Posted on 11/15/2008 10:56:05 AM PST by BGHater
Gold surged on Friday as world leaders gathered to battle the economic crisis, amid talk of a new Bretton Woods agreement to shore up the financial system, but calls to revisit the gold standard are unlikely.
The gold standard, a monetary system of fixed exchange rates in terms of gold, had been the cornerstone of Bretton Woods, which created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, until President Richard Nixon took the U.S. dollar off the standard in 1971.
Bullion, seen as a safe haven in market turmoil, has staged a $50 per ounce rally from Thursday's intraday low, as funds bought heavily ahead of this weekend's meeting, which includes leaders of the Group of 20 advanced and emerging economies.
"I think the anticipation of something from the G20 meeting is helping gold," said George Gero, vice president of RBC Capital Markets Global Futures.
World leaders, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, have recently vowed to change the international monetary system created at the Bretton Woods, New Hampshire conference in 1944, which helped draw up the post-war financial order.
Shaken investor confidence amid a bear stock market and the prospect of a protracted global recession have prompted some corners to call for a return to the gold standard.
The standard had been in place with minor modifications since Bretton Woods fixed the conversion rate for one troy ounce of gold at $35.
However, fund managers and commodity analysts said that the G20 meeting would not result in any agreement that resembles a new Bretton Woods agreement or the gold standard.
"That's basically a 19th century device that was repackaged in Bretton Woods, where the dollar was linked to a physical gold price," said James Steel, chief commodity analyst at HSBC.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Dick Nixon. The gift that keeps on giving:
OSHA
Wage and Price Controls
Unified Budget (killing of Social Security)
EPA
Opening China for trade
A fake conservative if there ever was one.
I think what ever the “brightest and best” do gold will move.
"Unified Budget (killing of Social Security)"
The unified budget was adopted by LBJ, not Nixon, and was used until 1983 when social security was taken off budget with the primary idea of insulating it from more general budget balancing.
"EPA"
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the EPA. The conservative view is that people are inherently more important than the environment but that doesn't mean ignoring the environment. Blaming Nixon for what the leftists have done with the EPA is like blaming the Founding Fathers for what leftists have done with the judiciary.
"Opening China for trade"
That's right out of the conservative handbook.
Bretton Woods, the gold standard of ski trails; wide open, well groomed, with a beautiful hotel across the street.
No that's a Libertarian view.
Trade with commie countries is not a Conservative ideal.
Especially one that has killed more Americans post WWII than any other country either coming over the hills in Korea, or aiding, abetting and supplying the NVA in Vietnam.
Those Obama coins are good for decision making.
They always land on their edge. :-)
Nixon talked right, but ran left, and re-routed America to a different kind of “Slippery Slope”, (pun intended.)
You are aware of what distinguishes the libertarian and conservative philosophies, yes? Because it is definitely not their views on economics. There's a reason conservatives have no qualms referring to the CATO institute. And if you don't believe me, why don't you skip over to the Heritage Foundation and see what the conservative giants like the late Milton Friedman have to say about such things: http://www.heritage.org/
Conservative and libertarian think-tanks are both on the exact same page when it comes to economics. There is certainly a movement in the Pat Buchanan wing of the Republican party for isolationism, minimum wage hikes, agricultural subsidies, etc., but you can't tell me that this represents main stream or even traditional conservative philosophy, because it flatly doesn't. Those beliefs belong to socially conservative populist thinkers. Conservative economists, philosophers, think-tanks, etc., rarely if ever embrace them.
Trade with commie countries is not a Conservative ideal.
"Trade" is not emblematic of an ideal. Trading is mutually beneficial. And not trading is mutually detrimental. What is the point of not trading with China when it means that both countries are punished for their ideals? I mean, instead of us not trading with China because we don't like them, it just as well be China not trading with us because they don't like us. It is the exact same situation whether we try to punish them or they try to punish us.
If you really sincerely believe that there is moral obligation to deny your enemies benefit even when doing so is injurious to your own welfare, then I suggest you stop using gas, plastic, and any other petroleum derivative, because a goodly portion of every dollar you spend on that goes Islamic states, Venezuela, Russia, and even China.
Otherwise, you're being kind of a hypocrite.
Why do we favor trade with China over Iran and Cuba?
We cannot afford to return to gold at this time, we are too much in debt.
Yes, it’s ironic that Nixon has been villified by every liberal in the country for decades. What did he do? He made the opening to China, he passed a raft of liberal laws, he went off the gold standard, and, worst of all, he tried to end a war that was started by JFK and screwed up by LBJ.
If guess you just can’t win if you have an (R) after your name.
EPA - should not be a Federal issue, should be a States issue. Reality is that EPA is a monster, it didn't start out as one, but it is now.
China trade - why should they get MFN status and other countries that are not slave states, are not given MFN status?
SSI was jettisoned in ‘68 iirc. 40 years ago! Amazing.
Too, Nixon was tied on AU.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the EPA.
You are aware that this is a Conservative Forum where people believe in LIMITED Government aren't you?
If, instead, you simply don't think there should be any environmental or safety regulation at all, you could be brave enough to say that instead of pulling the "limited" government schtick. There's a fair difference between having very limited government oversight and having no government oversight at all.
Primarily because we haven't had a major diplomatic crisis with China since Nixon brokered them back in.
Iran's trade restrictions were born of the Iran hostage crisis, and Cuba's trade restrictions were born of the Cold War missile crisis. (although the present embargo is actually due to Castro's later expropriation of United States property)
That is a REALLY big claim to make. It is also devoid of any specifics or any supporting information.
EPA - should not be a Federal issue, should be a States issue.
That is kind of ridiculous. If Louisiana turns their state into an unbreathable cesspool, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi are going to be heavily effected. If Colorado dumps waste in the Rio Grade, pretty much the whole population of New Mexico is utterly screwed.
I would be only too happy to have states retain total sovereignty over any environmental issue that can be demonstrated to effect them and only them. I think they should be able to decide their own drinking water standards, for example. But, generally speaking, the environment crosses state lines, and is therefore a federal issue.
China trade - why should they get MFN status and other countries that are not slave states, are not given MFN status?
China and the United states are both members of the WTO, which means that they are required to grant each other MFN status. If you have an objection, it should be to letting China into the WTO, not in fulfilling our legal obligations.
As for that, the whole point was that in exchange they would clean up their act (and that trade openness would help to Westernize their people). To a degree, that has succeeded.
Also, MFN isn't exactly a big deal. The modern term is "Normal Trade Relations." All it means is that you won't be treated any worse than someone else with MFN status.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.