Saturday, February 19, 2011

How is that different from Freegold?


FOFOA reader and supporter Cyril asked me by email:

I have a little question that I’d like to ask you. I don’t know if you are familiar with Peter Schiff: he has a radio show every day where he talks about macro-economics.

So the other night, I was listening to it and a caller brought you up in his question. He was a little dismayed that Peter Schiff was not aware of your work (and so was I). That’s probably why he didn’t do a very good job in summarizing the Freegold concept, but to be fair, I don’t know if anyone would have been to able do it in 20 seconds. But here’s the exchange:




Peter Schiff’s first reaction was to ask “OK, and how is that different from what we have now?” I realized that this was a question that I always had in my mind and never found an answer for.

Right now I can buy an ounce of gold for $1373.70. I can also buy the same ounce for 1015.84 Euros. This means that 1US Dollar is 0.000728 ounces of gold and 1 Euro is 0.000984 ounces of gold. How is that different from Freegold?


Good question Peter and Cyril! By the way, Peter Schiff may not have heard of the FOFOA blog, but he has met me. He signed my copy of Crash Proof at one of his "events" in early 2008, before I had even heard of ANOTHER and FOA.


Now most of you know that I consider this topic, Freegold, to be extremely deep. But I'm going to try not to go there in this post. I'm going to attempt to "superficially" focus only on this one question in the hope that this post stays reasonable in length and finds its way to Peter.

Sure, gold is floating against all currencies today, just as it has been since Nixon ended the fixed gold standard. But it is a pretty volatile float, wouldn't you say? From $40 up to $850 back down to $250 and up again to $1,400. All in 40 years. During the prior four decades, gold was locked at $35 per ounce. That's some long term stability! Granted it was a synthetic stability, prone to explosively painful crises like the 1970s.

Freegold will once again deliver a stable gold price, unlike today. The kind of stability Freegold will provide, which will be able to last much longer than 40 years, will form the bedrock foundation of global trade, monetary policy and international finance for the next era. And it will be stable because of two main factors:

1. SUPPLY - Gold will trade on a stable supply of above-ground physical gold in the absence of external influences like "paper gold" (Bullion Bank "BB" liabilities that can be created on demand by a mere book entry on a BB balance sheet, etc.).

2. DEMAND - Gold will also trade on a stable demand due to the global clarity that will emerge as to gold's best and highest function—being only a physical wealth reserve asset and nothing else.

How we get there is easy to visualize. As the physical reserves within the BB system are all moved into allocated accounts, at some point the remaining claims will simply have to be cash-settled. At that point all paper gold markets will cease to exist and all that will be left is the stable supply of above-ground physical gold in the absence of external inflatable (or deflatable) influences.

And when this happens, the dollar will fall in value very quickly, and with it, all savings tied to debts denominated in dollars. What this will reveal on any balance sheet that contains both dollar-based assets and gold, is that gold will rise to fill the void left by the dollar. The balance sheet will not collapse. But the wealth will have transferred from dollar assets into gold.

This is the main significance of all the Central Banks stocking up on gold today as well as the Eurosystem's quarterly mark to market party, I mean policy. When the BB fractional reserves finally run out, this will be a very quick revaluation.

But while I expect a quick and dramatic reset at some point in the near future, this process can be clearly observed happening in slow motion today, both from a political standpoint and on the balance sheet of the ECB. In my post, Reference Point: Gold - Update #1, I highlighted the results from the latest revaluation party, a decade-long trend that has brought the "foreign fiat reserves" portion of the Eurosystem's balance sheet from 69.5% down to 32.9%. Meanwhile, physical gold as a portion of the Eurosystem's reserve assets has risen from 30.5% to 67.1%, even while declining in volume. A virtual flip-flop as I called it in my post.

So while most cannot understand the significance of this slow motion trend today, the explosive "rock meets hard place" encounter that is overdue at this point will be sure to wake even the sleepiest sheep. And at that point gold's best and highest function—being a physical-only wealth reserve asset—will be known by all. And the meeting of such a wide (awake) demand with a newly physical and stable supply in the absence of external (paper) influences will reveal a gold price that is multiples of any that has ever left Peter Schiff's lips.

