[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
Robert, the very title of this topic says The Myth, so I have to assume there is enough gold in the world to allow everybody to exchange their paper for gold (as long as the governments didn't print more than its worth). Patrick, now I understand why you want to pay your taxes in gold: you want the circle to become complete. But if I were you, I would keep my gold and pay the state with their worthless paper :) Regards, George Hara --- Xnet scaneaza automat toate mesajele impotriva virusilor folosind RAV AntiVirus. Xnet automatically scans all messages for viruses using RAV AntiVirus. Nota: RAV AntiVirus poate sa nu detecteze toti virusii noi sau toate variantele lor. Va rugam sa luati in considerare ca exista un risc de fiecare data cand deschideti fisiere atasate si ca MobiFon nu este responsabila pentru nici un prejudiciu cauzat de virusi. Disclaimer: RAV AntiVirus may not be able to detect all new viruses and variants. Please be aware that there is a risk involved whenever opening e-mail attachments to your computer and that MobiFon is not responsible for any damages caused by viruses. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
George, Actually the title refers to the argument by paper advocates that there might not be enough gold on the planet to facilitate all the daily transactions, international trade, etc, and that hence a liquidity crisis would follow if gold was used ad only denominator of exchange. Most here on the list argue that there is more than enough for that purpose. However, the US alone has flooded the planet with paper, and if anyone was to exchange the paper (and the bank balances) from US currency to gold, then the exchange rate would be a high multiple of today's market price. At the same time, it would leave the rest of the planet without gold. The redeemability (or lack thereof) discussion came later ;o) Cheers, Robert. budget privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net e-commerce e-business services http://www.cyfrocash.com budget domain registrations http://www.u2planet.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
Patrick, Danny, in your 9-Oct post you described how In some places it [money] somehow evolved from gold towards paper currency in a rather smooth transition. I would like to hear about those places and times. Probably renaissance Italy is the best example, but again I didn't live in these times, so no guarantee. Wherever paper money has floated alongside gold and solver coins, it seems to me that people had choice. Exactly how rather smooth the transition has been in these historical examples, I don't know. My point is not that it has been done with complete absence of force in the past, my point is that it is technically possible. Because it sure was NOT the United States in 1933. I agree that the US is not a good example. The people who manage a currency (which can be a private group or a government), can simply announce a change in the 'terms of use' effective a certain date in the future. If the currency is operating in a free market, people have the possibility to redeem their currency for gold while they still can, or exchange them for another currency of their choice. But in the United States, the thugs outlawed redeeming currency for gold. Yes, and that's not right. It would be like e-gold announcing a change in the terms of use, stating that their digital units would no longer be redeemable for gold -- RIGHT NOW. Furthermore, e-gold would threaten to put in prison anyone they caught possessing gold. That would be the equivalent of what the USA did. Specifically, if you had a gold certificate you knew would become unredeemable at a specific time, would you really hold onto it past that time? Wouldn't you go ahead and redeem it for gold? And wouldn't the threat of imprisonment be just about the only thing that could prevent you from redeeming it for gold? I would not necessarily redeem if the people who are issuing the paper are suffciently thrustworthy and have a solid reputation. They will also need to outline how they will manage the paper after it is no more redeemable. Accepting paper currency is not really different from accepting a check. You only do it when you trust the person who issues the currency or the check. But besides the possibility I described there are also other methods to introduce paper currency. It is possible to issue paper that is nothing but the promis of a future service. For example public transport companies already issue such paper. Technically this is paper money and there is no reason why people could not use bus or airline tickets to pay for something else. Nobody forces people to accept bus or airline tickets, you cannot redeem them for gold, they may go up or down in value, the bus company can go out of business leaving the paper worthless... Publicly traded stocks can also be paper money. When stocks were still printed on paper it was not so uncommon to see them used as payment. Stocks cannot be redeemed for anything. Technically they represent a fixed part of the company, but often companies have an official book value of zero or even below zero.. Stocks have not seen the daylight by use of force.. Clearly, use of force is not to only way to introduce paper money. And because some paper currencies were enforced in the past, does not mean that paper money is a bad idea. Danny --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
A money can have value, just based on its widespread acceptance and a sound 'open books' management. What is 'sound open books', please? Robert, It means the people who are managing the currency show the books how many (new) currency they are issuing, and give justification for the interest rates they maintain. Widespread acceptance is a tricky subject because people do 'NOT' really have a choice. If they do not have a choice it means there is no free market. Who decides which is the right amount of additional currency to spend into circulation and why does in an overheated economy get cooled off by raising interest rates, rater than taking money out of the circulation? Money is not added to the circulation by printing it and throwing it out of a helicopter over the people's houses. At least I have never seen that helicopter pass :-( Raising interest rates takes money out of the system because people are more likely to pay off their debts if the rates are high. Similarly low interest rates encourage more borrowing, which means money is added to the system. The macro economic effect would in theory be same, reduced growth with possibly a brief flirt with deflation. Wouldn't that be sound fiscal policy as opposed to playing with interest rates and seeing what happens and how the market reacts? How you will take money out directly? By going round in town, asking everybody to hand in $100, and subsequently burn the paper on the town square? As soon as elected, the new government announced that Venezuelian oil would be sold in EUROs. The generalissimo who staged the coup, reverted to US dollars, the returning government reverted back to EUROs and as soon as they changed their policies and announced that US dollars were just fine, the strikes stopped. Free market? Think again. I have not said we have a free market. What you describe is the politician's tampering with this market. It is not good, and it is this tampering that also disturbes the proper working of the paper money systems. If dollars are freely available in a country, people tend to shun it - especially if the own currency is not being devalued every couple of years. Interestingly, all the countries in which dollars are not overly welcome, have no tax on gold and count gold imports as a major trade. That does suggest that the FREE market has chosen gold, does it not? In these countries , yes. Danny --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
