Tuesday, May 17, 2011

FREEGOLD = Use GOLD to Argue FOR Paper Money AGAINST Gold As Money

"Gold is money, everything else is credit."
--J.P. Morgan, 1912

"Fiat is actually more honest than a gold standard."
--FOFOA, Thursday, July 28, 2011


Freegold is the monetary system that we have NOW!
THE MAIN TWO ANTI-FREEGOLD ARGUMENTS:

1. If you "save" in gold and have to sell your gold every time you want to buy something, you will pay the bankers and the coin dealers fees and commissions each time PLUS they will buy your gold back for LESS and sell it to you for MORE when you want to convert your currency back into gold in order to "save" it. This is pure economic suicide! In the process, you will basically LOSE everything you have if you thus "save" your wealth in gold.

WHY Freegold when Freegold will ANNIHILATE your wealth, your money and your savings and deflate your wages to oblivion through inflation over time?

2. Fiat or paper currency causes economic apartheid and hyperinflation (and eventually social conflict, warfare and bloodshed). This is why:

WHO issues and controls fiat currency? NOT you and I. WHO pays basically NOTHING for fiat currency and creates it out of thin air to bid for all the goods and services available on the planet? NOT you and I. WHO has to work their asses off in order to obtain some of that worthless "medium of exchange" so that they can pay for food and shelter?

YOU and I.

FREEGOLDERS are saying that fiat currency is the BEST form of money = FREEGOLDERS are fomenting economic injustice and political turmoil.

WHY Freegold when the fundamental rationale for its existence is DESTROYED right before your very own eyes?



Here are some of the questions put to them by the “little shrimps” that Freegolders NEVER answer (including ALL of FOFOA’s non-replies to them):

=============================================================
"I believe the fair value of silver will end up under $10 as the commodity that it is" - FOFOA

FOFOA given that under Freegold we may see gold at $50,000 an oz. After the freegold reevaluation event, that would be, let's say, 5000 oz of silver for every one oz of gold. We (including governments) could buy 10 monster boxes for every one oz of gold. 

Many here would like to see you FOFOA answer this problem, a strategic silver commodity grab in a post freegold world.

It has been posed in various ways during this discourse, yet remains unanswered. 

Time for the glib cheerleaders to be silent. 

Posted by Jonathan to FOFOA at May 27, 2011 8:28 PM
==============================================================
Does anyone have an opinion about whether during and/or after the transition to Freegold the US government will stop taxing capital gains on selling gold? Because if I have to pay a 20 or 30% capital gains tax on any gain I have in terms of the fiat medium-of-exchange money when I sell my gold, I am giving up a huge chunk of the store of value. Which would seem to reduce gold's usefulness as a store of value. 

Posted by MnMark to FOFOA at May 26, 2011 2:19 PM
Dear Casper, 

I was not trying to figure out their motives I was just pointing out extreme misrepresentation of the people like Eric Sprott, Ben Davis, Max Keiser, and potentially few more. I have read and listen to those people a lot and the author of the post is doing just grosse misrepresentation. 

The goal (freegold education) does not justify the means (silver bashing, misrepresentations of peoples views). Before this post I was thinking about buying more gold, now I have serious doubts. 
I hope FOFOA reads it. I had a friend who bought 100% silver. I tried to convince him to read FOFOA blog. I will not do that again.

If I did not read many posts of FOFOA I would have immediately stopped reading this blog because I would be worried that FOFOA is doing the same misrepresentations like costata did. 

Your remark about Giants. I would not be sure that Giants are not investing in silver. If you believe Jim Rogers then you have one Giant preferring to invest in silver than in gold. I guess Eric Sprott is not a small fish either. Mike Maloney (has 95% in silver) was mentioning about millionaires buying physical gold and silver for half million at the weekend like they would be buying books on Amazon. ;).

I am not going to sell my whole silver for gold. I buy silver as a hedge against mistake in my belief that FreeGold will actually take place. If I am wrong in my belief in FreeGold then silver industrial demand will be enough to cover my losses in gold. Gold is my speculative position and silver is my long term investment. I do not care about silver volatility or silver paper takedowns at low trading days since I buy physical only. The problem is that if reader does not know very well what is happening in silver market she/he will fall for manipulation taking place in this post.

Only 33% of my assets in precious metals will be used to play GSR ratio and only in extreme points like 100:1 or 5:1. 

best,
Radek 
==============================================================
Easy (I don't think so)? Manipulated? - You mean like Gold???

The reason we invest in Silver is we see the light at the end of the tunnel Sean - we see the end of the manipulation - then the realization that the shortage is worse than anticipated (Comex default) - price goes up. It is being a 'forward thinker'. My suggestion is that you try it. If you aren't investing in Silver or Gold (because they are being manipulated - for the latter see GATA) - just what are you investing in?

P.S. So you stopped investing in Silver in 2008? How would you rate that financial decision in hindsight? 

Posted by gary to FOFOA at May 25, 2011 3:42 PM
Hello Radek,

It sounds like Art has been rubbing off on you a little. You know, that Troll I banished? You think I am a "bad guy" for posting Costata's excellent article? Have you read some of his comments lately? They are fantastic, and I'm sure we'll see more posts from Costata in the future. Does this make me a banker? Ha! Not quite. You'd be surprised. 

I don't address silver very often because I know how feisty and intolerant the silver bugs can be and, frankly, it is the least of my concerns what you do with your money. But just the same, I have made it clear on this blog many times that I have not bought a single ounce of silver since I first read A/FOA which was before I started this blog. And, of the large quantity of silver I bought before discovering A/FOA, I have now sold 85% of it. 

Initially I was selling silver as one would withdraw money from a savings account to pay bills. But lately, thanks to donations from this blog, I have been able to swap some of it for gold! Yet I have bought gold, and not sold a single ounce of it, since starting this blog. 

So this is my position on silver, and it has been discussed several times on this blog over the last three years, so it is no secret. Costata's article is consistent with my view of silver, and I think it's important that my readers are at least exposed to what I see that has led me to stay away from silver. And frankly, it's a view you aren't getting anywhere else. 

Back in March of 2009 I wrote this: "The above quoted thoughts are considered taboo on most hard money websites, and they are rarely discussed. This leaves many newcomers with the impression that they do not exist. So I offer them to you as only an independent blog that doesn't rely on popularity or ad revenue can. Not as gospel, but simply as another piece to the puzzle.

"Perhaps in the paper market game, silver will see some wild fluctuations soon that will reward the bulls with paper profits. I hope so. And perhaps silver will play an important role in a future (temporary) barter economy. But in the end game, I tend to agree with FOA. Silver may well be "the poor man's gold". But just think about that statement."
 

But I suppose that, like Art, Radek, you'd rather I just STFU about silver, huh? 

You know, Radek, maybe you'd be more at home over at one of Art's three blogs. I'm sure he'd be happy to talk with you about what a "bad guy" I am. ;)

Sincerely,
FOFOA

PS. For those of you that haven't yet been won over by Art the Troll, like Radek apparently has, I hope to have a new post up later today! 