The next step in discovering how Freegold (or Reference Point Gold "RPG") is different from what we have now is the concept of "captive money." Today gold is traded like a volatile commodity by gamblers who like to call themselves traders. Or else it is held as a small percentage of one's wealth for the expressed purpose of "insurance." Gold is actually a pretty poor inflation hedge as long as it is under external influences such as the inflatable supply of paper gold BB liabilities. So the only way it can even hope to perform as prescribed is as insurance in physical form only. Yet so many investors still hold "paper gold" as the insurance portion of their portfolio. This alone really highlights the confusion in Western "professional" investment Thought.

Most people are savers, not investors or traders. Yet today we are all forced to be investors chasing a yield because there is no such thing as a perfect inflation hedge. If there were such a thing, a large portion of the "investing public" would not be anywhere near stocks and bonds. Even the most "risk free" bonds, US Treasuries, have the greatest risk of all, currency risk. And in the case of the dollar, this is exposure to a risk that, today, is well out of the hands of the currency manager thanks to seven decades of functioning as the global reserve standard.

Furthermore, a saver must look deeper than the CPI, or even its shadow-equivalent, for the real inflation that must be protected against. And that is the inflating VOLUME of savings with which one must compete. A perfect inflation hedge would not only keep up with the shadow-CPI but it would also rise in VALUE (as opposed to volume) relative to changes in aggregate monetary savings. Given such a "perfect inflation hedge," I maintain that it would become the Focal Point of savers all over the world.

I read an interesting piece on Egypt by George Friedman of Stratfor. I thought it described an interesting little microcosm of the dollar's international monetary and financial system ($IMFS) and how it is detrimental to savers. Here are a couple snips from the article:

"One cannot simply walk out of Egypt, so since the time of the pharaohs the Egyptian leadership has commanded a captive labour pool. This phenomenon meant more than simply having access to very cheap labor (free in ancient times); it also meant having access to captive money. Just as the pharaohs exploited the population to build the pyramids, the modern-day elite – the military leadership – exploited the population’s deposits in the banking system. This military elite – or, more accurately, the firms it controlled – took out loans from the country’s banks without any intention of paying them back…

"There were many results, with high inflation, volatile living standards and overall exposure to international financial whims and moods being among the more disruptive.

"Over the past 20 years, three things have changed this environment…

"By 2010 the system was largely reformed and privatised, and the military elite’s ability to tap the banks for “loans” had largely disappeared. The government was then able to step into that gap and tap the banks’ available capital to fund its budget deficit."


I realize that I am side-stepping George's point here to make my own. But the point is that today, all over the world, people's savings are "captive money" inside the $IMFS. One cannot simply walk out of the $IMFS today and hope to retain one's purchasing power over the long run. Therefore the people's savings, their 401Ks, IRAs, pensions and trusts are all captive to the managers of the system. Under Freegold this will be different.

That's the big difference for the majority of todays "investing public," the savers. But then there are those dastardly traders. Those traders are not only capturing fiat profits from gold's volatility, but they are creating the very volatility they aim to capture, which itself is the antithesis of gold's best and highest role, that of being a stable benchmark wealth asset. The activity of trading "gold credits" for volatility is part of the reason we do not have Freegold today. Not only are the traders never holding real gold, but they are denying the rest of us the beneficial stability of price that gold was born to deliver. This "gold gambling arena" will not exist in Freegold.

First of all, there is no incentive for people to gamble on price changes in something that is stable in price. And second, the gamblers' casino chips, ambiguous claims on some illusory pile of gold somewhere back in the cage, will no longer exist. This is probably the most important difference between Freegold and what we have today. After the failure of paper gold liabilities to continue trading at par with physical during the dramatic revaluation, every discrete piece of the 160,000 tonnes of above-ground gold will be **unambiguously** owned!

