Alternative to a gold standard...

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Instead of a gold standard in the U.S., base our currency on grain production, all types of grain, and value our dollar to the price of a bushel.
Average one bushel of all the grain produced in the U.S.
Example: one multi-grain bushel at $3.33, set the dollar value at that amount, when prices rise the dollar goes up, but if the prices should drop the initial value would remain at $3.33. In other words it would be capped at that price.
I don't know how legal this move would be, but I think its a much better idea than oil backed currency.
Just a thought.




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I love it!

Based on the contents of my pantry, I'm a Frosted Flakes Millionaire!!



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
good to see some people think outside the box. people who care about the state of things

there is gotta be something better then the current system that we have, we just havent found it



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by laughingdog
 


Hello,
Although I do agree with your intention of basing the currency on a tangible thing, with REAL value (i.e. food) but your suggestion of basing it on a particular crop would lead to some very foreseeable problems. First, with giant agro-business like Monsanto owning/creating such invasive and destructive plants it is easy to see how they could continue to flood the market with their invasive seeds then, by having control over the grain market, would in turn have entire control over the currency valuation as well. Second, you cannot find the value of the dollar from the sale price of grain, when the initial sale price would be with on undetermined dollar value. Thirdly, this setup could potentially lead to the government having providing incentives farmers to not grow grain which would increase the dollar value and thus increase our competitiveness globally (i.e. farmers not growing in CA to sell their water rights, which currently is more profitable).

But as I said, I do agree with your intentions, but there would have to be some serious changes before anything like this could ever be concievable.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by laughingdog
 


Thats extremely dangerous... Gold is in the ground we just have to mine it out.

Grain requires vast swaths of land, land that is rapidly being developed and lost forever. Not to mention in years like this one, when horrible droughts happen, our currency would be at the whims of something as simple as RAINFALL!

Its a good idea but if you think about it practically it would be very dangerous. A better alternative to grain or gold, and the only real "thing" that has a shot of being a currency standard, is a mixed bag of different commodities.

So gold, grain, oil, copper etc. would be used as our "standard". It can be risky to hedge our whole money supply on one item.
edit on 25-8-2012 by IsThisThingBugged because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by tvtexan
I love it!

Based on the contents of my pantry, I'm a Frosted Flakes Millionaire!!
Ha!



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jazzguy
good to see some people think outside the box. people who care about the state of things

there is gotta be something better then the current system that we have, we just havent found it
Thanks for the post, in this day and age I try to be an optimist.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by IsThisThingBugged
 


I very much agree. I believe as many others do that a currency without a tangible backing is just a figment of our imagination, and as such we need to change our figment (the Federal Reserve Note) to something with a tangible backing. The problem is, if you link it to the value of 1 asset, that asset can more easily be commandeered or manipulated, so in my mind the logical solution is to link the backing to a consortium of tangible assets, such as gold, silver, and copper, as well as renewable resources such as grain, ferries metals, and even clean water reserves. Then we take the fluctuating median value of said assets and from their we can derive the index for which to rate the new US dollar.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Better yet, abolish money. Corporations, governments, shadow governments, bankers, etc. wouldn't have such a stranglehold over every moment of our lives.

We would all work for the common good. Of course humanity isn't mature enough for that yet. We'd rather fight and scrounge for pieces of paper and metal that have no value beyond faith in their general acceptability.

Besides people fear this idea. The socialist boogeyman and all.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TheNamesZeppelin
 


Very well said, I did say capped at $3.33, and multi-grain. Thank you for your response.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by laughingdog
Instead of a gold standard in the U.S., base our currency on grain production, all types of grain, and value our dollar to the price of a bushel.
Average one bushel of all the grain produced in the U.S.
Example: one multi-grain bushel at $3.33, set the dollar value at that amount, when prices rise the dollar goes up, but if the prices should drop the initial value would remain at $3.33. In other words it would be capped at that price.
I don't know how legal this move would be, but I think its a much better idea than oil backed currency.
Just a thought.


This is a cool idea, but what happens when a drought comes and wipes out half of the grain? What about the effect of GMOs on agriculture? There is too much to chance by having an economy backed by an agriculture product. Not to mention, anyone can grow grain, and the more grain the less the dollar would be worth, whereas there is a limited amount of precious metals in the world and they are very hard to mine and take specific skills. If I wanted to be rich in your scenario, I could just grow a bunch of grain, or if the government wanted to control the population they could grow less grain, and that would increase the value of the dollar, but people would also go hungry.
edit on 25-8-2012 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
there is something useful in the concept of Carbon Credits...

just like the Star Trek used 'Federation Credits' as their form of a fiat currency... which is eternally inflationary...

whereas Carbon Credits would factor in your individual Carbon footprint in an expected lifetime of resource use


the mumbo-jumbo of the Al Gore Folly of purchasing additional carbon tax credits...and certain oligarchs being paid huge sums of carbon tax credits is just like the present system of fiat money, bernanke dollars, not having a realistic valuation and just being fake paper/monopoly money

actual productive citizens would be classified via their genetic code (disease susceptibility etc) as to a basic base pay in Crbon Credits.... lifestyle & behaviors, productivity, resource consumption and other factors would define the addition or deduction of Carbon Credits to each individual...
a sub culture of black markets would barter in liquors, drugs, nicotine, social activities and all those things that would be detremental to one's life/health/well being/psychology/ or have a Butterfly Effect on the family &/or social sphere in the individuals home-neighborhood-local city-national demographics


but, a NWO...a central supercomputer would have to be the final word...the 'LawMaker' as it were



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Osiris1953
 


Although there are aspects of your apparent beliefs that are appealing, there are a few aspect of COMMUNISM (which is what you're describing, not SOCIALISM) that make it A) not feasible, and B) not possible. Communism is impossible without total world domination, because without a military or government any nation that desired to take your land, or assets could do so with minimum effort. As such total world domination would be required, as well as the complete genocide of any and all who disagreed with the communism philosophy, because there is no common goal for the un-governed humanity without complete concensus as to those goals. Of course global domination and genocide of any/all opposing opinions for the cause of communism were the goals of Stalin's State Socialist USSR, and history has copious amounts of records to prove this. Not saying capitalism is perfect by any means, but communism has its dirty little secrets as well and we cannot forget that.

