Trust in Gold Not Bernanke

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
Trust in Gold Not Bernanke as U.S. States Promote Bullion


Distrust of the Federal Reserve and concern that U.S. dollars may become worthless are fueling a push in more than a dozen states to recognize gold and silver coins as legal tender.

Arizona is poised to follow Utah, which authorized bullion for currency in 2011. Similar bills are advancing in Kansas, South Carolina and other states.

The measures backed by the limited-government Tea Party movement are mostly symbolic -- you still can’t pay for groceries with gold in Utah. They reflect lingering dollar concerns, amplified by the Fed’s unconventional moves in recent years to stabilize the economy, said Loren Gatch, who teaches politics at the University of Central Oklahoma.

“The legislation is about signaling discontent with monetary policy and about what Ben Bernanke is doing,” said Gatch, who studies alternative currencies at the Edmond, Oklahoma-based school. “There is a fear that the government, or Bernanke in particular and the Federal Reserve, is pursuing a policy that will lead to the collapse of the dollar. That’s what is behind it.”

Bernanke has pushed interest rates to near zero since the 18-month recession that began in December 2007. The Fed said in March it would continue buying $85 billion in securities each month in a program known as quantitative easing that has ballooned its assets beyond $3 trillion and is aimed at keeping long-term borrowing costs low to support economic growth.

Tame Inflation
Consumer prices rose just 1.3 percent in February from a year earlier, according to an inflation measure favored by the Fed. That was below the central bank’s 2 percent target and compares with occasional bouts of more-than 10 percent increases in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Bets that inflation would pick up because of economic- stimulus measures helped fuel a 78 percent jump in gold since December 2008. The dollar’s rise to less than 1 percent below a one-year high set in July and monthly increases of about 2 percent or less in the U.S. consumer price index have curbed demand for bullion. Since reaching a record $1,923.70 an ounce in 2011, gold prices have fallen and are near a bear market.

Gold futures for June delivery fell almost 0.2 percent today, to $1,573.20 an ounce on the Comex in New York and have lost 6.1 percent this year. The price touched $1,539.40 on April 4, a 10-month low for a most-active contract.

Texas Depository
In Texas, lawmakers are considering a measure supported by Republican Governor Rick Perry to establish the Texas Bullion Depository to store gold bars valued at about $1 billion and held in a New York bank warehouse. The gold is owned by the University of Texas Investment Management Co., or Utimco, which took delivery of 6,643 bars of the precious metal in 2011 amid concern that demand for it would overwhelm supply.

The proposed facility would also accept deposits from the public, and would provide a basis for a payments system in the state in the event of a “systemic dislocation in a national and international financial system,” according to the measure.

Should Texas take such a step, it would offer sovereign backing for deposits and make buying and storing gold easier, said Jim Rickards, senior managing director at Tangent Capital Partners LLC in New York and author of “Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis.” He said the coin measures, while impractical, have symbolic value.

“We are seeing a distinct movement back to a world where gold is considered money,” Rickards said.

Inflation Protection
The measures give “people the option of using money that won’t lose any purchasing power to inflation,” said Rich Danker, economics director at the American Principles Project. The Washington-based public-policy group supports the steps as well as a return to the gold standard, which pegged the dollar’s value to bullion. President Richard Nixon formally ended the convertibility of U.S. currency to the precious metal in 1971.

“People in these states find the idea of having the option to use hard currencies appealing over these policies they have no control over,” Danker said.

The U.S. Constitution bars states from coining money and also forbids them from making anything except gold and silver coin tender for paying debts. Advocates say that opens the door for the states to allow bullion as legal tender. The measure being considered in South Carolina would recognize foreign or domestic minted coins as legal tender.

Utah’s law applies only to U.S.-minted coins, while other states are less clear on whether privately produced coins qualify. Arizona leaves the door open for private coins if they are declared legal by a non-appealable court order.

Tax Breaks
In Utah and some other states, the measures also eliminate state capital gains or other taxes on the coins.

Critics say the state measures are unwieldy. In Arizona, Senator Steve Farley, a Democrat, unsuccessfully offered an amendment that would have recognized as legal tender other state commodities, such as citrus fruit, as well as sunbeams. The amendment was intended to reflect the absurdity of the bill, said the 50-year-old lawmaker from Tucson.

“It is simply grandstanding to get people afraid that somehow President Obama’s agenda is going to drive us into hyperinflation and economic collapse,” Farley said. “We have enough real problems to deal with. I don’t see undercutting our entire financial structure as a priority.”

In Utah, officials haven’t yet figured out how to accept gold and silver for tax payments -- though some residents have asked to pay that way -- or integrate the precious metals into commerce, state Treasurer Richard Ellis said. Lawmakers have established a task-force to study implementing the law and to examine how the state can accept gold and silver, with their fluctuating values, for payment, Ellis said. He’s not optimistic that it will work, he said.

Regulatory Barriers
“People point to Utah and say we are leading the way, but nothing much has happened because regulatory hurdles have gotten in the way,” said Ellis, a Republican. If gold and silver is being used in the state as legal tender, it is probably only in transactions between individuals, he said.

The Utah Precious Metals Association, established after passage of the 2011 law to advocate for the use of gold and silver coins, has about two dozen members enrolled in a two month-old bill-pay service in which their accounts are held in gold, said Lawrence Hilton, the group’s chairman. Hilton envisions a future with an alternative monetary system based on precious metals in which merchants accept silver coin while gold mostly backs electronic transfers.

Gold Producers
The Republican-sponsored Arizona measure passed the House of Representatives 36-22 today, after being amended last week. Before landing on the desk of Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, the bill must go back for another vote in the Senate, where it was approved 17-11 on Feb. 28. Gold is mined in both Arizona and Utah, while Nevada is the largest U.S. producer, according to figures from the National Mining Association in Washington.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Chester Crandell, 66 of Heber, said he is convinced the move is the “logical thing for the state of Arizona to do.”

“I think you look at some of the things that are happening and the amount of money printed by the Federal Reserve and who has control of that money, and I think anybody would be concerned,” Crandell said. “Gold and silver have been around a long time and people are secure with it and we should give them an opportunity to use it.”


Article
 
You posted an article, but you didn't say anything about it. Are you afraid that people might hold you accountable for your words?

Why not answer questions, Will?
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Fuckin gold standard should have NEVER gone away. Nixon fucked up.
 
Fuckin gold standard should have NEVER gone away. Nixon fucked up.


The former part of that statement has me curious. The latter could apply to things other than the gold standard.

Nixon certainly wasn't the only one who moved the US from the gold standard. Thinking of today's economic situation and what caused the stress on companies like Bear Stears, CitiBank, GM, and AIG, how would the gold standard affect these companies and the overall economy? How would it affect the common consumer, homeowner, and debtor?
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
The former part of that statement has me curious. The latter could apply to things other than the gold standard.

Nixon certainly wasn't the only one who moved the US from the gold standard. Thinking of today's economic situation and what caused the stress on companies like Bear Stears, CitiBank, GM, and AIG, how would the gold standard affect these companies and the overall economy? How would it affect the common consumer, homeowner, and debtor?

Unless I'm mistaken, Nixon was the one that did away with the gold standard. When your dollar was backed by gold, it was worth more, it had value. Now it doesn't. Where we would be today...I don't know, but with the gold standard, at least my dollar wasn't a piece of paper, it was actually worth something. To be honest, fuck those companies, what about the working man's dollar?
 
Unless I'm mistaken, Nixon was the one that did away with the gold standard. When your dollar was backed by gold, it was worth more, it had value. Now it doesn't. Where we would be today...I don't know, but with the gold standard, at least my dollar wasn't a piece of paper, it was actually worth something. To be honest, fuck those companies, what about the working man's dollar?

In 1933 and 1934 acts were passed to take the U.S. off of the gold standard as a monetary system. In 1974 Nixon stopped the practice of exchanging dollars for gold. Perhaps it was the large withdrawal the Brits had not too long before that.

You probably would "fuck those companies" and the "working man" too. By creating a fixed monetary system, wouldn't people begin to hoard that dollar, further restricting working capital? Gold is volatile itself. Would you allow the monetary system to fluctuate with gold or would you fix the rate? Who would fix the rate, private concerns or the Federal Reserve? Isn't distrust of the Federal Reserve the reason most consider going back to the gold standard?

While your thinking of answers to those questions, let me ask you this; If the monetary system is fixed, then if one area of the economy grows, doesn't another have to shrink? How does this affect the "working man's dollar" in a country that increases its population by approximately 1% every year?

There are some good ECN101 student questions that could be raised about 1933 & 1934, hitting that would be the ante to a serious discussion. So would be discussing how the multiple panics of the 19th century when the U.S. was on the gold standard and Greece's current situation and their participation in the EU would be relevant or not.

If I come across condescending, it is unintentional. If I come across cranky...well, my kids tell me I'm always cranky. (My wife tells me I'm just a smart ass. ...sometimes an asshole.) I plead guilty to them.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
clean it up a little dude. Leave Will alone or you will get an infraction for harassment.

