able to acquire greater knowledge/understanding/appreciation of what Egon von Greyerz and several others have written (supported by evidence + coherent arguments over many years), on the STILL important (but presently significantly suppressed/manipulated) role for gold in the present monetary system, and the fact that gold is STILL accepted and held as reserves by many governments and central banks, you may be less dismissive of what you call “a load of codswallop”. You may even be able to appreciate why Egon von Greyerz (and others) anticipate that the current madness of human history’s biggest tea party, based on unrestrained and irresponsible efforts to transcend the gold standard, is coming to its end, with alarming consequences for all.
(7) To conclude, the most important point that you fail to appreciate sufficiently YOURSELF, and to explain more clearly to readers is that (a) under certain conditions, which DO NOT YET exist, there IS (would be) a case to “go beyond gold”, and (b) there is also a WAY(s) to do so that could transform the present world of rat-racing, shark-infested, “dog-eat-dog”, conflict-ridden, unending wars by increasingly repressive (deep) states — a way that is also NOT dependent on some mythical God(s) to deliver salvation. But, before/until the world reaches that state of readiness/well-being, you/we first have to understand and appreciate better the important role that gold can (and WILL) play in the prevailing situation, and UTILISE it, to facilitate (lever) the transition to that potential for a better/transformed world. WITHOUT an effective instrument/lever to offer, you remain on the sidelines, impotently sprouting YOUR “load of codswallop” (e.g., “money, whatever its token is”). Is your load better than anyone else’s???
Good one, kermit.
There are few Sacred Cows more sacred than the ones made of gold. Kicking the Golden Calf is surely the Materialist’s penultimate blasphemy.
All of what you’ve said is entirely dependent on the assumption that money is a commodity and NOT just a man made tool to facilitate trade. ALL the grand larceny, usury, speculation of the present financial “industries” is dependent on that carefully contrived and propagated hoax, nonsense, codswallop. A superstition (irrational belief) does not become a fact or “reality” just by being commonly accepted.
There is an army of “economists” pumping out specious stories to perpetuate the myth that money is a commodity and that theft by usury is a legitimate “business”. Sycophantic corruption is a rewarding career for those that produce nothing but a smokescreen for the real crooks (big bankers) to hide behind. The lie is even protected by establishing prestigious “schools of economics” to spuriously “justify” the perverse and perfidious system.
I say again: ALL money is “created out of thin air” no matter what its token is. A chunk of gold is only a chunk of metal just as is a chunk of copper. Its real value is in its usefulness. If it is useful for making coins out of, well and good. But equally useful coins can be made of copper or aluminium. But until the base material is minted into a coin (becomes money out of thin air) its value is only its material usefulness…
So then, the problem with money is not that it is created out of thin air but that it is asumed to be a commodity that is “lent” to an economy as an interest-bearing debt to the economy. There is practically no “legal tender” in existence that is not “borrowed” at interest. Even stockpiles of gold are bought with debt money. Every penny in anyone’s pocket is someone else’s debt. Every “repayment” to the banks is made out of someone else’s debt, whether that debt is in another country or local.
Your assertion that money is: : (i) Medium of exchange; (ii) Measurement of value; (iii) Standard of deferred payments; (iv) Store of value. sounds like it came from the “Austrian school”. I will contend and maintain that the only real and proper purpose of money is a medium of exchange. That the exchange of goods and services need not be immediate (as in barter) does not mean that it is not just a medium of exchange. Money cannot “measure” anything… it is only the medium by which the transactors of goods and services swap the relative usefulness of their goods and services for trade purposes between themselves and trade their legitimate claims to goods and services with third parties. The “store of value” business is another codswallop. If I had stored the sixpence my grandfather gave me in 1955 it wouldn’t even buy a box of matches today.
The love of money serves the money lenders very well indeed.
“If I had stored the sixpence my grandfather gave me in 1955 it wouldn’t even buy a box of matches today.”
What was the date on that sixpence you were given? The early sterling (92.5% silver) sixpence would get you around $1.85 whereas the later debased sixpence (50% silver) would get you $1.
