Originally posted by rogermexico
View Post
Think of the reason money printing will stop working. What does it mean to say the government will be "looking for money" when they can print a literally infinite amount of it at will. They will not be looking for "money" they will be looking for something to back new money to stop the crash in dollars and UST that is cause by having too much "money" and claims on the wealth of the USA - credit in the form of UST as well as dollars. If all the government needs is "money", then what advantage is there to prying money out of hands when the printing press can make as many dollars as they want? They have not needed taxes for any of the trillions in bailout funds so far.
If there is no gold backing of a new dollar, then you must be proposing that they would steal or tax gold and then sell it for dollars. But as I just said, they can already print all the dollars they want. If there is backing for a new dollar, it will be because they already "have" too many dollars and too much credit issued and this is crashing the dollar's exchange value internationally. In such a situation, they have no need for "dollars" at all, they need to make a new dollar by backing it with gold. So under scenario 1 where there is no gold backing, they have no need to acquire dollars specifically by appropriating gold, and under scenario 2, they need only gold and not dollars
Again, the government has a million ways to "get money" that would be higher yield and easier than taxing gold ( for one thing, a tax requires the sale of the asset which naturally discourages realization of the tax - hardly efficient) and I would suggest forcing IRAs into UST or instituting a wealth tax (suggestion in England just recently actually) would get a lot more money than forcing gold to be hoarded and having to knock on doors or patiently wait for it to be sold. A windfall profits tax would be the lest effective way to extract either fiat dollars or gold itself from private hands. I think your narrative is clinging to the "gold is the enemy and always will be anathema to the evil fiat promoters" meme - this is a goldbug theme and is flawed as it assumes that gold can become the new money under a new gold window and that it makes sense to vilify gold at the same time. I claim this makes no sense, as gold will not become the new money unless evil fiat promoters stop seeing it as evil and promoting it as evil.
The 1%ers are 1% of the population and it is not dangerous to attack them. The 1%ers are the elite and know how to avoid attack. Which of these is it? And WHY will they be demonized? I have never heard a goldbug explanation for this. I understand why they might be demonized NOW in a fiat regime that is still printing, or in 1933 when we are under a gold standard and need to deflate. But why, when the government has transitioned to a desire to stabilize the dollar and assure people that it is a safe store of value would the government demonize gold or the few who hold it? What would be the purpose of this? Just to be mean to gold holders?
Yes, the government has proved to be so efficacious at manipulating the price of gold. That's why it gone from $270 to $1770 in 10 years. I don't find that scenario convincing, but I guess we will see. It would be clever even as it would not be very effective in acquiring gold. Also, once the decision has been made, USG will want he price of gold in dollars to be as high as possible. As I've said, I think the peg must be higher than the current market price of gold by some amount. What would be the purpose in doing something to depress the gold price right before the window opens if that means our gold is worth less in terms of dollars and any extant debt. Are you suggesting USG would want the dollar price of gold to be lower than otherwise, or that they will not have thought about it carefully enough, and beating up on gold owners will somehow be more important?
This is true, in a sense, but it contradicts most of your other arguments here about how badly the government "needs money". Why go to such effort to get money via taxes on gold owners when more valuable gold (as backing for the new money) is left on the table that could easily be acquired in the win/win fashion that I have proposed?
The crux of my argument, at least understanding it, is to see the state change - like from ice to water - that must occur for gold to be remonetized internationally. It has huge ramifications and it's hard to wrap your head around. I am only hypothesizing on one aspect of it and how it will affect gold holders. There are lots of other interesting implications.
If there is no gold backing of a new dollar, then you must be proposing that they would steal or tax gold and then sell it for dollars. But as I just said, they can already print all the dollars they want. If there is backing for a new dollar, it will be because they already "have" too many dollars and too much credit issued and this is crashing the dollar's exchange value internationally. In such a situation, they have no need for "dollars" at all, they need to make a new dollar by backing it with gold. So under scenario 1 where there is no gold backing, they have no need to acquire dollars specifically by appropriating gold, and under scenario 2, they need only gold and not dollars
Again, the government has a million ways to "get money" that would be higher yield and easier than taxing gold ( for one thing, a tax requires the sale of the asset which naturally discourages realization of the tax - hardly efficient) and I would suggest forcing IRAs into UST or instituting a wealth tax (suggestion in England just recently actually) would get a lot more money than forcing gold to be hoarded and having to knock on doors or patiently wait for it to be sold. A windfall profits tax would be the lest effective way to extract either fiat dollars or gold itself from private hands. I think your narrative is clinging to the "gold is the enemy and always will be anathema to the evil fiat promoters" meme - this is a goldbug theme and is flawed as it assumes that gold can become the new money under a new gold window and that it makes sense to vilify gold at the same time. I claim this makes no sense, as gold will not become the new money unless evil fiat promoters stop seeing it as evil and promoting it as evil.
The 1%ers are 1% of the population and it is not dangerous to attack them. The 1%ers are the elite and know how to avoid attack. Which of these is it? And WHY will they be demonized? I have never heard a goldbug explanation for this. I understand why they might be demonized NOW in a fiat regime that is still printing, or in 1933 when we are under a gold standard and need to deflate. But why, when the government has transitioned to a desire to stabilize the dollar and assure people that it is a safe store of value would the government demonize gold or the few who hold it? What would be the purpose of this? Just to be mean to gold holders?
Yes, the government has proved to be so efficacious at manipulating the price of gold. That's why it gone from $270 to $1770 in 10 years. I don't find that scenario convincing, but I guess we will see. It would be clever even as it would not be very effective in acquiring gold. Also, once the decision has been made, USG will want he price of gold in dollars to be as high as possible. As I've said, I think the peg must be higher than the current market price of gold by some amount. What would be the purpose in doing something to depress the gold price right before the window opens if that means our gold is worth less in terms of dollars and any extant debt. Are you suggesting USG would want the dollar price of gold to be lower than otherwise, or that they will not have thought about it carefully enough, and beating up on gold owners will somehow be more important?
This is true, in a sense, but it contradicts most of your other arguments here about how badly the government "needs money". Why go to such effort to get money via taxes on gold owners when more valuable gold (as backing for the new money) is left on the table that could easily be acquired in the win/win fashion that I have proposed?
The crux of my argument, at least understanding it, is to see the state change - like from ice to water - that must occur for gold to be remonetized internationally. It has huge ramifications and it's hard to wrap your head around. I am only hypothesizing on one aspect of it and how it will affect gold holders. There are lots of other interesting implications.
"The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative."
-- Winston Churchill
Leave a comment: