2011 – The year when money starts to die

http://www.financeandeconomics.org/ ^ | Alasdair Macleod

[dollarbull]

Between 1716 and 1720, John Law tried to rescue the French government from bankruptcy with a scheme that came to be called “The Mississippi Bubble”. His strategy was to set up two entities: a bank whose purpose was to issue paper money, and a company whose primary but undeclared function was to refinance government debt. Law realised that he had to confiscate all gold and silver other than smaller quantities, and force French citizens to pay their taxes and buy shares in the Mississippi Company, only with the bank’s newly issued notes. These were the three essential elements of his scheme.[i]

This is precisely what central banks in the US, Europe, Japan and the UK are doing today. They are rigging the markets by buying government debt at artificially high prices with freshly created paper money, having previously excluded gold and silver from any role as legal tender. The following quote from John Law, could equally be attributed to a central banker of today: “An abundance of money which would lower the interest rate to two per cent would, in reducing the financing costs of the debts and public offices etc. relieve the King.” This is quantitative easing, pure and simple, and John Law had fully anticipated modern central banking. Law’s scheme ended in disaster and as a precedent for today’s central banking this should worry us greatly.

[truthfreedom]

The first person to put on gold jewelry did not think “if I wear this, people will think I’m rich”.

For many years, gold has tied in with wealth, but not long long ago.

You do realize I’m pro Gold?

[Atlas Sneezed]

The first person to put on gold jewelry did not think “if I wear this, people will think I’m rich”.

---

Why do you say that? Ever heard of monarchs? (The only ones who used to be able to have gold until people took charge).

[Chickensoup]

You bring a third person into the mix

[fr_freak]

My only question is that of what personal experience or status of yours makes you so hostile to those who propose or defend the prudent use of precious metals for certain limited purposes?

You see, this is why I can't take you seriously. I defy you to go through this thread and find where I showed any hostility toward people who buy gold. You are overreacting to the extreme. I made a simple point about food being more valuable than gold and you act like I just called your mother a whore or something. It's ridiculous.

[truthfreedom]

5000 years ago. the first people to do it.

Before there were monarchs.

[fr_freak]

Keep in mind that the United States and Europe (the two sectors in deep doo doo over socialist policies) are only 1/3 of the world. China and India are not facing the same problems. So... there will be gold and bread available... There is no deserted island...

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I strongly suspect that if China could have let us go down in flames without destroying themselves, they would have done so by now, because, as owners of our debt, they certainly have the power. That they haven't suggests that if we go down, they go down. Be that as it may, gold is like any other currency - it only has value as long as people have faith that it has value. As soon as people decide that resources they have are more valuable than gold, then gold becomes just a hunk of metal. I think where the disconnect is here is some people are viewing the upcoming pain as merely a depression, where others view it as a potential end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it, Mad Max-type apocalypse. I suppose one's view on the ultimate value of gold stems mostly from that viewpoint.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I defy you to go through this thread and find where I showed any hostility toward people who buy gold.

---

I think your defensiveness to against those who pointed out the absurdity of your “Gilligan” scenario as your only evidence to support the dubious notion that gold has not been valuable at some particular time in history is a start.

Your citing of the Gilligan lyrics in your defense was laughable.

When you doth protest too much against reasonable, plausible, and correct statements, trying to nit-pick an irrelevant disagreement, you are “hostile.”

WHY?

[fr_freak]

Your citing of the Gilligan lyrics in your defense was laughable.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Seriously, you're just pulling my leg, right? You honestly can't recognize a joke when you see one? You genuinely thought I was "citing lyrics" in my defense? You're hopeless.

[arthurus]

That IF ain’t gonna happen.

[Atlas Sneezed]

You ONLY defense was the joke.