Thread: Каддафи хотел заменить доллар золотом

Сам я верю, что бомбардировка Ливии сделана глобальными банкирами. За чем Обама беспокоится? У него нет никаких оснований тревожиться. Он просто работает для своего верховного владыкы. Как вы думают об зтом?

Блог ИА Германа Стерлигова - Бомбежки Ливии – наказание Каддафи за попытку введения золотого динара.

Did Moscow decide to betray Col. Gaddafi in exchange for U.S. help against CE and Dokku Umarov? - Kavkazcenter.com

Каддафи хотел заменить доллар золотом - И JFK тоже...

I'd say - go rob the banks, people ))) Withdraw your savings and get gold instead. If we all do it, the tyranny would end.

Originally Posted by Ramil

If we all do it, the tyranny would end.

And the chaos would start.

I think we've already had a similar thread about Gadhafi and his golden dinar, haven't we?

Ramil, I'm still not sure why are you so focused on the golden currency? You can always purchase gold with your money and store it the same way you'd do with the golden coins. If you dislike the evil green paper, then just don't use it. What troubles you so much?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

And the chaos would start.

Things will settle down... eventually To the better end.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I think we've already had a similar thread about Gadhafi and his golden dinar, haven't we?

Ramil, I'm still not sure why are you so focused on the golden currency? You can always purchase gold with your money and store it the same way you'd do with the golden coins. If you dislike the evil green paper, then just don't use it. What troubles you so much?

I alone wouldn't matter much. Besides, they put VAT on the gold sale in Russia, didn't you know it? Banking interest - that's what we should put an end to.

1 barrel of oil today will be still a barrel of oil tomorrow, 1 J of Energy will be 1 J of Energy tomorrow, 1 gold piece will be 1 gold piece tomorrow, etc.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Things will settle down... eventually To the better end.

Yeah, right. As usual, better to some people and worse to the others. We've been through that a couple of times already. Thanks, but no.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I alone wouldn't matter much.

That's not true. If you set an example that works - others will follow. That's what the Internet is for.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Besides, they put VAT on the gold sale in Russia, didn't you know it?

You got me, I didn't. But, you know, we pay so much taxes here and there and everywhere for all kind of reasons, than I think another tax doesn't really matter in the big picture. You can think about it another way: the annual inflation in Russia is just below 10%, the VAT is 18%, so in two years it would already pay off and perhaps survive the sharp market changes and prospect devaluations. Also, I'm pretty sure there are some kind of mutual funds in Russia who purchase gold (or any other natural resources for that matter), so for those you probably won't pay the VAT. If you think Russian mutual funds are run by thieves, do it somewhere internationally (e.g. in Sweden, where there's allegedly no corruption and everything is fair and square). There are options.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Banking interest - that's what we should put an end to.

What would you do if you want to live in an apartment, but you don't have enough money to buy it? Rob the bank and end the tyranny of those who have the apartment right now?

Originally Posted by Ramil

1 barrel of oil today will be still a barrel of oil tomorrow, 1 J of Energy will be 1 J of Energy tomorrow, 1 gold piece will be 1 gold piece tomorrow, etc.

Yes and no. Obviously, with 1 J of energy you could do much much less some 250,000 years ago than you can today. Also, in the observable past (say in the past 40 years), with 1 J of energy you could produce much less comfort (=the value) than you can today. On the other hand, it was much more difficult to produce those Joules in the past than it is today. The value of a Joule significantly fluctuates over time. As to the oil and the gold, the truth is that the price of each and every resource goes down with time. Due to the famous bet Simon–Ehrlich wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that fact is almost indisputable today. So, by investing into gold you're actually going to lose money in the long run. Typically, the investment portfolios might include gold to balance (=to save) the investment from fluctuating too much, but in order to increase your investment and/or save it from the inflation, you'd have to have something else.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Yeah, right. As usual, better to some people and worse to the others. We've been through that a couple of times already. Thanks, but no.

You always put yourself on a 'losing side'... Why is that? Are you a banker?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

There are options.

I don't want any options but the collapse of the whole world's banking system. (mad evil laughter here)

Originally Posted by Crocodile

What would you do if you want to live in an apartment, but you don't have enough money to buy it? Rob the bank and end the tyranny of those who have the apartment right now?