Furthermore, in every gold exchange, there will be an **unambiguous** seller and an **unambiguous** buyer. This does not necessarily mean that all gold exchanges will be face to face and entail the physical movement of gold. But it does mean the end of ambiguous pools of unspecified gold and its unallocated owners. I realize that this part is difficult for many to visualize today given that it is how a good deal of the gold market presently operates. But I believe that if you give it enough thought, you will ultimately come with me to this conclusion. Otherwise, as Another said, time will reveal all things.

With people's savings no longer captive in a financial system that lends them out at will, interest rates will once again be a direct function of the supply of (as well as demand for) capital inside the system. Yes, banks will still be able to conjure "thin air money" on their balance sheets to make loans, but the aggregate of loans within the banking system will once again be constrained by the capital ratios in the banking system as no secondary market for this debt will exist. And as a result, we will witness the return of prudent lending standards.

All of these subtle changes/differences will flow from the inevitable loss of the paper gold market that presently denies us the stable benchmark that is gold's ONLY job. As will the end of the seemingly infinite well of power that currently springs from the U.S. dollar printing press. And with the loss of this free-flowing fountain of power what I like to call a global **meritocracy** will emerge. And by global I mean on all scales, from national, regional and international on down to the individual.

Through the unavoidable **meritocracy** that is coming straight at us with the inertia of a runaway locomotive, we will witness the unexpected retreat of the social welfare state as well as the reversal of the destructive force of regulatory capture. You see, without the captive money of the savers to be diluted, the printing press becomes a self-defeating mechanism that will be controlled because it will be in the self-interest of the printer to do so. As F.A. Hayek wrote (which I quote and source in Windmills, Paper Tigers, Straw Men and Fallacious Fallacies):

"There are many historical instances which prove that it is certainly possible, if it is in the self-interest of the issuer, to control the quantity even of a token money in such a manner as to keep its value constant."

"I have no doubt, and I believe that most economists agree with me on that particular point, that it is technically possible so to control the value of any token money which is used in competition with other token monies as to fulfill the promise to keep its value stable."


As for running straight back to a gold money system (instead of Freegold), Hayek writes (which I quote and source in Freegold Foundations):

"I do believe that if today all the legal obstacles were removed… people would from their own experience be led to rush for the only thing they know and understand, and start using gold. But this very fact would after a while make it very doubtful whether gold was for the purpose of money really a good standard. It would turn out to be a very good investment, for the reason that because of the increased demand for gold the value of gold would go up; but that very fact would make it very unsuitable as money. You do not want to incur debts in terms of a unit which constantly goes up in value as it would in this case, so people would begin to look for another kind of money: if they were free to choose the money, in terms of which they kept their books, made their calculations, incurred debts or lent money, they would prefer a standard which remains stable in purchasing power."

Why Freegold is far better than Another run through Another gold standard time-line which will ultimately end like all the gold standards of the past is Another subject altogether. Check out my post The Debtors and the Savers for a clue to my Thoughts on it. But for this post I simply wanted to lay out the many ways Freegold is different than what we have today.

So here is a quick cheat sheet of the differences covered in this post (which really only superficially scratches the surface as I said I would do for Peter):

Stable physical-only supply
Stable, wide, awake and global demand
Much higher price
The end of captive savings
The end of gold traders
Unambiguous ownership
Supply resumes its role in fiat interest rates
The return of prudent lending standards
The return of capital ratio relevance
The retreat of Socialism
The reversal of regulatory capture
Meritocracy

This is not a dream or utopia. It is simply the swing of the pendulum. If this list seems to you to be too good to be true, then I suggest you spend some time in the archives and give it a little more Thought. As FOA wrote, "This not only has everything to do with a gold bull market, it has everything to do with a changing world financial architecture. And I have to admit: if you hated our last one, you will no doubt hate this new one, too."

"Return to a gold standard" advocates like Peter Schiff have a really hard time wrapping their heads around Freegold because they are so focused on monetary currency that circulates when what really matters is monetary wealth that lies very still. I think the simplest way to express the separation of these two monetary roles to the gold standard advocate is the application of Gresham's law. "Bad money drives good money out of circulation." In other words, the bad (fiat) money circulates while the good (gold) money lies very still… and floats in value relative to the circulating bad money.

