socred

Perhaps you want to revert to the Dark Ages? I do not. There is not enough gold in existence to carry on trade in a modern economy, and reverting to a gold standard does not prevent inflation, as the Spanish and those who lived in areas of the "gold rush" in North America can testify. Money is backed by the same thing it's always been backed: the ability of the community to deliver goods and services when and where they are needed (i.e. the real credit of the community). This is the backing of all money, whether that money be made of gold, silver, cowrie shells, paper or electronic blips. Money is useless without goods and services to purchase. Goods and services are what "backs" money. The more goods and services that you can purchase with your money, the more "value" it has. Money's value is inversly proportional to prices. You're now going to pay the bank to keep your money? Instead of the bank paying interest on your deposit as they do now, you're going to have to pay the bank for keeping your deposit? Yes, and a very impractical one. Not only would this slow economic growth unnecessarily, it would create two, or more, cost for the same income that has the ability to only cancel one. You obviously did not read what Douglas stated: "The essence of the fraud is the claim that the money that they create is their own money, and the fraud differs in no respect in quality but only in its far greater magnitude, from the fraud of counterfeiting. At the instigation of the banking system, barbarously severe penalties are imposed upon the counterfeiter of a ten-shilling note, but a peerage is conferred upon the counterfeiter by banking methods of sums running into hundreds of millions. May I make this point clear beyond all doubt? It is the claim to the ownership of money which is the core of the matter. Any person or any organization who can create practically at will sums of money equivalent to the price values of all the goods produced by the community is the virtual owner of those goods, and, therefore, the claim of the banking system to the ownership of the money which it creates is a claim to the ownership of the country." The credit of the community belongs to the community. Not to the banks, not to the producers of gold, not to the state...... It belongs to all of us as individuals.

This is the confusion of thought that I'm referring to by those who advocate a gold standard. You contradict yourself in the two bolded sentences. First you agree that if the only money in the world was gold, the whole economy would collapse. Then you say that banks shouldn't be allowed to create money. If banks were unable to create money, the banking system would collapse. The monetary system would collapse, and the economy would collapse. Are you advocating 100% reserve banking? You claim that the banks don't buy your gold, but merely are "safekeeping it". These are semantics, since in fact they have exchanged your gold for bills which are subsequently used as money. Since people wouldn't actually exchange gold, but bills, the gold would always be at the bank, and "paper currency" would circulate. This of course would force businesses to pay their bills with currency, meaning they'd have to go to their supplier with millions of dollars and have them count it out. Or do you forsee the use of cheques? Banks would be unable to loan money, because of the 100% reserve ratio, which would force them out of business. How would banks make a profit? Businesses and individuals would be unable to loan money from banks, so they would have to come up with the money themselves, or try to borrow it from others. Credit cards would cease to exist, so we'd have to have the cash on us now in order to pay any bills. Anything else you'd like to add?

Just like the white apartheids, who in order to maintain the "white character" of their nation, suppressed the blacks.

Really? All Scots are Christians? Are all Christians Scots? Are all Jews Semites? Can all Jews claim citizenship in Israel through their right of return law? What's a Jew?

Again, this is typical of the confusion of thought by those who advocate a gold standard. MOST MONEY (APPROXIMATELY 90%) IS BANK CREDIT. BANK CREDIT IS NOT ENFORCED IN TRADE BY THE GOVERNMENT. BANK CREDIT DEVELOPED AS A SOURCE OF MONEY INDEPENDENT OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND IS USED IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF TRADE.