Do you live in a cardbox?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Yes and no. Obviously, with 1 J of energy you could do much much less some 250,000 years ago than you can today. Also, in the observable past (say in the past 40 years), with 1 J of energy you could produce much less comfort (=the value) than you can today.

That's because I didn't know how. The amount of energy was the same and the potential work was there always. What concerns comfort then no, I think the opposite, we require more energy as we progress. There is even a way to estimate the level of development of the society by energy consumption per capita. Therefore if to make myself comfortable in the past I required X Joules of energy now I have to spend X + Y Joules to get the same comfort.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

On the other hand, it was much more difficult to produce those Joules in the past than it is today.

Now, that's true. Still, the initial cost of building a power plant is balanced out by the decreasing of the produced energy cost in total.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The value of a Joule significantly fluctuates over time.

I don't think so. If you measure everything in joules (not in US Dollars) then the nominal value will be the same. Quite probably, you can buy more bread tomorrow for 100 K Joules than you can do today, but that's not because a Joule would become more expensive, but because bread would become cheaper.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

So, by investing into gold you're actually going to lose money in the long run. Typically, the investment portfolios might include gold to balance (=to save) the investment from fluctuating too much, but in order to increase your investment and/or save it from the inflation, you'd have to have something else.

Again, you can't invest in gold if you have a gold-driven economy. That's pure nonsense. Invest what? Gold? You can, of course buy 1 ounce of gold for 1 ounce of gold, but what's the point of that? I cannot lose money in that case, because MONEY = GOLD. I don't propose investing in gold, I propose to switch from the 'floating value' of money equivalent to a 'fixed value' one, be that gold, joules, or glass beads.

Originally Posted by Ramil

You always put yourself on a 'losing side'... Why is that? Are you a banker?

Well, none of the "kulaks" who where executed were bankers. The logic of "why are you afraid if you hadn't done anything wrong" is a blue pill, by the way. (sad grim here)

Originally Posted by Ramil

Do you live in a cardbox?

You might be a young couple with a baby sharing a one-bedroom apartment with your parents and you want to move out into your own apartment. Not an uncommon situation.

Originally Posted by Ramil

That's because I didn't know how.

More specifically, because you didn't have the means (=the infrastructure) to use that Joule. That included the research for the infrastructure, the materials for building it, and the labour of the various types. All that combined created a cost. And the amount of comfort that Joule gives to you at a specific point in time creates its value for you at that very point.

Originally Posted by Ramil

The amount of energy was the same and the potential work was there always.

The Sun is out there. Screw the gold currency, I have the Sun always producing a lot of Joules!!!!!! Yay!!!

Originally Posted by Ramil

I don't think so. If you measure everything in joules (not in US Dollars) then the nominal value will be the same. Quite probably, you can buy more bread tomorrow for 100 K Joules than you can do today, but that's not because a Joule would become more expensive, but because bread would become cheaper.

I suggest throw away that strange idea of gold and start accumulating electrical energy in capacitors. Perhaps, we could use those Joules in the future with more comfort than now.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Again, you can't invest in gold if you have a gold-driven economy. That's pure nonsense. Invest what? Gold? You can, of course buy 1 ounce of gold for 1 ounce of gold, but what's the point of that? I cannot lose money in that case, because MONEY = GOLD. I don't propose investing in gold, I propose to switch from the 'floating value' of money equivalent to a 'fixed value' one, be that gold, joules, or glass beads.

Ok, I probably did my best to show you that doesn't make much sense, but probably I'm not all that convincing.

Originally Posted by sperk

Каддафи хотел заменить доллар золотом - И JFK тоже...

JFK didn't kill people. Nor did he get insane. Nor were there so many protesters against him.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

You might be a young couple with a baby sharing a one-bedroom apartment with your parents and you want to move out into your own apartment. Not an uncommon situation.

Прошу прощения, что влезаю не по теме. Крокодил, это за такие домики (как на фотках) люди отрабатывают долгие годы? Или эти фанерки дешевые?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

JFK didn't kill people. Nor did he get insane. Nor were there so many protesters against him.