Money is not added to the circulation by printing it and throwing it out of a helicopter over the people's houses. Instead it is being printed and either used by the gov to pay bills (most countries) or loaned to the gov to pay bills with (USA). However, if you look at the requestion costs of most governments ($12 for a pen after allowing for the wages and operational costs of all the officials involved to decide which pen to buy - in bulk), you helicopter example comes pretty close. Trouble is, the helicopter only passes above civil servants and government contractors. Raising interest rates takes money out of the system because people are more likely to pay off their debts if the rates are high. Similarly low interest rates encourage more borrowing, which means money is added to the system. The effect would be the same if the government was not able to borrow or having printed more bank notes. If the economy grows by 7% and the amount of available money does not increase, prices begin to stagnate, less sales are made and the growth recedes. The market then raises the interest rates trying to get funds for the commmercial sector, which further reduces readily available cash as the costs of interest reduce the volume of cash flow. Hence the economy cools down pretty fast. How you will take money out directly? Ideally a government would have reserves and no need to borrow or print. In an imperfect world the government rapidly cuts spending while the economy still appears to grow. All of a sudden the money supply is insufficient and a downwards spiral begins with less tax revenue, further spending cuts, etc. until growth is at or even below zero. I have not said we have a free market. What you describe is the politician's tampering with this market. What makes you think that that would ever change? It appears as if the free market has failed trying to control governments and hence markets have been regulated into a quasi socio-fascistic free for all as long as the printers run ruin. How do you propose the market to change this? The only way I can see that 'may' be workable, is for the market to gradually start shifting into value-based exchange, barter if you will. Many large companies are already doing this to some degree because they find it harder and harder to take delivery of commodities for dollars from countries that are not indepted to the US. One has to consider that the current experience of low commodity prices and a shaky currency value denominator is not entirely new for many Third World countries. The Pound devaluation comes to mind, when many of the what were to become Commonwealth countries found their national currency reserves greatly devalued while other currency loans suddenly put an immese burden on them. This in fact was what lead to the rise of the US dollar in world trade. The US was making a killing because they were able to pay for goods in dollars and nobody wanted the British Pound Sterling anymore. What appears to be happening now between the Dollar and the Euro, is the same scenario. Of course, the US has learnt from the British mistake at the time and won't let other countries off that easily. After all, if countries continue to increasingly refuse Dollar payments instead of Euros, then the US would rapidly become an also run in global affairs. One should never forget that the US economy is built on credit and that the US has no less than 300 military bases abroad, all paid for in US dollars. Imagine everyone would ask for Euros. Alternatively, imagine all the foreign investments in the US would be pulled out. In fact, all you have to imagine is what would happen if the rest of the World would stop investing in the US. After all America needs about 1,000 billion dollars just to pay the interest on their loans and bonds a year. That is a kewl trillion dollars that has to be borrowed additionally every year. And as the first leaders in the Third World realize this and as their populace often has a liking for gold anyway, it is in fact those parts of the market that are truly free (of debt) that seem to choose gold over paper. After all, countries that got burned by the Pound Sterling (other got burned by the French Franc) some of which also took a Japanese Yen hit, and are now being burnt by the US dollar, have a limited incentive to rely on the Euro, if gold is a viable alternative. And that is exactly the whole idea behind the GoldDinar concept for international trade. In essence, gold as money is reverting to the barter system. Paper is a promise. Worse, most of the paper money doesn't even exist in paper form but only as digits on a screen. That makes fiat money a promise of a promise of an assumption. Namely the promise that you can get paper for the digits on the screen, which itself is a promise that you can exchange it for goods on services, based on the assumption that others will exchange goods or provide services to you for the paper. Gold is
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
But in the United States, the thugs outlawed redeeming currency for gold. Patrick, why is this redeeming word so important? Can't you just say you *exchange* paper money for gold on the free market? Or maybe you're saying it is illegal (now) for people to own gold in USA (so, they can't exchange it)?! Regards, George Hara --- Xnet scaneaza automat toate mesajele impotriva virusilor folosind RAV AntiVirus. Xnet automatically scans all messages for viruses using RAV AntiVirus. Nota: RAV AntiVirus poate sa nu detecteze toti virusii noi sau toate variantele lor. Va rugam sa luati in considerare ca exista un risc de fiecare data cand deschideti fisiere atasate si ca MobiFon nu este responsabila pentru nici un prejudiciu cauzat de virusi. Disclaimer: RAV AntiVirus may not be able to detect all new viruses and variants. Please be aware that there is a risk involved whenever opening e-mail attachments to your computer and that MobiFon is not responsible for any damages caused by viruses. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
George, I hope Patrick doesn't mind if I answer this one. Redeemability implies that the issuer of paper has the corresponding amount of gold in stock. This in turn means that the paper is synonymous with gold and that there can be only as much paper as there is gold. Exchange is something completely different. If all current USD fiat was to be exchanged for all the gold ever mined, then the shortfall in gold would mean that the price per ounze is above $14,000 each. This means that there are 14,000 dollars in circulation for every ounze of gold there is above ground, world-wide. Hence only redeemablity at a predetermined, set price (say $400 paper for 1 troy ounze of gold) implies that the paper has an inherent value. Everything else is build on trust. The same trust that keeps people running to the bank to withdraw their funds just to see if they are there. It is widely known that if people did that (as they tried during the great recession), everything would fall apart. Not only does the bank not have the money because it is loaned to others, but in fact there is much more fiat money loaned to others than actual paper exists and there is much less paper than the balance sheets show. So not only is paper not redeemable for gold, in fact account balances are not even redeemable for paper when it comes to the crunch ;o) Cheers, Robert. budget privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net e-commerce e-business services http://www.cyfrocash.com budget domain registrations http://www.u2planet.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