That's horseshit. Quote the rule being broken. You need to read the sticky attached to this sub-forum-

The FreeOnes Political Arena is where FreeOnes members can come together to talk about anything and everything having to do with politics. This means talking about politicians, laws, religious law, or political theory from different countries, their people and culture.

More likely than not controversial topics WILL be posted in this forum that will raise tempers and emotions. If you are thin skinned and can't take someone disagreeing with you, avoid this section.

Note 1: FreeOnes is a very international site. Just because you're a national of *insert country here*, it doesn't mean that people will automatically fall at your feet in agreement with your opinion, thoughts, or ideas about how other countries or cultures run things. Once again, if you can't take the heat, DO NOT POST HERE.

Note 2: This forum is only for threads that were political to begin with. If a thread in another forum becomes a political discussion, moderators will ignore requests to move it here since it was not intended to be political in nature to begin with.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Mikexmoran is correct about gold's place in economic history. There are many myths, fallacies and fantasies surrounding the gold standard... most of which have no basis in fact or reality. The belief that gold has intrinsic value is a fallacy. Let me see someone eat some gold if they're starving, drink it if they're thirsty or live under a bar of gold if they need shelter and then I'll believe that it has (true) intrinsic value. Gold's value and price are market driven, just like every other commodity and asset class. Also, the belief that being on the gold standard provides some measure of economic stability is a fantasy. Being on the gold standard actually means that the monetary options available to central banks and governments are limited, because the supply of gold is limited. As economic conditions in southern Europe continue to deteriorate, the price of gold is falling, not rising - but the (fiat) dollar is stable. Isn't gold supposed to be a safe haven??? Any explanations for that from the gold bugs?

As well, most proponents of the gold standard tend to ignore the mechanics (and cost) of accomplishing their wish.

DailyFinance.com:
Under the gold standard, the government must have enough gold on hand to redeem every single dollar in circulation -- at the moment, that's $2.6 trillion. Given that the U.S. gold reserve is an estimated 260 million ounces -- worth around $431 billion -- to convert to the gold standard, Washington would first have to acquire a massive amount of bullion. One method would be to buy some of the estimated $10 trillion worth of gold in the world. Unfortunately, the more gold the U.S. bought, the higher the price of gold would go, and the higher the price tag of moving to the gold standard would rise.

The other option would be to raise the price of gold in dollars by legal legerdemain from today's level of about $1,660 per ounce to $10,000 per ounce, which would allow the existing gold reserves to cover the existing monetary base. Unfortunately, doing that would seriously destabilize the economy, overwhelming the alleged benefits of the switch to a gold-based currency.

And if the gold standard means price stability, then someone please explain this graph of CPI in the years leading up to the Great Depression... when the U.S. was still on the gold standard. Also note that deflation is a more difficult economic condition to address than inflation.

NewGoldCPI.png
 
Mikexmoran is correct about gold's place in economic history.

Best post I saw all day ;)

Seriously the rest was good too.

Listen, the gold portion of the opinion piece is really rubbish. I don't know a serious Economist who believes in it. For good reason.
The merit in the "article" is the bubble that Bernake may be/is creating. That has merit and is worth consideration.

I'll stay away from academia and refer to Larry Kudlow. He is partisan. He is a Bernake detractor. If you really listen to him, with the exception of the potential bubble, he probably gives him a "C" grade. Even he knows Bush picked him to succeed Greenspan.

The issue is to grow the economy you do need a money supply. However, more money doesn't guarantee economic growth.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Listen, I'm not gonna sit here and debate it's pluses, and minuses...because I can't. If you want that mike, find a collage graduate, all I know is this, what we have now is working for shit, and I'm busting my ass, for less then I was a few years ago. Something needs to change, and the price of gold hasn't been going down. Our country is in debt up to it's eyeballs, and we have nothing to back it up...;it's all a paper joke, it means nothing, because it isn't real, it's all an illusion.


In all likely hood, in a few years, currency will be bullets and magazines, and maybe MRE's.

Also, we need to end the federal reserve.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Listen, I'm not gonna sit here and debate it's pluses, and minuses...because I can't. If you want that mike, find a collage graduate, all I know is this, what we have now is working for shit, and I'm busting my ass, for less then I was a few years ago. Something needs to change, and the price of gold hasn't been going down. Our country is in debt up to it's eyeballs, and we have nothing to back it up...;it's all a paper joke, it means nothing, because it isn't real, it's all an illusion.