According to the latest reports, the 'defenders of freedom and democracy' in Libya have already killed more than 700 civilians. Now, they were the martyrs for the cause, it appers.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

You might be a young couple with a baby sharing a one-bedroom apartment with your parents and you want to move out into your own apartment. Not an uncommon situation.

Now they come to the bank and willingly surrender themselves into a nearly life-long slavery. Well, dependance. How that will change if they go to the 'golden' bank, get 1000 gold pieces and then return the same 1000 gold pieces later?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

More specifically, because you didn't have the means (=the infrastructure) to use that Joule. That included the research for the infrastructure, the materials for building it, and the labour of the various types. All that combined created a cost. And the amount of comfort that Joule gives to you at a specific point in time creates its value for you at that very point.

I don't mind the added value when it is a real value and in an economy driven by a fixed currency you will find nothing against that... But. Let's continue your line of thought. The initial investments are done and the value is added and established. We put a price to this amount of comfort. Why the next day the cost of that same amount of comfort gets higher? No more value is added, after all. It's only money that got cheaper. Why is that?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I suggest throw away that strange idea of gold and start accumulating electrical energy in capacitors. Perhaps, we could use those Joules in the future with more comfort than now.

I wouldn't put too much smileys here, by the way. Using energy as a cost equivalent is a very promising theory.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ok, I probably did my best to show you that doesn't make much sense, but probably I'm not all that convincing.

I'll try to make this as simple as possible. Instead of depreciating the value of paper money let's depreciate the cost of goods and services money can buy and keep the money value unchanged. Thus we'll encourage people to create the real added value constantly. After all, money is a 'social agreement'. Why can't we amend that agreement a bit?

Originally Posted by BappaBa

Прошу прощения, что влезаю не по теме. Крокодил, это за такие домики (как на фотках) люди отрабатывают долгие годы? Или эти фанерки дешевые?

Ты имеешь в виду, что домики на Западе фанерные? Это действительно так, хотя они иногда и облицованы снаружи кирпичным слоем. Лично я их воспринимаю примерно как дачу за городом, а не как городское жильё - технология постройки та же. Наф-наф, короче. Вообще я не большой любитель домов и предпочитаю квартиру в городе, но большинству моих знакомых абсолютно по барабану, что домики картонные. Стоят - и прекрасно. Обычно, такие дома принято разваливать раз в 50 лет до бетонного основания и всё перестраивать заново. Разумеется, такие домики стоят недорого относительно квартир. Что касается отработки долгие годы, тут есть очень много тонкостей. Влезая в ипотеку, практически никто её не выплачивает до конца. Теория этого дела выглядит примерно так: надо где-то жить. Или снимать, или покупать. Люди получают месячную зарплату. Жильё растёт в цене примерно на 5-10% в год. Инфляция - 2-3% в год. Ипотека - 4-5% в год. Съём растёт соответственно инфляции - 2-3% в год. То есть, стоимость жилья с учётом инфляции и ипотечных процентов на долгий срок в теории фиксирована. Но при этом из-за того, что город растёт, быстрее дорожают те квартиры, что ближе к центру, а новые строятся дальше от центра. Поэтому, купив квартиру в городе, и переежая каждые пять лет в новое более дешёвое жильё ты можешь использовать те деньги, что ты уже выплатил в тело кредита плюс разницу в цене для того, чтобы или быстрее выплатить ипотеку, или для того, чтобы купить жильё большей площади. Практика показывает, что ипотека выплачивается таким способом лет за 15. Но большинство поддаётся искушению иметь лучшее жильё за те же месячные выплаты. Соответственно, ипотека выплачивается очень редко, что создаёт иллюзию того, что всю жизнь вкалываешь на жильё.

При этом в своей квартире можно сделать ремонт, а в съёмной это бессмысленно, и к тому же качество здания и его обслуживания сильно разнится в пользу собственного жилья.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Now they come to the bank and willingly surrender themselves into a nearly life-long slavery. Well, dependance. How that will change if they go to the 'golden' bank, get 1000 gold pieces and then return the same 1000 gold pieces later?

