The Collapse of the US Dollar

[TomLine]

Ron Paul, Steve Forbes and many economists are saying the US Dollar is going to collapse. Steve Forbes says, in order to prevent that, we need to get back on the Gold Standard.

What do you think?

 

[prov1810]

Ron Paul, Steve Forbes and many economists

In a University of Chicago poll this year, not one of 40 top economists surveyed supported a return to gold. The last gold standard commission, established by President Ronald Reagan, voted by a wide margin against bringing it back. Why Did the U.S. Abandon the Gold Standard? | Mental Floss

 

[He is Risen 72]

One of the arguments about returning to a gold standard is the fact there is not enough gold in the world to cover all the United States financial obligations, even with gold at artificial highs like $2000.00 oz. The solution always seems to be raising the price of gold to cover the inflated paper dollar. No one ever addresses the idea of devaluing the inflated paper dollar like other nations has done. $1000.00 “old” dollars becomes $1.00 “new” dollar. The 7th amendment to the constitution allows a jury trial for amounts over $20.00, back then that was a month’s wages, but today it is a night at a movie for one.

 

[Joykins]

Ron Paul, Steve Forbes and many economists are saying the US Dollar is going to collapse. Steve Forbes says, in order to prevent that, we need to get back on the Gold Standard.

What do you think?

Goldbuggery is attractive to people who like pretty shiny metals and don't understand economics as well as they think they do.

 

[TomLine]

Goldbuggery is attractive to people who like pretty shiny metals and don't understand economics as well as they think they do.

You don't believe Steve Forbes understands economics?

 

[TomLine]

One of the arguments about returning to a gold standard is the fact there is not enough gold in the world to cover all the United States financial obligations, even with gold at artificial highs like $2000.00 oz. The solution always seems to be raising the price of gold to cover the inflated paper dollar. No one ever addresses the idea of devaluing the inflated paper dollar like other nations has done. $1000.00 “old” dollars becomes $1.00 “new” dollar. The 7th amendment to the constitution allows a jury trial for amounts over $20.00, back then that was a month’s wages, but today it is a night at a movie for one.

So then, would a new dollar buy what a thousand of the old dollars could buy?

 

[TomLine]

In a University of Chicago poll this year, not one of 40 top economists surveyed supported a return to gold. The last gold standard commission, established by President Ronald Reagan, voted by a wide margin against bringing it back. Why Did the U.S. Abandon the Gold Standard? | Mental Floss

So, do you believe it is better to keep the dollar at the value it's printed on. The problem is, with Countries around the world abandoning the US Dollar as the world's reserve currency is going to cause a further devaluing of the dollar, perhaps to the point of it being worthless.

Don't you believe we need to find some way of increasing the value of the dollar?

 

[Joykins]

You don't believe Steve Forbes understands economics?

I don't know what Steve Forbes understands.

I do understand that many people who say the dollar will collapse and/or we should go on the gold standard are trying to sell you something, usually gold, but sometimes a fantasy that we can or should return to the Gilded Age.

Gold isn't necessarily any more stable than fiat currency, but it is certainly limits our ability to respond to financial crises. And like any other standard, if you remove the emotional ties some people have to the idea of gold, it's arbitrary. In my state, for example, we used to be on the tobacco standard way back when (before that it was pretty shell beads, aka wampum). Money is just a useful medium for transferring goods and services at the bottom line; nothing intrinsically to do with metal.

 

[TomLine]

I don't know what Steve Forbes understands.

I do understand that many people who say the dollar will collapse and/or we should go on the gold standard are trying to sell you something, usually gold, but sometimes a fantasy that we can or should return to the Gilded Age.

Gold isn't necessarily any more stable than fiat currency, but it is certainly limits our ability to respond to financial crises. And like any other standard, if you remove the emotional ties some people have to the idea of gold, it's arbitrary. In my state, for example, we used to be on the tobacco standard way back when (before that it was pretty shell beads, aka wampum). Money is just a useful medium for transferring goods and services at the bottom line; nothing intrinsically to do with metal.

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that Gold has no intrinsic value?

 

[morse86]

They have been saying that for decades now. Ron Paul is just there to spread disinformation under a clever disguise "libertarianism" to try as a last ditch effort to turn people away from god.

The jokers like Peter Schiff...pretty sure his grandfather was Jacob Schiff...JP morgan.

Of course we will have a one world currency...it says so in the bible....I didn't need to listen to puppet like Ron Paul to know that.

