I am reposting a response I made in another thread and expanding it. People don't appreciate what it would mean to "go to a gold standard" per H.R.2435. The idea is that it doesn't matter how much money there is, they can set the ratio of gold to dollar at whatever they want. "However much there is in present day dollars. It doesn't matter."
That's the first problem, so let's look at that:
How Much Is Gold Worth
According to the official narrative, there are about 8,133 metric tons of gold in U.S. reserves. I doubt that is true, I think it has been mostly moved into private bankers hands, but we'll go with it. There are 32,150 troy oz. per metric ton. That means there are, in reserve:
8133 metric tons times 32150 troy oz/metric ton ~ 261 million troy oz.
As for the total money that exists, the official number (not that I trust it, but we'll go with it) is between 40 trillion (narrow money), 90 trillion (broad money) or 1.3 quadrillion (derivatives, investments, etc.). With the amount of naked short selling, I wouldn't be surprised if you could double or triple that, so upwards of 4 quadrillion.
Putting this into perspective, we get one U.S. gold backed dollar is equal to:
- narrow money: 6.5e-6 oz
- broad money: 2.91e-6 oz
- derivatives: 2.01e-7 oz
- short sales: 6.5e-8 oz
These numbers don't mean much, so let me try to put it into something that makes a little more sense. Here is a picture of 1g of gold. It's not the best picture since it doesn't show the whole hand, but it shows that it isn't very much. Carrying that around, it would be pretty darn easy to lose it. But let me give you an idea of what one U.S. gold backed dollar would look like:
- narrow money: 1/5000 of a gram
- broad money: 1/11,000 of a gram
- derivatives: 1/160,000 of a gram
- short sales: 1/500,000 of a gram
Even with narrow money, think about dividing that gram picture into 5000 parts, then try to find it in your pocket. With short sales, divide it into half a million parts. It's almost easier to start measuring dollars in atoms of gold.
That 1g sells for about $130. This suggests it should be worth between $5000 and $500,000 if we were to move to a "gold standard" as things stand today.
For reference, that translates to between $150,000 and $15,000,000 per troy oz in today's money.
Now on to the next problem. The dollars that exist aren't money, they are debt. If we go to a "gold standard" there will still be all the debt, and the interest on that debt, that belongs to Megabank. If we move to a "gold standard," all that debt either needs to be paid off, or needs to be wiped out. But where does all the money reside?
Where's The Money
If we just look at narrow money (bank accounts, bank notes, etc.) that's the stuff that people have "on hand" (not really, because it's mostly in the fractional reserve shenanigans, but close enough). But who has the most money in bank accounts? According to this, the median bank account in America (in 2019) was about $5000, and the average was $42,000. That is a HUGE discrepancy, which means that the people with all the money have far more than the average person. The people with all the money are, in general, the Aristocracy AKA the Cabal. If we use the median this amounts to about $1.7 trillion (5000 times 330M people in America). Most of the rest of that $40T of narrow money lies in the hands of the very rich.
However, if we look at derivatives (not to mention naked short selling money) ALL of that money is in the hands of Megacorp.
So no matter how you divide it, as things stand today, the gold goes into the hands of the same people that rule the world right now.
Paying Off The Debt
If we don't wipe out all debt, then all those debts need to be paid off. But money is debt. Money comes to be when a debt is created. That's what "printing" money means. A loan is taken out, in one column a credit is given. This is money. In the other column a debt is created.
Money = Debt
BUT, that's not what really happens. A debt is paid back at interest.
Money + Interest = Debt
So all the DEBT in the world is equal to all the money PLUS all of the interest it has accrued, i.e. there is more debt than there is money. The debt can't be paid off. So all of that gold will eventually end up in the hands of the PTB, PLUS we will remain debt slaves forever.
With the current financial system, no matter how you slice it, all the power remains exactly where it is if we move into a "gold standard."
The system must fail. There is no other choice.
No, these are two different problems.
A set standard intermediate of exchange of barter is, from the perspective of security, what's called a vulnerability. It has been, and I suggest must lead to manipulation. The simplest manipulation, and one that can't be stopped in a "free market" that isn't an actual free market (barter system) is hording.
ALL fuckery, prior to fractional reserve lending, throughout all of history, was caused by hording. For example, the fall of the Western Roman Empire is attributed to the hording of silver (accomplished through a short sale on land, which gathered all the silver into one groups pocket). This will happen with any set intermediary that is relied on by an economy.
I'm not sure you fully understood what I said. I'm not sure I can say it better, so perhaps reread it? At the least, you are thinking far too small and/or contriving problems that do not exist in what I have proposed.