Sincerely,
FOFOA

PS. Blondie gets the one-liner of the day award: "So I guess 'Peter Schiff was right!' destroyed any chance of him getting out of his own way." – LOL



____________________________________________

Possibly related:

Peter Schiff echoes FOFOA on U.S. currency crisis
By GoldSubject on May 9, 2010
____________________________________________

217 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 217 of 217
DP said...

"Many economic analysts have pointed out how the world has been anxiously watching while massive quantities of new money were injected by [the] USA into their economy, and through such infusion, into the entire world," he said.

"It is widely expected that such infusion, while possibly stimulating growth and employment within the issuing nation, would have a massive negative impact on the rest of the world in time to come."

Gee, I wonder what he thinks will replace the Dollar at the centre of the new financial order?

Pinto said...

Paul,

On confidence and velocity, please see:

http://mises.org/daily/2916

Some quotes:

"The value of a unit of money is determined, like the value of a unit of a commodity, primarily by psychological factors, and not merely by mechanical or mathematical factors. As with commodities, the value of money is influenced not merely by the present quantity, but by expectations concerning the future quantity as well as the future quality. At the beginning of an inflation, many prices and wages remain as they are through habit and custom, and also because, even when the increase in the money supply is noticed, it is assumed to be purely a past event that is now over. Confidence in a sort of fixed value of the monetary unit remains high. Of course an increase in the supply of money will probably raise some prices, though the average of prices will not necessarily rise as much as the monetary increase."

and

"In the Fisherine equation of exchange, V is commonly treated as an independent variable. In other words, V is treated as something that can change independently of any change in T, or the volume of trade. An increase in the velocity of circulation is treated as being equivalent to the same percentage increase in the volume of money. Money is thought of as something that has a certain "amount of work to do." If the velocity of circulation of money is doubled, then one dollar is said to do "the work" previously done by two. According to this theory, if merely the velocity of money doubled, with no change in the quantity of money, the price level would double.

A common classroom illustration runs something like this: A owes B a dollar, who owes C a dollar, who owes D a dollar, who owes E a dollar, who owes A a dollar. If they sit around a table, and each pays the dollar he owes to the other, then the dollar "circulates," and one dollar "does the work of" five dollars. Two things may be noticed about this illustration. First, in the situation described, no actual dollar would have to change hands at all: debts could be cancelled out by mere bookkeeping transactions. This mutual cancellation of debts occurs in actual practice every day, and on a large scale, in bank clearing houses, or institutions that act as clearing houses. Secondly, the illustration, in fact, applies only to borrowing, or to paying off previously incurred debts.

But what we have to deal with, in the so-called circulation of money, is the exchange of money against goods. Therefore V and T cannot be separated. Insofar as there is a causal relation, it is the volume of trade which determines the velocity of circulation of money rather than the other way around."

and...

Sincerely,

NoPintoMoney

Pinto said...

cont'd....

"What the mathematical quantity theorists seem to forget is that money is not exchanged against a vacuum, nor against other money (except in bank clearings and foreign exchange), but against goods. Hence the velocity of circulation of money is, so to speak, merely the velocity of circulation of goods and services looked at from the other side. If the volume of trade increases, the velocity of circulation of money, other things being equal, must increase, and vice versa.

An increase in V may come about through greater eagerness to buy goods. But the velocity of circulation of money cannot be speeded up to anything like the extent commonly assumed by the mathematical quantity theory. This particularly applies to spending for consumption. There is a customary (and even a maximum) rate of consumption of food, for example, which is not speeded up even in a hyperinflation. People who are paid weekly may buy their entire week's stock of food (or whatever part of it will keep) on the day they get their weekly paycheck rather than buy their needs each day. But this will not increase the weekly V. In a hyperinflation, people may stock up much sooner than otherwise in their purchase of durable goods — housing, automobiles, appliances, clothing, jewelry, works of art, etc. But even this will not increase V over a prolonged period, unless the rate of production is correspondingly speeded up. After any buying spree of durable goods, there is likely to be, other things being equal, a less than normal rate of V for such durable goods — partly because nearly everybody will be "loaded up" with them, partly because retailers' stocks will be exhausted or low, unless output can be equally speeded up.These "hurryings" and "waitings" (to use the vocabulary of L. Albert Hahn[3]) are part of the business cycle.

