The simple truth is that the US treasury does not have anywhere near enough gold to back every dollar in circulation today. BTW, we don’t even have enough gold to cover the amount of dollars in circulation before the latest runaway printing of money.

And if we did purchase the amount of gold necessary to cover the money we have in circulation, we would do so with borrowed money because we already spend 40% more than we take in.

And as we go around the world buying the last remaining gold reserves with borrowed money, we should expect the price of gold to go through the ceiling due to the shortages and increased demand. This would send the value of the dollar down due to the fact that $1600 would buy an ounce of gold in 2011, and after the buy-up of the worlds gold reserves, it would probably take 10 times that amount. That renders the dollar to 10% of its 2011 value.

I can’t even begin to imagine a more absurd situation, yet this is the cornerstone of Ron Paul’s fiscal plan.

Gold measurement and gold redeemability used to provide that lock.
However, we need to build a new non-political system of exchange based on local associations of businesses that know each other. Gold may be useful as a measure of value in such a system (other commodities would be better), but credit is what businesses require and typically provide to each other. Please read my book, The End of Money, and you will understand.

WRONG… We have a saying down here in the south, “Locks keep honest people honest.” and while gold and silver coins might not be such a good idea for every day trade at walmart, going back to the gold standard would ensure what you have in your wallet is allways worth something. Gold is like a “lock”.

Mass, nationwide, credit has absolutely destroyed people. Giveing credit to anyone you don’t personally know, that don’t live, or own a buisness litterally right down the street is a bad idea. I’ve made that mistake with credit, and now that I’m older and a little wiser, I don’t beleve anyone should owe anybody anything but a thank you. If you can’t afford it right then, don’t buy it.

if people trust electrons on a screen saying how much ‘money’ they have why wouldnt an electronic international transfer of gold sitting somewhere be just as comforting?

Why do we suppose we stick to archiac scarcity determined money systems, they are all so insane? Money is a very old and tired concept that isn’t working anymore because labor is being replaced by the kilowatt hour….. We’re capable of producing so much more with less. And money is just a measure of what? Our labor? What labor? Where the hell is the labor? No, what we need is ENERGY ACCOUNTING! all else is BS

1. Whoever issues the credit money @ interest can now take his interest money, which he has garnered in exchange for little no human effort on his part, and use this interest money to extract goods and services which are produced through human effort. The net result being the issuer of the credit money has extracted human effort out of others in exchange for no human effort on his part.

One might at this point start going on and on about all the human effort it took to acquire the credit franchise and all the capital, risks and liabilities associated with running the franchise including the risk involved with the default of the borrower as well we must not forget the time value of money. Personally as far as I can figure, that’s all a bunch of hokum!

The players who understand the credit game understand the extraction process very well. Additionally they are the in many cases the same party playing the role of both the lender and borrower.

2. Who ever borrowed, received the credit money, has at this point not expended any human effort on their part other than signing the promise to pay, and they are now be in a position with all their effortlessly created credit money, to control, influence & extract human effort out of others. Again the net result being somebody in a position to extract human effort out of others at little or no effort of their own.

Now what happens when the big borrowers have blown their wad, manipulated and controlled a whole bunch of human effort and cannot pay? No problem we just shift the obligation back onto the backs of the people we just finished manipulating by transferring the liability to the government with some sort of bailout scheme, subsidy, grant or what have you. Now the poor sods we just had running around in circles will jump through even more hoops to pay the tax bills to the government who then in turn forkout the bailouts, subsidies and grants and the interest payments back to the corporate borrowers who are the same folks who have the credit franchise who have now issued the credit to the government to bail themselves out. Nice. Now the credit franchise holders control and have ownership of whatever it is they borrowed the money for in he first place and the cost of the asset along with the labour involved as well as all interest payments to themselves are all being paid by the poor shmuck who doesn’t understand the game and will toil for the rest of his life to honour his debt and actually pay back his loans.

In the case were the big borrowers receive big government contracts to create their profits to pay the loans to themselves back, the same transfer of burden takes place. They issue the credit to the government at interest to pay themselves. They end up controlling the assets, the people and the government. The good honest hard working people pay their taxes and their debts.

Now what part of this system seems fundamentally, morally or ethically right?

The folks that really understand the magic of credit money have no intention of paying back the loan and will transfer the debt back to the people. If the whole thing ends up taking a dump in the end and they have to right off all these unpaid debts, who really cares anyways when you own and control all the stuff.

I have a hard time seeing any value in our credit, fiat money system and have a harder time trying to rationalize it.

If these thoughts are way of base I would like someone to explain it to me.

The Gold standard seems like a good idea to me because as long as we all know that at the end of the day, that all we have to trade is our till and toil, creativity and ingenuity what matters how tight the supply and demand for gold is. It takes and took human effort to produce and if there is a lot of it available and it’s easier to produce I will expect more of it in return for whatever goods and or services I am providing with my human effort. If gold is in tight supply and you got to work like hell to find it and dig it out, I will recognize your reluctance to trade with me for goods and or services that took a whole lot less effort to produce. The money token does what it needs to do whether paper or digital facilitating exchange of human effort. As far as time value is concerned humanity will always be looking for, exchanging and requiring goods and services over time and even if there were a static supply of gold the change in the relative value of goods and services based on supply and demand and our informed willingness to trade would be the material concern. So what if we quit mining gold, so a dollar pays for a years worth of your needs we can do the math and the time value gets covered off in goods and services exchanged and provided to somebody somewhere. The purchasing power of our money would only increase as economic and population growth occurred while the bulk of our useless gold sits on deposit the token facilitates trade.

Had we stuck to a gold standard and caught on to the magic of the moneychangers and educated our fellow man I doubt this world would be in the environmental, moral and overpopulated mess it is in right now.

Some might suggest this is just to simple for our advanced enlightened society. Just ask yourself hopefully as a seeker of truth and integrity which system would produce more truth and integrity, honour and respect for our fellow man and mother earth. Our intuitions immediately tell us whets right. We can try to convince ourselves that it is more complicated than this and we have to extrapolate for this and that. Be my Guest.

Again if these thoughts are way of base I would like someone to explain it to me in simple terms and not with a bunch of economic minutia.

Regards
Robert

Any form of money used intelligently can be used to enslave other people. Slavery was popular in the antique world – a world which also used gold and silver as money. Freedom and credit money are not contradictions. The bankers of this world who administer credit money enjoy greater freedoms than the bankers of the past who worked with gold as money. However, it is correct to say, that the credit money system makes it much easier to enslave a large number of people than under a commodity type monetary system. The ultimate problem is not so much credit versus gold money. It is the intense desire to accumulate large amounts of money – that’s the problem. Conncentrated money always enslaves other people regardless whether gold or fial.