In all likely hood, in a few years, currency will be bullets and magazines, and maybe MRE's.

Also, we need to end the federal reserve.

Rev, the price of gold has been falling. It fell by almost 2% just yesterday. And it's down by about 12% in the past six months. Gold is priced in U.S. dollars. So versus gold, the dollar is up by the same amount that gold is down. Now, the price of gold is up over the past decade. But shares of Apple Computer are up even more. Maybe the U.S. dollar should be backed by iMacs (which actually have greater intrinsic value than bars of gold). ;) I don't trade gold or forex, but I did read the report that Goldman Sachs issued about gold (whether they'll wind up being right or not, we don't know):

Not even Cyprus turmoil could do it. Or exceptionally weak U.S. data. Or general fears of a backlash in the global recovery. Gold prices currently struggle to shine as a safe haven and regain its past fame, prompting analysts at Goldman Sachs to slash their gold price forecasts. For the second time in less than two months, that is.

The gold team at Goldman now sees an average price of $1,545 an ounce in 2013, down from an earlier forecast of $1,610, with average prices falling even further to $1,350 in 2014 from $1,490 expected previously.


I understand your frustration, Rev. But even if gold was a good safe haven or had intrinsic value (neither of which are true), how would the dollar being backed by gold have increased your earnings over the past few years? I don't know if you mean your real wages (after inflation) or your nominal wages. But inflation has been down, not up. Your wages have not been eaten up by inflation, like they were in the 70's. But yeah, the problem is that (nominal and real) wage gains have been all but nonexistent for wage earners - not for the owners of corporations though (look at the S&P 500... corporate profits continue to rise). But how would a gold standard help with that??? The biggest worry we had during the Great Recession was deflation, not inflation. Gold theoretically protects against inflation - it does nothing to battle deflation - in fact, it tends to lose value during deflationary periods. And real wages for Americans have been falling for a couple of decades. But the Fed didn't have anything to do with that. Welcome to globalization. And who pushed that? The Club for Growth, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the right wing of the GOP say that globalization is good for America. You don't agree? I don't. I mean, these were the same folks who told us that NAFTA was a great idea. Surely they wouldn't lie to us to benefit those of their ilk, would they? :D

And let's say we get rid of the Fed. OK. Then what? :dunno: What does that solve? What does the Fed have to do with how much you earn? Don't get me wrong - I also see problems with the Fed. But the Fed isn't the one spending our money - that's Congress. And the Fed doesn't give our money away and force us to borrow from our enemies - that's Congress. Considering what a rolling, hot mess Congress is these days, IMO, if not for the Fed, we'd likely be in a depression right now. And under the gold standard (and before there was a strong central bank), we had quite a few major recessions and depressions. People tend to ignore that economic fact.

Here's what I'm looking at. By slashing interest rates, the Fed has (partially) reflated the economy. When I built this house about 8 years ago, the construction loan was about 7.25%. Then when I was done building it, the permanent mortgage (30 year fixed rate) was 6.5%. Right about the time that gold began tumbling in November 2012, I refinanced (for the 3rd time) and I now have a 3% 30 year fixed rate mortgage. My interest rate and costs are now less than half of what they were just a couple of years ago. So while real wages may not have gone anywhere for a lot of people, especially for homeowners with mortgages, their disposable income has increased, because their borrowing costs have been slashed by 50% or more. And that is HUGE! That trumps an inflation rate of even 5% or 10%.

Also, by keeping interest rates at historic lows, the Fed has rewarded investors. And yes, savers have taken it on the chin. But those who have borrowed to build businesses or invest in equities have been richly rewarded. And inflation is still low. So at least for right now, I'd MUCH rather have Ben Bernanke guiding the economy than Barack Obama, Harry Reid or John Boehner. I'd rather see our form of government be restructured and we get rid of the House of Representatives and keep the Fed. What would the House members do then? I don't know. Go back to serving fast food, committing bank fraud or hooking, I guess.
 
Listen, I'm not gonna sit here and debate it's pluses, and minuses...because I can't. If you want that mike, find a collage graduate, all I know is this, what we have now is working for shit, and I'm busting my ass, for less then I was a few years ago. Something needs to change, and the price of gold hasn't been going down. Our country is in debt up to it's eyeballs, and we have nothing to back it up...;it's all a paper joke, it means nothing, because it isn't real, it's all an illusion.


In all likely hood, in a few years, currency will be bullets and magazines, and maybe MRE's.

Also, we need to end the federal reserve.