As money is exchanged against goods, and as the rate of consumption can change only within comparatively minor limits, we must look elsewhere to find the reason for the variations in V that we actually do encounter. This reason is found in speculation. "

and

"What causes prices to go up and down, therefore, is not changes in the average cash holding, but changes in the valuations that people put on the monetary unit. V is not a cause but a result, or even a mere side effect. People who are more eager to buy goods, or more eager to get rid of money, will buy faster or sooner. But this will mean that V increases, when it does increase, because the relative value of money is falling or is expected to fall. It will not mean that the value of money is falling, or prices of goods rising, because V has increased.

When people value money less and goods more, they will offer more money for goods, and may increase "velocity of circulation." But it is not the mechanical increase in velocity of circulation that causes any subsequent price rise, let alone any proportional price rise. It is the changed valuation by individuals of either goods or money or both that causes the increased velocity of circulation as well as the price rise. The increased velocity of circulation, in other words, is largely a passive factor in the situation."

and

"Similarly, when we turn to money, increased exchanges (i.e., an increased V) may accompany a decline in the value or purchasing power of money. But there will be no necessary relation between the change in velocity of circulation and the extent of the decline in the monetary unit's purchasing power. In fact (though this happens less often), an increase in the velocity of circulation of money may be accompanied by an increase in the purchasing power of money, i.e., by a fall in prices. This can happen in a speculative collapse, as, say, in late 1929."

Sincerely,

NoPintoMoney

Pinto said...

Hi Paul,

You note above "Fiat works just fine, you use it every day no?"

The fact that we are compelled to use it with legal tender laws does not mean it works just fine.

Varying the amount of fiat disrupts the market pricing mechanism and results economic malstructuring of the economy (read booms and busts").

We are living through multiple bubbles caused by fiat money today. It doesn't work, as much as it is easy to use.

also you state

"you say the amount of currency should not be varried, I say you will live through many depression."

Depressions are not resolved by inflating the currency. They are resolved by clearing bad debt and shut down of unproductive enterprise. Gold money speeds this process and indeed depressions under gold money are shorter and shallower.

Sincerely,

NoPintoMoney

enough said...

Renegotiating Deal

Ollie Rehn- Head Marionette

Fine Gael leader Kenny, 59, said this week his priority will be to renegotiate the 5.8 percent interest rate on the bailout. The party has said it may seek European agreement to share the burden of rescuing the country’s financial system with senior bank bondholders.

EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn said on Feb. 15 there is “no appetite” for imposing losses on senior bondholders at Irish banks.

DP said...

Many people underestimate what fiat has given us these last few decades. Take a look at the world around us -- the real world I mean, let's put aside for a moment the horrendous financial situation -- it's a very different place than 1971. It's not *ALL* bad.

Dimmed aurum said...

@DP
Now replace “fiat” in your paragraph with “cheap oil” and you will have something of meaning actually.

mortymer said...

"The transmission channels between the financial and real sectors: a critical survey of the literature
BCBS Working Papers No 18
February 2011

Understanding the transmission channels that exist between the financial and real sectors of the economy is critically important when assessing financial stability. Robust financial systems are viewed as those that do not adversely induce the propagation and amplification of disturbances that affect the financial system and those that are capable of withstanding shocks and limiting disruptions in the allocation of savings to profitable investment opportunities. Most definitions of financial stability and the "macroprudential approach" to financial supervision recently advocated by many financial stability bodies emphasise the macroeconomic consequences of disruptions to the functioning of the financial system.

This paper presents a review of the literature on the transmission channels between the financial and the real sectors, as well as observations regarding aspects of the transmission channels that remain inadequately addressed by the existing literature. The paper identifies three transmission channels that exist between the financial and the real sector: (i) the borrower balance sheet channel; (ii) the bank balance sheet channel; and (iii) the liquidity channel. The first two channels are often referred to as the financial accelerator channel; the third channel emphasises the liquidity position of banks' balance sheets, whose interest has been fairly recent - in part, spurred on by the current crisis.

