It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump proposes returning to the gold standard.

page: 14
26
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth
I think it gets blurred between him trying to give the power back to the US government reserve, and not the federal reserve ( Rothchild owned.)


No, it was clear he was allowing the Federal Reserve to stop printing silver certificates and print reserve notes.




posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   
As I understand it, we can't expand the economy beyond a certain point without a FIAT currency.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 07:40 PM
link   
This is idiotic. Our entire society is completely based on an ever expanding money supply. This would take America back to industrial revolution times where a few business people had all the money and everyone else died penniless. No wonder Trump wants this.

Oh and I warned about this very thing (among many others) before he was elected. He also wants to raise interest rates which will have a similar effect.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
This is idiotic. Our entire society is completely based on an ever expanding money supply. This would take America back to industrial revolution times where a few business people had all the money and everyone else died penniless. No wonder Trump wants this.

Oh and I warned about this very thing (among many others) before he was elected. He also wants to raise interest rates which will have a similar effect.


Oh, I agree on the idiotic. There was no increase of the money supply under a gold standard??

Oh yes, the interest rates were going to go up no matter who was President.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

No worries. It's just a ridiculous pipe dream that has absolutely no chance of actually happening.

To put it into perspective, the US's M1 money supply in February was around $3.6 trillion (HERE). But according to the Treasury Dept's latest status report on the US govt's gold (issued Dec 31st of 2017), "we" only had around 261.5 million ounces of gold. And since gold is currently priced at around $1,318 per ounce (HERE), our govt officially only has about $344.6 billion worth of gold.

We would literally need to acquire more than 10 times as much gold as we currently have just to cover the current M1 money supply! And that's assuming that we actually have all of the gold we claim to have and assuming that all of "our" gold is pure enough to meet official standards in the first place. So how would we go about acquiring that much extra gold?



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: CB328

No worries. It's just a ridiculous pipe dream that has absolutely no chance of actually happening.

To put it into perspective, the US's M1 money supply in February was around $3.6 trillion (HERE). But according to the Treasury Dept's latest status report on the US govt's gold (issued Dec 31st of 2017), "we" only had around 261.5 million ounces of gold. And since gold is currently priced at around $1,318 per ounce (HERE), our govt officially only has about $344.6 billion worth of gold.

We would literally need to acquire more than 10 times as much gold as we currently have just to cover the current M1 money supply! And that's assuming that we actually have all of the gold we claim to have and assuming that all of "our" gold is pure enough to meet official standards in the first place. So how would we go about acquiring that much extra gold?


Yet Forbes says otherwise. Hmmm, we should take your data over his? Why, pray tell.....



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: CB328

No worries. It's just a ridiculous pipe dream that has absolutely no chance of actually happening.

To put it into perspective, the US's M1 money supply in February was around $3.6 trillion (HERE). But according to the Treasury Dept's latest status report on the US govt's gold (issued Dec 31st of 2017), "we" only had around 261.5 million ounces of gold. And since gold is currently priced at around $1,318 per ounce (HERE), our govt officially only has about $344.6 billion worth of gold.

We would literally need to acquire more than 10 times as much gold as we currently have just to cover the current M1 money supply! And that's assuming that we actually have all of the gold we claim to have and assuming that all of "our" gold is pure enough to meet official standards in the first place. So how would we go about acquiring that much extra gold?


Yet Forbes says otherwise. Hmmm, we should take your data over his? Why, pray tell.....

"Otherwise" about what specifically?

1. About the amount of USD in the M1 money supply?

2. About the amount of gold in the US govt's possession (which I linked directly from the Treasury's website)?

3. About the current price of gold?

4. Or about us needing to buy more than 10 times as much gold as we currently have to be to back our current M1 money supply with gold?

All of my points on those are verifiable facts. And it's also a fact that the US govt is currently running a massive budget deficit of around half a trillion dollars. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe that it'll be able to purchase billions of ounces of gold so it can have enough gold reserves to reinstate a gold standard?

Oh, I forgot one.

5. You're free to believe whatever theories and interpretations you want. But let's see if reinstating a gold standard can even make it out of a subcommittee in either chamber of Congress before we go around claiming that Forbes is "right" on this lol.
edit on 16-3-2018 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: CB328

No worries. It's just a ridiculous pipe dream that has absolutely no chance of actually happening.

To put it into perspective, the US's M1 money supply in February was around $3.6 trillion (HERE). But according to the Treasury Dept's latest status report on the US govt's gold (issued Dec 31st of 2017), "we" only had around 261.5 million ounces of gold. And since gold is currently priced at around $1,318 per ounce (HERE), our govt officially only has about $344.6 billion worth of gold.

We would literally need to acquire more than 10 times as much gold as we currently have just to cover the current M1 money supply! And that's assuming that we actually have all of the gold we claim to have and assuming that all of "our" gold is pure enough to meet official standards in the first place. So how would we go about acquiring that much extra gold?


Yet Forbes says otherwise. Hmmm, we should take your data over his? Why, pray tell.....

"Otherwise" about what specifically?

1. About the amount of USD in the M1 money supply?

2. About the amount of gold in the US govt's possession (which I linked directly from the Treasury's website)?

3. About the current price of gold?

4. Or about us needing to buy more than 10 times as much gold as we currently have to be to back our current M1 money supply with gold?