Because, there is no incentive for the bank to do that otherwise. The bank does not magically have money, it gets the money from people promising them a return, gives the very same to the young couple for the higher return, and keeps the difference for itself. So, the investors have the incentive to make money, the bank has the incentive to make money, and the young couple owes all that money to the people and the bank, but gets their apartment and have a place to live.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I don't mind the added value when it is a real value and in an economy driven by a fixed currency you will find nothing against that... But. Let's continue your line of thought. The initial investments are done and the value is added and established. We put a price to this amount of comfort. Why the next day the cost of that same amount of comfort gets higher? No more value is added, after all. It's only money that got cheaper. Why is that?

The long story short, it came from the way the previous aristocrats used to pay for all the goods and service in the cities: the beautiful ball dresses, the high-end wine cellars etc. They paid with what was called а "promissory note" (вексель) which specified an obligation payment but could not be produced immediately because the crop haven't yet grown on the fields which belonged to that aristocrat and wasn't yet sold on the market, therefore that note was just a promise to pay. Due to the fact that the aristocrat's daughter need the ball dress by the next Saturday and couldn't wait until the crop will be sold next year the aristocrats needed to present some kind of incentive to those who tailored the dress, so they said "please wait a couple of months and you'll get a bigger amount of the legal tender than you ask for it". The dress-makers agreed to wait. That what is known today as the interest (=the incentive). Back to our aristocrat, the several months had passed, but the amount of crop was still not sufficient to cover for the dress. But the dress-maker needs to pay the workers right now. So he goes to another guy with money and says: "here's a promise note I got from that aristocrat; I would agree if you pay me less money (sic! -> inflation!) than he promised, but I need that money right now; however, once the aristocrat has enough crop to sell, you will get more money than you give me, because you'll earn the interest from the aristocrat and the inflation difference from me". So, those guys with money also have strong incentives to collect the aristocrat notes for long time, and then come to them with the demand to pay right now. So, if the aristocrat was lucky enough to pay those notes at the years of good crop yield he would be ok, otherwise he would have to give up some of his property, typically a village or two to cover for his promises. So, later on the entire governments did the same thing: they need weapons right now or they would loose the power, so they issue their promising notes to pay for the weapon once they win the war and get their adversaries' property. At that point, the legal tender could be whatever, it didn't really matter - the more golden the better. However, it was quickly discovered that when the government needs the legal tender the most - during the war - the population becomes afraid that something will not work out right and they start saving and not spending (=hoarding) their legal golden tender, so the amount of legal tender in the country becomes less and less creating an unhealthy demand for the tender and thus raising its value above what it's actually worth. So those who use the services of the people - the government becomes paralyzed money-wise - it can't pay those in service in legal tender because it's scarce and very expensive for the government to produce. So, at that point the governments started to issue the promising notes (=the State Bank notes) directly to the people in promise to pay them more once they have the money. But if one person (the money guy) gets that 'government promise' from another guy (the dress-maker) even for the real goods and services it's still just a promise so it has less value as soon as it changes hands. And what is the government promise exactly? In addition to the crop grown in the government fields, that is someone in our country would always agree to give you some goods or some services in exchange for those 'promise notes' and bring you the same value you spent giving up your goods and services. On the other hand, how real that promise actually is? If I borrow $10 from you and say I'll give you $15 in return you might believe me because I'm your government and you have no choice, but if I ask to borrow $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and promise to return $150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 you can ask a very legitimate question - where would those $50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 come from? So, if you see the economy is good, people are working (=producing lots of goods and services) you can believe that government and otherwise (just to be on the safer side) you would demand MORE 'promising notes' in exchange for your goods and services just in case some of those promises wouldn't work out. That is another source of inflation. Moving those considerations into the international arena (because some dress-makers are just better than the others) creates a very complex system with the interest and the inflation in the heart of it. I hope I answered your question. Phew!

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ramil, I'm still not sure why are you so focused on the golden currency?

Well the fact that the dollar is the commonly held reserve, and that it is the currency for oil transactions is clearly the cause for A LOT of ongoing problems and wars in the world. It is a system that unfairly benefits the US, and the US is prepared to go to war to defend it. However if gold was the commonly held reserve and US dollar just a normal currency, then these problems might not exist! I agree with Ramil - people should use gold instead of dollar.