A report reflecting some of the findings of this literature, as well as other analysis within the Basel Committee, will be published in the future." ~BIS

http://bis.org/publ/bcbs_wp18.htm

costata said...

Bron,

I have read the book that FGA and TDF are referring to. It is mostly BS. The authors (husband and wife) have written about some interesting people and events in Asia. The husband was a journalist who had some good contacts. Some of the stuff they have written about did step on a few important toes but a lot of it is "ancient history" now. IMO Lords of the Rim is probably their most accurate book. It's the story of the Chinese diaspora.

The Yamashita gold story was actually true up to a point. The Japanese did loot gold in China and SEA.

My source was part of the occupation forces in Japan after WWII. He was an officer in charge of a unit involved in decommissioning chemical weapons and logistics. The Japanese stockpiled a lot of materials and valuables in old mines that had been worked out long ago.

A lot of the valuables the Japanese looted during the war were used to fund their war effort. Apparently gold was held in higher esteem by their suppliers than IOUs from the Emporer (despite his unique lineage). Bear in mind too that Japan had some incredibly rich gold seams in their local mines as well. Nothing like the scale of a Boddington of course.

Here's a WA connection you might be interested in. After Australia began to trade with Japan again post war some of the big Japanese trading houses had maps of promising resource regions in WA that the locals had never seen before. The story goes that prior to, and during WWII, the Japanese put teams of engineers into remote areas of WA to identify promising areas for resource exploration. There could be other ways they acquired the maps but as the saying goes "never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

Cheers

henq said...

@Mailon

As a newby, and a rational, technical engineer, I agree with your sentiment. Even quantum physics can be explained and summarized in a wikipedia kind of article. So should Freegold, otherwise it indeed must be bullockes, imho. A good *attempt* is the least what one can expect.
Having said that, I give FG the benefit of the doubt.
The main point, as to explain to Peter Shiff and others is in my opinion about the international aspects.

In the classical Golden Standard, trade balances between countries were settled by shifting gold around. AND the paper money of each participating nation had a fixed rate towards gold, over a long period of time.

Now (post-1971) we have the USD as the international Reserve Currency and all fiats floating, against each other and against gold.
Settlements of trade (oil, electronics) are done in yankee dollar.

Under FG, we have a mix of those two:
- Trade balances between states are settled by swapping gold (that's why China is hoarding it)
- Fiats are floating against each other and gold. (unlike classic GS).

The reasoning behind the need of floating fiat goes like this: modern economies need vast amounts of credit, so fiats may not be constrained by fixed-to-gold ratios.

Hope this helps. And hope also that good willing newbies are allowed to comment here too :-)
Btw, here's a blog that today has a post titled
"FreeGold, Simply Put"
http://flowofvalue.blogspot.com/

dojufitz said...

Interview to Fekete on youtube....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k2x8ETPLxk&feature=feedlik

matt said...

@ Madalion

Jim Willie
Doug Casey
Bill Bonner
Jim Richards
Bob Chapman
Bill Buckner
Harry Schultz
Richard Russell
Peter Schiff
Jim Grant
Eric Sprott
Jim Sinclar
Ben Davies
Turd Ferguson

Ben Davies is a freegold guy but the rest of them are not.

The rest of them seem to think that gold is in the same type of bull market as internet stocks where in. They are all confused, they make little sense when it comes down to it. Freegold does not fit any of these guys businesses very well, that is why i think they don't say much about it. Deep in Schiff, Casey or Sprotts mind, they probably know that the best thing for their clients is 100% physical gold. Maybe some of them personally are 100% in gold, not silver but gold.

costata said...

FOFOA,

What's the record for the most links to the same article?

Pinto must be over 10 on that Shostak piece by now. Nice to see him varying the delivery with that link to Hazlitt's rehash of the same topic. What's next? Rothbard with his version of the same arguments.

I don't know if you saw JR's response to Pinto. It was a succinct explanation of the reconciliation between Rothbard's perspective on velocity of money and the approach of the economists who have followed in Minsky's footsteps. Pinto's response to JR was as inflexible and dismissive as always. At least JR was spared a serve like this (from the comments section of Defending The Precious)

Finally, I really recommend the slow reading and digestion of the Shostak article.