On Sunday, October 12, 2003, at 02:18 PM, FileMatrix wrote: But in the United States, the thugs outlawed redeeming currency for gold. Patrick, why is this redeeming word so important? Can't you just say you *exchange* paper money for gold on the free market? ... I understand what you have in mind here. Let us for a moment consider a micro-economy of just three individuals: Alice, Bob, and Carol. Alice gives Bob a note promising to pay one gold coin to the bearer on demand. Bob buys something from Carol, paying with the note. Carol accepts the note because Alice has an excellent reputation. Now Alice announces that she will no longer honor the promise on the note. At that point it is no longer a note, because a note is a promise to pay a specific asset. Alice has withdrawn the promise. So we'll call it a token. But Carol doesn't worry. She cannot redeem the token for gold from Alice, but she feels confident she can exchange the token for gold on the free market. She approaches Bob and offers the token in exchange for a gold coin. But Bob refuses the token because he has no particular reason to accept it -- it's just a piece of paper, after all. You might argue that Bob would accept the token if he could find someone else, let's say David, who would trade him something for it. But that extension of our micro-economy to a fourth individual accomplishes nothing because there is no reason to assume David is any more motivated to accept the token than Bob is. You might argue that if you continue extending the economy (to Elizabeth, Fred, George, et al) that Bob will eventually find someone willing to accept the token in trade, perhaps George for example :-). But I think (though cannot prove) that the probability of any one individual accepting the token is so slim that it results in a situation like one of those cellular automata configurations that comes to a dead end. But we can clearly see that this has worked in practice, so how? One way is for Alice simply to decree that she will imprison anyone caught possessing or trading in gold, and demand that anyone in possession of her old note trade it in for a new unredeemable paper token. Another way is for Alice to decree that Bob and Carol must pay regular tribute to Alice in the form of Alice's new tokens, or be imprisoned. If Alice's force is credible, either one of these methods will suffice to get Alice's tokens accepted to some degree. Turns out the US did both. Of course, taxes were already in place before the gold seizures of 1933, but the requirement to pay taxes in the new tokens was enough to make them valuable in trade right off the bat. Having said all this, you may actually be correct that a system of fiat tokens can in theory flourish in a completely free market without the use of force. Though I don't think it could happen the way I described, with Alice reneging on gold notes. That in itself would destroy her reputation. Alice would have to start off with fiat tokens directly. We can only deal with the situation as we actually find it today. It is legal to own gold and trade in gold, but the US still demands tribute in fiat tokens. As goods and services, and notes payable in goods and services, become widely liquid in direct trade, many people may find that government-issued fiat tokens are useful for little more than paying those tributes. It is interesting to consider that process in the limit, as free market instruments of various kinds (even fiat!) approach near perfect liquidity in trade. I don't think government would like that. Monopolists do not give up their monopolies lightly. But, we must press on. -- Patrick --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
Danny, Unfortunately vendor finance and lease back are common practice in many stores here for ages, already. While they don't call it rent per say, it boils down to monthly installments and the word interest appears nowhere. Most notably though, if an item costs say $500 cash, then the vendor finance is priced around $22 per month for two year with $1 down. That in turn means that there is barely any 'interest', indeed more of a service fee to allow for the cost of accounting over a 24 month period. I am always astonished how many Europeans and most Americans don't have a concept of Malaysia, and expect some third world country of rural shags. Yet, we got the longest bridge in Asia, the highest office buildings on the planet, two of the 25 busiest ports in the world, are producing about 50% of all CPUs (notably intel's Itanium architecture was partly developped and the chip is exclusively being manufactured here), are exporting locally designed cars and are the 18th largest trading nation, after Canada and Ireland and before Belgium, Finnland, etc. So, yep, while she is wanting in some areas of the service sector, Malaysia is definitely not Third World and easily ten years ahead of Thailand in her development. For a closer example to Europe, I would place Malaysia comparatively ahead of Turkey, maybe somewhere between Greece and Portugal. Patrick, Thanks for the kudos regarding the Indian diary cow deal. It's not that difficult actually, once you have been on the ground, had a few cows of your own, just for kicks and slaughtered a few hundred chicken during an emergency. After that you have a better idea how your prospective partners feel and think and you can tailor offers they can understand and accept. It appears that farmers the world over are a suspicious lot who don't trust outsiders until you tell them that the pig with blood on it's head is about to go blind and the hen with missing feathers on it's butt that appears to have stopped laying is actully being attacked by other hens and likely to be his best producer. Yep, appears chicks are jealous of other chicks that lay more eggs and not only crash the eggs but also bull out each other feathers... In other words, there is nothing special with making unusual deals. All it takes that you study the field on the ground, not in books and videos, and listen to what seemingly uneducated people have to say, rather than trying to educate them about things they have no use for ;o) The weird thing might well be that I would have been one of those overpaid bankers/CEOs I am now arguing against. About the use of 'thugs' and similar offensive language on the list, I'd say that the lack of actual human interaction over the internet often makes us more emotional in our replies than we actually are in real life. Often four letter words and personal attacks are submitted without a second thought because of the impersonal surroundings. I have seen respectible scholars blush when they were confronted with their own posts to some newgroups at a later point in time. In the end, emotions are what makes us human. And forgiveness might be the easiest way to deal with someone else's. Of course, I'm prone to respond in kind as well, when attacked. Maybe we just don't get laid often enough :) Cheers, Robert. budget privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net e-commerce e-business services http://www.cyfrocash.net budget domain registrations http://www.u2planet.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
