Thread: Demolishing the Gold Standard

This is a very interesting read, but I've highlighted the two sections I feel are most topical to current events:

DEMOLISHING THE GOLD STANDARD
Smith's core argument is rarely discussed in the public world.

In his monster document, Smith argued -- quite convincingly -- that no country could legitimately remain on a gold standard if we wanted world peace.

It is astonishing to remember that this was all laid out in 1776 -- which, interestingly enough, was the same year Adam Weishaupt was financed to start the Illuminati in Bavaria. Smith was likely paid very well for his work -- as was Weishaupt.

Although there may well be truth in Smith's argument, there was a deeper agenda hidden behind it -- which was the exact opposite of what he seemed to be saying.

If no country or group is left with any gold, then no country or group can financially oppose the ruling cabal.


Even if a world leader of typical intelligence could only make it through the first 44 pages of this book, he or she would already have a strong sense of inevitability regarding Smith's ultimate position on gold.

Here are four of Smith's most compelling arguments that emerge just within the first 44 pages. It's important to understand the logic behind this plan, and how far back it goes in history.

[...]

3. ANY COUNTRY WITH GOLD IS A PRIME TARGET FOR INVASION
Thirdly, if one country has gold reserves and others do not, they become a target for invasion.

Natural human greed and violence would inevitably doom the people in that country to invasion by others wishing to steal it.

The only way to solve that problem is to insure that no one nation has gold-backed currency.

That way the game is fair for everyone... all across the board.

FINANCIAL TYRANNY: Defeating the Greatest Cover-Up of All Time - Section Four: The Occult Economy

Meanwhile, outside the Green Zone:

If the Washington/Tel Aviv-promoted hysteria is already at fever pitch, wait for March 20, when the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in other currencies apart from the US dollar, heralding the arrival of a new oil marker to be denominated in euro, yen, yuan, rupee or a basket of currencies.

That would suit Asian clients - from BRICS members India and China to US allies Japan and South Korea, not to mention NATO member Turkey. But that would also suit European clients, to pay for oil in their own currency. Tehran - as well as many key players in the developing world - does want to sink the petrodollar. That may be the straw to break the American camel's back.

Asia Times Online :: US want SWIFT war on Iran

I'm most interested to get a read on all of this from the PH financial experts, what say you? Bunk fearmongering, or potential global paradigm shift?

We need to return to the Gold Standard if anything, to force the government to live within its means.

Originally Posted by Bassman

We need to return to the Gold Standard if anything, to force the government to live within its means.

The problem is, the USG can't purchase any sizable amount of gold without totally defrauding it's entire system. So you're suggesting we go further into debt to create a gold standard and then default on our increased debt while we establish a new system, and then jump immediately to hyperinflation to restore our economy and appease loan holders.

How is that better than what we have now? I think the article made it clear; we are well beyond the point where a gold standard would be beneficial, and I believe without drastic changes, it's not feasible in the least. Maybe that's why some circles are talking about how the global population needs to be reduced to 300MILLION.

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

The problem is, the USG can't purchase any sizable amount of gold without totally defrauding it's entire system. So you're suggesting we go further into debt to create a gold standard and then default on our increased debt while we establish a new system, and then jump immediately to hyperinflation to restore our economy and appease loan holders.

How is that better than what we have now? I think the article made it clear; we are well beyond the point where a gold standard would be beneficial, and I believe without drastic changes, it's not feasible in the least. Maybe that's why some circles are talking about how the global population needs to be reduced to 300MILLION.

No, it is very feasible. You Leftwads think that government cannot be run like a household. Well, you are dead wrong about that. so Welfare Deadbeats have to get off their lazy asses and get a job! So what!!

Originally Posted by Bassman

No, it is very feasible. You Leftwads think that government cannot be run like a household. Well, you are dead wrong about that. so Welfare Deadbeats have to get off their lazy asses and get a job! So what!!

Are you talking about the banks? They get the most welfare from the government. Right now they are getting free money to make their profits on.

This is all academic because we couldn't return to the gold standard if our lives depended on it.

First off, gold would have to be around $55K an ounce to cover all the money, next... all the gold is being bought by foreign nations. India and China are buying gold; no one really knows how much gold is in Ft. Knox if any at all... (estimate is 8,000 metric tonnes @ $35 milion a tonne with gold at $1,000= $28 billion.. $47 Billion with gold @ $1,700.)

It was Nixon that took us off the gold standard, now it has become the new "carrot" issue for some of the GOP, too bad it's impossible...

Only the smallest and richest nation could back their currency with gold.

And you ask 100 T-pubs why we went off the gold standard and I bet most would tell you the dems did it.

NO currency today is backed by gold, the closest thing is the Mexican Silver Libertad which has a fluctuating face value.

The world silver market is only about $20 billion a year, gold about ten times that.

So how anyone expects billions in gold to cover trillions in dollars is beyond me.

Thx

Originally Posted by USA-1

Are you talking about the banks? They get the most welfare from the government. Right now they are getting free money to make their profits on.

Both

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

No, you don't understand what's being said here.

Our government is paying the banks to borrow money. Right now, today! They're "injecting liquidity" into the economy, and the way they do that is to print up a whole bunch of money and then pay the banks to distribute it to people.

I mean, that is the simple truth, in spite of all the complicated names they come up with 'cause they don't want to call it "printing money". (like "quantitative easing" and all that happy horseshit - as if they had even the remotest idea of what they were actually doing).

Our dollar is going to be worthless pretty soon, gasoline is going to go to 10 bucks a gallon and your big-screen TV is going to cost ten grand instead of one.

And you're worried about a few poor people trying to eke out a living on 262 bucks a month? Come on man, take off the blinders and take a look around. The poor are not the problem here.

Nope. It's the rich and powerful. They will destroy this country, not the poor folk on food stamps.