 

[Armoured]

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that Gold has no intrinsic value?

Well, it doesn't, not really. It has some minor uses in electronics, but none for which it's essential. Other than that, it's just pretty, and has a lot of customary and historical worth associated with it.

But there's nothing intrinsically valuable about it. You can't eat it, make tools out of it, live in it, mate with it. If you were stranded on a desert island, a tonne of gold wouldn't help you much.

 

[Joykins]

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that Gold has no intrinsic value?

Gold has no intrinsic value as money, unless we choose to assign it some. Outside of sitting dragonlike on hoards of the stuff, it has genuine uses in jewelry, the arts, aerospace, medicine, and electronics.

 

[morse86]

Gold has no intrinsic value as money, unless we choose to assign it some. Outside of sitting dragonlike on hoards of the stuff, it has genuine uses in jewelry, the arts, aerospace, medicine, and electronics.

Why argue about irrelevant stuff? We know the prophecy will be fufilled. A gold standard is an illusion....they even fake the "history" to make it look real (lookup Bill Stills research).

 

[Armoured]

Why argue about irrelevant stuff? We know the prophecy will be fufilled. A gold standard is an illusion....they even fake the "history" to make it look real (lookup Bill Stills research).

Prophecy? OK, you're losing me...

 

[TomLine]

Thanks for your comments. While it's on my mind, I will give you my opinion.

I agree Steve Forbes that we should go back on the gold standard, but for a different reason. He says that gold has intrinsic value. I disagree. I believe gold has extrinsic value. Gold has the value we give it, otherwise gold would not rise and fall in price. Gold, like all other material things only has the value we give. One of the reasons it has value is that it is rare, and virtually indestructible. But, so is water. You can freeze it, boil it, make it steam. But, that steam, when it cools becomes little droplets of water. If you were thirsty, which would you rather have, a glass of gold, or a glass of water? We must have water to live. We do not need gold to live. Same as oxygen. These 2 elements are worth far more than gold. Still, they have the value we give it.

It is my opinion, only God has intrinsic value. He doesn't need us to give him value. He has value all his own. Jesus said that God is love. That being the case love also has intrinsic value. The value of God and love is immeasurable.

Peter and John came across a lame man at the gate called "Beautiful," and he was asking for alms. Peter said to him, "Silver and gold have I none; but what I have, that give I thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." Silver and gold could not make that man walk, but the name of Christ did. This lame man was shown the love of Christ through Peter.

Peter gave that man value because of the love of Christ that was in him.

Paul said in 1st Corinthians 13 he could give all he has to feed the poor, without love it is meaningless, with no profit.

Love has value of it's own, and those that are loving, they give value to others. So, it is my opinion that love is more value than anything else. And, it is also rare.

If we could back our currency with love, it would be the most valuable currency in the world.

 

[TomLine]

Well, it doesn't, not really. It has some minor uses in electronics, but none for which it's essential. Other than that, it's just pretty, and has a lot of customary and historical worth associated with it.

But there's nothing intrinsically valuable about it. You can't eat it, make tools out of it, live in it, mate with it. If you were stranded on a desert island, a tonne of gold wouldn't help you much.

If you read my last post, you will see I agree.

 

[TomLine]

Prophecy? OK, you're losing me...

I agree.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ron Paul, Steve Forbes and many economists are saying the US Dollar is going to collapse. Steve Forbes says, in order to prevent that, we need to get back on the Gold Standard.

What do you think?

While I agree that the dollar is in bad shape, backing it with a commodity is fairly pointless if you ask me.

For a commodity-backed currency, that commodity needs to be somewhat valued equally across the board...otherwise we lose our rear-end when it comes to international trade.

In addition to that, people who think gold is somehow the saving grace during an economic collapse is drinking the Kool-Aid. You can't eat gold if you're hungry, and you can't drink gold if you're thirsty...so if it ever came down to economically driven chaos, having a stockpile of water is going to give you more buying power than gold.


...but back to the topic of the US Dollar.

The solution isn't necessarily to back it with gold again. The real issue with our currency is that it's made & circulated by a private bank that doesn't answer to the US government.

Every dollar the federal reserve generates and puts into circulation comes with interest that we owe them attached to it. So, in essence, every dollar we have them print and circulate costs us ~$1.02.