Patrick, No. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me. Force and verbiage are two different things. Not everybody will agree that words cannot harm. Just ask the people who sue in court for public slander. But since Jim has agreed with your definition, I have now asked him some questions, so he can answer for himself if he chooses so. At least he could have cared to mention where I advocated use of force against somebody or something... Actually looking through your posts I see quite a bit of laissez-faire attitude. I think our communication difficulties arise from a fundamental disagreement on the nature of fiat systems. The advocates of fiat systems flatly deny that brute force is necessary to float those systems. For example, in a previous post you gave a chronology of how a fiat system evolves, starting with gold and notes for gold, but ultimately culminating with this: And finally the curency was made independant from the gold backing. Indeed, but making it independant from gold backing is not necessarily done by force. It may have been done by force in the past, but that does not mean it is the only way. The people who manage a currency (which can be a private group or a government), can simply announce a change in the 'terms of use' effective a certain date in the future. If the currency is operating in a free market, people have the possibility to redeem their currency for gold while they still can, or exchange them for another currency of their choice. I have always stated that the free market is a conditia sine qua non for the fiat currency system to work. After the change people can still exchange their currency for gold, but not at the old fixed rate, they can do so at a rate that is decided by the free market. This rate can be higher or lower. Needless to say that this operation will only succeed if the currency has sufficient reputation capital , is managed in a sound way, and has gained enough widespread acceptance. What a sweet, passive, neutral way to portray an act of theft, fraud, and extortion. It would not be theft if the people are told up front about the coming change and have possibility to exit the currency before the change in policy. Somebody who had $35 in 1970 could redeem it for one ounce of gold. If we take into account storage costs that person will now have something like 0.8 ounces left Had he invested the $35 conservatively in all 500 stocks of the SP, he could now buy an ounce of gold for it, and he would also have enjoyed dividends over the years, which would probably allow him to buy another half ounce at current prices. The person who stayed in dollars is richer now! And that includes a period of very high inflation during the 70's You might say that the price of gold is far too low today. Okay, but gold producers currently take it out of the ground at an average cost of about $300.. While the historical record does not prove that there could be no noncommodity money on the free market, Austrian economists have argued that money must be a commodity by its nature. Maybe these Austrian economists are wrong. A money can have value, just based on its widespread acceptance and a sound 'open books' management. If the free market accepts the US dollars and prices its commodities in this currency, then by this very acceptance the currency becomes backed by these commodities and by all of them, not only by the gold. It means that you can go to the market and exchange your dollars for these commodities. The users back the currency by offering goods and services in exchange for it. It is based on trust. I accept dollars because I know I can go to the market and exchange them for something else, even for gold if I want. Bad management of the money can break this trust of course, and that's the main disadvantage of the system. But when there is a free market nobody is forced to keep all his wealth in the same currency, and plenty of stores of value are available as well. Note that in the second paragraph, the author states that the introduction of paper money always took the form of a privileged group gaining permission to suspend the redemption of its notes. Or as Danny so blithely puts it: And finally the currency was made independent of its gold backing. Yes, so that means that until this 'gaining permission...' gold (or commodity) backing was imposed (probably by some government). What kind of laissez-faire is that? That's a point that many advocates of hard money seem to miss. Enforcing commodity backed money only, is not laissez-faire. So when Jim discusses a vicious thug who insists on imposing paper money on these workers, he is referring to a paper money system that was originally imposed on the people by force and is now maintained by force. Ok , but that's not me. Danny --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 10:27 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote: Indeed, but making it independant from gold backing is not necessarily done by force. It may have been done by force in the past, but that does not mean it is the only way. Danny, in your 9-Oct post you described how In some places it [money] somehow evolved from gold towards paper currency in a rather smooth transition. I would like to hear about those places and times. Because it sure was NOT the United States in 1933. (And yes, George, I understand that the US is not the world. That's why I'm asking about other places now.) The people who manage a currency (which can be a private group or a government), can simply announce a change in the 'terms of use' effective a certain date in the future. If the currency is operating in a free market, people have the possibility to redeem their currency for gold while they still can, or exchange them for another currency of their choice. But in the United States, the thugs outlawed redeeming currency for gold. It would be like e-gold announcing a change in the terms of use, stating that their digital units would no longer be redeemable for gold -- RIGHT NOW. Furthermore, e-gold would threaten to put in prison anyone they caught possessing gold. Please forgive me for harping on the US in 1933, but you're the one asserting that these transitions can (or have) occurred smoothly. I would like to hear about these cases where an institution with outstanding gold certificates declared that at a specific point in time their certificates would no longer be redeemable for gold. I would like to hear about how all the people took the news calmly, with some of them redeeming for gold and some of them choosing NOT to (if you can imagine that). And then, after the cutoff date occurred, the institution kept on issuing unredeemable certificates which were then circulated and accepted just as well as the old redeemable ones. This sounds completely contrary to human nature, and I doubt if it has ever happened or ever will. I believe that force is the only way to pull it off. One thing I do know for certain: in the single biggest case like this in the history of the world, force WAS necessary. So where are these success stories, or how might they be possible even in principle? Specifically, if you had a gold certificate you knew would become unredeemable at a specific time, would you really hold onto it past that time? Wouldn't you go ahead and redeem it for gold? And wouldn't the threat of imprisonment be just about the only thing that could prevent you from redeeming it for gold? -- Patrick --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
Danny, You know I am someone who says that when all is said and done, I still pay my bills with fiat and it's pretty difficult, even in Malaysia to buy a piece of land paying in gold coins and bars (no, joke, I tried - and succeeded, after going to a bank and getting the gold valued in the local fiat currency). So, I'm with you to some extend. A money can have value, just based on its widespread acceptance and a sound 'open books' management. What is 'sound open books', please? Widespread acceptance is a tricky subject because people do 'NOT' really have a choice. More on the instances where people DO have a choice, below. But I am honestly interested to know what you mean by 'open book management'? Who decides which is the right amount of additional currency to spend into circulation and why does in an overheated economy get cooled off by raising interest rates, rater than taking money out of the circulation? The macro economic effect would in theory be same, reduced growth with possibly a brief flirt with deflation. Wouldn't that be sound fiscal policy as opposed to playing with interest rates and seeing what happens and how the market reacts? If the free market accepts the US dollars and prices its commodities in this currency, then by this very acceptance the currency becomes backed by these commodities and