Hmm, that word ‘debase’, I’ve read about that before in monetary history.
https://www.australian-coins.com/silver-calculator/australian-silver-coin-values/
Just checked the price of boxes of matches at Woolys. It is $2.15 for a pack of 10 boxes.
https://www.woolworths.com.au/Shop/ProductDetails/21304/redheads-matches
So for the ‘debased’ sixpence you could get more than 4 boxes (4.65) and for the sterling sixpence you could get more than 8 boxes (8.6).
Perhaps you should have stored that sixpence…
Interesting exercise to illustrate the potential of silver (the other precious metal) as a “store of value”. Thanks for the effort!
No biggie, I used to be a military pilot and although I wasn’t issued with gold coins for deep ops, I ran into a few guys that did.
https://gmic.co.uk/topic/400-military-use-of-the-gold-sovereign/
The kits from WWII are neat as they have a sovereign, two half sovereigns, two French coins and 3 gold rings.
Gold is a universal money. It doesn’t matter which continent you’re on, Europe, Africa, Asia, South America – people recognize it as MONEY.
The Chinese, the Indians, and people in the Middle-East are reputed to have a tradition to store/preserve significant portion of savings/wealth in gold (and silver) and to transmit wealth by this means (e.g., as dowries, inheritance transfers, etc.) over generations (outside of the formal banking system, and the official currency system). Also useful in periods of hyperinflation, e.g., during the German Weimar Republic days and even today in situations of currency value collapse e.g., in Venezuela, earlier in Argentina/Brazil, and now in Turkey as illustrated in these charts:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-25/gold-surges-record-turkey-and-other-emerging-markets-currencies-collapse
Even the current world reserve currency (with fluctuations) has depreciated significantly (per oz) from US$20.67 in 1900, to US$32.32 in 1933, to US$44.60 in 1971, to US$272.65 in 2000, to approx. US$1300 this week (DESPITE significant ongoing establishment efforts to manipulate/suppress the price). No wonder many national Central Banks STILL store/accumulate significant amounts of gold (and silver) as one of their reserve assets. No kidding!!!
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-11/stunning-photos-inside-russias-fort-knox
Egon von Greyerz, James Richards (and others) even anticipate the possibility of the future gold price rising to US$10,000 (or more?) per oz. The point is not just HOW HIGH in price gold (and silver) might go but, more importantly, how disrupted/distressed/chaotic the situation/economy/world would be if (when?) these prices (are led to) soar, in an environment of unrestricted money printing, and unregulated electronic/digital issuance. Of course, we can hope/pray such situations DON’T eventuate. But, as you noted, they DID (probably still do) issue those gold “tokens” to those pilots/agents for emergencies.
(1) Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for you, Oldavid, because, in summary, (a) You are unfamiliar with even very basic concepts relating to “money” specifically, and Economics more generally, (b) your own understanding of these matters is restricted to a few limited propositions, which you repeat over and over again, (c) anything that extends beyond your very limited range of accepted propositions is dismissed as simply “another codswallop”, (d) this makes further intelligent discussion on these matters futile, if not impossible. Let me expand a little on these points, so that you can understand better what I mean.
(2) The 4 principal functions of money are NOT specifically derived from “Austrian Economics”, and certainly NOT my “assumptions”. They come from basic Economics 101, found in most Introduction to (first year, mainstream orthodox/“Neo-classical”) Economics textbooks, and can also be located online with a simple internet search. If you are unfamiliar with these stipulated functions, and question even these basic understandings, there is little scope for further deeper/extended discussion on matters relating to money, such as inflation/deflation, reserve assets/currencies, the role of gold in the monetary system as perceived by Egon von Greyerz (and others), currency wars, and other aspects of International Political Economy.
