Virginia's new 'currency' debuts at the Capitol (Silver and Gold coins), page 1


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 21-2-2011 @ 03:26 PM by ugie1028

Virginia's new 'currency' debuts at the Capitol (Silver and Gold coins)


voices.washingtonpost.com
Del. Bob Marshall's proposal for the state to begin minting its own gold and silver coins as an alternative currency to the U.S. dollar didn't quite make it through the legislature this session.

But in honor of the Prince William Republican, coins with Marshall's likeness with the words In Bob We Trust and Bob Bucks have been distributed around Capitol Square. They're called "Ginnies." Get it? For Virginia.

The coins first debuted at the annual Virginia Capitol Correspondents Association dinner two weeks ago, but have cropping up ever since at the state Capitol and the General Asse
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 21-2-2011 @ 03:39 PM by agentblue
reply to post by ugie1028



I think its a great idea since it will be a way to reassert the state's sovereignty. I am all for the seperation of a state from the conglomerate idea of federalism. The power should be with the people and the state not with the whole because the federal idea has wandered too far from the constitution.

one question..... will it be accepted in other states as a form of currency??? probably not but I definately applaud the idea!!! but then again gold and silver is used universally so it should be usable
edit on 21-2-2011 by agentblue because: wanted to add more to my post




reply posted on 21-2-2011 @ 04:54 PM by TrueBrit
reply to post by ugie1028



You know what would be better than having a currency which relies on things that the people cannot control, to function properly ? A currency that works in the following manner:

Say you have a loaf of bread. That has a cost associated with it, and at the moment, when its value goes up, faster than the value of the currency , you end up paying more currency for the bread than before right? Well stuff that. How about a currency that is ALWAYS worth the same amount, relative to the cost of the goods you buy ? So , say your bread goes up in price? Who cares, because with your better currency , you will always be able to hand over the same amount of money, regardless of the market worth of your bread. Wouldnt that be better?
Wouldnt preventing house prices going up and down all the time be a better way of making things work? Wouldnt it be better if it was illegal to charge more than a very small amount for what amounts to the basic right to shelter from the wind and the rain, rather than allowing droves of citizens to be evicted , sent to live in tent cities?
Wouldnt it be better to prevent ANY of the market forces from becoming more powerful than the will of the people ? Why yes it would... will anything be done about it... Hell no. Same problem over here in Britain.


reply posted on 21-2-2011 @ 04:58 PM by Xcathdra
Originally posted by agentblue
reply to
post by ugie1028



I think its a great idea since it will be a way to reassert the state's sovereignty. I am all for the seperation of a state from the conglomerate idea of federalism. The power should be with the people and the state not with the whole because the federal idea has wandered too far from the constitution.

one question..... will it be accepted in other states as a form of currency??? probably not but I definately applaud the idea!!! but then again gold and silver is used universally so it should be usable
edit on 21-2-2011 by agentblue because: wanted to add more to my post


Being only the Federal Government holds the authority to mint currency my guess is no, it cannot be accepted in other states.


reply posted on 21-2-2011 @ 05:16 PM by Sashromi
reply to post by TrueBrit



Actually, this is almost exactly what the classic Gold Standard did - prior to 1933. From the founding of the US until the confiscation of gold by FDR in 1933, the inflation rate was virtually nil. This means that the 10 cents that George Washington paid for a loaf of bread in 1789 was the same 10 cents as FDR paid in 1932. While nothing can account for the fluctuations in the price of individual items due to true scarcity or over-abundance (record coffee crops, or failures for instance) that would TEMPORARILY increase/decrease the cost of an item, the Gold Standard kept everything constant. A commodities contract - say for a 100 loafs of bread in 10 years time - could do what you literally suggest, but the value of the contracts themselves flucuates. If a loaf of bread is $1 today, and you have a contract to buy 100 loafs in ten years for 100 dollars that's great unless a loaf of bread is selling for 50 cents then. In which case, you would be foolish to exercise such a contract (because you coul buy bread cheaper than the contract stipulates), and its value would be worthless. On the other hand, if bread is $2 a loaf in 10 yeras time, then your contract has actual value above its 'face value' of $100.