Jesus Saves



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TheNamesZeppelin
 


And that type of opinion is exactly why I say that humanity is not mature enough yet. There's no reason it has to be that way. Subjugating others whether it be monetarily, or through oppressive government control, or by religious means is wrong. I'm not suggesting a communist state by any stretch of the imagination. Quite the opposite actually..... we're just not there yet.

Jesus saves, he passes to Moses, he shoots, he scores!



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
We have plenty of uranium and plutonium to back up our currency.

The next country who refuses to accept our currency in trade, give them what backs our currency. Boooom!



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Osiris1953
 


It has nothing to do with maturity, it has to do with the fact that although there are a core set of values that the vast majority of humanity can agree upon, there is still a minority percentage that disagrees with said values, and for this dream world you're musing of to come to pass, those who disagree with your principles would either need to be eliminated or re-educated. In addition, this would also require as I stated before total world domination to enforce said "agreed upon core values". There is no perfect system, but currently we live in a capitalistic world and unless the NWO succeeds, your thought processes will never come to fruition.

And whether you like it or not the ideals you laid out are the core concepts of communism and history has proven what I have stated.

And I would greatly appreciate civility and that you dont blaspheme my Lord and Savior, I'm doing my best to be civil, I would appreciate the same.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TheNamesZeppelin
 




Communism is impossible without total world domination


Not so, the issue is that no nation is truly independent, because to be independent one first needs to be self sufficient. What has been proven so far is that social systems can not remain consistent in competition with each-other, their survivability in direct confrontation depends is so many tweaks that they cease to be consistent to the original model /ideology.



Of course global domination and genocide of any/all opposing opinions for the cause of communism were the goals of Stalin's State Socialist USSR, and history has copious amounts of records to prove this.


This is just a lie, Stalin was a dictator it had nothing really to do with Communism beyond the context and the some of the pseudo-communistic policies that upon implementation almost ruined the nation, the communist ideals during Stalin were being corrupted and subverted from within, of course that this was only possible due to outside influences, in any case the soviet system was never truly communist, it simply used communist rhetoric and ideals for promotion and social stratification.

If you know your history you would know that Lenin had a very close relation with Germany (to a point that some would think him a spy) at most he may have been a German agent provocateur. In fact it was during the 2nd Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, held in Brussels and London during August 1903, that Lenin and Julius Martov disagreed over the membership rules. Lenin wanted members "who recognise the Party Programme and support it by material means and by personal participation in one of the party's organizations." Julius Martov suggested "by regular personal assistance under the direction of one of the party's organizations." Lenin advocated limiting party membership to a smaller core of active members, as opposed to "card carriers" who might only be active in party branches from time to time or not at all. This active base would develop the cadre, a core of "professional revolutionaries", consisting of loyal communists who would spend most of their time organizing the party toward a mass revolutionary party capable of leading a workers' revolution against the Tsarist autocracy.

This type of stratification of the Communist ideals was one of the major points of corruption of the ideals, one that even extended to the Chinese system. This concept is the core allegory of Animal Farm a novella by George Orwell, a point that has not escaped the CIA notice. The CIA. paid for the filming of an animated version of the novel as part of the U.S. cultural offensive during the Cold War.

some content from Wikipedia was used in this post



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Of course I know that State socialism which was what was used in the USSR was completely different then Communism in every way. Mainly because state socialism was a government where all citizens are essentially inducted into the military, which by definition contrasts directly with the ideals of communism where there is no government. And yes I know that Stalin used the name of communism to fuel his goals of state socialism, but the inevitable stated goals were to gain control of the world, then disband the state socialist government to bring the world into a global state of communism. And what I was stating is that for that end, genocide is required, and global domination would be needed because true communism and capitalism cannot coexist simultaneously.
edit on 25-8-2012 by TheNamesZeppelin because: grammer



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TheNamesZeppelin
 


There was no reason to bring God into it in the first place, which is why I made light of it in the first place. Besides is Jesus playing basketball really that blasphemous? If so, I would say your ideology is much more dangerous than my supposed commie tendencies.

Are we ready for a peaceful utopia? Absolutely not, and that is all I was suggesting. It might take another thousand years, or we may destroy ourselves. Either way I'm not starting a eugenics campaign here, chill out a bit. I don't understand how you are possibly this confused about a relatively simple statement.... A command economy is never the answer. I'm suggesting we evolve beyond all modern economic systems. A society where there is equality and happiness, happiness doesn't happen by force. Economic and social equality is in essence socialism, this really isn't that hard to understand.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheNamesZeppelin
 


You really don't understand the difference between communism and socialism at all. Communism is using force to reach a socialist state, not the essence of socialism itself. Let's move beyond cold war programming please.





 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join