All of my points on those are verifiable facts. And it's also a fact that the US govt is currently running a massive budget deficit of around half a trillion dollars. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe that it'll be able to purchase billions of ounces of gold so it can have enough gold reserves to reinstate a gold standard?

Oh, I forgot one.

5. You're free to believe whatever theories and interpretations you want. But let's see if reinstating a gold standard can even make it out of a subcommittee in either chamber of Congress before we go around claiming that Forbes is "right" on this lol.


Having suffered many of your posts most of which were antipathetic to the current President, I see little reason to accept your views especially when the Forbes article specifically stated there was enough gold to move to a gold standard. It even gave political steps that would enhance the probability of success.

Now Forbes isn't particularly Trump friendly, either. Yet that publication does rely to some extent on credibility and accuracy in it's articles and by personal observation I cannot say your posts are without bias.

The article says there's enough gold. You and a few others say there isn't. Guess what? I have no freaking clue....


Yet most of the naysayers tend also to be naysayers of Trump. I don't particularly trust Forbes, and I have far less reason to trust your data and links.

So forgive me for taking the Forbes article over you. However, please keep posting your input is enlightening.....

edit on 16-3-2018 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

The last two Presidents (Kennedy and Lincoln) that tried this ended up with headaches, as did Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: nwtrucker

The last two Presidents (Kennedy and Lincoln) that tried this ended up with headaches, as did Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein.


Maybe. So don't even try? Kiss our butts bye, bye?

For me, at least, I'm not ready for that. Take Trump out and there's potential hell to pay.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I've been reading about the Global Currency Reset for years now. Basel III was part of it. The Federal Reserve Notes will go away. The Treasury will regain its constitutional role and introduce the TRN, Treasury Reserve Note. Gold is only part of the equation of its value however. Oil is the other big one, but the natural resources of each nation including services will equate to that nation's worth. Divided by money supply is the value. So the total value of a nation is mostly static and the only movement in currency value is due to supply going up and down.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: DarkSmiles
a reply to: nwtrucker

I've been reading about the Global Currency Reset for years now. Basel III was part of it. The Federal Reserve Notes will go away. The Treasury will regain its constitutional role and introduce the TRN, Treasury Reserve Note. Gold is only part of the equation of its value however. Oil is the other big one, but the natural resources of each nation including services will equate to that nation's worth. Divided by money supply is the value. So the total value of a nation is mostly static and the only movement in currency value is due to supply going up and down.


OK, then you have far more knowledge than I do. Does that imply that a gold standard is a step in that direction?



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
The last two Presidents (Kennedy and Lincoln) that tried this ended up with headaches, as did Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein.


We already had gold currency when Lincoln was President and Kennedy wasn't interested in a gold standard.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
The last two Presidents (Kennedy and Lincoln) that tried this ended up with headaches, as did Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein.


We already had gold currency when Lincoln was President and Kennedy wasn't interested in a gold standard.


That same point seems to come up rather often, doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   
We need to only spend money we have taxes for. Don't want to have a 99% tax rate then shut down all these over seas military operations and Get rid of a lot of these social give a ways.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

That it isn't a "gold standard" but is more accurately described as, "asset backed".



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
That same point seems to come up rather often, doesn't it?


Yup, same conspiracy theory parroting that has been going on here since I arrived. No one bothers to check their facts.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DarkSmiles
a reply to: nwtrucker

That it isn't a "gold standard" but is more accurately described as, "asset backed".


I got that and it makes sense. I had wondered why the USD hadn't fallen more than it had in relation to other currencies despite the digital dollars being spewed out and assumed that the shale/fracking oil boom had increased those 'assets'.



posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

So facts only matter if you agree with the people stating those facts?

I read the article in the OP and it doesn't give a single fact about how much gold the US actually has, how much money is in our money supply, or how much gold we would need in order to back that money based on the global price of gold. In fact, the closest thing it says is the following:

In fact, the United States, Germany, and the IMF together have about as much gold as the rest of the world combined and America has well more than Germany and the IMF combined. [Note: This column has been updated to clarify that the United States has well more gold than Germany and the IMF combined but not, as originally stated, more than twice as much.]

We have the gold. Bringing back the gold standard would not be very hard to do.


So I looked at the actual stats to see if this is true. I looked up and then posted how much money is in our M1 money supply, even though I should've used the M0 money supply figures, which are even worse for the "bring back the gold standard" argument. I then posted how much gold the US Treasury's website says we officially have. And I posted the current price of gold on the international market. Now, anyone can look at that post and do the math for themselves, instead of simply speculating based on assumptions and unknown variables.

That Forbes article didn't list or give details on any of these stats. It simply said "We have the gold. Bringing back the gold standard would not be very hard to do.". LOL If all it takes to bring back the gold standard is a vague proclamation w/no stats, then it would've been done already.
edit on 17-3-2018 by enlightenedservant because: "gold" not "golds"



posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




but smart people have figured out ways to keep it from doing so up until now.


If "smart" makes you feel better that you are not actually "slaving" day in day out to the system good luck to you.



Maybe instead pretending like destruction is inevitable, we could work together to improve it?


Keep your head in the sand - all bubbles burst eventually. History attests to the simple fact.




top topics



 
26
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join