The electronic blip because it's more portable. You're assuming a collapse of the monetary system and a return to barter. If that was the case, and all money was useless, then I'd rather have the food than the gold. \ I want you to explain to me in detail what you're talking about here. First you say a bank does not buy your gold, it "safeguards it", which means that gold is actually used in exchange, then you say that the bank issues notes against that gold, which means it has now purchased your gold in exchange for notes, even though those notes can be used to buy back that gold. I want you to explain to me exactly how this gold standard works, for I cannot comment on something that I'm uncertain of its mechanism. I'm referring to the gold standard that was in play prior to its dissolution, but you seem to have something different in mind, so why don't you explain it, and I will comment. I have yet to find one of its supporters who clearly understands it. Mosly because they are unclear as to how banks create money even in a gold standard. Once the fact is pointed out that banks still create the majority of money in a gold standard, and that money is just an "electronic blip" even in a gold standard, they either don't know how to respond, or come up with ludicrous suggestions of 100% reserve banking, which would collapse the entire economy for lack of money. It's based upon the real credit of the community, which is the only "stable" thing it can be based upon: the ability of the community to deliver goods and services where and when they are required. Money is "based" on nothing else. This is why I keep pointing out that gold is worthless if there's no food to eat. The "basis" of money is the food, shelter, clothing, luxury goods..... that the community is able to produce. Money is just a means of facilitating production and consumption. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. All money is created as debt, including cash and coin which are put into circulation through government open market operations, or commercial banks borrowing from the central bank. There never was a "gold standard" that you are talking about since the Middle Ages. Since the advent of fractional reserve banking, the majority of money has always been an entry in a leger, or an "electronic blip" since the use of computers. Even the "gold" itself was merely pieces of paper that supposedly represented a certain amount of gold. People did not actually exchange gold, they exchanged pieces of paper and "electronic blips". The confidence is not on debt, the confidence is placed in the ability of the community to produce. And that is all the confidence that people can have in money. Without production, the money is valueless no matter what its made of. All the gold in the world will do you absolutely no good without food to eat, clothes to wear and shelter to protect you. Money has no intrinsic value (unless you're a collector of money). Money has no value except as a means to obtaining things that have value (i.e. food, shelter, clothing, luxury goods, services etc....). These are the things that people want and value. Money is just a MEANS of obtaining them. Money exists because it is more efficient than barter. Unfortunately, people confuse the role of money, and this is why things like the gold standard are advocated. The value of money is not intrinsic!!!!! I can obtain more for my dollar than the cost of the ink and the paper. The cost to produce a dollar is probably pennies, the amount that it can purchase is far more than that. It's "value" is what it can purchase, because money has no other use than purchasing goods and services. You don't eat money, you don't wear it. I'll give you all the gold in the world, if I can have all the food, shelter and clothing. We'll soon see who comes to whom in order to live! And which you actually "value"???

You contradict yourself here. First you say that its value is dependent on "what it is" (i.e. its composition), then you say its purchasing power (value) is dependent on it as a "medium of exchange and its availability" (not sure how the latter plays into it). Money's value is not determined by its composition, and credits which are electronic blips on a computer do posess value (ask anyone who uses them to purchase goods and services). Until this confusion of thought is cleared, we cannot continue. The value of a nickel is not determined by the world price of nickel (although if the value of the nickel as nickel exceeds its value as money, people may start to melt them and sell them as raw nickel, which is the case with pennies, where their value as copper is worth more than their value as money). The value of money is inversly proportional to prices, which determine how much that money can purchase. That is why a dollar's value decreases with inflation. Money itself never guarantees confidence in future exchange. Gold or any other commodity does not guarantee this either. Confidence in future exchange is determined by the real credit of the community, which is the ability of the community to deliver goods and services when and where they are required. People have confidence in the community in which they live to deliver goods and services at the date at which they choose to spend their money. The faith is not in the money itself, it is in the productive system, and that is where the "faith in money" derives. That and the faith that people will accept the money in exchange for goods and services. What people value is not money itself, and this is the mistake of many who believe in a gold, or any other commodity, standard. People don't value money because of its composition. Gold is worthless if there's no food to eat. They value money because of its ability to use it to purchase things they value. Money is just a means to facilitate trade, because it makes trade infinitely easier than barter. In a barter economy, if I have a TV and want fish, I have to find someone who is selling fish who also wants a TV; whereas in a monetary economy, we both exchange money, I sell the TV for money, buy fish, and the fish owner buys what he wants. Without the banking system we'd revert to a barter economy, and would have the standard of living equivalent to the stone age. And the banks soon learned that all the people never demanded their gold at the same time, but merely directed the banks to deposit gold in other's accounts. This led to banks loaning out more gold than they had on deposit, and the creation of credit, which spawned unparalled economic growth. How do you think a bank buys your gold? I want you to explain it to me. Do you think that people are actually going to exchange gold coins in a gold standard? Even if they did, the government would print those coins (and of course distribute them through open market operations - i.e. through debt), but what would prevent the government from reducing the percentage of gold in the coins in order to increase the money supply? A gold standard is both a retrogression and a regression, unfortunately, it is often most poorly understood by its own supporters.