Arguments about how "stupid people are" are not very good ones. People are a lot smarter than "those in the know" give them credit for. They have been brainwashed, they aren't stupid. Seniors can figure out barter just fine, don't you worry none. The one constant in society, is that people do what they need to do.
Considering that the reality of what we have now is just about the most complicated economic system that can possibly be contrived, I suggest this is not a problem.
Ask anyone in product development or product design. IF the user has too many decisions to make.
They will not like the solution. The dollar sucks. But it is easy to use.
Whatever replaces it needs to be just as easy.
It has, in the past, been my job to create user interfaces. I am well aware of the pitfalls of "too many choices." However, the details of a system don't have to be understood by all if the basics are sufficient to be usable out the gate. Barter is not a complicated system. A system could be built to aid in barter. In fact, I have quite a few ideas on how to accomplish that.
Obviously I haven't impressed upon you the reality of our monetary history. I mean, I haven't really tried. I'm writing a book that will almost certainly end up being over a thousand pages when I'm done. Here is the start. Don't let the "thousand pages" intimidate you. The first part (what I have out right now) isn't too much, and I've been told it's a pretty easy read.
Every single piece of evidence suggests that "the dollar" (or any standard intermediary of exchange for barter) that we rely on WILL lead to the downfall of any civilization. The entire concept is a fraud, and ripe for abuse. Please at least start on the beginning of my book to get a glimpse of the case I will be making to justify that statement.
You seem to be a smart guy no doubt. My point still stands.
If I want to buy green tea for 2 bucks. It has to be super simple to buy.
Since you are talking about monetary history. Than I assume you understand both "Micro" and "Macro" economic realities.
What is economics?
A major part of it is the study of decisions people make with limited resources.
One of the major parts of this is "Tradeoffs".
You are correct... the dollar has become a fraud medium of exchange. That's due to the fact that federal reserve is allowed to loan fictional money out of thin air.
If we got to another system and we are presented with
Human beings could be sold into accepting option 2. The ease of use is a "trade off" that the majority is wiling to make.
It's kind of like getting in a car. There is a risk of death.
But we accept the trade-off of taking that risk because we get to our destination quicker.
I agree with what you are saying.
It just will depend on what trade-offs the masses are willing to make.
Typically to make something more secure which is higher quality.
More thought process and red tape would be added to get that extra security. Nothing is free.
First, economics as it is taught is completely fraudulent. It was designed specifically by numerous agents of The Trust (Smith, Marx, and, from the 20th century onwards, agents directed by Rockefeller) to create the mess we have today. That isn't really an argument however, merely a statement of fact that I suggest provides important context. In other words, it is essential to question "what we know" about economics.
Economics is the study of what drives decisions, generally as it applies to the management of life (domestic) affairs, but it really can apply to any decision making process. The "limited resources" stuff isn't necessarily applicable. Not that I suggest throwing out the idea, but we worry about it more than we need to (that's a larger argument than I want to discuss right now). In the case of this particular discussion (which system we adopt as a user interface for standard social economics), It doesn't apply at all.
Your suggestions presume that the benefits of learning won't be seen as worth the cost in time it takes to learn it.
It also assumes that it will be necessarily harder to use than what exists now.
I will start with the first assumption and work my way into the second.
Imagine that everyone is shown the real travesties that have occurred in the past with the monetary system proposed in your "system 2". What if they see that that system was created specifically to rule the world, and that adopting it necessitates future fraud, because it is built into the system itself? What if people see that the system was designed by a group of people several thousand years ago, and that that exact same group of people still rules the world today by that system? What if they see that if they do not change systems, it will happen again? What if they see that there are simple entries into your "system 1"? In fact, system 1 is a Free Market.
If any one individual wants to deal only in gold, or only in silver, or whatever, they can use that medium to their hearts content. The point is to create and present a system that encourages and allows for a broader adoption of barter. It doesn't necessitate anything. It's a Free Market.
Free means free.
A Free Market that requires (or even strongly encourages) a specific intermediary for barter is not Free. THAT is how the fraud is perpetuated.
It is tough to imagine a Free Market. We've never had one. I've been imagining it for almost two years now, and studying what came before to try to appreciate it; studying the laws that got us here, why those laws were created, and how they perpetuate the fraud. A truly Free Market is the only way. You can not have a Free Market unless that Market is a system of Barter at it's core.
Assuming all of those statements (masquerading as questions) are true, would people be motivated to adapt to a system of barter?
I suggest the economics of that decision are simple to figure out.
I'll repeat again.
What ever the system we go to.
It has to be as simple as using dollars. IF someone has to become any form of financial analysis just to buy a cup of coffee.
No one is going to do it.