Posted by FOFOA to FOFOA at May 25, 2011 4:36 PM
know how feisty and intolerant the silver bugs can be...

FoFoA, I'm sure it wasn't your intent to generalize about all 'Silver Bugs' or to throw around labels. I don't consider myself 'one' and own the same ratio as Radek. I'll wager he doesn't either. He sees an injustice - and is speaking out. I am sure you would do the same. Whether he is right or wrong is up for discussion, no?


I have made it clear on this blog many times that I have not bought a single ounce of silver since I first read A/FOA which was before I started this blog. 
Honestly, would you bother opining if Silver hadn't doubled (guessing) since then?

Meaning the stance is not against Silver - so much as that it has increased at a greater rate than the Gold you have 'invested' (let's not mince words) in.

This is a frustrating time to live in - no doubt.

No matter threat or abuse - I am not going to embrace Costata's piece. You shouldn't care so much. 

Posted by gary to FOFOA at May 25, 2011 5:52 PM
==============================================================
Gary,

What gave you the impression that I care what you think? Radek repeated Art's position that my blog might be an "outlet for bad guys" and that got a reply out of me. 

For the record, Gary, I don't care what you think, or what you are "invested" in, or how much gold you have. Funny that you are the first one ever to brag about how much gold you have on this blog. 

I'm not here, like Art thinks, trying to convince you of anything. I've seen your list of all the "proven analysts" you are reading. No wonder you are so confused. 

All I can say to that, and I'm sure some here would agree, is "been there, done that." I realize you are relatively new to this, Gary, and also surprisingly vocal and opinionated for being somewhat new. Oh well, as the song says, "don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to."

Sincerely,
FOFOA 

Posted by FOFOA to FOFOA at May 25, 2011 6:08 PM
@FoFoa

Touched a nerve with the 'doubling of Silver since' comment eh?


What gave you the impression that I care what you think? 
How about because you are bothering to respond?


Funny that you are the first one ever to brag about how much gold you have on this blog. 
I don't recall 'bragging' and I'm sorry if you saw it that way. I am sure I have far less than most here.


I'm not here, like Art thinks, trying to convince you of anything. 
Nor I you, Sir.

...all the "proven analysts" you are reading. No wonder you are so confused

Please elaborate. Which ones and why? or is the hurdled insult enough of a response for you? If you'd rather throw a hissy fit - that is fine too. Everyone vents. Have another Fosters lager, mate.

And lastly, I don't think it is fair to lump Radek and I (or anyone else who doesn't embrace Costata's piece) in with Art.

Costata's piece has pised people off - and it is quite possible that it is fraught with inaccuracy. Blaming the volatility of Silver Bugs is a cope-out. 

Posted by gary to FOFOA at May 25, 2011 6:39 PM
Dear FOFOA, 

I never thought that there will be a time I will write what I am writing now. 

I have been around at your blog for more than a year. Always enjoyed your articles. 

I stopped reading Art because he could not keep the discussion civilized. Therefore your allegations about Art influence on me have no grounds. I never have been to his blog. I stopped reading Costata because he was misinterpreting peoples positions. 

I gave you my warning of a person who likes you that you are endorsing a person who is manipulating others position to get his message accross to people. I read a lot about silver so I am better person to judge this than you. I just give you one simple fact below. 

Eric Sprott has said gold WAS an investment of a past decade and Silver IS an investment of this decade. Given this quote how do you reconcile what Costata has written about Eric Sprott position about silver? 

I know that Costata is a very old reader of yours and his comments about FreeGold are always spot on. You are on the same page when it comes to FreeGold. I am just saying his piece about silver is full of misrepresentations of other peoples opinions. This for me is enough to stop reading him. 

I am not sure if that info about banned troll was a veiled threat to me, but it is your blog so you can do what you want, including banning me. I will repeat what I have said by enodorsing costata and his piece you look more and more like an outlet for bad guys. 

I feel sorry that you compare me to a troll. The only thing I can do to prove you wrong is to say the following. 

Goodbye FOFOA. I wish you all the best. I guess one reader less is not much of the concern for you. 

best regards,
Radek 

Posted by Radek to FOFOA at May 26, 2011 12:45 AM
Radek,

I'm sorry I lost you. But I do agree with Costata on silver. It is not part of the reset the monetary system is undergoing. The volatility you see in silver is small-time games compared to gold. You may actually get a really great spike in silver... or not. Doesn't matter. The probability that you will cash out at the right time (esp. being in physical) is small. And the big ups in silver will be matched with big downs. The end will be down. That's why I published Costata's article. I don't want my readers to get the impression from my blog that gold equals "gold and silver." It most definitely does not. Even Eric Sprott is something like 70% in gold by his own words. Silver is a business to him. Just look, his name is on a silver ETF, yet he owns mostly gold. 

If you are looking for silver activism against the bankers, there are plenty of places you can go. But this train of thought is on a dead-end track. If you are offended by my posting Costata's article, then you represent exactly why I posted it. If anything, I am more extreme than Costata!

Costata believe the fair value of silver is around $30 (in 2011 dollar). That's where he believes it will end up excluding (hyper)inflation. I believe the fair value of silver will end up under $10 as the commodity that it is, with a production cost of half that. To silver bugs like you, that makes me, not Costata, the extremist. Right? 

If you think you can trade your way to riches, then buy silver. But beware, there are some with a great deal of market information that are playing against you, even if you are in physical. And they have control of a LOT of physical silver. 
Sincerely, FOFOA 
Posted by FOFOA to FOFOA at May 26, 2011 1:45 AM
DEAR FOFOA, 

Please let me know if you want me to stop writing. I will stop immediately. You answered in a nice way so I would not like to leave your post without an answer. 

I really do not mind you being extreme and holding a view that silver is worth 10$. It has some rational argument behind because allegedly the average production cost for silver is 5$. However, if you use this argument then we should also say that average price of gold production is around 600$. The silver story is as complex as Gold story and ridden with fraud as gold. We would need another FOFOA for silver to get the right picture for silver as we get from you about gold.

I will never attack you for having such a view about silver. I politely stated few times already on this blog that I simply disagree with you and also believe in FreeSilver. 

I complained about Costata misrepresentation of other peoples positions. I did nothing else, because for me it is enough to invalidate whatever Costata has to say. The only interesting point made by Costata was that even if there is spike in silver it may be impossible to trade physical silver for physical gold. It is a valid worry that people who plan to trade their silver for gold should be aware of.

I think that default in silver may be the flash point that will kill the fiat monetary system. However, the flash point in silver may be beneficial only to gold for many reasons you elloquently stated. I always prized you for the ability to see into behavior of the people. However, my point is that we can not predict if silver will not regained its monetary status. We can not predict that elite will not be able to establish world fiat currency to keep the mankind enslaved for 40 more years. My investment in silver is a hedge against it as industrial demand will offset my mediocre gains in gold. 

I am only disapointed FOFOA that you posted Costata article which may be right in his message but totallly manipulative in its methods. I was also hurt when you compared me to the troll because my intention was only to speak out when I see manipulation on Costata part. Again, feel free to tell me to shut up and I will go away. 