Or even better, something totally neutral, like energy or something virtual.

But a global currency.... Do we dare it?

Originally Posted by The Bible, Apocalypse

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six." (Revelation 13:16-18 KJV)

Originally Posted by Hanna

However if gold was the commonly held reserve and US dollar just a normal currency, then these problems might not exist!

Suppose you're right. So, I think if a golden dinar becomes the currency for oil transactions it would create the exact same problems and cause LOT of other problems and wars in the world. You see, when you hear the unintelligent slogan that "the golden currency favours no country" - that needs additional explanation. Say, you have a golden dinar, what country would produce it? All countries? How? At what exchange rate? According to the price of raw gold at that time? But the price of raw gold would skyrocket as a result of that process, wouldn't it? Then how? At the price of oil at that point? Could you imaging what the "futures" contracts might look like if that happens? So, I'm not sure you thought that through.

The switch to the golden currency worldwide would favour those who save and not those who spend effectively slowing down the world economy. Think about that when you have a chance. The British Empire used golden currency as long as they had their colonies: the colonies produced and the Britain consumed at the unfair price (they only produced the coins, nothing more significant), and that was just the means to control the producing colonies. And that's why the colonies rushed into the independence and created their own national currencies.

The golden dinar (if created) would be a very strong way for the resource-exporting countries to control the goods-producing countries. Could you even imagine the scale of the military conflicts that situation would cause?!

Originally Posted by Eric C.

JFK didn't kill people. Nor did he get insane. Nor were there so many protesters against him.

I do not think that is what Sperk said. JFK signed an order that would basically end the Federal Reserve's monopoly of money. He was shot soon after. The JFK's order was immediately reversed by Johnson after he was dead. Coincidence? I don't think so. Two other presidents were shot who did similar things and another they tried but failed to kill. That was Jackson.

If you don't stop this, I'll become a believer in conspiracy theories very soon....

Ok, I am pretty sure Eric C. is not a native speaker of English now. Previously I just thought he was young and not good at grammar. C'mon Eric, what's the big secret? Nobody else has a problem revealing their nationality. It's more easy to understand and sympathise with your views if we know what historical context they are from.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The long story short,

That's your idea of short?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I hope I answered your question. Phew!

Croc, I would hate to disappoint you, but that really was a rhetorical question. (trollface). Thanks for the story anyway, thought it's a bit naive and incorrect, but it describes the main things pretty well.

Now, I'll try to cover what's missing in your story.

You were right when you said that people started to use promissory notes as the prototype of paper money. You were right when you covered where inflation comes from.
Everything is correct, but just one thing. The situation you've described has nothing to do with the principles the modern banking system works on). Before the middle of XX century, the powers used paper money simply because they were more convenient than carrying a heavy bag of gold with you, BUT if you really needed, you could ALWAYS exchange your paper money for a FIXED amount of gold (or any other value which was used to secure the paper). This was stamped on any banknote of every state. That stood for reason and helped to avoid the inflation.

Even in your story, every paper (or legal obligation) used for a payment was backed up with something. Something fixed. That tailor knew exactly what was the price for that dress and when he exchanged that paper for gold coins he willingly accepted the discount. It was his choice. Feel the difference with the present situation - money are just paper and nobody guarantees you that tomorrow they will be worth something useful.
When I say about golden currency I don't actually suggest that people deal again with real golden coins and/or bars. You can still use paper or even electronic money, but they must have a FIXED value. FIXED, something that cannot be changed in time and there must be a free acceptance of the discount. If the market situation changes, it's not money which should be depreciated, but goods and services instead. That's the idea.

P.S. And a final side note - in Middle Ages, usury was considered morally wrong, it was a state crime as well as a religious sin.

Ramil you are talking about Bretton Woods, right? And how the US started having money that was backed up by NOTHING.... And then others started following suit. Surely Crocodile knows about this! I can't believe how anyone could think it's a good idea for one country to be able to run the rest of the world off it's own currency, which additionally is backed by nothing, allowing them to create more value out of thin air, simply by printing more money.
Unless you are a citizen of that country, of course.