(3) Your own understanding of matters relating to money is restricted to these few propositions: (a) “money, whatever its token is”, meaning (I interpret as) “anything will do”. You don’t perceive a special/reserve role for gold (or any other “commodity”), or even seem to see the need for any reserve asset in the monetary system. (b) You recognise one, and only one, principal function of money — solely as a medium of exchange. Specifically, “Money . . . is only a man-made convenience to facilitate [exchange in] that economy”; “money is . . . just a man made tool to facilitate trade.” Strangely, you argue that “Money cannot “measure” anything” yet (in your words) can serve as “the medium by which the transactors of goods and services swap the relative usefulness of their goods and services.” (c) You firmly reassert, “I say again: ALL money is “created out of thin air” no matter what its token is.” But several people may be surprised that you would view a “token” of physical gold as equivalent to a “token” of fiat/“paper” currency, as also equivalent to a “token” of bitcoin, because they are ALL (in your view) “created out of thin air” (d) You equate advocates for the use of gold in the monetary system (you call them “lovers of gold”), such as Egon von Greyerz, with “lovers of money for money’s sake”, and (worse) “Con men” (thieving usurers and speculators) who “profit by selling very little for much to the gullible and avaricious”, and who operate “the engine of usury”. (e) You don’t say that all the “lovers of gold” should just jump into the sea, but you would like them “to be exiled to a desert island with all their beloved gold so that ordinary people can just get on with their ordinary business”. (f) I also get the feeling from your disparaging remarks that you are contemptuous of (or you just don’t LIKE) big bankers, money lenders, “lovers of gold”, “lovers of money for money’s sake”, Con men, thieving usurers and speculators, the army of “economists”, “Materialists”, worshippers of the Golden Calf, “those that produce nothing”. Anyone else???
(4) Some of your views cited above flow from a number of misunderstandings. Just to cite one gross example of your misunderstanding of basic economics and its ramifications: you very confidently proclaim that “The “store of value” business is another codswallop. If I had stored the sixpence my grandfather gave me in 1955 it wouldn’t even buy a box of matches today.” THAT, my dear Oldavid is PRECISELY WHY economists, policy makers, taxpayers, and even the ordinary man in the street, are concerned about the retention of value in “money” against the significant ravages of inflation or, worse, the total decimation of the currency, from various possible causes. THAT is PRECISELY where the CONCEPT of the function of money as a “store of value” is especially relevant/pertinent/necessary. THAT is PRECISELY where a person such as Egon von Greyerz perceives an important role for gold as a reserve asset in the monetary system, as (arguably) a bulwark against such possible calamities. THAT is PRECISELY why any/all rational discussion of these matters would become difficult/impossible if we were to accept your firm conviction that “The “store of value” business is another codswallop.”
(5) Conceptualisations and analysis/discussions/debates on money in particular, and Economics in general, have extended far beyond your limited propositions/understanding of these matters, but any(every)thing that extends beyond your limited understanding or range of accepted propositions is glibly dismissed as simply another “load of codswallop”. “ALL . . . grand larceny,” “speculation”, “carefully contrived and propagated hoax, nonsense, codswallop”, “A superstition (irrational belief)”, “myth”, “specious stories”, “Sycophantic corruption”, “a smokescreen for the real crooks (big bankers) to hide behind”, “The lie . . . to spuriously “justify” the perverse and perfidious system”. It is very difficult/impossible to argue against (or even communicate rationally in the face of) such superior intelligence. It is already increasingly difficult to separate the chaff from the wheat. It is even harder when the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. [Side comment: The good thing about the internet is that any/every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Number can say whatever he/she likes. The bad thing about the internet is that any/every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Number can say whatever he/she likes.]
(6) To conclude, I accept that “it is what it is”, and it is NOT my intention or responsibility to change your thoughts on these matters, especially as you already have very firm convictions, and you prefer your own load of codswallop to someone else’s load of codswallop. Hence, I reserve further comment, and hope that (as another commentator on a different thread cited) we remain “good friends” on this blog. Probably no one else will read or be interested in these robust exchanges (now, in plain sight, equivalent to a private conversation) between us, especially since the focus has moved on to more recent threads/topics. So cheers to you.
Oh dear!, Kermit! (I suppose that Kermit is that sock puppet frog thing from that Yank children’s head-shrinking show on telly).
If we’re going to gain an understanding of the philosophy of money you’ve got to start with the fundamentals… the nature and purpose of the stuff. This has been known and expounded in practical terms for about 100 years that I know of. Clifford Hugh Douglas had a simple and practical proposal that he called “Social Credit”.