You touched upon one aspect the availability of a lot physical to manipulate the market. I have one comment for you. 

The elite has command over more physical gold (in terms of nominal value) than silver that it is not THEIRS. They will use the remaining gold on the balance sheet of the central banks to manage the price of gold while they are printing money for themselves to buy as much gold as possible. This is their way to steal people's wealth. Even if silver does not get monetary status there will be a spike in silver value that will allow me to adjust portfolio from 50/50 to 33/66 (more gold). Their abilities in flooding the market with physical silver is much smaller.

I do not plan to trade my way to riches. I have never sold any ounce of gold/silver I bought. I do not trade my precious metals. I am opting out of evil monetary system. I may only be tempted to sell part of my silver for gold or vice versa if any of the metals gets overheated. It is my warning to silver and gold bugs. There are people out there who are not religious about any of the precious metals. 

best,
Radek  
Posted by Radek to FOFOA at May 26, 2011 2:27 AM

Dear FOFOA,

It is a first time I have doubts in your sincereness and care for other human beings. It is due to reposting of article by Costata.

I have read the article of Costata to the section of "Thought experiment". At this point I just could not torture myself to keep reading this piece.

This article is written in such a way that some people like Eric Sprott and Robert Kiyosaki could sue Costata for misrepresentation.

Did Costata ask Robert what is the price level he thought of when he was saying that he will sell his silver to suckers?

Costata uses Eric Sprott and others when it suits him but completely ignores the fact that many people who he is quoting will strongly disagree with the message of his article. The best examples are articles by Eric Sprott. He said that gold WAS an investment of the decade and silver IS and investment of the decade. 

To all people reading this article. Are you in the right metal? Silver may not be the right metal but the article by Costata makes me buy more silver when I see such misrepresentation of beliefs of Eric Sprott or Ben Davis. Ben was loading up on silver again at price levels of 35$. 

Shame on you Costata and shame on you FOFOA.

The article is full of psychological tricks (word phrases that bring nothing to the discussions about facts) to make the reader feel bad about his beliefs including one that silver will regained its monetary status like gold.

I said it clearly belief. I believe in Freegold and Freesilver.

My reaction to this post? I will stop recommending your blog. I will still read it because I may find as usual many pieces that are gems written by you. However, your blog is no longer good for a person that is not sufficiently financially educated to know when they are being mislead by misrepresentations. 

I am very disappointed.

best,
Radek

P.S. Disclaimer I own 50/50 gold/silver in nominal $terms and after this article I will up my silver holdings to ratio to 33/66. 

Posted by Radek to FOFOA at May 25, 2011 8:37 AM
@Radek


Costata uses Eric Sprott and others when it suits him but completely ignores the fact that many people who he is quoting will strongly disagree with the message of his article. 
This is so true - Coatata searches statements by people, uses them out of context - or to support a more fallacious straw-man argument - which he pushes over to appear to have beaten them with logic. It's horrendous.

Aside from a belief in FreeGold (which Costata has pushed me AWAY from) I am in complete agreement with your last post.

I'm surprised the FoFoA - a site I regarded very highly and recommended to many - has stooped to allow a posting of this very obvious Silver bashing. It is reaching to the farthest depths to export a false premise. Why? Why bother?

If you think you are impacting possession of Silver - I'd say "Yeah - now I am buying more". Like Radek - I am about 50-50 Gold/Silver but will seek to increase my Silver position in the next few months - IF I can.


Since there is so much paper gold in relation to physical gold (100:1?) the physical will revalue upward in an unprecedented manner when people lose faith in the paper. The same can be said for silver. 
Of course. You said it FreeGoldAdvocate!

I see no historical precedent for FreeGold nor for a 120,000:1 GSR.

Posted by gary to FOFOA at May 25, 2011 9:13 AM
Ok...I'm here to start the biting/howling party :)

Costata, I would ask again that you please address this single point.

If gold goes to 1:1600 vs. silver, that means I can, with 500K ounces of gold, control the entire year's worldwide production of silver (800M troy oz). That means that I can shut down WORLD production of antibacterial agents, nanotechnology, Tomahawk missiles, optics/mirrors,every single electronic component in the computer you are using to view this webpage, etc if I feel like it. I can blackmail every single electronics maker and say "Give me whatever I want or you go out of business because you have no silver."

The Bank of Mexico bought 3.2M troy oz of gold over the past 2 months - 6.4x what I need to take over the world. I could make the Mexican government (yes the same poor government that can't beat drug cartels) the richest in the entire world almost instantaneously in your world. Do you really think this could ever happen? Really?

If 500K ounces can do that, and there is 5 BN oz (10,000X more), what will the other 4.9995 BN ozs buy? My point is that other holders of gold (the people owning the other 4.99995 billion ounces) will bid gold for silver until they get it - meaning a much lower GSR than this 1:1600.

Please address this point soon, because I've been dying to hear the answer ever since my first comment on this. 

Posted by Biting Silverbug to FOFOA at May 23, 2011 1:40 PM
==============================================================

@ Paul

quote: "I have heard about your immoral bankers. again and again. I argue that your judgement is wrong. you use outdated glasses. you did not address at all."


Criticizing bankers sounded old so I didn't go deep into it. Now that you brought up this idea of "outdated glasses" I do think it's worth going over again. Is it really "outdated"?

Imagine that a guy makes a bad investment and loses money. Instead of keeping it to himself he wants to cover his loss with your money. Are you with me on that such conduct is immoral any way we look at it, Paul? I suspect you have to be.

It's not only immoral but also uneconomic b/c if the guy can get away with it one time then he could repeat the same mistake and dump his future losses onto other people again and again, and that's exactly what bankers and politicians have been doing. 

Bankers like to play their risky fractional reserve / credit expansion games while politicians spend like crazy to buy votes. Whenever it becomes unsustainable they just dilute the currency to paper it over.

A loss is a loss. It does not go away. It only gets socialized onto others in the FIAT world.

Now does wearing your "transacting in FIAT / saving in gold" glasses make a difference? No much.

Sure in that system if bankers / politicians decide to paper their mess over, their FIAT dilution does not hit your gold savings but it does your future FIAT paychecks. In other words instead of having both your past income and future income being burnt, it now concentrates on your future income only. 

Maybe those who have retired can get off easy here since they don't have much future FIAT income but those who have just started a career get a full blown hit. A loss is still loss. It does not go away. It only gets socialized in the FIAT world at the end of the day.

After all the shuffling around it's another shell game. As Peter Schiff put it, "What's different?"

Here's an effective way to fix it: Make your future income undiluable as well. Make it gold. 

Now with both your past and future income in gold it becomes "transacting & saving in gold" - a hard money system, which is what I have been saying how a system should be.

What we need is not a brand new way to socialize losses around but a mechanism to prevent them from happening as easily as today. 

Posted by Rui to FOFOA at May 20, 2011 8:01 PM
Interesting to see hard-camp folks are somehow regarded as "idealists". We all read Another's Petro-Gold story and yet we've drawn quite different conclusions.