by all of them, not only by the gold. And that is one of the items you are on shifting ground. The FREE market does NOT accept US dollars for its commodities. Instead it is being forced to accept US dollars so that it can pay the interest on loans their governments took two generations ago - in goods, priced by American suppliers, in US dollars. And if a free market pushes it's government to shift from dollars to another currency, say EUROs, then weird things happen. Venezuela might be the most striking example for that one. Hasn't anyone wondered why Bush endorsed a military coup of a known slaughterer general over a democratically elected governemnt there? Luckily the people didn't go for it and brought their government back. Then, out of the blue, those same people who first elected the governemnet, then staged an uprising to bring it back to power started to strike. Weird? Well, let's consider this: As soon as elected, the new government announced that Venezuelian oil would be sold in EUROs. The generalissimo who staged the coup, reverted to US dollars, the returning government reverted back to EUROs and as soon as they changed their policies and announced that US dollars were just fine, the strikes stopped. Free market? Think again. It means that you can go to the market and exchange your dollars for these commodities. The users back the currency by offering goods and services in exchange for it. It is based on trust. I accept dollars because I know I can go to the market and exchange them for something else, even for gold if I want. If you go to many African countries today, you will notice that money changers, antic dealers and allegedly even prostitutes ask if you have EUROs when you offer dollars. Bad management of the money can break this trust of course, and that's the main disadvantage of the system. Whic is what has happened in the case of the US dollar. And I believe that EUROs are only accepted to some extend for lack of an alternative. But when there is a free market nobody is forced to keep all his wealth in the same currency, and plenty of stores of value are available as well. Again, that is not entirely true. Outside Europe and America, choices and alternatives are limited. Thais treat gold like cash and and dollars like something that needs to be exchanged before the rate changes. In the Middle East, depending on the degree of freedom, the dollar is accepted (though the EURO is more and more preferred), in oppressed nations (Iran, Syria, Israel) but less welcome in countries with a stable currency where people have an actual choice (UAE, Bahrain, etc.) I am pretty sure that this is only the beginning. People are just starting to realize that have been taken for a ride because the supply of US dollars in the Third World is somewhat limited. Most notably, when Americans started to flood Iraq with dollars, Iraqis happily reverted back to essentially valueless Saddam Dinars. If dollars are freely available in a country, people tend to shun it - especially if the own currency is not being devalued every couple of years. Interestingly, all the countries in which dollars are not overly welcome, have no tax on gold and count gold imports as a major trade. That does suggest that the FREE market has chosen gold, does it not? Cheers, Robert. budget privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net e-commerce e-business services http://www.cyfrocash.net budget domain registrations http://www.u2planet.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
The US populace pays $62 billion of interest on credit card debts per year! Imagine, if people were not able to use credit for consumables. Robert, does anybody force these people not to use debit cards? The same goes for the credit cards you said will be used in Malaysia. Regards, George Hara --- Xnet scaneaza automat toate mesajele impotriva virusilor folosind RAV AntiVirus. Xnet automatically scans all messages for viruses using RAV AntiVirus. Nota: RAV AntiVirus poate sa nu detecteze toti virusii noi sau toate variantele lor. Va rugam sa luati in considerare ca exista un risc de fiecare data cand deschideti fisiere atasate si ca MobiFon nu este responsabila pentru nici un prejudiciu cauzat de virusi. Disclaimer: RAV AntiVirus may not be able to detect all new viruses and variants. Please be aware that there is a risk involved whenever opening e-mail attachments to your computer and that MobiFon is not responsible for any damages caused by viruses. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
Danny wrote: And if your venture capital system is available as well, then I have all possible choices, just in case I doesn't want to carry all the risk. Exactly, if both options exist, it is likely that the VC option would over time largely replace the commercial banking option in all fields practicable, ie. there are likely to still be short-term loans of over a month and under two years. Robert, That sounds much better to me. The market will sort it out and there is no need to make borrowing illegal. In fact if borrowing with interest exists alongside the VC system then both will be competing with each other, and this will force the VC people to fork out a good service if they want to be succesful. By making interest illegal you are giving the VC a monopoly on financing, and that will mean not so good conditions for the person who needs financing. As far as I know the VC option does exist in many Western countries , and quite succesful in some places. But I still don't see how VC would serve the person who needs money to repair his car. And which system will be more succesful if both options are available will not only depend on which system is the best. It will also depend on the risk profile of the average citizen, and that will vary from country to country. Now, can I lend anyone money at 3% per month?:o) Watch out! You may get candidates. And you don't want to burn in hell, do you? :-) The main item that Danny and you seem to ignore that in constructs involving rent, etc. the ownership doesn't change until the item is fully paid for and, possibly the most important item: There is nothing resembling compounding interest. Wait a minute. Things may be different in other countries, but I used to run a shop in Belgium and we routinely sold items(consumer durable goods) with the customer asking for financing from the bank. In the contracts that they signed with the bank it was always clearly stated that the item they bought remained the property of the bank until the loan was completely paid. They were not allowed to sell the item in second hand before the last payment on their loan, that would be considered theft and brought to court. So, the ownership only changes when everything is paid for. This is because the bought item itself is the collateral for the loan. (nearly everyone qualifies for this types loans in Belgium, even the jobless) In fact we could as well say that the interest this person pays is in fact rent he pays to use the item until it becomes his own at the end of the contract. Ah, now I have given you a great business idea how to offer consumer credit in Malaysia without using the word interest. And there is no question about compounding interest, because you only pay rent (interest) on the portion of the item that is not yet paid for. Thanks for an exceptionally civilized discussion. You see it is possible to talk about things without calling each other a thug as soon as there is a disagreement. And with more fruitful results. Danny --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 07:53 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote: In fact we could as well say that the interest this person pays is in fact rent he pays to use the item until it becomes his own at the end of the contract. Ah, now I have given you a great business idea how to offer consumer credit in Malaysia without using the word interest. And there is no question about compounding interest, because you only pay rent (interest) on the portion of the item that is not yet paid for. I bet Robert B.Z. could make this work. Anyone who can bring that dairy cow time-arbitrage deal to fruition is one heck of an entrepreneur. Thanks for an exceptionally civilized discussion. You see it is possible to talk about things without calling each other a thug as soon as there is a disagreement. And with more fruitful results. It seems that Jim defines thug as an individual who advocates or participates in the initiation of force against others. -- Patrick --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