The government owned and controlled creation of credit was used with great success in Australia in the 1920’s and in Canada in the 1930’s. It took several years of bribery, corruption and deceit for the bankers to take back their perfidious monopoly of creation of credit as debt to the economy in both cases. Kaddafi and Hussein were working toward another version of a similar thing. There are some hints that Al Assad is similarly ill disposed to international banking fraud.
Anyhow, the real and proper backing for currency is not some arbitrarily applied “gold standard” but the natural resources such as the industry and capability of the people. Even though a deficiency of currency can cripple an economy the currency itself cannot create anything, it can only facilitate economic activity (the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services). Just think of “the great depression”… all the natural resources like land, rain, sunshine, minerals, skilled and willing workers etc. were still present the only thing lacking was the lubricant (money) that allowed the “machine” to work efficiently. The bankers deliberately restricted the money supply so that they could gain increased control (ownership) of natural resources (human and material).
I’m putting on my pointy steel cap boots to kick your Golden Calf now, Kermit.
Oh dear, Oldavid,
You are putting on your kicking boots because you can’t sustain (have lost) the argument??? — those who lose the debate seek to settle scores by “other means”!!!
Just to let you in on some info you are not aware of: I KNOW of CH Douglas, I LIKE his ideas, and I SUPPORT his policies (I mean, I would if they were being implemented — which we both know they aren’t — and WON’T be, by the lot you elected to Parliament.)
You mentioned Gaddafi and Hussein. Did you know that Hitler also had strong elements of those policies??? (Did Hitler learn from Douglas or vice versa?) THAT was (an important part of) how Germany recovered so quickly/strongly and effectively from her disastrous defeat in WW1, and after horrendous reparations were levied on her to pay for the costs of the war (even those incurred by her allies). Starting from the basics (“square one”), he was able to get the economy cranking again, get the population back to work, solve the unemployment problem, and also have the resources to revive military strength so effectively as to be able to overrun most of Europe and drive the Brits back into the sea at Dunkirk, AND make significant advances into Russia, until they stopped him on the Eastern front at great human cost to both sides. (Most people don’t know much/anything about the events on the Eastern front; but know lots about the efforts of a country which joined in with fresh troops in the late(r) stages of the conflict on the Western front!!!)
WOW!!! What kinds of policies (economic/financial/employment/reconstruction) enabled such quick/strong and effective post-WW1 recovery of national strengths and capabilities. Can other countries learn about and from those policies, and achieve similar “miraculous” results??? Well, you know what subsequently happened to Herr Hitler — he, his efforts and policies were demonised in toto, and very few people learn/know/appreciate how he achieved Germany’s stupendous post-WW1 recovery and transformation. And now Germany remains a subjugated colony with foreign military bases STILL on her soil to (shall we say) “maintain the peace” decades after the war. (Can you think of another country with multiple foreign bases on its territory???).
Just to confirm/reinforce the point, most people don’t know (did you???) that under Gaddafi Libya achieved the status of the most developed country in the African continent. Free education to university level, subsidised housing for citizens, massive successful public projects (for water, telecommunications, etc.), direct democracy, etc., etc., etc. (search for youtube video on 10 things they don’t want you to know about Gaddafi). Again, WOW!!! What kinds of policies (economic/financial/social/etc.) enabled such achievements??? (Of course, Libya has rich oil resources — but other oil-rich African countries, e.g., Nigeria, did not come close to Libya’s achievements). Well, you also know what happened to Mr Gaddafi — he also was demonised in toto (dictator, killing his own people, all-round bad guy, etc.), the national infrastructure was extensively destroyed, country decimated, now slave markets operate openly in the country, and many boat people seeking refuge across the Mediterranean in Europe (they won’t get pass Manus Island in this direction!!!)