See any issues with this model? It's a perpetual debt cycle that prevents us from ever being free & clear from our debt to the federal reserve, thus creating a need for an endless cycle of inflation...because we'll always owe them more than what we have in circulation (thus making it possible to ever get out from our debt to them).

After enough iterations on this cycle, it gets to the point where we have to borrow even more money in order to make the minimum payments on the existing debt we owe (much like having to take out a second credit card in order to make the minimum payment on the first credit card).

Currently, we owe roughly $250billion per year just in interest on our debt (pretty steep)...and it's only a matter of time before our nation is having the "debt ceiling" debate again.

If they ever decided that they wanted to call in their debt, the US government would be forced to pay roughly $150k per taxpayer in this country, and where do you think they'd have to get that from? (Hint: FDR did it back in the day to pay off debts...it's called property seizure)

It's a dangerous scenario to be in because our future lies in the hands of an elite group of international bankers. In all honesty, the path that I would recommend would be to put a freeze on budget items (meaning no new budget items allowed, the government can only spend money on existing budget items), and the government essentially takes a loan from the taxpayers to the tune of $1200/year per taxpayer, which would result in $153,600,000,000 per year, and that money goes exclusively to the debt payoff.

Then once debts are paid off and we're back in the surplus realm, then the government issues tax credits in the subsequent years (with a small amount of interest) back to the taxpayers who paid in (based on how much they paid)

...then they send the fed & greedy bankers packing.

Or, we could simply cut 1. Medicaid, 2. Social Security, and 3. Military spending (our 3 largest budget items, in that order) by 20% for 30 years (provided all other current budget expenditures stay where they are) and that would also give us the chance to get out of debt.

 

[TomLine]

While I agree that the dollar is in bad shape, backing it with a commodity is fairly pointless if you ask me.

For a commodity-backed currency, that commodity needs to be somewhat valued equally across the board...otherwise we lose our rear-end when it comes to international trade.

In addition to that, people who think gold is somehow the saving grace during an economic collapse is drinking the Kool-Aid. You can't eat gold if you're hungry, and you can't drink gold if you're thirsty...so if it ever came down to economically driven chaos, having a stockpile of water is going to give you more buying power than gold.


...but back to the topic of the US Dollar.

The solution isn't necessarily to back it with gold again. The real issue with our currency is that it's made & circulated by a private bank that doesn't answer to the US government.

Every dollar the federal reserve generates and puts into circulation comes with interest that we owe them attached to it. So, in essence, every dollar we have them print and circulate costs us ~$1.02.

See any issues with this model? It's a perpetual debt cycle that prevents us from ever being free & clear from our debt to the federal reserve, thus creating a need for an endless cycle of inflation...because we'll always owe them more than what we have in circulation (thus making it possible to ever get out from our debt to them).

After enough iterations on this cycle, it gets to the point where we have to borrow even more money in order to make the minimum payments on the existing debt we owe (much like having to take out a second credit card in order to make the minimum payment on the first credit card).

Currently, we owe roughly $250billion per year just in interest on our debt (pretty steep)...and it's only a matter of time before our nation is having the "debt ceiling" debate again.

If they ever decided that they wanted to call in their debt, the US government would be forced to pay roughly $150k per taxpayer in this country, and where do you think they'd have to get that from? (Hint: FDR did it back in the day to pay off debts...it's called property seizure)

It's a dangerous scenario to be in because our future lies in the hands of an elite group of international bankers. In all honesty, the path that I would recommend would be to put a freeze on budget items (meaning no new budget items allowed, the government can only spend money on existing budget items), and the government essentially takes a loan from the taxpayers to the tune of $1200/year per taxpayer, which would result in $153,600,000,000 per year, and that money goes exclusively to the debt payoff.

Then once debts are paid off and we're back in the surplus realm, then the government issues tax credits in the subsequent years (with a small amount of interest) back to the taxpayers who paid in (based on how much they paid)

...then they send the fed & greedy bankers packing.

Or, we could simply cut 1. Medicaid, 2. Social Security, and 3. Military spending (our 3 largest budget items, in that order) by 20% for 30 years (provided all other current budget expenditures stay where they are) and that would also give us the chance to get out of debt.

Why don't we just end the Fed?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

I agree our debt is a problem and all we seem to do is try to postpone the day of reckoning. I also agree returning to gold backed currency is an obsolete idea. And I agree any real solution to the debt is going to be very painful, and drastic moves could put our economy into recession or depression, hence the "kick the can" mentality. Not sure I trust current leadership with navigating such a perilous journey.