Thanks for an exceptionally civilized discussion. You see it is possible to talk about things without calling each other a thug as soon as there is a disagreement. And with more fruitful results. It seems that Jim defines thug as an individual who advocates or participates in the initiation of force against others. Yeah, but isn't publicly calling someone a thug (or any other insulting statement) already a case of initiation of force against a person, and hence the person who utters these words has declared himself a thug by his own definition? At least he could have cared to mention where I advocated use of force against somebody or something... Danny --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote: Yeah, but isn't publicly calling someone a thug (or any other insulting statement) already a case of initiation of force against a person, and hence the person who utters these words has declared himself a thug by his own definition? (Dear Moderator: I promise to keep this on the subject of money.) Danny: No. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me. Force and verbiage are two different things. At least he could have cared to mention where I advocated use of force against somebody or something... Actually looking through your posts I see quite a bit of laissez-faire attitude. I think our communication difficulties arise from a fundamental disagreement on the nature of fiat systems. The advocates of fiat systems flatly deny that brute force is necessary to float those systems. For example, in a previous post you gave a chronology of how a fiat system evolves, starting with gold and notes for gold, but ultimately culminating with this: And finally the curency was made independant from the gold backing. What a sweet, passive, neutral way to portray an act of theft, fraud, and extortion. The currency was made independent from gold backing by a bunch of thugs telling the people to hand over their gold and gold notes and accept fiat paper in return upon pain of imprisonment and confiscation of property. Or at the very least, simply reneging on a solemn promise. I highly suggest reading today's article titled Monetary Policy and the Free Market. http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1341 It almost seems like the author has been reading the e-gold list lately. Consider this excerpt: Since paper currencies are the dominant type of money in our age, there has been some speculation about the possibility of a free market in paper money or electronic money. Yet not only is there no historical evidence to support this possibility, but noncommodity monies have at all times and places been creatures of the state. In modern times, the state has introduced paper money by giving a privileged note-issuing bank (the national Central Bank) the permission to suspend the redemption of its notes. While the historical record does not prove that there could be no noncommodity money on the free market, Austrian economists have argued that money must be a commodity by its nature. As the author says, there has indeed been some speculation about the possibility of a free market in paper money or electronic money. Notably, right here on the e-gold list. Note that in the second paragraph, the author states that the introduction of paper money always took the form of a privileged group gaining permission to suspend the redemption of its notes. Or as Danny so blithely puts it: And finally the currency was made independent of its gold backing. So when Jim discusses a vicious thug who insists on imposing paper money on these workers, he is referring to a paper money system that was originally imposed on the people by force and is now maintained by force. From what I can tell you would disapprove of that kind of force but you also deny that it exists in the first place. So as they say in Cool Hand Luke: What we've got here is failure to communicate. At this point in history it's all a matter of degree. Many of us, including fiat advocates themselves, are evolving toward more trade in hard money and less in fiat tokens. This works to erode the utility of fiat tokens, though imperceptibly at first. But if the physics are just right, this effect could easily compound far beyond anybody's ability to predict at this point. -- Patrick --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
I actually enjoy the objections of both Patrick and Frank because they are contructive and make sense. Here we go: Patrick, if you lend someone a piece of gold and get the piece bank plus a smaller one, you won't be hauled to prison - BUT - might be forced to donate the smaller piece to a charity fund. What two adults do among themselves is up to them, unless one of them gets something for nothing. The charging of interest is forbidden in so far that someone gets something for nothing. Now, if the guy comes to you to get one piece of gold in order to buy something and sell it a profit and you participate in the profit, that is perfectly fine. You shared the risk, hence you are entitled to share in the profit. How much of the profit you get is a matter of negotiation between the two of you. If you however charged him interest, did not share the risk and got something for nothing, then you loose the something extra you got. Frank, by not allowing people to get themselves into debt the system actually forces freedom on them. Think about it for a minute. Our perceived freedom is unreal when we are forced to pay the governments' interest through indirect taxes and inflation. Our right to choose interest bondage is not impaired by the abolishment of interest. Instead the right to accept people into bondage through lending them money at an interest is curtailed. Your ex-wifes are welcome to try to sell themselves into bondage, that's their free choice. The one who accepts them, though, will be punished. If you are offering money at interest to the public, then in most countries you need a license - which you are very unlikely to be able to get as a private individual with very limited means. BUT lending third parties your money against interest without a license is illegal in this day and age in most countries. The law is seldom enfoced, but it's still there. And if you lend too much to too many people the gov will try to get you on money laundring and racketeering charges. Again, this is what is happening today. By abolishing interest however, we do not abolish the profit motive nor do we abolish lawful gaining from investments. You started out by mentioning the value of the time factor. There is no reason why you should not charge something for your time and service, an administration fee or service charge if you will. But that one must be independent from the amount of the 'investment' and should be calulated based on the time and effort you put in. As you see, you would get to levy those charges because you did something for it. If you are willing to invest into the promise of an ex-wife to pay you back for buying her a new wardrobe, then that could entitle you to charge a risk fee. But you can't charge fees on fees and by charging a risk fee you would invite your ex to simply spend the gold and never pay you back. The