Maybe it is because I work with undergraduates and graduate and spend most of the day on topics like this, but raising a complaint and fear is fine, but doing so without having the curiosity to understand why and start thinking about alternatives is mental laziness. It wouldn't be if I paid to solve these problems for you, but I'm not. (Nor do I seek your vote ;) )

I'm a bit more optimistic than you, so I don't see the need to convert to gold or abolish the Fed. It is actually one of Wilson's best accomplishments and has served us well controlling inflation.

The thing I think needs attention is the government spending bubble. It is big enough to create loose money and I'm inclined think that the spending has to be cut back at some point and the money will contract again. Companies are holding onto cash, which doesn't help the extra supply of money to stimulate the economy.

Is this the next bubble to burst? Is it the stock market which is up 60% or so since the bottom? Probably not, IMO. Stocks are not over valued.

I don't really have a solution either, but I don't think the sky is falling. I think government spend should be brought down in a controlled manner. Perhaps the constriction of cash will drive out those company dollars and also bring some of those dollars in from offshore.



To ReyC: Great post. I don't agree with eliminating the House. It is the most representative part of the legislature. It should have the most power. I think politics are a bit out of control and it isn't all their falut, it is just easiest to reflect there. I think we need to vote them out.
I've come to the opinion that term limits are a good idea. An argument against them are that we should have the choice to keep or remove them. The House, however, allows a small district to have a representative stay in power and gain power for a long time and wield disproportionate power.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
To ReyC: Great post. I don't agree with eliminating the House. It is the most representative part of the legislature. It should have the most power. I think politics are a bit out of control and it isn't all their falut, it is just easiest to reflect there. I think we need to vote them out.
I've come to the opinion that term limits are a good idea. An argument against them are that we should have the choice to keep or remove them. The House, however, allows a small district to have a representative stay in power and gain power for a long time and wield disproportionate power.

I was kinda joking about that. But on reflection, what would you say to randomly hanging some of them every few months? See, I think that would keep the rest of them honest. OK. OK. I guess hanging is a bit extreme. Chase them with dogs through the woods? Yeah? Just pick some at random. Dems and Repubs. Release the hounds!!! :nanner:

Jokes aside, as Americans, we need to do a better job of educating ourselves about the issues that most affect us. That way, we'd be less likely to get conned into believing the polished, slick talking shyster (Dem or Repub) who is standing on a podium, spinning fantasies that meet with our prescribed (maybe baseless) view of the world. Let's be honest: we voted for them, so we're to blame. Voting out one bunch of scoundrels, only to replace them with another bunch of scoundrels, doesn't accomplish anything either. And over the years, that's all we've done.

But give the dog chasing idea some thought. :yesyes:
 
Oh, I think the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants!

(maybe not an original quote from me.)

I may be a bit of an idealist. I think if you limit terms to something like two 8 or 6 year terms, you prevent the career politician. Perhaps we get back the idealists who want to accomplish something and then will not be corrupted by long term careers.

I was kinda joking about that. But on reflection, what would you say to randomly hanging some of them every few months? See, I think that would keep the rest of them honest. OK. OK. I guess hanging is a bit extreme. Chase them with dogs through the woods? Yeah? Just pick some at random. Dems and Repubs. Release the hounds!!! :nanner:

Jokes aside, as Americans, we need to do a better job of educating ourselves about the issues that most affect us. That way, we'd be less likely to get conned into believing the polished, slick talking shyster (Dem or Repub) who is standing on a podium, spinning fantasies that meet with our prescribed (maybe baseless) view of the world. Let's be honest: we voted for them, so we're to blame. Voting out one bunch of scoundrels, only to replace them with another bunch of scoundrels, doesn't accomplish anything either. And over the years, that's all we've done.

But give the dog chasing idea some thought. :yesyes:
 

Rattrap

Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
I've been told repetition is the key to memorization. And so...
Jokes aside, as Americans, we need to do a better job of educating ourselves about the issues that most affect us. That way, we'd be less likely to get conned into believing the polished, slick talking shyster (Dem or Repub) who is standing on a podium, spinning fantasies that meet with our prescribed (maybe baseless) view of the world. Let's be honest: we voted for them, so we're to blame. Voting out one bunch of scoundrels, only to replace them with another bunch of scoundrels, doesn't accomplish anything either. And over the years, that's all we've done.
Jokes aside, as Americans, we need to do a better job of educating ourselves about the issues that most affect us.
Americans, we need to do a better job of educating ourselves
Yes. 1000x, yes. An educated voting population doesn't need term limits.

...which means, sadly, we need term limits. :(
 
Top