It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Of course, Ron Paul's citation of a dubious authority does not thereby invalidate the idea of a gold standard. I leave that effort to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a Bush II appointee, who gave this explanation to a group of students in March:
The gold standard would not be feasible for both practical reasons and policy reasons. On the practical side there's just not enough gold to meet the needs of a worldwide gold standard. But more fundamentally than that, the world has changed...In a modern world, the commitment to the gold standard would mean that we are swearing that under no circumstances, no matter how bad unemployment gets, are we going to do anything about it using monetary policy.
That is, first, as the world economy grows, it's unlikely that the total amount of world gold will keep pace. And second, if a government cannot create more money when people are refusing to spend or lend, how will unemployment ever be addressed?
Originally posted by randomname
gold is as equally worthless as paper money.
the only difference is gold cannot be created and no one knows how to make it, if it is even possible.
diamonds can be created in laboratories, so in a sense, diamonds are even more worthless besides their industrial and aesthetic qualities.
what will happen is that the london gold fixing pool, which twice daily, sets the price of gold, will determine the value in paper currency.
the chairmanship and the gold fix, formally held by the rothschilds, but now rotated, will ultimately be responsible for the value of money, because they set the price of gold.
is it wise for 5 banks to set how much value the currencies of over 190 nations on earth will be worth and the prosperity of over 7 billion people.
Most of the times when people who are in favour of a gold standard use the term 'Gold standard' they are in fact referring to the system of free market money, Or simply allowing people to choose whatever currency they to use for trade. The main reason the term gold standard is used as shorthand is due to gold being used throughout history as the most popular commodity that people use as currencies when they are free to choose.
First, the U.S reports owning more like half a trillion dollars' worth of gold at today's market price. Second, the point of a gold standard would be to stabilize and restrain the money supply, not to shrink it. Now bear with me as I spell out the mechanics. The bogeyman of the "gold bugs," a term for those who promote the gold standard, is inflation, what they call the "debasement" of "fiat" currency: money created by government decree. In the old days, that was "paper" money. Today it's chiefly electronic. The means of debasement is said to be the removal of precious metals from the money -- chiefly, less gold and silver. Or, as is the case today, total removal -- and the retraction of any promise by government to redeem paper money, or its electronic equivalent in your bank account, for such "precious" metal.
unless you have a strong central controlling organization that enforces that every single person's labor is worth the exact same amount of value regardless of any factor.
Originally posted by VforVendettea
What if we backed it by something other than gold something that the banksters have not been hoarding.
It doesn't need to be gold. It simply needs to have value.