What did Saudis do in the Petro-Gold story? They didn't want soft FIAT as payment. What are Chinese doing now with Dollars and US Treasuries? They too dislike the soft paper and want out. Think of this: Are Saudis and Chinese being "idealistic" or simply realistic? 

You see producers dislike depreciating FIAT as payment. They might be taken for a ride at first but will figure it out and reject it eventually. 

And here's the thing: Economy is ultimately driven by producers (rather than consumers). We got problems if they are not happy. 

That's not ideals but plain common sense for we cannot have an economy where everyone consumes and borrows while no one produces and saves enough to be willing to lend. The top driving force of an economy is always producers no matter how human beings evolve.

If we keep paying producers depreciating FIAT then at the end they either reject it (like Saudis above) or stop being productive ("Why would I be the sucker to be siphoned all the time?"). Once the system devolves (rather than "evolves") into that stage it's game over and has to reset, again.

That's not "idealistic" hard camp talking but simply how the history of every FIAT system played out.

If people don't care whether the next FIAT system is perfect or not they just wanna get there then I have no problem with it at all. But if it's advertised as a system to achieve "harmony in equity" I just have to point out it cannot. 

Posted by Rui to FOFOA at May 21, 2011 11:20 PM
@ Paul

quote: "I have heard about your immoral bankers. again and again. I argue that your judgement is wrong. you use outdated glasses. you did not address at all."


Criticizing bankers sounded old so I didn't go deep into it. Now that you brought up this idea of "outdated glasses" I do think it's worth going over again. Is it really "outdated"?

Imagine that a guy makes a bad investment and loses money. Instead of keeping it to himself he wants to cover his loss with your money. Are you with me on that such conduct is immoral any way we look at it, Paul? I suspect you have to be.

It's not only immoral but also uneconomic b/c if the guy can get away with it one time then he could repeat the same mistake and dump his future losses onto other people again and again, and that's exactly what bankers and politicians have been doing. 

Bankers like to play their risky fractional reserve / credit expansion games while politicians spend like crazy to buy votes. Whenever it becomes unsustainable they just dilute the currency to paper it over.

A loss is a loss. It does not go away. It only gets socialized onto others in the FIAT world.

Now does wearing your "transacting in FIAT / saving in gold" glasses make a difference? No much.

Sure in that system if bankers / politicians decide to paper their mess over, their FIAT dilution does not hit your gold savings but it does your future FIAT paychecks. In other words instead of having both your past income and future income being burnt, it now concentrates on your future income only. 

Maybe those who have retired can get off easy here since they don't have much future FIAT income but those who have just started a career get a full blown hit. A loss is still loss. It does not go away. It only gets socialized in the FIAT world at the end of the day.

After all the shuffling around it's another shell game. As Peter Schiff put it, "What's different?"

Here's an effective way to fix it: Make your future income undiluable as well. Make it gold. 

Now with both your past and future income in gold it becomes "transacting & saving in gold" - a hard money system, which is what I have been saying how a system should be.

What we need is not a brand new way to socialize losses around but a mechanism to prevent them from happening as easily as today. 

Posted by Rui to FOFOA at May 20, 2011 7:54 PM
@Radix,

"The fact that you say that you understand it and then say that you have concerns about where it leads, as though there is some choice in this, shows that you don't understand it."

I am so sick of this bullshit, every one dancing around the issue. It's like trying to stick a pin into an amoeba on a petri dish. It simply squishes away.

Haven't you figured it out yet? You like so many like to pretend that you "get" it, but when push comes to shove you are afraid to back up your insults with arguments because someone else who thinks that they "get" it will rebuke you.

Put your money where your mouth is. If you think you understand freegold better, then EXPLAIN IT!!! The problem is that you don't "get" it either. It's like some stupid star trek episode where all the gnomes pretend to "get" it but none of them really have a clue.

So let me make myself perfectly clear: I am sick and tired of being told that I don't "get" it by people who cannot "explain" it themselves.

So go ahead, please explain why freegold is so certain that no one should hedge their gold bet with a little silver. Costata certainly can't even after 2 entire posts, even though he is so certain that he "gets" it.

You also say "the fundamental fact that you are engaging in what is seen by the people here as futile yearning." How many other people have expressed skepticism in the silver bashing by freegolders in this thread? I would say that it is at least 50%. Costata could really perform a service by tallying the stats between freegold purists and silver hedgers. 

Posted by Desperado to FOFOA at May 17, 2011 12:23 PM
@miked, thanks for the comment. Many here would like to simply see me disappear. My position is similar you yours, I have gold and if freegold comes true I will be in good shape. I am just not convinced that it would be the best outcome for my children and grandchildren.

@Casper,

"a) ...IMO there is no "between", there's only a transition from $IMF system to FreeGold. As one is failing the other is simultaneously rising. "

I just cannot accept this. Take Wendy's statement that Canada was safe from HI. Or what about Switzerland with all its gold per capita. These countries are not going to instantaneously switch or illegalize gold lending. China has set up a fold futures market, will she just jump on the band wagon. And do you really think that no regional bully is going to see this as an opportunity to amass power?

"c)... life isn't fair and people are born with different starting points that may or may not determine their life in a decisive way"

It is far more sinister than just this. Are there shadow elites dating back centuries manipulating the world? Clearly many here, probably FOFOA included, poo-poo this idea. I don't. It is really a moral pivot point, like the question as to whether 9/11 was an inside job, and it is really hard to try to straddle the fence on.

You write: "elites/CB's ...will provide/guarantee that flow with a portion of their gold in order to retain their status. "

"Retain their status" is code for staying in power, on a planet with 7 billion people, peak oil and peak everything and looming nuclear devastation.

650 Years Ago:
How Venice Rigged the First, and Worst, Global Financial Crash
 

Posted by Desperado to FOFOA at May 17, 2011 10:41 PM
Desperado,

You have been here long enough to know that I have never allowed the conversation to pivot in certain uncontrollable directions. Shame on you. Stop behaving like a dastardly Troll. 

FOFOA 

Posted by FOFOA to FOFOA at May 18, 2011 12:03 AM
Desperado,

You can call it censorship if you like. But people like you ran Another and FOA out of town, and ultimately frustrated MK enough that he closed the forum to public comments entirely. That's not free speech as far as I'm concerned, and I won't let it happen here. Free speech means my blog gets to have the conversation I and my friends want it to have, Trolls be damned. This is my blog, and it is valuable to me and to many others. I will not allow it to be infected and derailed by delusion. This is not a topical free-for-all, and adding your comments to the permanent record here is a privilege, not a right. 

Sincerely,
FOFOA 

Posted by FOFOA to FOFOA at May 18, 2011 2:53 AM
"I would be very interested to see a list of fundamental concepts that a person would have to be able to fully expound and integrate to be labelled as someone who "got it"."
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

I guess you haven't been hanging out around here long enough Radix. If you "get" it, then you know that you "get" it. Just follow Costata. It is binary. And once you "get" it you can just make rude and condescending comments and claim that whoever you are ridiculing doesn't "get" it. No need do put together cogent and articulate rebuttals, just claim that whoever you are criticizing doesn't "get" it.