I do believe Douglas. The value of money is not determined by the quantity of some arbitary commodity in existence. The value of money is determined by the real credit of the community, which is the ability of the community to deliver goods and services when and where they are required. Until money is based upon the real credit of the community, the banking system will always have control over our lives and the economy. Whether you live under a gold standard or a fiat standard, money is debt. A return to the gold standard is a retrogression, not progression.

Its value is not determined its composition. The value of a US$ is much more than the ink and paper that was used in its production. Its value is determined by the amount of goods and services it can command. It is still a contract and a promise to pay, that's why its a debt. The government only enforces debts paid by cash and coin. The majority of transactions are paid by cheque or electronic transfer of funds. These transactions are not enforced by the government. Your confidence lies in the productive system and its ability to deliver goods and services when and where they are required (i.e. the real credit of the community). The Central Bank attempts to influence the money supply through open market operations, but their influence is extremely limited since they only control the amount of cash and coin in the economy. Actually banks are deflationists by nature since inflation devalues the value of the money they are repaid at a later date. Banks want to control inflation but cannot under their current methods because they erroneously believe that inflation is caused by too much money. In other words, they do not understand the systemic cause of inflation, which is the capitalization of industry and the resultant rise in B costs relative to A costs. Attempts at deflationary policies by the banks have devastating consequences because firms find their profit margins falling below the break even point and a recession/depression ensues. The only way to bring about falling prices which does not result in a devastating depression is to use new money to cancel costs to the consumer (i.e. the Social Credit price rebate).

Point of clarification. ALL money is created as a debt, including currency. So if you don't consider credit money because it's created as a debt, then you must not include currency as money.

Have to run to work, but will try to answer more fully this evening. Wanted to comment on your last statement: The word credit derives from the latin "credere", meaning "to believe". That is the essential quality of money - that people have faith in it. You claim the American dollar is intentionally being devalued. How do you measure its "value"?

There must be confidence in money, yes I agree. And I'll also agree that the confidence must evolve over time. Currency only amounts to a very small percentage of the money supply. Most transactions take place with the use of commercial bank created credit. I disagree with your statement above. What people have confidence in is the fact that when they lay their money down to purchase a good or service, the seller will part with said good/service for that money. This implies "faith" in the monetary system as a whole, which is the entire banking system, not just the Central Bank. There's many reasons the American dollar is not doing well. One would be the large annual trade deficits, and also the federal government deficit. I disagree. People do not need confidence in their government to have confidence in their money. However; I will concede that political turmoil and the resultant economic insecurity tends to give people less confidence in their money, not because they don't have confidence in their government, but because they don't have confidence in their productive system to deliver anything for their money. Money can either be a form of government itself, or it can be an effective tool to facilitate trade.

I do not acknowledge the false dialectic in politics of left vs. right.

Wow! You've graduated to ad-hominem! That really strengthens your arguments. The last resort of the desperate.

There are certainly elements of the holocaust that are being promoted by Zionist causes that are either outright lies, or half-truths. Certainly events leading up to the holocaust are not as portrayed by many supporting the Zionist cause. Were Jews killed by the Nazis during WWII - absolutely! However; German "anti-semitism" was not the result of German jealously towards the Jews. That's an outright lie! Germans welcomed the Jews prior to WWII, and that's why there were so many living there. It was seditious activities by the Jews, especially pertaining to communism at the time that led to the trouble. I do not condone for one second what the Nazis did, but to say that the Nazis only wanted to kill Jews is another lie. The Nazis tried to push them out, like the British did, but nobody would take them. The minister of immigration for Canada is quoted as having said "no Jews are too many" (or something along those lines), when Canada was asked by the Nazis to take the Jews. Churchill himself said Jews were "partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer." Personally, I don't ever want to see an event such as the holocaust ever again, but the activities of Zionists in the US could lead to that, and the fact that all the Jews in the world are gathering to a small piece of land in the Middle East gives me serious reservations, because it's not Jewish leadership under the flag of Zionism that will suffer. It will be ordinary Jews whos only "culpability" was being stupid enough to follow that leadership.