Devalue of the U.S. dollar...

[HARK!]

None of the BRICS countries could be considered Austrian in their approach to markets. Most of these countries are more interventionist in markets than we are. You could describe Brazil and India to be reminiscent of our Keynesian phase. China is extremely interventionist -- they have a true state capitalism that is, in many practical respects, centrally planned. Every major company in China has a board within it mandated by the government that has the power to make important decisions in the company's operations. Russia is somewhat free in its markets compared to China, but it has a high level of corruption between oligarchs and the government. South Africa is even more corrupt than Russia.

How will any of the unsupported allusions of interventionism and corruption affect one storing wealth in the form of gold?

How does the interventionism and corruption of the U.S. Government, keep the American People, and those who hold this monopoly money abroad, safe from the extraction of their wealth through the storing of depreciating fiat currency?

 

[Eschatologist]

How will any of the unsupported allusions of interventionism and corruption affect one storing wealth in the form of gold?

How does the interventionism and corruption of the U.S. Government, keep the American People, and those who hold this monopoly money abroad, safe from the extraction of their wealth through the storing of depreciating fiat currency?

I think we may be talking past each other on this. I personally support going back to a commodity-based currency. Gold seems like a good choice for that.

As for how government interventionism and corruption can still affect a person that stores their wealth in the form of gold, the government has plenty of options. Our government did several things to discourage what it saw as "hoarding of gold" during different periods of time.

Here's an example: Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia

Other governments could take a similar approach if they wanted to.

All that aside, storing your wealth in gold is probably a safer bet overall than storing it in dollars.

 

[HARK!]

As for how government interventionism and corruption can still affect a person that stores their wealth in the form of gold, the government has plenty of options. Our government did several things to discourage what it saw as "hoarding of gold" during different periods of time.

Here's an example: Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia

I'm well familiar with that executive order, that enabled the government to hoard the gold that it looted from the American people, not that they had any Constitutional authority to do so.

Yes, that came in the wake of the crisis that was caused by bankers printing more notes than were backed by the People's deposits. The Banker's solution: Steal the gold of the American People, and give them more of the hair of the dog that bit them.

All that aside, storing your wealth in gold is probably a safer bet overall than storing it in dollars.

Not to mention CBDC.

 

[Soul_Tsunami]

Here's the problem as I see it...CBDC is programmable and will allow government to control what we buy, and when we buy it. It can also flag expenditures over a certain dollar amount. Gold will no longer be of value...

As the bible says, Revelations 13NKJV 15He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 16He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17and that no one may buy or sell except one who has [g]the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

15-16 Could be talking about AI in some form or fashion. Could be a Robot or computer system. If everyone receives a chip this will come to fruition.

Everything that humans touch gets corrupted by someone.

 

[FireDragon76]

Personally it's hard for me to find rentals or to do anything due to the credit system.
Been homeless due to it on at least one occasion.

Rampant homelessness has less to do with the credit system, and more about policies related to land-use in the US. Most cities and states put housing affordability as a low priority, preferring to punt it down the line, so that it becomes somebody else's problem.

 

[Arcangl86]

Rampant homelessness has less to do with the credit system, and more about policies related to land-use in the US. Most cities and states put housing affordability as a low priority, preferring to punt it down the line, so that it becomes somebody else's problem.

It's both. Many landlords run credit checks now and reject tenants because of it.

 

[Eschatologist]

It's both. Many landlords run credit checks now and reject tenants because of it.

Unless you're getting subsidies from the government, why would you want a tenant with bad credit? I understand being lenient about credit when the government is paying at least part of the tab, but when it's the open market, someone with good credit is obviously preferable.

Rampant homelessness has less to do with the credit system, and more about policies related to land-use in the US. Most cities and states put housing affordability as a low priority, preferring to punt it down the line, so that it becomes somebody else's problem.

If land use is the issue, then reducing zoning laws is the answer. One of the main reasons housing is so ridiculously expensive in San Francisco, for example, is because zoning laws and other regulations make it exceedingly difficult to build new properties. An artificial housing shortage is created as a result. Wealthy landowners use the government to block new construction and even block temporary housing for the homeless. Numerous other cities do the same kind of thing, although it seems to be most prevalent in many California cities.