That's the beauty of freegold. No need to prove that it is inevitable with cold hard facts and logic, just use vague "principles" and "objective reasoning". If anybody contradicts your principles with arguments and facts, just ignore their arguments and belittle them and claim that they don't "get" it.

But Radix, I think you do "get" freegold anyway. That is at least judging from your accusations that my logic was a "non sequitur" (my statement that Costata's concession that freegold is just a "probability" is tantamount to admitting that a multi-metal strategy is reasonable), followed by your failure to reply to my earlier comment requesting clarification from you. Isn't freegold wonderful? 

Posted by Desperado to FOFOA at May 17, 2011 2:51 AM
@mortymer,

I have read most of your "A Special Gold and Monetary Discussion" and the banque-france gold standard piece.

My primary concern is much less what form of monetary system comes after the HI, but how can we make sure that the same elites don't end up holding the reigns in a new system designed to continue the exploitation of the masses. The two are closely related but not the same. Neither of these documents start to go there and neither discuss the role silver could play in this, which is currently of great interest to me. 

Posted by Desperado to FOFOA at May 17, 2011 9:03 AM
1/2

Hi Costata, I've outlined a few of your and FOFOA's points below and attached my counterpoints to them. 

1. Point: Gold has a better stock/flow ratio, which makes it a better “store of value” and therefore better value overall. Counterpoint: It’s a better “store” of the value it already has, but that doesn’t make it a better “value.” The overall value is determined by 1) how well it maintains the value it has and 2) how much value others will place on it for its uses. By goldbug logic, if hypothetically people needed to eat a tiny amount of gold each year to live (let’s call this an “industrial use” of gold), it would be less valuable than it would have been as a pure store of value. This fails the common sense test – nothing has to be a “pure” store of value to HAVE value.

2. Point: The rich and the governments/central banks only own gold, and they set the price, so gold must be that much more valuable. Counterpoint: Depends on how you see it – sort of. For example: two shoe salesmen visit a distant land in ancient times. One returns and says, “It’s horrible…nobody there wears shoes!” The other says “What an opportunity…nobody there wears shoes!” Pure goldbugs assume that demand for silver from central banks is nonexistent and will always stay that way.
Over the course of human history there has always been some ratio of gold to silver – I believe the 20th century decision of governments to get rid of their silver is just another stupid decision like “Brown’s Bottom” and is an aberration that will correct. In fact, China’s already buying – proving my point. Eventually, governments will buy it again to maintain strategic stockpiles for usage in: military applications, currency, and reserves. Does that sound like silver shouldn’t have much value compared to gold? Or is the opportunity that much greater? 
Posted by Biting Silverbug to FOFOA at May 17, 2011 9:17 AM
2/2


3. Point: Silver’s not as rare as gold, and even if it is more scarce, scarcity doesn’t mean much – many things are more scarce. Gold's monetary value means that the gold/silver ratio (GSR) should be over 1000 to 1. Counterpoint: Yes, technically scarcity doesn’t matter. What matters is how scarcity is relative to importance. For example, I’ve got a unique rock, the Galt’s Gulch Special rock. Would you like to buy it for 100 gold coins? No? So there’s a tight supply (1 rock), but NO demand.
On the other hand, if we’re 1 mile underwater, and I’ve got the only 2 oxygen tanks – I’d like 100 gold coins for a tank of something that usually is free. Scarcity does mean value if the item is undersupplied. Furthermore, on a GSR of over 1000, with a few tons of gold, one rich person could control global silver supplies (which many different groups actually NEED), compared to gold (which just stores value). How likely is it that the world would just let 1 person control the global silver supply? I believe Rui brought this point up and it was never refuted.


4. Final Point: The gold/silver ratio reached over 1:100 during past crises. Clearly, gold is always a better investment. Counterpoint: Exactly, during crises (non-normal periods) some people sold silver to hold a “more portable” savings (silver’s volume is much greater than that of gold) in case they needed to run. Viewed another way, people went crazy and provided a fire sale on silver. Using this time to determine the proper GSR is like measuring food inflation during a hurricane – prices are not rational at that time. If that was really what silver was worth, it would have STAYED at 1:100. If pure goldbugs were right, this would mean that the GSR of 1:16 in the earth’s crust is too low. This point also fails the common sense test.

HOWEVER – if people go crazy for gold and sell silver – why, then, you’d better have gold to sell to them. It probably makes sense to buy gold so that you can sell to the “gold-crazy” at a GSR of 100, wait for the GSR to return to 16 or lower, and then swap for 5X your original amount of gold. The risk here is that silver has been so suppressed that a GSR of 50 is never reached again, never mind 100 – and the GSR will eventually decline to the single digits in my opinion, just to clear the market.
So I think you may be right for a few weeks (3) before the GSR crashes back down to reality.

I'd be glad to know what you think. 

Posted by Biting Silverbug to FOFOA at May 17, 2011 9:19 AM
Hello Gary,

You are in no danger of being banished from this blog. But removing Art was completely justified, he earned it just like the other two (count 'em, only two) people I have banned in two years of blogging. Obviously I'm not afraid of Art's arguments, I let him spam this blog for weeks. And I have never shied away from a worthy debate. The key word there is worthy. 

But Gary, you have misjudged the purpose of this blog. I am not here to debate Freegold versus whatever. I am here to explore as many different angles from which to view Freegold as I can find. Pests like Art become a major distraction to my primary focus. Here, read this paragraph from Freegold in the Proper Perspective:

"Freegold, in my opinion, is not a competing monetary theory. Nor is it a competing financial system. It is much more than these subjects of frequent debate. In my world, Freegold is a way to view unfolding events as they happen. It is a view of the valley below, as seen from a high vantage. It is a cipher for understanding what we see. It is not a description of what should be. Instead, it is framework, different from almost everything else you are reading, in which you can interpret unfolding events in a different light." 

Letting people decide for themselves is exactly what this blog is about. And I am happy to take on the occasional worthy debate. But that starts getting difficult when 20% of the comments are from one hate-spammer. So far I have deleted 47 of Art's comments from this thread. That's was a 20% run rate for this thread alone. How many other people are responsible for 20% of the comments? Art is highly offensive and completely deserving of banishment. Believe it or not, banning Art actually IMPROVES the credibility of this blog. Maybe it doesn't for you, but the vast majority that follow this blog quietly and understand its true purpose are cheering right now. 

You can tell the commenters that just can't get it. They are constantly trying to drag this blog down into a debate about Freegold versus their favorite whatever. There are generally three fronts of attack. Deflationists, silver bugs and Hard Money Socialists. As I said, I entertain the most worthy debates and ignore all others. I have made this clear time and again. Every few months I have to write a comment that says something like, "if I don't respond to you, please assume that I was unimpressed with your argument." 