But either way, a Gold Standard is the only true way to keep items in constant prices, relative to one another.


reply posted on 21-2-2011 @ 05:29 PM by Xcathdra
reply to post by Sashromi



For the most part I agree with what you are saying, but the one issue I see is the fact Gold has inflated over the years. Right now its close to $1,400.00 a troy ounce, up form $250.00 +/- from a few years ago. If gold is used as a currency, how do you control the amount of it in the system?

In 2010 alone there was close to a billion dollars in mined Gold from Alaska alone.

To be honest the only method I see where "currency" would not be affected by inflation would be to issue credits with no backing at all on them, and instituting that credit as a one world currency. Absent that you are still going to have countries / entities who want to manipulate the currency in order to profit from possessing it.


reply posted on 21-2-2011 @ 06:19 PM by RestingInPieces
Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to
post by ugie1028



You know what would be better than having a currency which relies on things that the people cannot control, to function properly ? A currency that works in the following manner:

Say you have a loaf of bread. That has a cost associated with it, and at the moment, when its value goes up, faster than the value of the currency , you end up paying more currency for the bread than before right? Well stuff that. How about a currency that is ALWAYS worth the same amount, relative to the cost of the goods you buy ? So , say your bread goes up in price? Who cares, because with your better currency , you will always be able to hand over the same amount of money, regardless of the market worth of your bread. Wouldnt that be better?
Wouldnt preventing house prices going up and down all the time be a better way of making things work? Wouldnt it be better if it was illegal to charge more than a very small amount for what amounts to the basic right to shelter from the wind and the rain, rather than allowing droves of citizens to be evicted , sent to live in tent cities?
Wouldnt it be better to prevent ANY of the market forces from becoming more powerful than the will of the people ? Why yes it would... will anything be done about it... Hell no. Same problem over here in Britain.


Then how would an economy grow larger????

The whole idea of taking money off of the gold standard is because all the currency in the world already greatly out-valued the gold stores. We were literally forced off of it in order to grow. You'd literally have to mine more gold and silver before printing money to grow the economy.

Oh, let me take that back. You could artificially inflate the value of gold as the money supply needs to become larger... and as the gold is tied to the money, I'm sure you can see the problem with that.

Besides, say we did return to a gold standard. Then what? We have to pay our debts to foreign nations in GOLD? That does nothing but SHRINK our economy. US Treasury says we only have $223 billion in Gold! I'm sure you've noticed that our foreign debt is in the trillions.


reply posted on 21-2-2011 @ 06:40 PM by TheHistorian
reply to post by RestingInPieces



Good points. The return to the gold standard would be a horrible idea based on everything I have seen or heard about us trying to return to it. At one point in time we could have probably managed a transition back to the gold standard but now with our system of voodoo math it would be impossible. If you thought. The last economic crisis was bad the transition back to the gold standard would be economic armageddon.


reply posted on 22-2-2011 @ 04:11 AM by TrueBrit
reply to post by RestingInPieces



To be honest, I dont know that GOLD is a good idea, but I do think that currency value should be set up to follow the value of goods and services, to isolate the population from the mistakes of big businesses and governments. If you buy a house with three bedrooms in one decade, and then buy another in another decade, it should cost the same amount of currency, even though the value of the house may be larger. What I am saying is that currency value should be permanently attatched to the value of the things people buy, and not to other less important matters like debt and interest rates and all that horse crap which is not the fault of the people, and therefore not thier responsibility to solve.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Israel angered over IAEA vote on nuclear arsenal
  Posted 13 days ago with 79 member flags
Neil Armstrong dead at age 82 - report
  Posted 17 days ago with 63 member flags
Judge orders release of detained Marine veteran
  Posted 19 days ago with 58 member flags
Birds hold \'funerals\' for dead
  Posted 10 days ago with 55 member flags
TSA agents swarm Ron Paul\'s plane, demand explosives check
  Posted 11 days ago with 47 member flags
Mysterious Changes in Ocean Salt Spur NASA Expedition
  Posted 1 days ago with 36 member flags
Ga. Murder Case Uncovers Terror Plot by Soldiers
  Posted 15 days ago with 32 member flags