crux of the matter is indeed that interest accrues interest and that someone gets something without doing anything for it. It might come as a surprise to many Americans on the list, but most non-US holders of credit cards actually balance their accounts at the end of each month, many actually have positive balances on their cards. From this I deduct that having debts is not considered natural per se. Indeed, when asking some people why they didn't use their cards when they were short of cash at the end of the month, I got people saying that they would never use the credit facilities of the card because of the fees and interest. IMHO this is the way any adult human should think about it, but many succumb to the lure of instant ownership and worry about paying later. Then they often end up loosing owenership and being saddled with debt. Well, and it is you and me who are paying their debt and interest if they don't. It is you as a share holder and me as a tax payer, who suffers from people not paying back their loans and interest. You get less dividedn because the bank you hold shares in made less profit. And I pay more tax because the bank offset the loss against taxes. And everyone else pays higher interest to help the bank to cover the risk of the non performing loans. Hence the freedom of your ex's to sell herself into interest bondage costs ME, YOU and EVERYONE ELSE. And we get nothing in return. If your ex had no way to borrow, we would all be better off. If it was illegal to profit from lending her money, then nobody would give her any. And that is what I am arguning for. I am not saying that it should be impossible for people to obtain funding for worthwhile causes. I am saying that the one who gives them funding should participate in the profits and share the risk. You want to buy a car but don't have the money? No problem, I buy it and rent it to you. Lease-back, if you will. I have next to no risk, because the car is mine. You get to use the car as if it was your own and will look after it because you expect to buy it off me as soon as you have the cash. In the meantime you
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 03:01 AM, Robert B.Z. wrote: I actually enjoy the objections of both Patrick and Frank because they are contructive and make sense. Here we go: Patrick, if you lend someone a piece of gold and get the piece bank plus a smaller one, you won't be hauled to prison - BUT - might be forced to donate the smaller piece to a charity fund. And when I say no, I will not give the smaller piece to a charity fund, the sheriff comes and takes me to prison. If I resist, he shoots me. I love the way people say you won't be hauled to prison but forget to mention the condition if you cooperate. :-) What two adults do among themselves is up to them, unless one of them gets something for nothing. ... And then when the sheriff finishes subduing me one way or the other, he takes the smaller piece of gold and gives it to the charity fund ... which gets something for nothing. The charging of interest is forbidden in so far that someone gets something for nothing. I didn't get something for nothing. I got something in exchange for giving another individual the power to use a piece of gold for an entire month. I was fortunate that the individual even bothered to pay me back at all. And besides, what's wrong with getting me getting something for nothing if the other individual AGREES to give me something for nothing? Just call it ... charity if you will. As in, gee I let you use that gold piece all month and thanks for giving it back, but brother can you spare a dime? ;o) Now, if the guy comes to you to get one piece of gold in order to buy something and sell it a profit and you participate in the profit, that is perfectly fine. You shared the risk, hence you are entitled to share in the profit. How much of the profit you get is a matter of negotiation between the two of you. If you however charged him interest, did not share the risk and got something for nothing, then you loose the something extra you got. Whoa there! I shared the risk and that entitles me to share in the profit? That almost sounds like getting something for nothing -- except that you have wisely acknowledged that assuming risk deserves compensation. Since you also state that how much of the profit I get is a matter of negotiation, then I'll simply phrase things differently to skirt the prohibition against interest. (I'm pretty sure you've made this point yourself in previous discussions.) I'll invest my gold piece in the other guy's venture (e.g. his life). I won't inquire into his business and demand a full accounting of profits. I'll just assume he's making roughly 5%, so each month I'll only require that he pay me 5% of only the amount I have invested with him (the single gold piece). I won't demand any portion of the profits he makes with his own money, because that would be getting something for nothing. Also, he can defer paying me back in full if he chooses, simply reinvesting my slice of the profits into his venture and then paying me 5% of my now larger sum of money invested with him. Presto chango! We have loans with variable payment schedules and compounded interest, and I don't get thrown in jail! Yy! I've got interest! Yaay! :-) Except I think you're saying that if his venture fails in some way, I cannot continue to demand the 5% and must forfeit my investment entirely, right? But why should that be? Surely he has some other irons in the fire, so why can't I demand that he pay me back in full including my 5% share of the profits directly related to my investment? His other ventures will just be less profitable to him, that's all. And why can't we have an agreement that if all else fails, I get his house? He could put up his house as collateral against his inability to repay me if his venture goes astray. -- Patrick --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
And that is then when you have no risk, the guy who borrowed carries the complete risk of failure and still would have to pay you anyway. And that is unfair. While you should get something for investing in him, the amount he owes you should be fixed there and then. Indeed, if you invest a gold piece into his life against a dime a month, you would be owed a dime a month for as long as the venture exists - but would never get the coin back - AND can't take anything else off him. In order to avoid all those hassles, you might just want to invest into the local property union or finance bank, participate in the profits and your friend gets his investment from them. Given that he already has a house, he might actually sell the house for a gold coin and contract to buy it back for a coin and pay a dime rent for the month. That is actually in simplified terms how it is really being done. This is why you will find in most Islamic countries that title deeds in a property purchase are changed very late. After up to three months the application for a change is submitted - or a temporary change in ownership is entered. A mortgage if you will. Now, the reason for the exercise is actually two-fold. It should be hard for people to obtain funding in which they themselves carry the risk and it should be even harder to disown anyone. The ancient precedessor of the cooling off period of an agreement, so to say. The system is meant to discourage accepting third party funds for whimsical purposes, while still facilitating trade and profiting from commercial activities. It is meant to make the idea of being debt unthinkable. If that would mean that there are less McDonald's outlets and less people buying tanks, SUVs, airplane tickets, etc. then so be it. After all, this would only be for a brief while. Once the initial shock has passed people will realize that due to not paying off this and that they suddenly have more cash left every month. Consider