quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

To you both, 150 tons of gold at $1000 an ounce which is reasonable considering that much gold supply on the market, would be $4.8 billion. ($1,300/oz. as we type) Still not near enough to swing anybody away from the dollar./Euro dominance. Plus as I wrote, the ME oil countries were not going to go along, so it dies maybe a quick death.

Yes, the gold standard is a great theoretical study but would be impractical in any $multi-trillion economy. This is also shown by a fairly rampant inflation over the centuries of the Ottoman empire and later in Europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

To you both, 150 tons of gold at $1000 an ounce which is reasonable considering that much gold supply on the market, would be $4.8 billion. ($1,300/oz. as we type) Still not near enough to swing anybody away from the dollar./Euro dominance. Plus as I wrote, the ME oil countries were not going to go along, so it dies maybe a quick death.

Yes, the gold standard is a great theoretical study but would be impractical in any $multi-trillion economy. This is also shown by a fairly rampant inflation over the centuries of the Ottoman empire and later in Europe.

Let's say the ME no longer accepted dollars for oil. America would have two choices-invade, destroy and take over or pay for that oil from its own gold reserves. This of course means gold accumulates not diminishes in size. As the gold grows and circulates in the ME it creates an economic boom. The ensuing deflation in the American dollar would then encourage the ME to buy cheap goods from them. Gold would therefore be pulled back and forth across continents.

Personally I believe it’s a constricted and primitive monetary arrangement. People don’t want to be carrying pouches of gold around with them and with the sort of technology we have today, its wide open to corruption. If they wanted to produce free banking based on gold reserves (a more tangible fiat system) then surely that would still deem the dollar worthless, at least within the middle east.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

They never got the chance to say go go on the dinar.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

They never got the chance to say go go on the dinar.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

They never got the chance to say go go on the dinar.

T^T

And we don’t know what system Gadhafi was going to use with the GD. Like you say, they never got the chance because the West invaded under a false pretext and further armed al-Qaida. Together we broke Libya and turned it back into a war mongering dust basin.

The gold was stolen and now ISIS plan on launching a new Islamic money system across the ME called the gold dinar. We know the system they want to use and it is antiquated and hugely problematic but its likely not the same sort of system Gadhafi was planning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

I'm not sure where you are trying to take this Mr Rodgers. Have I missed something because I'm finding your post difficult to grasp. What do you mean when you say, "“in no practical terms would one be able to describe any difference between ISIS and Libya ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

"And we don’t know what system Gadhafi was going to use with the GD." Define system other then you pay gold dinar coins for oil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

"And we don’t know what system Gadhafi was going to use with the GD." Define system other then you pay gold dinar coins for oil.

Its complicated but here's an easy to read explanation.

quote:


ISIS seeks a 'money system' called the gold dinar. How does that differ in anyway to...pay for things giving gold dinar in exchange for whatever goods and service sought and I guess here...it's oil etc. I fail to see any difference in their 'systems' and also what difference we could possibly see. AND...do we know what 'system ISIS was/is going to use ?

You need to refer to the link.

quote:


So my statement was about there being no difference between their money 'systems' as in a practical sense...there is no difference and fail to see how there could be a difference.

Gold kept in a vault still allows for paper money production. The difference is, that note, or the coin is the equivalent of a gold bond. If the shit hits the fan its not worthless, unlike western fiat money. On the other hand you could just produce a load of heavy gold coins from your gold reserves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

"And we don’t know what system Gadhafi was going to use with the GD." Define system other then you pay gold dinar coins for oil.

Its complicated but here's an easy to read explanation.

quote:


ISIS seeks a 'money system' called the gold dinar. How does that differ in anyway to...pay for things giving gold dinar in exchange for whatever goods and service sought and I guess here...it's oil etc. I fail to see any difference in their 'systems' and also what difference we could possibly see. AND...do we know what 'system ISIS was/is going to use ?

You need to refer to the link.

quote:


So my statement was about there being no difference between their money 'systems' as in a practical sense...there is no difference and fail to see how there could be a difference.

Gold kept in a vault still allows for paper money production. The difference is, that note, or the coin is the equivalent of a gold bond. If the shit hits the fan its not worthless, unlike western fiat money. On the other hand you could just produce a load of heavy gold coins from your gold reserves.

Excellent read from 'philosophicaleconomics' and one every financial student should read even though there are a couple of fallacies present. AND yes, I read the whole fucking thing as well as other practical reasons why the worshiped gold-standard does nothing to prevent any of today's economic problems.

But the so-called 'greenback' ended when Lincoln's OCC called in all of them and the country went back to a disastrous wild and essentially fraudulent 'free banking' system where millions of depositors were defrauded. And also that what ensued after the creation of the fed which is in fact 80% privately owned began to lend what was to become [its] currency called the fed reserve note (the fed does not issue 'greenbacks') to the treasury upon which it earns a legally limited 6% but only when reinvested in banking and also why the fed does in fact beyond it buying of federal debt...pay the treasury a portion of those profits. (Kennedy with ex ord. 11110, tried to 'kill' that fed power when he directed the treasury to remove the fed note from circulation replaced with the silver certificate, it worked and some say, was the last straw and got him killed)

The question I have though is any practical difference between what Qaddafi was planning and what ISIS is trying to do and...I see none if only because who knows what Qaddafi plans were and what ISIS's plans are now except the assumption that coins with their value stamped on it, would then be exchanged as currency. I think both questions will remain unanswered for some time if ever answered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

Communism and tyranny are more corrupt than capitalism-which is rank rotten on a good day. as tweakabelle subtlety pointed out. Only animals and those whose brains, if they ever had one in the first place, have departed their cranium to lala land would admire that in men/systems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

but as pointed out, gold is not that plentiful. Libya can do it because they have a 42 billion dollar economy, our toiletpaper budget for the congress, what we spend on homeland security.

nobody has 3.7 trillion in gold to back the US.

No doubt the smaller countries would do well on a gold standard.

But its so finite, you would have to add silver, palladium, platinum, and other precious things as base standard. More to go over war over.