I am not here to convince you, Gary, or anyone else for that matter, of Freegold. I am here for the benefit of those that already get it. That's why I don't usually write in a 'Freegold 101' context. Freegold is simple, and it is also very difficult for the Western mind set to grasp. That's why people that show up and find this blog striking often complain that there's so much catching up to do. There is! That's why the few that get it are constantly encouraging the newbies to go read the archives. That's why I'm here, as DP said, "to move the conversation to the next level." Not to have it dragged back down into pre-school day after day. That gets tiresome after three weeks of hate-spamming. So now Art is gone and, hopefully, we can get back to the purpose of this blog. 

If you would like to have more of a 'Freegold 101' discussion, there are several other blogs willing to entertain that class. Blondie, DP, Motley Fool and Gold Subject all have related blogs. 

Gary, which big blockbuster post brought you in here? You seem fairly new, and I am well aware that we have lots of new readers now. Have you gone through and read the whole blog yet? Many (and I do mean many) like DP, Blondie and Motley Fool have. And they look forward a more elevated conversation, as do I. 

Sincerely,
FOFOA  

Posted by FOFOA to FOFOA at May 16, 2011 6:18 PM
============================================================
Costata - am I getting this right? You have given up on refuting real Silver posibility posts - and simply created a ridiculous one of your own to say 'look how stupid Silver Bugs are'. Wow - this is a new form of debate, no? As bad as choosing Bix, Max and Rich Dad as the trifecta of "see they are dumb - so Silver sucks" position.


Now why would China be increasing their imports of silver while holding a massive hoard already? To fool us all about their true intentions, of course.
Why are they also doing this with Gold? same reason? Your faux-scenario seems to state that China has minimal Gold holdings and the US is loaded. I'll stick with Jim Willie and believe the US has hardly any Gold still remaining in Fort Knox. I'd love for anyone to prove me wrong. 

At the risk of being banned myself - I don't think removing Art or his comments is particularily just. He has actually been more civil recently - he just doesn't believe in FreeGold. If you are afraid of his arguments convincing people of the same - well, that's too bad. That is what Forums are for - discussion - not exporting only one philosophy. How you get a strong conclusion? You get lots to choose from.

I love FoFoA - but I don't like where this has been going. I see folding up his tent so as not to bother dealing with this - I say, let people determine for themselves who they want to side with. That would be accepting we are adults. What does it matter if a few people are suspicious of FreeGold? How does that affect you? It shouldn't. This isn't a contest where one dominant theory wins out - or it shouldn't be. Art isn't flinging poo on your guests - he may be attacking your core - but, so what? Isn't FreeGold strong enough to overcome him? If not maybe it is not as forceful a conclusion. Banning people who disagree doesn't help support your opinions - it weakenes them, imo.

I'd like to hear more on that if CB's are holding more and more Gold - and they collude - can't they keep the price suppressed (thereby enslaving us) forever? Using vast propaganda can't the powers that be - sway people from buying Gold indefinitely. So the US greenback collapses - won't there just be a paper substitute? SDR? Nordic Euro (although initially backed by Gold) Asian RMU? Cn't this charade go one for the rest of our lives?

What I am struggling with is Costata's ineffectual (and getting weaker) argument against Silver. His evidence and timing are both suspect. Bias is smelled by myself and others - and we should be allowed to state as much - even if it means questioning FreeGold in the process. 
Posted by gary to FOFOA at May 16, 2011 4:20 AM
Art was not banned because of his opposition to Freegold. He was banned because of his constant spamming.
So, if his repetitive messages were Pro FreeGold or anti-Silver - he would still have been banned? This is what you believe? Okay. I thought he was supplying a wealth of informative - contrary certainly - posts, but it is not MY Forum... I though Art was good for discussion and was looking forward to FoFoA debating him further. I felt I was learning a lot - maybe others were too. The only way I am going to underdstand FreeGold is to question it. I hope any passion I display in that regard is not considered 'spamming'. 

Posted by gary to FOFOA at May 16, 2011 4:45 AM
@DP

I thought, being adults that we could make that decision ourselves. The argument that 'it (FG) is so hard to understand that we just can't have certain dissenting views' makes my hackles sit up and turn red (something you don't want to see).


People like Art, well they just aren't helpful to anybody.
Respectfully, I suggest speaking for yourself in this manner. Others may have got something out of his rhetoric if only a contrary view - some more than that. 

Posted by gary to FOFOA at May 16, 2011 4:56 AM
@radix46


"Non sequitur.
Your conclusion is a risible fallacy. 0/10"


Non sequitur.
Your conclusion is a risible fallacy. 0/10
See how easy it is? Obviously you don't understand freegold and you don't understand value. See, aren't I smart? 

Drawing criticism is in no way the same as entirely denying the possiblity of something.

"This fallacious premise that you clumsily crowbarred into your narrative destroys the rest of your argument."
Gosh, I am really starting to love being a freegold guru. All you do is throw around insults, treat other posters like idiots and avoid ever addressing the issue. 

Posted by Desperado to FOFOA at May 16, 2011 5:14 AM
@DP

...must be removed to stop them from breaking the damn retaining wall that Freegold is built behind. If you understood Freegold I am confident you wouldn't have doubt about this in your mind; certainly, I don't.

Gotcha - "if you knew FreeGold, like I know FreeGold - you'd be happy with Art's ban". But what IF the "retaining wall that Freegold is built behind" isbreakable? Or are we not allowed to find out? 
Posted by gary to FOFOA at May 16, 2011 5:42 AM
Wendy,

Art is now banned from all threads on this blog thanks to his belligerent spamming on this thread today. I am deleting all of his comments as soon as I see them, regardless of content, and will continue to do so. In case you didn't notice, he has his own blog where you can go discuss his favorite topic with him. Just click on his name. But be forewarned, Wendy, he is not who you think he is, and you know what I'm talking about. 

Art, 

Here's a simple concept for you. Let me spell it out. You are not being censored like you proclaimed in CAPSLOCK. You are being BANNED. Can you see the difference? No? No worries, the effect to you personally will be exactly the same regardless of your level of understanding. Just like buying physical gold and holding it in your personal possession. 

Sincerely,
FOFOA 

Posted by FOFOA to FOFOA at May 15, 2011 8:42 PM
Art is banned from commenting on all future and past posts. If he posts a comment, I will delete it on sight. I won't even read it. But because he's notquite as bad as the other two I banned, and because a few of the other "anti-conceptual mentalities" here are fans of Art's form of logic, he can continue to post comments on this thread, within a reasonable tolerance. 

I warned Art, and he continued onward. He has used very offensive language aimed at me and my guests. And he has professed that his mission is "to prove that Freegold is FRAUD and to save people from buying your lies." Fine. But he can do that elsewhere. He is no longer going to interrupt, pollute and derail the conversation in which most people come here to engage. This blog, fortunately, is not a tribute to Art. 

Sincerely,
FOFOA 

Posted by FOFOA to FOFOA at May 13, 2011 4:19 PM
==============================================================
@ Jeff

"The price of gold vs. fiat will adjust for their behavior. "

Is that so? Then why is it not reflected NOW?