Also, what happened to German and Libyan gold after their defeats/decimation/collapse??? WHAT . . . you didn’t KNOW they had substantial gold assets??? (What FOR???) You want to kick them for worshipping the Golden Calf??? I don’t know how old you are Oldavid, but you/I/we are NEVER too old to learn. Learn to be more discriminating (in the good sense) in the sense of being more effective in separating the chaff from the wheat. Just because you have significant hang-ups about gold, doesn’t mean that there are not important useful aspects about it/its uses. One reason why Gaddafi was treated so horribly was because he wanted to move away from the use of the US$ — but, even WORSE, he had plans to create and promote a (unifying) common African Union currency system, based on the GOLD dinar! BIGGGG no, no!!! “They” DON’T WANT him/Africa/you/ANYONE to turn to (use) gold!!! WHY??? And that is a lesson you yourself also DON’T WANT to learn — because you have hang-ups about the Golden Calf, etc. So your mind is completely made up/shut down/closed!!! See what I mean about (not) having the ability to sort the chaff from the wheat (and vice versa)???
One major problem with you Oldavid — you are prejudiced (bogged down by old/fixed/preconceived biases)!!! Thinking largely/wholly in (binary) black and white — missing the greys, greens, blues, pinks, purples, etc. Insufficiently flexible, discriminating (in the good sense) to sieve the wheat from the chaff. Just because you are enamoured by CH Douglas’ Social Credit ideas (me too!!!) doesn’t mean that you must completely ignore/shut out all alternative/competing perspectives, e.g., Classical/orthodox mainstream neo-Classical/Libertarian/Fabian Socialist/Anarcist/Marxist/post-Marxist/etc. perspectives. Find the useful gems/insights from each, combine them in new/fresh ways wherever possible/relevant, and avoid being labelled and trapped in a strait jacket! Social credit is (only) ONE (important/key) concept/perspective/approach. There are others too! Have a BROAD repertoire of concepts/ideas/tools/skills, and apply them flexibly in varying combination, in congruence with different/changing situations/demands/requirements. Ok, enough — I’ve exposed too much of my secrets to you, already.
Finally,
(a) put away your kicking boots Oldavid, unless you want to confirm that you can’t stand up to a robust debate.
(b) this Kermit is NO sock puppet! But I do like Kermit’s song. Do a search for the video on the internet and tell me what you think of it.
(c) a tip for your bedtime reading:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49487.htm
A Warning by Professor Dr Eberhard Hamer. You have been informed!!!
Don’t you enjoy these private conversations we are having???
Well, I’m glad that we have at least some common ground. As far as my being enamoured with Douglas and his “Social Credit”; it’s over 40 years since I read his proposals… there’s plenty of more recent stuff with the same or similar theme.
The point I am making is that this fascination with gold is a silly distraction that hides the real issues about money. All Adolf’s gold did not make a single bomb or create a single gallant young man to go on a mission of murder and mayhem. Even after Germany had been just about reduced to rubble and much of its production had been exported to be busted and rusting in fields or oceans the gold remained to be carried away and stuck down another hole in the ground in another country.
In Libya a young married couple were not given a wheelbarrow with 5000 gold Dinars in it to get them started making a home. All Gaddafi’s gold did not create a single road or irrigation project, it stayed put until it was pillaged to be carted away to be put down another hole in the ground.
Gold is a stupid superstition. With great expenditure of manpower and resources we dig huge holes in the ground to extract and refine the stuff and with more expenditure of resources it’s shifted around the globe to be stuck down another hole in the ground where an army of forklifts shift it from one pile to another ad infinitum. You don’t need gold to create money. You only need people and resources and economic activity. Money only facilitates economic activity… it does not create it. Although a lack of exchange medium can stiffle economy you can’t create an economy by just flooding a society with money… or gold. The piles in the fat-cat’s coffers or the bank’s books does not count as exchange medium because it’s dead and out of circulation.
If I was afraid to “debate” with you I would have run away and hid after your first verbose apologetic defending the system.
I did not “elect” any government or system lackey. For about 30 years I have written across the ballot paper “no suitable candidates”.
I read the article you linked to. While I am cautiously in agreement with much of it I’ll not be recommending it as a good exposure of banking fraud. Some of the commenters seem to have a good grip on the problem, though.
Now here’s one for you:
http://cecaust.com.au/Pass-Glass-Steagall/
I’ve known about this Australian mob on-and-off since its inception. Until recently they’ve been pretty cautiously softly, softly, but they seem to have gained in confidence in the last few months.
