Alan Greenspan Reverting to Old Ways on Gold Standard

#29
#29
Our gold reserves are at Ft. Knox and a couple other locations, from what I gather.....no one has seen these in many a year...

Who knows how much is there?

According to the U.S. Mint [1], there are currently 147.3 million ounces of gold in Fort Knox, KY. At a current price of about*$1776 per ounce, this is worth*261.6 billion dollars
 
#35
#35
Leaving the gold standard is what is going to cause a cash crisis. This is the biggest thing Huff and I agree on.
 
#37
#37
Well, he's a sell out but he's right. We wouldn't be $17T in debt if there were a gold standard. That's not even considering the argument that the fed creates recessions.

and ignores the extraordinary growth the FIAT system let us have. of course it has been manipulated but acting like the gold standard was a, well gold standard, is a bit disingenuous to today's world.
 
#38
#38
and ignores the extraordinary growth the FIAT system let us have. of course it has been manipulated but acting like the gold standard was a, well gold standard, is a bit disingenuous to today's world.

GDP growth was historically incredible and then looks to slow right after the foundation of the Fed, then we got the only back to back depressions in history, then the economy exploded.

I don't think you can conclude we wouldn't have extraordinary growth with a gold standard. Maybe we would have had more steady growth instead of booms and busts, and then we get to the same place without all the growing pains.

RGDP+per+capita.JPG
 
#39
#39
Our gold reserves are at Ft. Knox and a couple other locations, from what I gather.....no one has seen these in many a year...

Who knows how much is there?

Probably not as much as we think. China says thanks.
 
#40
#40
GDP growth was historically incredible and then looks to slow right after the foundation of the Fed, then we got the only back to back depressions in history, then the economy exploded.

I don't think you can conclude we wouldn't have extraordinary growth with a gold standard. Maybe we would have had more steady growth instead of booms and busts, and then we get to the same place without all the growing pains.

RGDP+per+capita.JPG

i think we would be a bit behind. not talking major setbacks.

I guess I was also operating under the assumption that going back to gold would change some of the way banks work with the fractal loans. but I guess that isnt a given.
 
#42
#42

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE VAULT; Below Ground Zero, Silver and Gold - The New York Times

The next tenant of the vault space was the Bank of Nova Scotia, which estimated the value of the metals at $200 million.

''We are in the process of relocating the contents of our vault at World Trade Center building No. 4 to another secure location, because authorities need to demolish the building,'' Pam Agnew, a spokeswoman for the bank, said yesterday by phone from Toronto.

most of the stuff beneath the towers were accounted for in the weeks after.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#43
#43
i think we would be a bit behind. not talking major setbacks.

I guess I was also operating under the assumption that going back to gold would change some of the way banks work with the fractal loans. but I guess that isnt a given.

Without the federal reserve, even on a gold standard banks would still practice fractional banking but they'd have to be a lot more moderate about it without FDIC insurance and bailouts (when I was in school, I think reserves were 10% of what they loan out). We'd still have this problem, but to a much smaller degree, IMO.
 
#44
#44
I'm not averse to the gold standard in principle, but I don't really think it would have a particularly positive effect, due to the fact that I think reverting back to it would cause such a profound economic shock that it wouldn't be worth it.

You can reign in public spending and limit bubbles under the fiat system, it just requires greater political will. But there will always be volatility in a floating system.
 
Last edited:
#45
#45
I'm not averse to the gold standard in principle, but I don't really think it would have a particularly positive effect, due to the fact that I think reverting back to it would cause such a profound economic shock that it wouldn't be worth it.

You can reign in public spending and limit bubbles under the fiat system, it just requires greater political will.

good luck with that
 
#46
#46
good luck with that

I agree, but there have been great politicians in the past that understand this. It's just the electorate seems to be getting dumber by the year. Actually, reverting back to the gold standard might be necessary, despite the shocks, because at least it would limit an idiotic politician's affect on the economy.:)
 
#47
#47
You can reign in public spending and limit bubbles under the fiat system, it just requires greater political will.

There is little to none. Politicians have no stake in running a balanced budget. They're given control of trillions of dollars that don't belong to them. They go over budget? So what, that's someone else's problem. At this point it probably doesn't even matter to them. I believe they've accepted the debt will never be reduced so they're just going to continue to spend until some crisis forces change.

The term "drive it like you stole it comes to mind." Run it up to the redline, slide through corners, handbrake every turn, run through bumpy fields....doesn't matter it's someone else's car. It'll be their problem. That's how our elected officials handle our economic policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

VN Store



Back
Top