We both know why: Govt all over the world rig it with their 100:1 paper to physical suppression scheme (among other shenanigans). And you are telling me the same crooks would miraculously quit it under FG?! 

Like Art points out. FG is what you have NOW. 

Posted by Rui to FOFOA at May 12, 2011 9:38 AM
Another: let's see where we are going (follower)
Art: let's work to make where we are going just (leader) 

Posted by moneymaverick to FOFOA at May 13, 2011 2:09 PM

20 comments:

  1. FREEGOLD = let the bankers create money out of thin air for which YOU will work at ever-decreasing real wages and pay for gold at ever-increasing prices!

    END RESULT?

    Work MORE for LESS.

    NOW GET IT?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck you

      Delete
  2. FREEGOLD = Let's KEEP the paper money system which is causing fraud and legalized theft on a global scale; the reason being, the Freegolders will allow you to buy gold at prices you can't afford IF you agree to never sell it or use it to buy the goods and services which you need in order to live?! [You only must "grow" gold as though it were a sacred plant, according to Freegolders!]

    FREEGOLD = MADNESS!

    SILVER is the stake that must be thrust into the heart of the Vampire Freegolders who are the bankers that are short silver (who sold silver that they don't have).

    Buy SILVER and put an end to this crime against humanity, the latest name for which is FREEGOLD.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FREEGOLDERS,

    The ISSUE is not ultimately what we use as money. The ISSUE is to NOT have a ruling class that lords it over the masses. The GOAL is to stop "our ancestral sociopaths" from causing humanity harm. Fiat money is what "our ancestral sociopaths" use to screw us so fiat money must be extinguished in order to prevent "our ancestral sociopaths" [the bankers and the politicians/governments that they control] from stealing from us outright AND through inflation; AND also to prevent war, mass murder and torture that would become cost prohibitive in the absence of fiat money.

    The GOAL is to stop EVIL. The GOAL is to put your employers, namely the bankers, out of business.

    The goal is not to use as money this thing instead of that thing.

    The goal is truth and justice therefore SURVIVAL. Gold and silver as money are friendly to that goal. Paper money is anathema to this goal.

    We must put our rulers out of business or else they're going to put us, the human race, out of commission FOREVER. Already in America, our young show no qualms about torturing, raping and killing human beings who don't speak English. Now imagine another great power with people like that who also wield nuclear weapons.

    Now stop imagining and behold China, Russia, India, Pakistan and Europe. Their young are becoming just as savage and ignominious as ours. Their depravity is caused by the lawlessness and unchecked and unsustainable growth that can only be made possible under fiat money regimes.

    The only way to stop this madness politically and not militarily is to stop the GROWTH of this system. Best way to do it is to cut its roots, which is fiat money.

    Gold and silver are the best weed killer for the job.

    Now this is only for the record. I do not believe the process will be reversed and that people will come to their senses in time.

    Just as no one listened to me when I told them to buy gold and silver instead of a house they did not need, I don't expect anyone to take my advice.

    But you WILL remember my words and be responsible for your failure to act.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Freegold is not the future for it never CEASED to be: Freegold IS the status quo; therefore Freegold is NOT our future.

    Here's the quote from SEAN which you insidious Freegolders ignored again, as usual:

    "So when did Freegold end?...I mean, if gold has been a means of storing value for thousands of years, functioning in parallel with various fiat currencies, and gold leasing and gold derivatives are modern contrivances, does this mean Freegold actually existed at one time in the past?"

    Quite right. Most of the 20th century up until now was THE AGE OF FREEGOLD.

    Did you like it?

    You want more?

    If you don't say NO now, rest assured that you WILL get more of it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Freegolders,

    There will be neither deflation nor inflation. How could it be otherwise in the absence of money itself? You Freegolders' Euros and dollars are NOT money.

    What will happen is the dawning upon the human race of the spontaneous realization that the Freegolders' "worthless tokens" are WORTHLESS tokens indeed!

    Let me spell it out for you. What will happen is not inflation nor deflation; it will be the instantaneous and spontaneous DEMONETIZATION of the Freegolders' "worthless tokens".

    Yes, DEMONETIZATION instead of deflation or inflation.

    It will be quite fun then to watch the Freegolders insist upon paying for the necessities of life with their paper money, claiming that gold is too good for normal human beings who happen to be selling what the Freegolders need in order to survive.

    I can't wait to see a Freegolder tell a farmer that gold is too good for the eggs he has for sale, and subsequently inform the poor farmer that he's simply too ignorant for he doesn't understand Freegold because he hasn't read a thousand pages of disingenuous drivel foisted upon us by Another, FOA and FOFOA.

    ReplyDelete
  6. NEVER forget:

    The bankers (aka Freegolders) are saying that you must use only their paper currency (which they call "worthless tokens") as MONEY.

    The bankers [the Freegolders] promise that they will not print too much money thus preserve the purchasing power of their "worthless tokens".

    These are the SAME bankers/Freegolders who are in power today, who control the printing presses, the Central Banks and the governments TODAY.

    So the same bankers/Freegolders who are inflating/devaluing paper currencies TODAY promise NOT to do this TOMORROW.

    WHY would they stop tomorrow?

    Can the leopard change its spots even if it wanted to?

    hello?...

    anybody home up there?...

    ReplyDelete
  7. QUESTION: When would someone promote the use of "worthless tokens" as money?

    ANSWER: When it is THEIR "worthless tokens" that are being used as money.

    FREEGOLDERS are arguing FOR paper money and NOT revolution nor any meaningful change in our political or economic status quo.

    Therefore FREEGOLDERS are defending the very STATUS QUO from which they tell us the only way to save ourselves is to buy gold and NEVER spend it!

    To separate the medium of exchange from the store of wealth amounts to separating YOU from your wealth for ALL of your future production and buying will result in LESS wealth due to monetary inflation.

    Why would any sane person acquiesce to work MORE for LESS?

    FREEGOLDERS don't have this problem because they are the parasitic bankers who print money without working for it and buy your goods and services with it.

    How about YOU?

    Can YOU print money and buy the Freegolders' gold with it?

    So WHY do you buy Freegold?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did not FREEGOLDERS tell you that silver is going to $.50 an ounce?

    Didn't I tell you that Freegolders (who are undercover bankers) are no longer able to suppress silver's price for more than a few weeks at a time?

    Did you buy SILVER?

    Or are you still wasting your time kissing up to people who refer to themselves as GIANTS and to you as SMALL SHRIMP...

    ReplyDelete
  9. What a big fat LIAR you are, COSTATA: "Viewed from my perspective of the silver market the BBs don't care which way it is headed as long as they are on the right side of the trade. With the exception of investors currently holding silver and the miners everyone else wants the price lower (including the jewelry makers)."

    The SAME could be said about gold which you're saying will go up in price to infinity while silver crashes to $.50!

    You big fat liar.

    The bullion banks are the SAME banks that print money out of thin air. They hate both gold and silver and do not wish to see either rise in value against their paper money.

    The so-called bullion banks are doing everything they can to sit on the precious metals' price and here you are saying they don't care what the prices do as long as they're making money.