Here’s another one for you Kermit:
https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/hitlers-finances-and-the-myth-of-nazi-anti-usury-activism/
Have a look around his site. He (albeit rather cautiously) debunks the gold myth.
Oldavid, I took time and effort to peruse the 2 links you posted above:
(1) the link to the CEC advocacy for the introduction of Glass-Steagall banking rules in Oz has merit. BUT note that after existing for decades in the US, these rules were brushed away after the GFC. in 2008. This (among other consequences) permitted the major (insolvent) banks to be bailed out at public/taxpayer/govt expense. While there were some subsequent murmurs in the US about bringing them back, the likely strong opposition from the banking/finance industries and other establishment forces make it very unlikely. In this context, there is also unlikely to be a successful campaign for their introduction in Oz. The CEC could still make the effort, but there are many things that would be “nice”/good to have, that still won’t/don’t get accepted for various reasons, not the least, the opposition of TPTB.
(2) For your second link you simply say, “Have a look around his site. He (albeit rather cautiously) debunks the gold myth.”
Well HE (Anthony Migchels) is NOT necessarily an objective/neutral analyst on all aspects of Hitler and his policies. He posted an article that was followed by 267 comments, many from readers who question/contest/challenge his views!!! Several readers posted links to videos that have been BLOCKED (DELETED???) by Youtube — which suggests that the mainstream does NOT accept/approve/tolerate those alternative/opposing/different perspectives from people who critique Migchels!!! How could you/we conclude from these that (cautiously, or not) he successfully/effectively DEBUNKS the “gold myth”??? Did you also miss the part where the author of the article, Anthony Migchels, wrote: “A [Reichsmark] Gold peg remained in place [after 1931]. There were [also] 1, 2 and 5 Reichsmark silver coins.)”??? So, the best that could be postulated is that this topic continues to this day to be a complex, multi-faceted, hotly debated issue (which I had already earlier indicated), NOT a settled matter congruent with YOUR assertions about gold. Rather than defending and digging into your fixed/frozen biases (prejudices/prejudgements) about gold and its (irrelevant, to you) uses/role in the economy/society/monetary system shouldn’t this substantial and ongoing heated controversy encourage you to be at least a bit more open/flexible/amenable to other perspectives on this topic??? Or is this truly a case of you closing your mind prematurely and, thus, preferring your load of codswallop to someone else’s load of codswallop?
(3) For me, the critical questions are: (a) How did Hitler (Gaddafi, Hussein, etc,) achieve remarkable/transformative results for his nation’s economy and society — taking into account that much mainstream info about them and their efforts/achievements are distorted/erroneous, and accurate/important info are or may be blocked/suppressed, (b) from these and other historical cases (and various /different analytical/theoretical perspectives, e.g., Douglas and others), are there possible lessons/useful ideas/guidelines for those who also want to improve/uplift/transform their own difficult/problematic/unsatisfactory national situations/conditions, (c) what useful role (if any) can gold/silver (specifically) and “money” (in general) play in this effort??? These then lead to the question: (d) what can I/you/“we” (???) do about it???
(e) Do we address (d) before or after we address and understand (a), (b), (c)???
No. The Glass-Steagall bizzo was repealed in 1999 which directly facilitated the explosion in derivatives, “sub-prime mortgages” and all that fraudulent and speculative activity that caused the GFC of 2008, which resulted in mountains of debt being transferred to the “government” (i.e. the people) in various “bail-out” measures. All the gold in Fort Knox stayed what it was… completely useless except as bait for silly speculators.
Sorry for the delayed response, Oldavid — some urgent matters needed attention, made special effort to get back to reply to you! Yup, Glass-Steagall went away in 1999 (should have picked that up if not distracted by other matters), repealed by none other than the honourable Bill Clinton, and replaced by Gramm-Leach-Bailey Act, which paved way for shenanigans leading to GFC 2008. These distinguished gentlemen were probably well rewarded for their efforts.
Anyway, will miss our private conversations as will be out for reach/range/touch for quite awhile. But won’t have much impact, as your mind is STILL all made-up!