this: The US populace pays $62 billion of interest on credit card debts per year! This is interest only, does not include compounding interest, nor indeed does it include installments. About half of the credit card debts are for consumables (restaurants, holidays, groceries, etc.) So, no lasting value has been created or changed ownership. What is worse, is that through compounding interest and high fees the original price of the combined items three years ago would have been less than half of what is being paid in interest now. Imagine, if people were not able to use credit for consumables. Imagine that cards would have to be balanced by the end of each month. Even better, imagine all cards became debits cards and people would spend money they have. That's an additional $62,000,000,000 in availavle cash to the US economy every year. So, while at one time there would have been less money spent (less card purchases), there would be overall much more liquidity. The problem is, everybody gets easy credit because banks want to profit at any expense. People who could never qualify for a mortgage or a loan to start a business are carrying 5 credit cards... Cheers, Robert. budget privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net e-commerce e-business services http://www.cyfrocash.net budget domain registrations http://www.u2planet.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 02:47 PM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote: Rather unnecessarily complicated constructions are being made to avoid the word 'interest'... What we call 'interest' in the West will be given other names like 'rent' Person 1 pays rent for the use of a house over a certain period and returns the house to its owner at the end. Person 2 pays 'rent' for the use of an amount of money over a certain period and returns the money to its owner at the end. Any difference? The difference is that Person 2 gets his hide caned with a sheaf of tightly wound bamboo strips. Any questions? -- Patrick --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
Danny wrote: And if your venture capital system is available as well, then I have all possible choices, just in case I doesn't want to carry all the risk. Exactly, if both options exist, it is likely that the VC option would over time largely replace the commercial banking option in all fields practicable, ie. there are likely to still be short-term loans of over a month and under two years. Trouble is, currently only one option exists in most countries and although I don't owe anyone anything (other than gratitude, respect, support, etc.) I still feel that I have to pay for the irresponsible spending habits of others with high fees, etc. Now, can I lend anyone money at 3% per month?:o) Patrick, there is no caning for ursupery unless you cause bodily harm to your debtors. Instead there is confiscation of what are deemed unjust profits. So, essentially they won't even touch your property and you get to keep your wealth. Only the interest revenues are forfeited. The main item that Danny and you seem to ignore that in constructs involving rent, etc. the ownership doesn't change until the item is fully paid for and, possibly the most important item: There is nothing resembling compounding interest. The compounding interest is truly something for nothing. Even our loan sharking side line, oops, i meant to say Microloan programme, doesn't go that far to charge compounding interest. Instead we buy diary cows, sell them at a profit two years later and give them to their future owner for safe keeping in the meantime ;o) Of course, in the meantime the safe keeper and future owner gets to milk the beast but we still carry the risk that the four-legged wealth producing device dies before ownership changes. That's why we charge a service up front and the future owner is obliged to buy the carcass from us. The two fees make up half the price of the cow, hence we share half the risk. And double our money every 2 1/2 years if the cow survives and the safe keeper pays up. We invest in low cost housing as well ;o) What shall I say? It works like a charm, everybody loves it, and all parties profit. By the way, most of our clients would never qualify for a loan. Cheers, Robert. budget privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net e-commerce e-business services http://www.cyfrocash.net budget domain registrations http://www.u2planet.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
And one that is entirely taken out of the air, I might add :o) The argument (without stating it) is based on the idea that people would sit on the gold and not use it, which is a weird idea if you ask me, because people would still need eat and pay rent and gas and things. Now, if we there was no way to earn interest on gold then it is unlikely that people would deposit it anywhere - especially if a storage fee was applied. And that brings us back to the interest subject. Gold can't really be inflated by more than what is taken out of the ground every year. Hence the charging of interest would actually compliment the hoarding process where in the end the bank goes bust because it owns all the gold on the planet and can't lend it to anyone bacause debtors would need more gold to pay the interest. So, for a gold currency to really and truly work, one has to hammer the laws of physics into the masses and make them see that gold can't be made from thin air and hence, interest has to be outlawed ;o) Cheers, Robert. budget privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net e-commerce e-business services http://www.cyfrocash.net budget domain registrations http://www.u2planet.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
On Wednesday, October 8, 2003, at 05:49 PM, Robert B.Z. wrote: So, for a gold currency to really and truly work, one has to hammer the laws of physics into the masses and make them see that gold can't be made from thin air and hence, interest has to be outlawed ;o) So if I hand a piece of gold to guy and a month later he hands me back that amount of gold plus a bit more, I should be put in prison? That sounds harsh -- it's just two consenting adults handing some metal back and forth. Would it be ok if I handed the guy a sub sandwich and he gave me a sub plus a bag of potato chips a month later? What's the deal here? -- Patrick --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold
Robert, how do you account for the simple concept of the time value of money from the standpoint of persons who wish to lend gold, and consumer preference on the part of those who wish to borrow it? I myself am totally opposed to any debt which is not going to make me richer, and as a general rule of thumb try not to have any. But not everyone could be happy on so Spartan a lifestyle as I have chosen either (none of my ex-wives were, to be sure.) So, often people have a thing that they want (or even need) but cannot afford to purchase outright, and to them it is worth it to pay additional money to have that item sooner, rather than later. Others see this as a market-provided opportunity and go into the practice of lending gold in order to increase their own wealth, the tradeoff of course being that they no longer have use of that gold until it is paid back, and the risk that the gold will not be paid back at all. This is not an 'impossibility' as you put it, and certainly not in the manner in which you describe -- that at some point debts owed will exceed the amount of gold in circulation. Such fiduciary ledgerdemain is only possible in a fiat money system, where money is created from nothing and at the will of the state. Any such oversight in a gold-based economy would be the result of a severe accounting error, one which would be uncovered and punished (brutally, I should think) rather quickly. Frank --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