    LIAR.

    The banks are much better off creating AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY WANT instead of trying to make money trading precious metals. The former has infinite easy profit potential; the latter might even involve some WORK!

    liar.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Sicko aka FOFOA says: "the 'fractionals' are the easy paper notes circulating as currency and the 'reserves' are the store of value for those paper notes. We solve the issue by simply cutting the parity fix between the two and allowing them to float in value against each other. Fractionals can then always be exchanged for an equal value of reserves and vice versa, but the floating reserves are never lent."

    SICKO.

    HOW is it possible to talk about numbers ("fractionals") in the absence of things to be numbered? How can we talk about numbers if numbers DO NOT refer to quantities of something?

    SICKO.

    HOW can 'Fractionals' be "exchanged for an equal value of reserves" if their values relative to each other are not FIXED? The concept of EQUALITY prescribes REFERENCE or standard of some kind so that we can MEASURE things relative to each other.

    SICKO.

    You're a disgrace to the human intellect.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck you Fuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck you

    ReplyDelete
  12. FuyoyouFuyouFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuyouFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck youFuck you

    ReplyDelete
  13. Motley Fool said...

    Art

    Wtf?

    You want me to restate something that has been elucidated here countless times?

    Fine? But for what, a lame promise?

    You forget you have made me these promises before, and have not kept your end of the bargain.

    So your word means nothing. But on the off chance it gets you to stfu, here goes.

    Using gold as money creates a situation where promises to repay debts are made in gold - gold credits, which leads to more credits than gold existing and a collapse of that system.

    Credit is always extended in whatever is used as money.

    Furthermore using gold as money increases its velocity, which decreases its value.

    September 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM

    ReplyDelete
  14. Motley Fool said...

    1. When gold was money, what were loans made in, apple fucking pies? No. Before you even begin. Loans were not only restricted to gold held on hand. Read some history. And don't even begin to argue what you think should be. Reality is. We are not speaking of your fantasies here. Even in a 100% gold back system gold credit in excess of that is created.

    2. Gross ignorance. Money is credit. It always has been. Try David Graebers' 'debt the first 5000 years' book, that shows the anthropological evidence for this fact.

    3. Gross ignorance, again. Higher velocity of any good gives the effect of more of that good being available. In terms of trade value is affected by the relative volumes of goods traded. 1000 cows traded ten times a year, appears just as numerous as 10,000 traded once a year in terms of availability. Go study some econ 101.

    Again, all of this has been explained here numerous times in excruciating detail. Why you comment here if you don't even bother to read and understand what is written is beyond me.

    September 11, 2013 at 3:05 PM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Art said...

      I will not post again on this forum as promised.

      In answer to your statement #1: "When gold was money, what were loans made in, apple fucking pies? No. Before you even begin. Loans were not only restricted to gold held on hand. Read some history. And don't even begin to argue what you think should be. Reality is. We are not speaking of your fantasies here. Even in a 100% gold back system gold credit in excess of that is created."

      ART says: DEBT aka CREDIT did not always exist. In fact, until a few centuries ago, DEBT or CREDIT was thought of as an EVIL enterprise only fit for people who were not Christian. Hence the rise of the Jewish bankers who were granted de facto monopoly of the banking system from the start. For the most part of our history, debt or credit was regarded as usury.

      CONCLUSION: DEBT or CREDIT is not a GIVEN and it's not necessary to life on this planet, as you Freegolders presume. In fact, at least one major religion FORBIDS credit or debt! Moslems are required by Islam to INVEST in enterprise and share the risk instead of giving out loans to entrepreneurs.

      In answer to your statement #2: "Gross ignorance. Money is credit. It always has been. Try David Graebers' 'debt the first 5000 years' book, that shows the anthropological evidence for this fact."

      ART says: If you'd said something like that when you were a kid, people would have thought you were mixed up. If you'd said that as a young man (assuming you're a baby boomer), people would have thought you were stupid. Your statement that "money is credit" does not in of itself establish that money is in fact credit - or debt with debt! Simple logic: how can you pay off a promise to PAY with another PROMISE to pay? Money is payment in full. Money is not a promise; it's the FULFILLMENT of a promise (where credit was created).

      In answer to your statement #3: "Gross ignorance, again. Higher velocity of any good gives the effect of more of that good being available. In terms of trade value is affected by the relative volumes of goods traded. 1000 cows traded ten times a year, appears just as numerous as 10,000 traded once a year in terms of availability. Go study some econ 101."

      ART says: How offensively stupid, which shows your true colors. That's exactly the same line of thinking propounded by Keynesians and the Bernank himself. You're saying that more money creates more wealth.

      Do I really have to prove that the sole creation of additional claims to goods and services (aka credit or debt) DOES NOT in of itself create more goods and services by virtue of its mere existence?

      Bye bye bankers aka freegolders...

      September 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM

      Delete
    2. Motley Fool said...

      Art

      I must have masochistic tendencies since I am still replying. Still, I will do so for your edification.

      "ART says: DEBT aka CREDIT did not always exist. In fact, until a few centuries ago, DEBT or CREDIT was thought of as an EVIL enterprise only fit for people who were not Christian. Hence the rise of the Jewish bankers who were granted de facto monopoly of the banking system from the start. For the most part of our history, debt or credit was regarded as usury."

      I'm sorry, you are wrong. Ursary was considered evil. But credit is not ursury. Again, check the source book I linked by David Graeber. Or try this video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs#

      "CONCLUSION: DEBT or CREDIT is not a GIVEN and it's not necessary to life on this planet, as you Freegolders presume. In fact, at least one major religion FORBIDS credit or debt! Moslems are required by Islam to INVEST in enterprise and share the risk instead of giving out loans to entrepreneurs."

      Wrong, wrong and correct.

      "Money is payment in full. Money is not a promise; it's the FULFILLMENT of a promise (where credit was created)."

      No it is not, even if such payment is in gold. Yes gold has value, but that value is not inherent. Gold is oft ridiculed in that one cannot eat it. This ridicule has some truth; gold is essentially useless. Full payment in the context of human life is necessary goods for sustaining human life. Gold does not do this. Again, you are simply mistaken.

      "You're saying that more money creates more wealth."

      No. But again this shows your lack of comprehension. I said that velocity of goods affects trade value. This has nothing to do with the creation or destruction of real goods, but has bearing on the price such goods trade at.

      "Do I really have to prove that the sole creation of additional claims to goods and services (aka credit or debt) DOES NOT in of itself create more goods and services by virtue of its mere existence?"

      Oh my, that poor strawman. Beaten to a pulp by inference. How sad.

      TF

      September 11, 2013 at 11:13 PM

      Delete
  15. There you have it.

    Freegolders say money is credit, which is another word for debt.

    Who benefits from this? Nay, whose very existence depends on the use of debt as money?

    The bankers.

    ReplyDelete
  16. eToro is the ultimate forex broker for beginner and established traders.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Trying to find the Best Dating Site? Create an account and find your perfect date.

    ReplyDelete