Pinto really, really appears to think that he has wandered into a remedial reading class. It's disappointing to see long time posters like Dimmed aurum defending the rights of numbskulls and patronising little shits like Pinto to be .. er .. patronising little shits.

Returning to the Hazlitt piece, which Pinto quotes extensively above, it would have been generous of Hazlitt to acknowledge Fisher's later work. In the 1930s Fisher repudiated many of his earlier theories. Many of these later theories were presented in his 1930 treatise The Theory of Interest. His theory of debt-deflation was presented during this later period at the same time that he rejected equilibrium theory.

I imagine that Hazlitt chose to focus on Fisher's paper from 1911 (The Power of Money) because it provides a convenient platform on which to attack the monetarists. I guess good straw men are hard to come by. It's probably inconvenient for the Austrians to acknowledge Fisher's later work on another level. It blows a hole in BOTH the monetarist stance and the Austrian stance on velocity of money.

Blondie said...

@ henq,

It is my understanding "good willing newbies" are most welcome to comment.

Your comment reveals you have not read the other comments in this thread.

Did the blog you link to not satisfy your criteria of
"Even quantum physics can be explained and summarized in a wikipedia kind of article. So should Freegold, otherwise it indeed must be bullockes, imho. A good *attempt* is the least what one can expect."?

While there are such definitions of subjects such as quantum mechanics, I believe they are hotly disputed by some.

The right to disagree is fundamental, no?
Just seems a little indulgent to disagree before completing due diligence. FOFOA has made a comprehensive case; I would be surprised if a single detractor could honestly claim to have read it all.

Dimmed aurum said...

@costata
Thank you again for giving all due respect with your proper words of kindness to the imperfect nature of all us, followers of greater minds. I guess, if Another had the same stance to men as you do, he would have never written a single word and this great gathering of thought and passion (or blunders sometimes) would have never existed.
Great mojo,
but why the language?
I really liked it up to here “Pinto really, really appears to think that he has wandered into a remedial reading class”
and then your true self appeared and just projected you for all in the blog to see. I hope you like this image of yourself now and in the future for it will be a part of what you will be remembered with. Congratulations.
-=Dimmed=-

Diamond Jack said...

Hello Matt,

I thought your presentation was commendable. In life we are often blind-sided by Others' ignorance.

You were trying to explain rain to someone who had never seen it. As he explains to you how such a phenomenon is impossible, it is best leave.

And however commendable it may be to spread the freegold concept to commentators you admire, do not expect they will give any indication of having any understanding. This has been my experience

But the good news is, we don't have to DO anything! Its one of the great things about freegold (aside from being rich). That understanding is a real treasure.

So when I feel like DOing something to usher in the freegold era. I lie very still. I lie very still and try to be like gold, as gold is.

In this way I can feel it move through me. Much less stressful. I'll have more at Wendy's on why it will happen no matter what we do or not do.

The sage does nothing and
nothing remains undone.

theblissfulignoramus.com said...

FOFOA, your FreeGold concept was recently brought to my attention by someone commenting on a variant monetary system proposal of my own. He suggested the possibility that you may too, have been inspired by Silvio Gesell's Depression-era "Freigeld" concept?

It seems we are largely on the same page - though I question if you've seriously considered the (un)likelihood of TPTB ever introducing/permitting a new system that in any way undermines their power.

Would you please take a look at my idea focussing on a "people's currency" - with an open mind - and offer feedback? I suggest that its effects would be conducive to (cause?) the FreeGold effects you have in mind, and so may be a mechanism to bring about the FreeGold result - whether TPTB like it or not. Please also take a look at the UPDATE link at the bottom, where a commenter refers and links to a recent proposal by BoE's Mervyn King to separate the transactional currency system from the "store of wealth system" as a "solution" to the GFC:

http://theblissfulignoramus.com/reflections/the-peoples-nwo-every-man-his-own-central-banker/

Many thanks.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 217 of 217   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment